Trinity
A Muslim may ask:Trinity is blasphemy. God is one not three. Check your math 1+1+1=3 not 1. How come you say God is one and the same time three?
Since you are visiting our web site, I assume you are using a computer, and I assume you at least know a little about it. Using these assumptions, I will try to explain to you the Trinity in a computer illustration.
A computer usually consists of: case (hardware), operating system (software), monitor, keyboard, and mouse. Most importantly, the computer needs electricity to work, without it, the computer is dead.
We believe God exist by himself (Father), spoken by His Word (Son), and alive by His Spirit (Holy Spirit). This is the Trinity you reject.
No illustration is perfect, but we are trying to make this concept of Trinity easier for you to understand.
Imagine God (the Father) is the computer case (the hardware), and what we call God Son is the operating system and all other applications (software), and the Holy Spirit is the electricity which make this computer functioning.
We definitely do not need a monitor, keyboard, or a mouse for the computer case to work as a stand alone (i.e. a server like the one this web site is hosted on, the server does not have to have a monitor and other peripherals for it to work).
We know that a hardware (mother board, processor, hard disk, etc…) can not do anything without having a software installed in it. Also we know that the hardware and the software will not interact and work without the electricity being plugged into the hardware.
Still we call all of these three parts of the computer, a computer, it is not three computers.
Why does it stop at three?
It stops at three cause the Bible said so. wkk5159 replied at 26-5-2015 10:59 AM
It stops at three cause the Bible said so.
Which verse of the Bible said so? 1 John 5:7 wkk5159 replied at 26-5-2015 11:34 AM
1 John 5:7
1 John 5:7 is a later day insertiontranslations into English of the Greek New Testament, based on Erasmus’s editions and those that replicated, more or less, his text, include translations of passages that were almost certainly not originally in the New Testament, but that had come to be added later by scribes. Two of the most famous instances are the passage that tells the story of the woman taken in adultery and the one that gives the final twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark. But the most famous of all is the so-called “Johannine Comma,” a reference to 1 John 5:7-8, the only passage in the New Testament that explicitly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity…..
Edited by wkk5159 at 27-5-2015 08:17 AM
Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?
Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.
The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
more on https://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp
wkk5159 replied at 27-5-2015 08:14 AM
Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?
Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.
The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
more on https://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp
After collation of 400 MSS , Dr Von Soden did not find the 'Johannine Comma' in 1 John 5:7. What makes you think it would be found in the rest?
Codex Sinaiticus , the earliest Greek Bible ~ CE400 did not have 'Johannine Comma'.
The point here is that why you still believe in the 'Johannine Comma' despite it being proven to be a later day insertion (or fraud) by almost all biblical scholars?
Edited by wkk5159 at 27-5-2015 12:12 PM
A Case For the Authenticity of 1st John 5:7-8 Rooted in Biblical Exegesis
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1john57-exegesis.htm
More on Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7)
............http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57
wkk5159 replied at 27-5-2015 12:10 PM
A Case For the Authenticity of 1st John 5:7-8 Rooted in Biblical Exegesis
http://www.j ...
Your reference argument is based on 'if this or that'. This is not an argument but just an assertion. You need to present evidence that the 'Johannine Comma' was / is actually in the original bible. The earliest surviving Greek Bible , The Codex Sinaiticus , does not have the it. Therefore we have documented evidence that it is not in the bible. You need to provide documented evidence that such verse actually is in the bible of an earlier date , which you cannot.
To top it off , this verses are absent from all Greek MSS except 8 which are translations from the Latin Vulgate.
The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:
61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
With that we know where the insertions or fraud took place.
Edited by wkk5159 at 27-5-2015 02:58 PM
The Ancient Biblical Manuscripts
Muslim: Your Bible does not contain the original scriptures revealed to Moses,Jesus and the other prophets. It has been changed many times. Our learned maulanas havetaught us this. What proofs do you have that your Bible is totally authentic and reliable?
Many years ago a young Muslim woman asked me "Has the Bible ever beenchanged?" I answered that it most certainly had not, to which she responded "Butdoes it not teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?" I confirmed that it does – again and again – to which she replied "Then it must have been changed".
Any Christian who reads through the Muslim publications in the bibliography at the end of this book will be surprised to find that the arguments produced to disprove the integrity of the Bible are often extremely weak and unconvincing. There is only one reason for this – the Muslims do not believe that the Bible has been changed because they have discovered adequate evidences that it has but because they have to disprove its authenticity to maintain their conviction that the Qur’an is the Word of God. Two conflicting books cannot both be the Word of God. Once the Muslims discovered, in the early centuries of Islam, that the Bible emphatically taught fundamental Christian doctrines such as the deity and redeeming work of Jesus Christ they could no longer approach it objectively. Ever since they have sought to prove what is nothing more than a presupposition. The Bible must have been changed! The major reason why Muslims do not believe in its integrity is that they have no choice but to do so if they are to sustain their confidence in the Qur’an.
It is important to know what the evidences are for the Bible’s textualauthenticity, especially the fact that we have actual manuscripts going back centuriesbefore Islam that show that the Bible we have in our hands today is precisely that whichthe Jews and Christians of ancient times alone knew as their holy scripture.
The Three Great Ancient Codices
There are three great manuscripts still existing of the Bible in Greek (containing theSeptuagint of the Old Testament and original Greek text of the New) dating centuriesbefore the time of Muhammad. They are:
1. Codex Alexandrinus
This volume, written in the fifth century after Christ, contains the whole Bible exceptfor a few leaves lost from the New Testament (Matthew 1:1 - 25:6, John 6:50 - 8:52 and2 Corinthians 4:13 - 12:6). Nothing is contained in it that is not part of our currentBible. The manuscript is in the British Museum in London.
2. Codex Sinaiticus
This very ancient text, dating from the late fourth century, contains the whole of theNew Testament and much of the Old. Preserved for centuries in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg in Russia, it was sold for one hundred thousand pounds to the BritishGovernment and is also now kept in the British Museum.
3. Codex Vaticanus
Probably the oldest surviving manuscript of the whole Bible, it was written in thefourth century and is preserved in the Vatican Library in Rome. The last part of the NewTestament from Hebrews 9:14 to the end of Revelation is written in a different hand to the rest of the manuscript (the original scribe probably was not able to complete the textthrough death or some other cause).
These manuscripts prove conclusively that the only scriptures in the hands of theChurch at least two hundred years prior to Muhammad’s time were the Old and New Testaments as we know them.
Other Early Evidences of the Integrity of the Bible
There are numerous other evidences for the integrity of the Bible dating from manycenturies before Islam. In discussion with Muslims you should emphasise the following:
1. The Hebrew Massoretic Texts
Not only do Christians possess early Biblical manuscripts but Jews likewise, who holdto the Old Testament as the only scripture ever written for them, possess texts in theoriginal Hebrew language in which the Old Testament was originally written, going back at least a thousand years. They are known as the Massoretic texts.
2. The Dead Sea Scrolls
First discovered in caves in the wilderness of Qumran around the Dead Sea in Israel,these contain numerous portions of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew dating back to the second century before Christ. No less than two copies of the Book of Isaiahwere included in this collection containing predictions of the death and resurrection ofJesus Christ (Isaiah 53:1-12), his virgin-birth (Isaiah 7:14) and his deity(Isaiah 9:6-7).
3. The Septuagint
This is the title of the first translation of the Old Testament into Greek. It waslikewise transcribed in the second century before Christ, containing all the greatprophecies to the coming of the Messiah, the fact that he is the Son of God (Psalm 2:7,1 Chronicles 17:11-14), as well as details of his suffering and atoning death (Psalms22 and 69). The early Church freely used the Septuagint.
4. The Latin Vulgate
The Roman Catholic Church translated the whole Bible into Latin in the fourth centuryafter Christ using the Septuagint and ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The Vulgate dates from the fourth century after Christ and contains the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as we know them. It was established as the standard text for the Roman Church.
5. Portions of the Greek New Testament
There are numerous pages, fragments and portions of the original Greek New Testamentsurviving from as early as the second century after Christ. They all, taken together, formthe contents of the New Testament as we know it. It is very interesting to compare thiswealth of evidence with the texts which exist for the oldest of the Greek and Romanclassics, many of which date not earlier than a thousand years after Christ. In fact noother ancient writings from the same era have such a mass of manuscript evidence as thatfor the Greek New Testament.
What is most important and must be emphasised with Muslims is that there is noalternative source of evidence suggesting that the life and teachings of Jesus Christ weresubstantially other than that which is recorded in the Bible. All the apocryphal writingsrejected by the Church at least generally follow the same threads as those in the NewTestament manuscripts. Certainly no historical evidence from the same period existsto suggest that he was really the prophet of Islam which the Qur’an makes him out to be.
In conclusion it is useful to challenge the Muslim to produce historical evidences tosubstantiate their argument that the Bible as we know it has been changed. What was itoriginally? What, precisely, was changed to make it the book it is today? Who made thesechanges? When were they made? Once you challenge any Muslim to identify the actual people who are supposed to have corrupted the Bible, at what time in history it took place, and precisely what textual changes were made to original manuscripts, you will find thementirely unable to do so. Such evidences quite simply do not exist. Always remember – theMuslim onslaught comes not from a scholarly examination of the evidences but from anecessary presupposition. The Bible, in their minds, must have been changed if itcontradicts the Qur’an and unfortunately Muslims all too often pick up a Bible, not to read it or understand its teachings, but purely to find fault with it to justify theirprejudices against it.
1 John 5:7: The Father, Word and Holy Ghost
In this case we consider a verse which appears in none of the ancient Greekmanuscripts, the original language of the New Testament scriptures, but which can betraced back to the Latin translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate. From here itappears in much later Greek transcripts of the New Testament and, as the King JamesVersion of the Bible (best defined as the King James English translation) was based onthese texts, it found its way into the translation.
The verse reads: "For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, theWord and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one" (1 John 5:7). As the versedoes not appear in any of the oldest texts of John’s First Epistle it is probable that it was a marginal note of a scribe, a complement to the rest of the verse which reads"There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these threeagree".
Muslims have made great efforts to discredit the integrity of the Bible text with thedisputed verse, claiming it is the only passage in the Bible which teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. Conveniently overlooked is an equally dogmatic trinitarian statement,"Baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (Matthew28:19) as well as similar statements in 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Ephesians 2:18.
There are a number of cases in the New Testament, mainly in the four Gospels, whereslight variant readings occur affecting single words, brief expressions or short clauses.Once again, none of them affects the teaching of the book as a whole or its overallauthenticity.
The variant readings in the Bible are so easily accounted for and of such littleimportance that they in no way affect the integrity of the book as a whole. The scriptures, in their entirety, have been preserved for us virtually unaltered, unlike the Qur’an where every manuscript transcribed by Muhammad’s own companions exceptone was cast into the flames to be destroyed.
Edited by sam1528 at 27-5-2015 11:26 PM
wkk5159 replied at 27-5-2015 03:08 PM
1 John 5:7: The Father, Word and Holy Ghost
In this case we consider a verse which appears in no ...
Now you are admitting that there was fraud which resulted in the 'Johannine Comma' , from you :
In this case we consider a verse which appears in none of the ancient Greekmanuscripts, the original language of the New Testament scriptures, but which can betraced back to the Latin translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate. From here itappears in much later Greek transcripts of the New Testament and, as the King JamesVersion of the Bible (best defined as the King James English translation) was based onthese texts, it found its way into the translation.
The verse reads: "For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, theWord and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one" (1 John 5:7). As the versedoes not appear in any of the oldest texts of John’s First Epistle it is probable that it was a marginal note of a scribe, a complement to the rest of the verse which reads"There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these threeagree".
This later day insertion or fraud originated from the translation of the Greek Texts to the Vulgate.
The question you still need to answer : Why do you still believe in the Trinity and used a fraudulent verse, 1 John 5:7 to argue your case?
The primary arguments employed against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma can be roughly summarized into the four following topical areas:
[*]The paucity and lateness of the Greek manuscript witness
[*]The lateness of its appearance in the Latin
[*]Its lacking from all other ancient versions
[*]The lack of use by patristic writers, especially during the "Trinitarian controversies"
Throughout the history of man's dealings with God's Word, the Holy Bible, few portions of Scripture have suffered from more vigorous assaults then the passage I John 5:7-8, otherwise known as the Johannine Comma.Because this verse is one of the most direct statements of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, it has borne the brunt of attack by those who are in opposition to trinitarian beliefs, these most often being unitarians such as Muslims and certain of the various pseudo-Christian cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, some Churches of God, etc.).Likewise, this verse is rejected by theological liberals who tend to view the Bible from an entirely naturalistic perspective, and who therefore also reject the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7, Matt. 5:18, Luke 16:17, I Pet. 1:25, etc.).
The attacks upon this verse have come from all angles.The personal experience of this author has mostly been in dealing with Muslims, whose ideas about the Trinity generally hold to the very simplistic and erroneous picture presented in the Qur'an (to see a typical Muslim argument against the Trinity, and this argument dealt with, click here).For the most part, Muslim apologetics on the subject of this verse are simply the plagiarism of large parts of a "foundational" article dealing with this passage found at the Answering Christianity website.Interestingly, most Islamic attacks on this verse find their basis in the work of liberal and atheistic scholars who have an ideological predisposition to oppose the verse.
more details on.....http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html
Edited by sam1528 at 29-5-2015 11:24 AM
wkk5159 replied at 29-5-2015 09:05 AM
The primary arguments employed against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma can be roughly summarized into the four following topical areas:
[*]The paucity and lateness of the Greek manuscript witness
[*]The lateness of its appearance in the Latin
[*]Its lacking from all other ancient versions
[*]The lack of use by patristic writers, especially during the "Trinitarian controversies"
Throughout the history of man's dealings with God's Word, the Holy Bible, few portions of Scripture have suffered from more vigorous assaults then the passage I John 5:7-8, otherwise known as the Johannine Comma.Because this verse is one of the most direct statements of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, it has borne the brunt of attack by those who are in opposition to trinitarian beliefs, these most often being unitarians such as Muslims and certain of the various pseudo-Christian cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, some Churches of God, etc.).Likewise, this verse is rejected by theological liberals who tend to view the Bible from an entirely naturalistic perspective, and who therefore also reject the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7, Matt. 5:18, Luke 16:17, I Pet. 1:25, etc.).
The attacks upon this verse have come from all angles.The personal experience of this author has mostly been in dealing with Muslims, whose ideas about the Trinity generally hold to the very simplistic and erroneous picture presented in the Qur'an (to see a typical Muslim argument against the Trinity, and this argument dealt with, click here).For the most part, Muslim apologetics on the subject of this verse are simply the plagiarism of large parts of a "foundational" article dealing with this passage found at the Answering Christianity website.Interestingly, most Islamic attacks on this verse find their basis in the work of liberal and atheistic scholars who have an ideological predisposition to oppose the verse.
more details on.....http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html
The authenticity of the 'Johannine Comma' is a foregone conclusion of it being a later day insertion or fraud by all top bible scholars , liberal or conservative. There were / are no manuscripts earlier than The Codex Sinaiticus that carries it. It only appeared in the Vulgate and translations from it thus pinpointing the fact that the insertion or fraud came from the Vulgate.
Why do Christians like you still argue for the Trinity and to make matters worse , use a fradulent verse , 1 John5:7 to argue your case?
Looking beyond 1 John 5:7, elsewhere in the Bible, verses on triune God is that frank and direct forward;
Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
2 Corinthians 13:14"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
Edited by sam1528 at 29-5-2015 06:29 PM
wkk5159 replied at 29-5-2015 10:49 AM
Looking beyond 1 John 5:7, elsewhere in the Bible, verses on triune God is that frank and direct forward;
Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
2 Corinthians 13:14"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
The bigger question here is that why are you not concerned that your belief in the Trinity has no basis in the bible and also of you appealing to a fraudulent verse of 1 John 5:7 in your argument for the Trinity.
It is an act of futility to run off to other verses if you cannot even justify your appeal to 1 John 5:7.
However the 2 verses you brought up are also problematic to the concept of the Trinity :
- mat28:19 is considered to be spurious. There are lots of commentaries that state of such. One of them is Prof Raymond Brown who is in the opinion that mat28:19 is a later day insertion. Careful reading of mat28:19 reveals a problem. 'Father' , 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit' are titles not names making the verse itself problematic. The baptism formula can be found in the name of Jesus only in acts2:38 , acts10:48 ('Jesus Christ') and acts8:16 , acts19:5 ('Lord Jesus').
- 2 Corinthians 13:14 does not in any way allude to the Trinity. Read it carefully - 'Lord' means a title bestowed. To be consistent , if it is the title of God Jesus , it would be 'LORD' as per the OT. In this verse it also state of 'God' not 'God the Father' (which means the first person of the Trinity)
Edited by wkk5159 at 30-5-2015 11:54 AM
The failure on the part of Muslims to understand the Trinity largely stems from the fact that their primary religious text, the Qur'an, presents a completely false view of the Trinity.This can be seen from the Quranic statements,
"And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden." (Surah 5:116)
"They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them." (Surah 5:72-73)"
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." (Surah 4:171)
Several examples of the Quranic failure to comprehend what the Trinity actually is can be seen from these ayat.The first and foremost, of course, is the simple fact that 5:116 teaches that Mary is viewed as a member of the Trinity.This, of course, is simply untrue.Even Roman Catholicism, with its rampant mariolatry, does not deign to include Mary as a member of the Godhead.In fact, the only group that has ever included Mary as a member of their "trinity" was a group of Arabian pseudo-Christians called the Collyridians.The Collyridians were a tiny sect that existed in northern Arabia around the 6th and 7th centuries.The belief that Mary is a member of the Trinity has not been found in any other group.Incidentally, the attribution of this Collyridian belief to Christians by the Qur'an shows the man-made nature of the Qur'an.The authors of the Qur'an apparently had some contact with this sect in Arabia, and included this belief into their qira as representative of Christians.One would presume that if Allah really were a god, and had revealed the Qur'an to mankind, that he would at least be able to get his facts right on what other groups believed.
Edited by sam1528 at 30-5-2015 08:46 PM
wkk5159 replied at 30-5-2015 11:50 AM
The failure on the part of Muslims to understand the Trinity largely stems from the fact that their primary religious text, the Qur'an, presents a completely false view of the Trinity.This can be seen from the Quranic statements,
"And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden." (Surah 5:116)
"They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them." (Surah 5:72-73)"
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." (Surah 4:171)
Several examples of the Quranic failure to comprehend what the Trinity actually is can be seen from these ayat.The first and foremost, of course, is the simple fact that 5:116 teaches that Mary is viewed as a member of the Trinity.This, of course, is simply untrue.Even Roman Catholicism, with its rampant mariolatry, does not deign to include Mary as a member of the Godhead.In fact, the only group that has ever included Mary as a member of their "trinity" was a group of Arabian pseudo-Christians called the Collyridians.The Collyridians were a tiny sect that existed in northern Arabia around the 6th and 7th centuries.The belief that Mary is a member of the Trinity has not been found in any other group.Incidentally, the attribution of this Collyridian belief to Christians by the Qur'an shows the man-made nature of the Qur'an.The authors of the Qur'an apparently had some contact with this sect in Arabia, and included this belief into their qira as representative of Christians.One would presume that if Allah really were a god, and had revealed the Qur'an to mankind, that he would at least be able to get his facts right on what other groups believed.
You did not even answer the question. I repeat the question :
Why are you not concerned that your belief in the Trinity has no basis in the bible and also of you appealing to a fraudulent verse of 1 John 5:7 in your argument for the Trinity?
Possible for you to answer the question?
I just don't understand why Christians like you often quote Quran5:116 to be the so called muslim (mis)understanding of the Trinity. This is completely false as the verse does not even mention of the Trinity. Quran5:116 (Sahih International)
And when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
There is no mention of the Trinity or a Trinity in this verse. Do not assume. This verse is criticising people who worship Jesus and Mary. The Quran is right with regards to the worship of Mary :
For Catholics who are reading this, please try to overcome your familiarity with this text and really look at the words. Doesn’t this sound like
One popular prayer in Mary's honor is the Hail Holy Queen, which is known in Latin as the Salve Regina. It is traditionally included as part of praying the rosary.
“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.”
Alfonsus de Liguori (1696-1787) was a principal proponent of the Marianist Movement, which glorifies Mary. He wrote a book entitled The Glories of Mary which is famous, influential and widely read. In this book, de Liguori says that Mary was given rulership over one half of the kingdom of God; Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice. De Liguori said that people should pray to Mary as a mediator and look to her as an object of trust for answered prayer. The book even says that there is no salvation outside of Mary. Some people suggest that these views are extreme and not representative of Catholic Church teaching. However, instead of silencing de Liguori as a heretic, the Catholic Church canonized him as a saint and declared him to be a “doctor of the Church” (a person whose teachings carry weight and authority). Furthermore, his book is openly and officially promoted by the Catholic Church, and his teachings have influenced popes.
In addition , from the New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia)Mary's divine motherhood
Mary's Divine motherhood is based on the teaching of the Gospels, on the writings of the Fathers, and on the express definition of the Church. St. Matthew (1:25) testifies that Mary "brought forth her first-born son" and that He was called Jesus. According to St. John (1:15) Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Word Who assumed human nature in the womb of Mary. As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius , St. Irenaeus , and Tertullian . The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title "Mother of God" was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the word.
Early writingsFor the attitude of the Churches of Asia Minor and of Lyons we may appeal to the words of St. Irenaeus, a pupil of St. John's disciple Polycarp ; he calls Mary our most eminent advocate. St. Ignatius of Antioch, part of whose life reached back into apostolic times, wrote to the Ephesians (c. 18-19) in such a way as to connect the mysteries of Our Lord's life more closely with those of the Virgin Mary. For instance, the virginity of Mary, and her childbirth, are enumerated with Christ's death, as forming three mysteries unknown to the devil. The sub-apostolic author of the Epistle to Diognetus, writing to a pagan inquirer concerning the Christian mysteries, describes Mary as the great antithesis of Eve, and this idea of Our Lady occurs repeatedly in other writers even before the Council of Ephesus. We have repeatedly appealed to the words of St. Justin and Tertullian, both of whom wrote before the end of the second century.
As it is admitted that the praises of Mary grow with the growth of the Christian community, we may conclude in brief that the veneration of and devotion to Mary began even in the time of the Apostles.
The verse that specifically mention the 3 formula of God is Quran5:73 (Sahih International) :
They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. There is no mention of Mary.
Running to the Quran and wrongfully trying to claim that it misrepresent the Trinity is just another attempt to avoid answering the question.
What is so difficult to answer questions regarding the Trinity in the bible?
Pages:
[1]
2