The Qur'an, the Bible and Islam.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

correction [/I]of the gross and blatant misrepresentation the koran erroneously makes on the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity from sura 5/116.

[my emphasis]

There is no "Biblical doctrine of the Trinity". The word does not occur in the Bible. The concept of the Trinity is a much later Christian construct.

[siam]

[my emphasis]

There is no "Biblical doctrine of the Trinity". The word does not occur in the Bible. The concept of the Trinity is a much later Christian construct.

Do you have any idea/theories why they settled on a "Trinitarian" Godhead? ---and not a dual (God/Son) or a quad (God, Word, Son, Spirit/Ghost/Dove) or even multiples---"Children of God"/God/Son/Dove...etc...etc?

was it some arbitrary--"three sounds good" type of thing or was there some philosophy/purpose?

[siam]

Comparision of the story of the calf Surah 7 v142-156 and Bible-Golden calf

Quranic story begins with the scene of Moses "term" with God for 40 nights.
Bible story here begins with the people feeling impatient with the long absence of Moses.

Quranic story explains the mission of Moses (receive revealtion)
Bible story shows discussion between Moses and God about the behavior of his followers

Quranic story shows the nuance/balance between God's will and Human free-will
Bible story mostly follows the actions of Moses and his followers

Quranic story ends with God's mercy and forgiveness for those who make an error but repent
Note---the tablets/Guidance is intact
Bible story ends with God's wrath
(Tablets are destroyed.)

The Quranic story in this Surah comes at the tail end of various other stories of the "Prophets" and the main theme is to show that people "forget" about the One God and go astray. The purpose of Prophets/Guidance is so that people will "remember"/remembrance.

Questions---
What is the main theme of the Bible story?
What function/purpose does it serve (philosophy)?
What (if any) are the exegesis of this story?
What (if any) theological significance is there in the story?

[Dan Zebiri]

Yes, I do think you are right, Christian3. The koran has again confused, conflated and mixed up the Biblical stories. And it is not the first time it makes such errors.

Not only has the author or editor of the koran confused the narratives of Hosea 8:5-14 with 1 Kings 12:25-33, they have conflated the two stories into one jumbled re-narration. No Samaritan existed during the time of Aaron because their community did not exist yet, until centuries later.

There are other examples of confusions and mixed-up conflations in the koran as well - such as the Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary the 'sister of Aaron' in sura 19. Going by own criterion and 'yardstick of authenticity' the koran has proven itself to be flawed and factually dubious and one wonders if its Allah has any true knowledge of the facts of the Hebrew people, Israel or the Jews with accuracy.

[Dan Zebiri]

We are not so much interested with the philosophy or philosophies behind or between the narratives of the Bible vs. the Koran, siam!

When the later-arriving koran puts forth doubtful details of facts - which Christian3 had earlier pointed out to you and which you fail to address:-

Christian3 said:- You (siam) left out some verses about the Golden Calf from the Qur'an:

(Moses) said: And what hast thou to say, O Samiri? He said: I perceived what they perceive not, so I seized a handful from the footsteps of the messenger, and then threw it in. Thus my soul commended to me. S. 20:95-96 Pickthall

He said: So surely We have tried your people after you, and the Samiri has led them astray. S. 20:85 Shakir

Who was the "Samiri"? Alluded in sura 20/85 above??



Take ALL the relevant koranic passages together, not just the ones you like to selectively pick and choose, to proselytize for islam, and S. 20/95-96 and S.20/85 mentioning the "Samaritan" are all part of the same koranic story! Who was "Samiri", then?

Comparision of the story of the calf Surah 7 v142-156 and Bible-Golden calf

Quranic story begins with the scene of Moses "term" with God for 40 nights.
Bible story here begins with the people feeling impatient with the long absence of Moses.

Quranic story explains the mission of Moses (receive revealtion)
Bible story shows discussion between Moses and God about the behavior of his followers

Quranic story shows the nuance/balance between God's will and Human free-will
Bible story mostly follows the actions of Moses and his followers

Quranic story ends with God's mercy and forgiveness for those who make an error but repent
Note---the tablets/Guidance is intact
Bible story ends with God's wrath
(Tablets are destroyed.)

The Quranic story in this Surah comes at the tail end of various other stories of the "Prophets" and the main theme is to show that people "forget" about the One God and go astray. The purpose of Prophets/Guidance is so that people will "remember"/remembrance.

Questions---
What is the main theme of the Bible story?
What function/purpose does it serve (philosophy)?
What (if any) are the exegesis of this story?
What (if any) theological significance is there in the story?

[Dan Zebiri]

Here are the conflation and confused identities in the koran, Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the sister of Aaron.

In several Suras the Qur'an confuses Mary the mother of Jesus [Miriam in Hebrew] with Miriam the sister of Aaron and Moses, and daughter of Amram which is about 1400 years off!

At length she brought (the baby Jesus) to her people, carrying him (in her arms), They said: "O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou brought! "O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!"
-- Sura 19:27-28

And Mary, the daughter of `Imran, ...
-- Sura 66:12

Some Muslims claim there is a "solution" to this problem. Yusuf Ali for example writes in his footnote 2481 commenting on the above verse: "Aaron the brother of Moses was the first in the line of Israelite priesthood. Mary and her cousin Elisabeth (mother of Yahya) came from a priestly family, and were therefore, 'sisters of Aaron' or daughter of `Imran (who was Aaron's father)."

This is purely FAULTY reasoning. Only Aaron became a Priest of the Lord and in fact he was the first High Priest. And only Aaron's descendents became priests.

Neither Moses nor their sister Miriam are ever understood to be in the "priestly lineage." Amram was definitely not a priest. If Mary's lineage of being part of a priestly family should be stressed, then necessarily she would have to be called a daughter of Aaron, since all of Israel's priests are descendants of Aaron, while his brother and sister are not counted among the priestly line.

Yes, I do think you are right, Christian3. The koran has again confused, conflated and mixed up the Biblical stories. And it is not the first time it makes such errors.

Not only has the author or editor of the koran confused the narratives of Hosea 8:5-14 with 1 Kings 12:25-33, they have conflated the two stories into one jumbled re-narration. No Samaritan existed during the time of Aaron because their community did not exist yet, until centuries later.

There are other examples of confusions and mixed-up conflations in the koran as well - such as the Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary the 'sister of Aaron' in sura 19. Going by own criterion and 'yardstick of authenticity' the koran has proven itself to be flawed and factually dubious and one wonders if its Allah has any true knowledge of the facts of the Hebrew people, Israel or the Jews with accuracy.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Do you have any idea/theories why they settled on a "Trinitarian" Godhead? ---and not a dual (God/Son) or a quad (God, Word, Son, Spirit/Ghost/Dove) or even multiples---"Children of God"/God/Son/Dove...etc...etc?

was it some arbitrary--"three sounds good" type of thing or was there some philosophy/purpose?

homoousion deity remains the fundamental problem within Christianity, namely, the attempt to reconcile the monotheism of Judaism with its ineffable and invisible deity, and the Hellenised concepts of anthropomorphic deities.

For subordinationists who saw Jesus as a divinity but one subordinate to God the Father, the concept of a Trinity presented no problems. Various pre Nicene Church Fathers had been subordinationists of various hues and furthermore the subordinationists had a wealth of biblical texts from both the Septuagint and their own Christian writings that appeared to support their view. Arius had written that "their individual realities do not mix with each other and they possess glories of different levels" and that while each had his own function, the Father is "infinitely more splendid in his glories" and is distinct from the Son because He has no beginning".

The pre-Nicene traditional formulations of Christ as logos therefore perceived him as something less than the Godhead and as there was no precedent for an incarnated logos, the Gospel depictions of Jesus could be taken as they were.

However, the Nicene Creed that incorporated Jesus fully into the Godhead created a new Christological controversy. Once that formulation was put forward, which contended that Jesus had always been fully God and had existed eternally alongside God the Father and that the Son and the Father shared the same substance (homoousios) and that Jesus had always been part of the Godhead, even throughout his sojourn on earth, it served to raise new questions as to how Jesus could also be human at the same time, as well as, more to the point, exactly how human was he?

The tendency for speculation produced an entire plethora of different solutions. Hence there were various theories ranging from the Adoptionists, through to Doceticism, stopping off along the way at the views of bishop Apollinarius who postulated that Jesus had a human body but his soul and mind remained divine; and those of bishop Theodore who argued that Jesus had been conceived twice, once in a divine form, and once in a human form, the so-called Two Sons formula.

Each of these attempted resolutions only served to raise ever more issues. If Jesus was fully man when he suffered was he still man when he performed his miracles? Or was he then acting in his divine capacity? Furthermore, what sort of humanity did he take? Was he Man, prior to the Fall? Man as he is now, lost to sin? Or Man as he would be when redeemed?

If he was created as a perfect man as some ECFs suggested, then how was Luke 2:52 to be explained? If, as Luke tells us, Jesus increased in stature and wisdom it thereby implied that, at some point Jesus was a less developed human being. Yet if he was created as perfect man how was this possible?

Prior to his incarnation it was assumed that he was not a man in any way but what happened after his resurrection? Did he revert to just being God? Or did he retain some of his humanity and if so, how much?

As to the Holy Spirit, the views held among some today were not arrived at until the late 300s and even then they were not completely accepted by all ecclesiastics. The Nicene Creed had asserted "I believe in the Holy Spirit" but nothing had been said of the Spirit having any divine status or being related to either Father or Son in any way.

It was St Basil and his fellow Cappadocians who incorporated the Holy Spirit as part of the Godhead but with a distinct personality (hypostasis).

[rogue06]

Do you have any idea/theories why they settled on a "Trinitarian" Godhead? ---and not a dual (God/Son) or a quad (God, Word, Son, Spirit/Ghost/Dove) or even multiples---"Children of God"/God/Son/Dove...etc...etc?

was it some arbitrary--"three sounds good" type of thing or was there some philosophy/purpose?

More like it matched up with what Scripture was indicating.

[siam]

It needs to be understood that Christianity in its first two and a half centuries was completely fluid. It comprised a number of competing Christian groups that advocated a variety of theologies. Of course all these various theologies were contested and/or condemned by different Christians who held to other theological persuasions. However, it still remains a fact that in those two and a half centuries there was a plethora of different beliefs and a variety Christian scripture circulating.

The whole issue of the Son’s relationship to the Father and a Triune deity arose from the development of the religion in its early centuries. It was the innate discrepancies displayed in John's gospel, the writings of Paul, and other New Testament authors that resulted in the theological controversies and dissensions regarding the relationship of the Son to the Father.

The concept of a Triune homoousion deity remains the fundamental problem within Christianity, namely, the attempt to reconcile the monotheism of Judaism with its ineffable and invisible deity, and the Hellenised concepts of anthropomorphic deities.

For subordinationists who saw Jesus as a divinity but one subordinate to God the Father, the concept of a Trinity presented no problems. Various pre Nicene Church Fathers had been subordinationists of various hues and furthermore the subordinationists had a wealth of biblical texts from both the Septuagint and their own Christian writings that appeared to support their view. Arius had written that "their individual realities do not mix with each other and they possess glories of different levels" and that while each had his own function, the Father is "infinitely more splendid in his glories" and is distinct from the Son because He has no beginning".

The pre-Nicene traditional formulations of Christ as logos therefore perceived him as something less than the Godhead and as there was no precedent for an incarnated logos, the Gospel depictions of Jesus could be taken as they were.

However, the Nicene Creed that incorporated Jesus fully into the Godhead created a new Christological controversy. Once that formulation was put forward, which contended that Jesus had always been fully God and had existed eternally alongside God the Father and that the Son and the Father shared the same substance (homoousios) and that Jesus had always been part of the Godhead, even throughout his sojourn on earth, it served to raise new questions as to how Jesus could also be human at the same time, as well as, more to the point, exactly how human was he?

The tendency for speculation produced an entire plethora of different solutions. Hence there were various theories ranging from the Adoptionists, through to Doceticism, stopping off along the way at the views of bishop Apollinarius who postulated that Jesus had a human body but his soul and mind remained divine; and those of bishop Theodore who argued that Jesus had been conceived twice, once in a divine form, and once in a human form, the so-called Two Sons formula.

Each of these attempted resolutions only served to raise ever more issues. If Jesus was fully man when he suffered was he still man when he performed his miracles? Or was he then acting in his divine capacity? Furthermore, what sort of humanity did he take? Was he Man, prior to the Fall? Man as he is now, lost to sin? Or Man as he would be when redeemed?

If he was created as a perfect man as some ECFs suggested, then how was Luke 2:52 to be explained? If, as Luke tells us, Jesus increased in stature and wisdom it thereby implied that, at some point Jesus was a less developed human being. Yet if he was created as perfect man how was this possible?

Prior to his incarnation it was assumed that he was not a man in any way but what happened after his resurrection? Did he revert to just being God? Or did he retain some of his humanity and if so, how much?

As to the Holy Spirit, the views held among some today were not arrived at until the late 300s and even then they were not completely accepted by all ecclesiastics. The Nicene Creed had asserted "I believe in the Holy Spirit" but nothing had been said of the Spirit having any divine status or being related to either Father or Son in any way.

It was St Basil and his fellow Cappadocians who incorporated the Holy Spirit as part of the Godhead but with a distinct personality (hypostasis).

Thankyou

I looked it up--wiki says:-
Basil then had to face the growing spread of Arianism. This belief system, which denied that Christ was consubstantial with the Father, was quickly gaining adherents and was seen by many, particularly those in Alexandria most familiar with it, as posing a threat to the unity of the church.[39] Basil entered into connections with the West, and with the help of Athanasius, he tried to overcome its distrustful attitude toward the Homoiousians. The difficulties had been enhanced by bringing in the question as to the essence of the Holy Spirit. Although Basil advocated objectively the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, he belonged to those, who, faithful to Eastern tradition, would not allow the predicate homoousios to the former; for this he was reproached as early as 371 by the Orthodox zealots among the monks, and Athanasius defended him. He maintained a relationship with Eustathius despite dogmatic differences.

Why were these people discussing the "question of the essence of the Holy Spirit"? If they needed a Trinity for some reason ---they could have used "The Word" which G of J clearly spells out IS God. Thus word, god, son could have formed an easy trinity?

Does the Holy Spirit Homo-ousios/Avian-ousios (?) into a Dove?---or use some other process?...or is this process/concept "a mystery" and best ignored?

What happened to the Holy Ghost? ---apparently some formulations of the Trinity had "Holy Ghost" for the resurrected Jesus, instead of Holy Spirit? Some say it means the same thing---but Holy Spirit is a Dove (God-Dove)---right?

In G of J---Jesus is called "Lamb of God"---why is "Lamb of God" symbolic and "son of God" literal? ---is this a political choice or misinterpretation over time? (as I understand it---"son of God" also meant King in that era?---but this would have caused political problems for existing "Kings"?)


U wrote--
"Prior to his incarnation it was assumed that he was not a man in any way but what happened after his resurrection? Did he revert to just being God? Or did he retain some of his humanity and if so, how much?"
But ---In (Hellenized?) Christianity, God made man in his image? Therefore, God always has been anthropomorphic? (as in depictions at the Sistine Chapel?)

[siam]

More like it matched up with what Scripture was indicating.

"Word" is also God? Why isn't it included in the Godhead?

[Dan Zebiri]

Can u also answer Christian3 and my questions on the identity of who 'Samiri' is? On here -

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nd-Islam/page2 -

Christian3 said:- You (siam) left out some verses about the Golden Calf from the Qur'an:

(Moses) said: And what hast thou to say, O Samiri? He said: I perceived what they perceive not, so I seized a handful from the footsteps of the messenger, and then threw it in. Thus my soul commended to me. S. 20:95-96 Pickthall

He said: So surely We have tried your people after you, and the Samiri has led them astray. S. 20:85 Shakir

Who was the "Samiri"? Alluded in sura 20/85 above??

These koranic verses are also very relevant to the "golden calf" incident in the O.T. & the Koran's version of it!

"Word" is also God? Why isn't it included in the Godhead?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Thankyou

I looked it up--wiki says:-
Basil then had to face the growing spread of Arianism. This belief system, which denied that Christ was consubstantial with the Father, was quickly gaining adherents and was seen by many, particularly those in Alexandria most familiar with it, as posing a threat to the unity of the church.[39] Basil entered into connections with the West, and with the help of Athanasius, he tried to overcome its distrustful attitude toward the Homoiousians. The difficulties had been enhanced by bringing in the question as to the essence of the Holy Spirit. Although Basil advocated objectively the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, he belonged to those, who, faithful to Eastern tradition, would not allow the predicate homoousios to the former; for this he was reproached as early as 371 by the Orthodox zealots among the monks, and Athanasius defended him. He maintained a relationship with Eustathius despite dogmatic differences.

Why were these people discussing the "question of the essence of the Holy Spirit"? If they needed a Trinity for some reason ---they could have used "The Word" which G of J clearly spells out IS God. Thus word, god, son could have formed an easy trinity?

Does the Holy Spirit Homo-ousios/Avian-ousios (?) into a Dove?---or use some other process?...or is this process/concept "a mystery" and best ignored?

What happened to the Holy Ghost? ---apparently some formulations of the Trinity had "Holy Ghost" for the resurrected Jesus, instead of Holy Spirit? Some say it means the same thing---but Holy Spirit is a Dove (God-Dove)---right?

In G of J---Jesus is called "Lamb of God"---why is "Lamb of God" symbolic and "son of God" literal? ---is this a political choice or misinterpretation over time? (as I understand it---"son of God" also meant King in that era?---but this would have caused political problems for existing "Kings"?)


U wrote--
"Prior to his incarnation it was assumed that he was not a man in any way but what happened after his resurrection? Did he revert to just being God? Or did he retain some of his humanity and if so, how much?"
But ---In (Hellenized?) Christianity, God made man in his image? Therefore, God always has been anthropomorphic? (as in depictions at the Sistine Chapel?)

Thanks for your reply, but in light of forum rules, it would be better to continue this exchange on Apologetics 301.

H_A

[rogue06]

"Word" is also God? Why isn't it included in the Godhead?

Jesus is effectively the Word of God hence in this case Word is a synonym with Jesus. No need to be redundant.

[Dan Zebiri]

Yes and I think I've seen that long reply of yours. A while back before the crash.

Another claim that proselytizers like Shabbir Ally like to make is the "mysterious numerology of 19" in the koran. But he's only using the 1924 Egyptian standardized koran version. It will be very revealing if he would use the earlier Koran versions-over 20 of them, like the Topkapi or the Yemeni Sana'a ones, if the number "19" would square out!

Or by using the versions that have no diacritics in the cognates which can have multiple meanings. They'll be driven crazy at the unending totals that are no longer derivatives of 19..there goes their "miracle" pop down the drain.

I've seen more than a few claim that the qur'an teaches advanced/modern scientific principles which is immediately followed with the claim that since Muhammad couldn't have known this then the qur'an must be divine.

Back before the crash the whole mountain/peg thing came out and I posted a fairly extensive rebuttal.

[JonathanL]

Why were these people discussing the "question of the essence of the Holy Spirit"? If they needed a Trinity for some reason ---they could have used "The Word" which G of J clearly spells out IS God. Thus word, god, son could have formed an easy trinity?

Because John clearly identifies this Word with Jesus, so a Trinity consisting of the Father, Son and Word would have been out of the question.