Professor at Evangelical College suspended for saying Muslims and Christians have connection in God

[Gxg (G²)]

This is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches on the issue. I happen to agree with their understanding:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."
-Lumen Gentium 16 from Vatican II
​

And also from Vatican 2:

"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."
-CCC841, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, 3
​

As it concerns the Trinity, I think it needs to be said again that even the Qu'ran advocates a Trinitarian perspective and people saying otherwise are really ignorant of the actual Qu'ran. As said earlier:

Others may disagree - but I do think that there are multiple ways that Christian Trinitarianism is actually reflected well within the system of Islam and yet not understood due to the issue of language. And when understanding what's actually said in the Quran rather than going with what most Imams do with giving cultural Islamic teaching instead of what's in the text (just as it is with Christian teaching based on culture rather than scripture), it's very clear that Jesus is presented as He is....

Using the Quran to Explain the Incarnation of Jesus to Muslims - YouTube

Geoffrey Parrinder noted it well in his book entitled "Jesus in the Quran"

It's really best to see the Trinity as Radical Monotheism....and The Trinity as radical monotheism has always been a present factor for many Muslims just as it has been for Jews in Judaism when it comes to believing in Christ and yet noting their not being against the concept of the Holy Spirit or Yeshua being the same and yet seperate from the Father. And again, there's context - as it concerns how Muslim culture believe/accept the concept of a Trinity .

And to be clear, it should be noted that Muhammad's mentor and distant blood relative Waraka ibn Nawfal was a Nestorian Christian and that is the key reason behind the denouncement of the specific idea of the Trinity that Muhammad denied in 4:171 as this was a common belief among Nestorians. Of course, others say that Muhammad's uncle also had Ebionite influence and this was present in the references of Christ as a prophet (more shared here and here/here and here).

As another noted best on the matter when it comes to historical background:

In an article well worth reading about the religious practices of the Ebionites found here, author Stephen Tomkins notes, "... it sounds not unlike Islam in all those respects."

There is a reason for that. The Ebionites followed a text known as the Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews. Although most scholars would say it was lost to history, it is possible that its precepts can be found today in the early suras of a text far more famous known as the Quran.

If true, this could be a fascinating study. Two of the major controversies in the early Christian church were the nature of the divinity of Jesus (how could he be both a man and God?), and the extent to which Christians were to follow Jewish practices and traditions. Although the Apostle Paul's conviction that Jesus was both fully God and fully man and that being Christian meant leaving everything Jewish behind eventually won the day, many groups disagreed. As they and their gospels were declared heretical by early Church councils, they were forced away from the Christian geographical centers of power and some of them ended up in Arabia and Yemen. Two of these were the Nestorians and the Ebionites. Although they are sometimes lumped together, they are distinct in that the Nestorians believed in the divinity of Jesus whereas the Ebionites saw him merely as a Prophet.

One difference between those declared heretics and the orthodox church was that the former often followed only one text, or gospel, rather than all the books that became the New Testament. The Ebionites followed The Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews (called by some scholars simply the Gospel of the Ebionites). It is probably a second-century compilation including passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke that emphasizes the compassion and humanity of Jesus while denying his divinity. The Ebionites believed that Jesus was a man, not God, and that a presence called the Holy Spirit descended upon him at his baptism and remained with him until just before his crucifixion. They followed the dietary and health practices of the Jews and placed much emphasis on rituals such as ablution, fasting, and circumcision.

Available online studies of the Ebionites found here and here seem unaware of their continued history after persecution possibly forced them from the Levant into Arabia in the early centuries of the Christian era. There are several reasons for this historical lack of knowledge. One is the fact that the Ebionites were less significant and less known than the Nestorians, the larger Christian sect in Arabia at the time that did accept the divinity of Jesus. Another is that Christian historians typically had little access to ancient Islamic history, until recently only available in Arabic, that made scattered references to theNusraniyah (taken from the town of Nazareth, this is the Quranic word used to describe the non-orthodox Christians in Mecca at the time of Muhammad).

There is another and more significant reason. After Muhammad, Muslims paid little or no attention to the beliefs of Christians and Jews in the Arabian Peninsula other than to compare them critically to Islam. Muslims believe the Quran was revealed directly to Muhammad from Allah via the angel Gabriel. They historically had little interest in the beliefs of others, and even less interest in the possibility that their religious texts and practices influenced Muhammad and the formation of the Quran.

Muslims have placed much emphasis in creating an imaginary genealogy for Muhammad that passes through Abraham all the way back to Adam. Of more historical relevance is that Muslim scholars emphasize his lineage from his ancestor Qusay to Muhammad's grandfather Abdel Mutallib, but ignore that same lineage from Qusay to grandson Assad who was the grandfather of Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife, and Waraqa bin Naufal, the Prophet's distant uncle. The reason Muslims have deliberately ignored that side of the family is that it included relatives including Waraqa and possibly Khadijah herself who were members of the Nusraniyah.

Ancient historian Abu Faraj Al Isfahani noted in his Kitab Al Aghani that Waraqa bin Naufal converted to Nusraniyah, and biographer Ibn Ishaq describes him as a Hanif, one who believed in only one God.

Hadith compilers Bukhari and Sahih Muslim both state that Waraqa bin Naufal translated the Book of the Hebrews and the Gospel into Arabic. It is possible the book they meant was the Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews.....Among the characteristics of the Ebionites was compassion for the poor and the orphaned. Waraqa bin Naufal, who was both a scholar and the leader of the Ebionites in Mecca, took a special interest in his young relative the orphaned Muhammad. He saw in him qualities of leadership, spent much time with him, and over the years taught Muhammad the Gospel of the Ebionites as well as the contents of the Torah. Waraqa bin Naufal performed Muhammad's marriage to Khadijah, and groomed Muhammad to replace him as the Ebionite spiritual leader in Mecca....The influence of Waraqi bin Naufal upon Muhammad and his revelations continued until Waraqa died. It is not accidental that the Hadith writers note that "revelations ceased for some time" following the death of Waraqa. The reason, of course, is that Muhammad was no longer learning from his Ebionite uncle.

The presence of the Gospel of the Ebionites in the short, poetic Meccan suras with their vivid descriptions of hell and Muhammad's repeated claim that he is a Prophet just like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus is something most Muslims are not allowed to even think about, at least publicly. It's much easier, and safer, to just toe the party line. I would encourage Muslims to be a little more open in their thinking and scholarship.​

Some may be surprised by the impact of Nestorian Christians on Islam, although as they traveled far, it's not surprising. They (Nestorian Christians) were very influential in Islam in the Far East with the Mongols as well as other religions, this has been shared before here:

​

But with that said, many Muslims have come to faith in Yeshua due to others presenting the Gospel via the Quran when it comes to examining how the Quran itself already had partial revelation within it showing that Isa was always seen as greater than Muhammad - that He was the Spirit of God, Eternal and the one who was the greatest revelation. Again, according to what many Imans say, they actually don't speak based on what the Quran actually says and thus they have cultural Islam rather than Quranic Islam - in the same way that others have cultural Christianity rather than Biblical Christianity. And it's very effective..

In the Qur’an, Jesus is twice referred to as the “Word of God,” a title that many consider to be the highest title given to any person in the book. While describing Jesus’ miraculous conception, the Qur’an states: “The angels said, “Mary, God gives you good news of a word from him [God]…’” (Surah 3:45). The second passage brings this truth to greater light: “People of the book, don’t exaggerate in your religion, and only say the truth about God. Truly the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is God’s messenger and his word which he sent down on Mary, and a spirit from him. So believe in God and his messengers and do not say three. Stop it. It is better for you. God is one God. Far be it from him to have a boy. He owns what is in the heavens and the earth. God is a sufficient trustee.” (4:171).

One can notice the titles given to Jesus. Each echoes biblical truth regarding his identity. He is the Messiah (Jn. 4:25-6), the Son of Mary (Mk. 6:3), God’s Messenger/Prophet (Mt. 13:57, Heb. 3:1), the Word of God, and a spirit from God (1 Co. 15:45). Many Muslims/others from Muslim background have noted this when sharing plainly on the ways Isa was always meant to be superior to Muhammad - with many noting that others need to follow what Christians have noted when it comes to acknowledging that the Messiah is truly the Son of God sent to redeem mankind....even though their brothers/sisters may've not had the best understanding on all points. For them, During the daily salat, they refrain from saying the shahadah unless they omit the second phrase, "and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah" and instead insert "and Isa (Jesus) is the Eternal Word of Allah" or "and Isa (Jesus) is the Sovereign Lord." They acknowledge that only the Bible is the Word of God and that the Qur'an, while containing beautiful Arabic and important insights into Arab culture, has no authority over the Bible.

Additionally, they note how in the Qur'an, Jesus is greater than Muhammad...evidenced by how Jesus' titles in the Qur'an are greater - noting several honorary titles such as titles of Messiah, the Word of God, the Spirit of God (Sura 4:169-71), the Speech of Truth (Sura 19:34-35), a Sign unto Men, and Mercy from God (Sura 19:21). For even in the Qur'an, Jesus lived a life that is much more extraordinary than Muhammad. Jesus' miracles in the Qur'an are greater, for the Qur'an affirms several miraculous aspects of Christ's life....such as the virgin birth of Christ (Sura 19:16-21; 3:37-45)....that Christ performed miracles (Sura 3:37-45; 43: 63-65)....the prophethood of Christ (19:29-31)...and it also affirms that Christ did not die but was raised up to heaven by God (4:158; 19:33) - for that which is LIFE ITSELF cannot be conquered by death - while in contrast, according to the Qur'an, there is very little, if anything, supernatural regarding the life of Muhammad. .

But again, it all goes back to how one is trained growing up seeing the Lord - and if explaining it the right way, it makes more than enough sense..

​

You would be blessed, I believe, if investigating the following since it deals with what other Christians have been doing for sometime in engaging Muslims from a Biblical perspective:

And for other places one can go to where they can learn on how even the Qu'ran speaks of the Trinity, one can go to one place I referenced earlier:

• Maryam (19:1-63)
  | A Christian Reads The Qu'ran

IslamicDilemma
A series of lectures in Chicago about how Islam attests to the truth of Christianity
YOUTUBE.COM

More specifically, one can check out Claims of Christ in Light of Islamic Monotheism - which is the third installment of the Islamic Dilemma series given by Sam Shamoun. The dilemma explored was seeing how the New Testament Jesus is affirmed by the Qur'an and yet what Jesus preached is contradicted in Islamic teaching...and that goes to addressing how the actual text of the Qu'ran was developed.

​

People who consistently claim the Qu'ran denies the Trinity neither KNOW what the text actually says, nor do they actually deal with those who grew up Muslim and were easily able to see where the concept of the Trinity itself was always present in the Qu'ran and other texts. It was always about context and seeing what has actually been said, as I often told my grandmother (who was a part of a sect of Islam for sometime, as shared before here).

​

As noted best elsewhere:

Trinity In Islam
THE QUR'ANIC TESTIMONY OF CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM

The Qur'an testifies that Christians are monotheistic and not infidels. The following are examples of this testimony:

1. Sura al-Ankabut 29:46, "Do no argue with the people of the Book except in what is better... and say we believed in what was sent down to us and to you, and our God and your God is the same, is one." Thus, the Qur'an testifies that we Christians, "people of the Book," worship one God.

2. Sura Al Imran 3:113-114, "Among the people of the Book is a nation which recites the verses of God during the night, and they worship God and believe in Him and in the Day of Judgement, and they hasten charity." This reference clearly asserts that Christians, "people of the Book," believe in one God; they recite His book which was in their hands in Muhammad's days, and they worship the one God in their services and prayers.

3. Sura al-Ma'ida 5:82, "For sure you will find the bitterest enemies of those who believe (Muslims) are the Jews and those who do not believe in our God. And you will find the closest friends to believers to be those who said, 'We are Nazarenes,' as among them there are pastors and monks and they are not proud." It is clear that Nazarenes are no polytheists, since polytheists and Jews are the bitter enemies of Muslims, but Nazarenes are their closest friends.

4. Sura Al Imran 3, "As God said, O Jesus, I'll make you die, and I'll raise you up to me, and I'll purify you from the infidels, and I'll make those who followed you higher than the infidels until the Day of Judgement." Hence, it is clear to you that the followers of Christ, or Christians, are not infidels. On the contrary, God distinguished Christians from infidels and raised them above infidels.

The testimony of the Qur'an concerning Christians has proved with certainty that they worship the one God and are no polytheists.

THE QUR'ANIC TESTIMONY OF THE CHRISTIAN HOLY TRINITY
Perhaps you are amazed, my dear friend, that the Qur'an mentions the Trinity of the one God exactly as Christians believe in it. We have already seen that the Trinity of Christianity is the nature of God. His Word, and His Spirit. This is the same Trinity that the Qur'an mentions, "But Jesus Christ, son of Mary is the messenger of God and His word and spirit of Him that He gave to Mary" (Sura al-Nisa 4:171). In this verse it is clear that God has:

a personality - "messenger of God"

a word - "and His word"

a spirit - "and a spirit from Him"

This testimony of the Qur'an for the creed of the Trinity is what we Christians proclaim and no more. It does not proclaim polytheism, but rather it proclaims that there is no God but Him.

THE QUR'ANIC TESTIMONY THAT CHRIST IS THE WORD OF GOD
The Qur'an testifies very clearly that Christ is the Word of God. The following Qur'anic references are examples:

1. Sura al-Nisa 4:171, "Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, is God's messenger and His word."

2. Sura Al Imran 3:139, "...God proclaims to you Yahya (John the Baptist) supporting a word from God..." The Iman Abu al-Su`ud commented on the phrase "supporting a word from God," that is Isa, may He be blessed, by saying, "...it was said that he (John the Baptist) was the first to believe in Him (Jesus) and to support His being the Word of God and a Spirit from Him. Al Sadi said, "The mother of Yahya (John) meeting the mother of Isa (Jesus) asked, "Mary, have you felt my pregnancy?" Mary answered, 'I too am pregnant.' She (John's mother) then said, 'I find that what is in my belly worships what is in your belly.' From here the above utterance of God 'supporting a word from God' comes clear" (Abu al-Su`ud Muhammad Ibn Muhammad al-Ahmadi's Commentary, page 233).

3. Sura Al Imran 3:45, "the angels said to Mary, 'Allah proclaims to you a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary." The English translation uses the relative pronoun whose in referring to a masculine personal pronoun in the Arabic original. This indicates the fact that a word here does not mean a simple word of language but a person. You also find this clarified in the saying of one of the Muslim scholars (Al Shaikh Muhyi al-Din al-Arabic), who said, "The word is God in theophany... and it is the one divine person and not any other" ("Fusus al-Hukm part II, p. 35). He also said that the word is the divine person (page 13). Isn't that exactly what was said about the Lord Jesus in the Gospel of John? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh" (John 1:1,14). In the Arabic translation of this verse, we again find (in conformity with the Greek original) the same usage of the term word with the pronouns referring to it. Word refers to a person. This is clear from John's specifications, "The Word was God" and "Word became flesh."

THE QUR'ANIC TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Many verses of the Qur'an mention that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and that He supported the Lord Jesus with it. This becomes clear from the following:

Sura al-Ma'ida 5:110, "Allah said to Jesus, 'Jesus, son of Mary, remember the favour I had bestowed on you and your mother, how I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit, so that you preached to men in your cradle and in the prime of manhood."

The theological scholar Al-Shaikh Muhammad al- Hariri al-Bayyumi says, "The Holy Spirit is the spirit of Allah" (Kitab al-Ruh wa Maiyyyatuha, p.53).

From all that preceded, my friend, the testimony of the Qur'an and the theologians of Islam for the creed of the Trinity in whom we Christians believe becomes clear.

THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit and is mentioned in the Qur'an in many places.

Sura Yusuf 12:87, "Do not despair of Allah's spirit; none but unbelievers despair of Allah's spirit."

Sura al-Baqara 2:87 and 253, "We gave Jesus the son of Mary veritable signs and strengthened Him with the Holy Spirit."

Al Imam al-Nasafi said, "By the Holy Spirit is meant, the sanctified spirit...or the name of God the greatest."

Sura al-Ma'ida 5:110, "Jesus, son of Mary remember the favour I have bestowed on you and on your mother; how I have strengthened you with the Holy Spirit."

Al Sayyid Abdul Karim al-Djabali said about the Holy Spirit that He is not created, and what is not created is eternal and the eternal is God alone.

Also Al-Shaikh Muhammad al-Harira al-Bayyumi said, "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God is not created."

This is the holy Trinity in one God in whom we believe, and this is the secret of naming it as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is the title of the essential Fatherhood of God.

The Son is the title of the incarnated Word of God.

​

And also, for that matter, if wanting to have more information on what the Early Church and Jewish Christians did in navigating the Trinity, one can go here to previous discussions when it comes to seeing what occurred for Jewish Believers (Who were Monotheistic) when it came to their faith in Yeshua and yet learned how to understand that Monotheism was not opposite of a Triune perspective in the Lord...

Much of what is happening with Muslims today is really reflective on several levels with what the early Church noted when it came to Jewish believers (in the first century before the councils) and how they had battles reconciling Monotheism as they had been taught by God in the Law with the presence of Christ - and how they explained that to others on the outside of their faith, as they had battles as it concerns the concept of the Divine Council - and the reality of the Two Powers in Heaven idea that helped many Jews come to faith in Christ and developa Christological Monotheism since they could understand that the rabbis always taught that God had a lesser power to Him (regent) who was God as well and they co-ruled. Many are not aware of the relationships between rabbinic Judaism, Merkabah mysticism, and early Christianity - as it was the case that "Two powers in heaven" was a very early category of heresy and one of the basic categories by which the rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity...yet they did not understand the reality of what Christianity advocated on the role of the Messiah nor did they know the history of what the rabbis before them had already said in agreement with the Messiah being Divine.


One Jewish scholar who did an amazing job on the issue is Daniel Boyarin, who wrote Two Powers in Heaven; Or the Making of Heresy as well as the book entitled Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (as well as The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John and the work "The Jewish Gospels" where he noted at multiple points where the concept of the Messiah was always rooted in Jewish thought and echoed by what the rabbis said....and for Jews, the two powers are one and a person does not worship one without the other and even Second Temple literature is replete with forms of bitheism, including the philonic logos and the Ezekiel traditions of an Angel of God in the image of a man appearing on the throne. ).


Additionally, Dr. Michael Heisner (of LOGOS Bible Software) did an excellent job covering the issue in his presentation entitled The Naked Bible » Two Powers in Heaven ....more here in The Divine Council and Jewish Binitarianism - YouTube or the following:

Dr. Michael Heiser: The Jewish Trinity - YouTube

Michael Heiser - Two Powers of the Godhead - May 4, 2013 - YouTube

Holy Trinity - Dr. Michael Heiser - YouTube

Muslims who follow Christ have repeatedly pointed out where what they were against in the Qu'ran was never the Trinity as much as the HERECTICAL VIEWS of the Trinity which the Church rejected (i.e. claiming Mary, Jesus and God made a 'Trinity', etc.) - for it was those groups that Muhammad was responding to. Anyone saying Christians and Muslims do not worship the same categorically (on BOTH sides) does not really deal with what the scriptures say and it's really that simple.

 

[RDKirk]

As it concerns the Trinity, I think it needs to be said again that even the Qu'ran advocates a Trinitarian perspective and people saying otherwise are really ignorant of the actual Qu'ran.

Do you have any references to Muslim scholars--current, recognized Muslim scholars--saying "the Qu'ran advocates a Trinitarian perspective?"

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Do you have any references to Muslim scholars--current, recognized Muslim scholars--saying "the Qu'ran advocates a Trinitarian perspective?"

Some thoughts..

One, it may be unintentional. But saying "current, recognized Muslim scholars" tends to assume a scholar must note something in order for it to true - although there are limits to that since that dynamic also occurred in other points of history when the scholarship claimed the Bible/Scriptures promoted the ideology that kidnapping/trafficking of slaves was perfectly acceptable according to the NT while the people in chains (or the abolitionists) were the ones actually reading the text radically different for centuries. There's a dynamic that's always necessary to consider with regards to not advocating on any theological front theologians in ivory towers" since that goes counter to the dynamic of actually addressing Muslim communities (the grassroots/Indigenous) when it comes to what they've noted on the Qu'ran. If serious on seeing what other Muslims have said, I always go with what I've seen others do locally when it comes to reading the Qu'ran/easily seeing the Trinity within it since there's always politics with scholarship and "who has the mic", so to speak, when it comes to certain schools of thought within the Islamic world that get more promotion than others. And on what other Muslims/others from Muslim communities have said when advocating for the Trinity (when also noting how Christians can appreciate the Qur’an namely, as an indirect and incomplete affirmation of the divinity of Christ), this has been brought up before here:

• Wednesday at 1:23 PM#6
• Wednesday at 7:05 PM#21
• Wednesday at 7:42 PM#26
• Wednesday at 8:06 PM#27
• Wednesday at 9:23 PM#33
• Yesterday at 2:51 PM#41
• Yesterday at 3:17 PM#42

Thankful for others noting that reading of the passages within the Qu'ran passages (Surah 2 :254, 19 :20-21, 5:10, 3:43 and 5:110, 3:49 and 5:110, 3:45 and 4:171, 4:171 and 4:158 ) as an embryonic witness to the power and divinity of Christ. According to Giulio Basetti-Sani, the Qur’an contains “the germs of the Christian teaching on the divinity of Christ” which “could not have been understood in their full meaning either by Mohammed or by his audience.” What is proposed is a Christian reading of the Qur’an which can disclose certain signs that point to the mystery of Christ. Just as Christians have read the Old Testament in the light of Christ, so also can the Qur’an be read in the light of Christ. Christians can understand the Qur’an as a revelation given to the polytheistic Arabs of Muhammad’s day to move them towards acceptance of God’s unity, transcendence and moral guidance

Two, as it concerns the scholarship, there are several scholars who have spoken on the issue.

Before going further on that one, it should be noted how even those outright resisting the Trinitarian concept have a nuance and this needs to be understood. While some clearly rejects the traditional orthodox understanding of the Trinity, they are willing to speculate that Islam could accept an interpretation of the Trinity “which would consider the persons of the Trinity to be “aspects” or “Names” of God standing below His Essence which, being the Absolute, must be One without condition and above all relations" (as was the case with Seyyed Hossein Nasr, of the work “The Islamic View of Christianity,” in Christianity through Non-Christian Eyes ... who was educated in the United States and has served as Professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University). Essentially, what was advocated was that others in Islam had no issue with various Trinitarian formulations advocated if they were of the kind that actually came to be understood as inadequate(such as Sabellian modalism and Subordinationism).

Of course, for those Muslims in the Mystical side of Islam, the concept of the Trinity is definitely less of a problem. In example, as it concerns Sufi Islam/the esoteric Sufi traditions of Islam, it has been the case that a trinity is often evoked if only to proclaim its underlying unity. This can be seen in an early form expressed by the saint Bastami within two centuries of the beginnings of Islam:

"I am the wine-drinker and the wine and the cup-bearer. I came forth from Bayazid-ness as a snake from its skin. Then I looked and saw that lover, beloved, and love are one, for in the world of Unity all can be one." Sayings of Bayazid Bastami ​

Others have pointed out often how the experiential tri-unity of Sufism comes so close to the Christian doctrine of the ontological Transcendetnal Trintiy in its economical aspect t..(and not surprising since Sufism is directly influenced by CHristian Monasticism). More can be said on the Trinune nature of the Divine and the analysis of Sufi Islam on the matter in books such as The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends by y S. Mark Heim

As it concerns further scholarship for today in the Muslim world, one of the best scholars around in Qu'ranic Studies would be Mun'im Sirry in Scriptural Polemics: The Qur'an and Other Religions. when it comes to reading the Qu'ran and understanding from the text who was being criticized since many read it without knowing the cultural or historical context (As it concerns, for example, knowing what was being condemned in the Qu'ran with regards to the Trinity since there were already version of the Trinity within Christianity that were condemned like claiming Mary was God/to be worshiped alongside God & Jesus or other versions....and this was exactly what Muhammad condemned as well when others fleeing the Byzantine Empire came bringing those views into Saudi Arabia). To see his presentations:

"T

I'd highly recommend going through the work since Mun'im Sirry (from Indonesia) did an excellent job going through several other Muslim scholars who argued for how the concept of the Trinity can easily be seen as Monotheism within the Islamic framework. Edward Hulmes is another scholar noting the dynamics within the Muslim world...as he pointed out (as shared earlier) that the idea of Trinity attacked in the Qu'ran was the one claiming the Trinity was God, Jesus, and Mary...something that is NOT descriptive of Orthodox Christian ideology (as the third part of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit) and thus making it a false argument whenever Muslims from specific camps claim "Islam HATES Trinity thinking!!!" (ignorant sentiments not based on the actual text) or Christians claiming "Muslims HATE the Trinity!!!! (ignorant reactions based on not knowing what all Muslims have even said or acknowledging how there were already forms of Trinitarianism that the Early Christians condemned just as Muhammad did).

Besides him, One can also consider the work of Islamic scholar William Montgomery Watt (Emeritus Professor in Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Edinburgh. Watt was one of the foremost non-Muslim interpreters of Islam in the West and HIGHLY revered by Muslims around the world), who has argued that the references addressing Trinitarian thinking as seen in verses 4:171, 5:73, and 5:116 they refer specifically to an "unorthodox notion of physical sonship". More specifically, he noted in Muhammad at Medina that "indeed, it is true that the doctrines refuted by the Qur'an, namely those of tritheism and of thephysical sonship of Jesus, are aberrations and not Christian orthodoxy." Also, As he noted:

"The rejection of the doctrne that 'God is one of three' (5.73/7) is usually taken to be a denial of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, yet strictly speaking what is rejected is a doctrine of tritheism which orthodox Christianity also rejects. Similarly, the rejection of the fatherhood of God the Father and the sonship of God the Son, is strictly speaking a rejection of fatherhood and sonship in a physical sense; and this Christianity would also reject."​

There's also Sidney H. Griffith's Christians and Christianity...(as well as The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam ) he notes in his work how Sura 5:73 has been seen as a potential criticism of Syriac literature describing Christ as "the third of three" - consequently meaning it was an attack on the idea that Christ was divine (which would go opposite of what Muhammad already said on Christ being the Spirit/Word of God and exalting the Messiah) and thus meaning that Sura 5:72–75 was really criticizing the idea that Jesus and God are the same rather than distinct.


Other books one could investigate on the issue would be works such as Bell's introduction to the Qurʼān - Page 158

More could be said on the issue. However, if going through what has been made available here, that's a good start. You may also appreciate the work of scholars such as Miroslav Volf in what he has noted whenever it comes to Islam.

I appreciated what another noted when addressing the text of the Qu'ran and showing what it says - as they pointed out (for brief excerpt):

The Christian response takes on three dimensions: 1) the Qur’an does not reject the orthodox formulation of the Incarnation but only heterodox formulations which Christians also reject; 2) the Qur’an reflects the cultural understanding of the seventh century Semitic mind which found the doctrine of the Incarnation not only difficult to grasp but also offensive to a believer in monotheism; and 3) the Qur’an, in its own way, recognizes the special status and primacy of Christ, and in an ambiguous ways points to Jesus’ divinity.The first aspect of this response looks to see if in the Qur’an there is any evidence of the Christological formulations of the councils. After a careful study of the texts of the Qur’an that deal with the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Italian Islamicist Giulio Basetti-Sani concludes that the Qur’an condemns a tritheism that “has nothing to do with the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity.”Likewise, the Qur’an does not condemn “the doctrine of Chalcedon, but Monophysite and Nestorian formulations of the doctrine ... nowhere in the Koran is there a formulation of the orthodox doctrine (of Chalcedon and Constantinople) regarding the Incarnation.”

Beyond the absence of any orthodox formulations of the doctrine of the Incarnation, there are also passages in the Qur’an which reflect a culture-bound understanding of what is meant by being the Son of God. For example, when the Qur’an asks “How can He (God) have a son when He hath no consort?” (6:101), the implication is that God must beget a son by carnal relations. This, of course, is not how Christians understand either the eternal generation of the Son from the Father or the incarnation of the Word in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Such a statement, though, does make sense when understood within the context of pagan Arabia in which there was a belief in the three daughters of Allah: al-Lat, Manat, and al-Uzza.[89]

There are also various anthropomorphisms in the Qur’an that reflect the image of God as a princely figure sitting on a throne (7:54) who creates with two hands (38:75). There are likewise passages which have God swearing by the sky (surah 52), the dawn (surah 89) and the sun (surah 91). Awareness of these anthropomorphisms is employed by Paul of Antioch in his defense of the Incarnation and the Trinity. If Muslims accept the passages in the Qur’an that say God has “two eyes and hands, a face, a side, members and organs” and yet still hold to the unity and transcendence of God, so also can Christians acknowledge God as Father, Son and Spirit because these terms are found in the New Testament. Moreover, Christians interpret these terms in such a way that God is not conceived of as “composite persons with parts and divisions.” Likewise, “the Father and Son are not the fatherhood and sonship of marriage and begetting, of sexual union and intercourse.”

Christians of today can accept the warnings of the Qur’an as legitimate admonitions against tritheism and carnal conceptions of divine filiation. The great affirmation of God’s unity found in Surah 112 can he spoken of with equal faith by Christians as well as Muslims: “Say: He is God, the One and Only” (112:1). Likewise, Christians could appreciate the passage: “He begetteth not, nor is He begotten” (112:2) as referring to the eternal and undivided unity of the divine essence within the Trinity. Indeed, the concern of Surah 112 :2 is repeated almost verbatim by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) when it says: “essentia seu natura divina…non est generans, neque genita, nec procedeus” (the divine essence or nature is not generating, nor generated, nor proceeding) .

In the Qur’an 6:50 and 7:188, Muhammad confesses that he knows not “the Unseen” or the “Mystery” of God. From a Christian point of view, such an admission is significant because a mystery is understood to be something unknowable without divine revelation. A Christian, therefore, can accept the prophetic role of Muhammad as one who witnessed to the truth of monotheism and the day of judgment. The condemnations of the Trinity and the Incarnation can be appreciated by Christians as condemnations of deviant expressions of those doctrines....


There is still another way in which Christians can appreciate the Qur’an: namely, as an indirect and incomplete affirmation of the divinity of Christ. The French scholar Georges Tatar[92] has pointed to Surah 2 :254 (2 :253 in Yusef Ali’s translation) as an affirmation that God has endowed some apostles with gifts above others. This passage goes on to say that “to Jesus, the son of Mary, We gave clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.” What are these gifts? Here we see that the Qur’an clearly affirms that Jesus was endowed with special qualities: the conception and birth to a virgin (19 :20-21) who is said to be exalted above all women (3 :42); the gift of speech from infancy (5 :110;19 :29); the ability to work miracles through God’s permission like curing the blind and leprous (5:10) and raising the dead (3:43 and 5:110). Only Jesus is given the privilege of participating in the uniquely divine activity of the insufflation of life (3:49 and 5:110). Jesus is also given the exalted titles of “Word of God” (3:45; 4:171) and “Spirit of God” (4:171), and Jesus is the only prophet who is explicitly declared to be “confirmed by the Holy Spirit” (2:87). Moreover, the Qur’an also states that Jesus was mysteriously raised up to God (4:158) and given special intimacy with God (3 :45 and 55).

There is a Christian way of reading of these passages as an embryonic witness to the power and divinity of Christ. According to Giulio Basetti-Sani, the Qur’an contains “the germs of the Christian teaching on the divinity of Christ” which “could not have been understood in their full meaning either by Mohammed or by his audience.” What is proposed is a Christian reading of the Qur’an which can disclose certain signs that point to the mystery of Christ. Just as Christians have read the Old Testament in the light of Christ, so also can the Qur’an be read in the light of Christ. Christians can understand the Qur’an as a revelation given to the polytheistic Arabs of Muhammad’s day to move them towards acceptance of God’s unity, transcendence and moral guidance.[95] Thus, in the Qur’an, Christians discern what Nicholas of Cusa called the radius lucidissimi Evangelii (a ray of the most luminous Gospel).
​

Additionally, as another said best in greater depth (for brief excerpt):

In the Arabic language, two terms are used to express the concept, “son of.” The first iswalad,35 which is used to describe offspring resulting from the sexual union of a male and female. The second word, ibn, can be used metaphorically. It is utilized to describe a close relationship between persons, or persons to things, without necessarily implying a physical paternal connection.36 For example, a traveler “… s spoken of as a son of the road” (ibnussabil).37 Yet, such a statement does not imply that a sexual relationship, resulting in a child, has occurred between a human being and the road.

Nearly every passage in the Qur’an that denies the sonship of Jesus Christ utilizes walad. The single reference that employs ibn to describe Christ‘s sonship is Surah 9:30; however, when taken in the context of the entire Surah, it is clear that the reference actually refers to physical sonship.38 Orthodox Christianity would only use the term ibn, in its metaphorical sense, to explain Christ’s relationship to the Father. Therefore, in Arabic the Scriptures call Christ ibnu’llah, not waladu’llah.

Some older english translations of the Bible utilized the most unhelpful formulation “only begotten.”39 The phrase translated in the King James Version as “only begotten Son” ismonogenes huios (μονογενης υιος). However, one should not take this in a literal, physically paternal sense. For instance, huios (son) has been used metaphorically throughout the New Testament. In Mark 3:17, James and John are referred to as “Sons (huios) of Thunder.” Furthermore, in Galatians 3:26 Paul writes that all believers are “Sons (huios) of God.” These references are clearly intended to be figurative. The translation of monogenes as “only begotten” is a result of the King James translators retaining Jerome’s Latin translation of the term, unigenitus, meaning “only begotten.” However, the Latin text existing prior to Jerome’s translation did not use the Latinunigenitus when describing God the Son; instead, it utilized the term unicus, meaning “only.”40

In order for the Greek manuscript to warrant the translation “only begotten,” the Greek term being translated would need to be monogennetos. To translate monogenes as “only begotten” is, without question, incorrect. Commenting on this mistranslation, James White noted that;

The key element to remember in deriving the meaning of monogenes is this: it is a compound term, combining monos, meaning only, with a second term. Often it is assumed that the second term is gennasthai/gennao, to give birth, to beget. But note that this family of terms has two nu’s, νν, rather than a single nu, ν, found inmonogenes. This indicates that the second term is not gennasthai butgignesthai/ginomai, and the noun form, genos.41

The term genos means “kind,” or “race.”42 When the two terms monos and genos are combined, the reference is intended to convey that Christ is “unique, the only one of his kind.”43 Additionally, William Mounce explains that monogenes can only be understood as stressing the unique nature of Christ; it cannot and should not be understood to imply any type of biological siring.44

This metaphorical understanding of sonship is demonstrated in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews refers to Isaac as Abraham‘s “only begotten son.”45 Making use of the same term found in John 3:16 to describe the father-to-son relationship (monogenes), the author of Hebrews notes the unique nature of Isaac as the promised child from God. The Muslim reader will readily admit that Abraham had multiple children; therefore, the intent of the text is to stress that Isaac is Abraham’s unique son, not his only son.46 Craig Keener believes the use of the term monogenes in John 3:16 is intended to call to mind the traditional Hebrew understanding of Isaac. Just as Abraham gave Isaac, God the Father has not given merely a son but the unique, beloved Son with whom there is no comparison.47 In the same manner, Christ should be understood as the unique, one-of-a-kind, “Son of God.” Christ’s Hebrew contemporaries understood His claim to be the Son of God as an equation with God rather than a statement of biological origin. When Jesus was before Pilate the Jewish authorities charged, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.”48 Thus, His sonship declared His full deity, not a biological origination.

The text of Scripture further demonstrates that the Muslim notion of the New Testament portraying Christ as the biological Son of God is in error. The birth narrative in Luke’s Gospel makes no mention of natural conception resulting from a sexual union. After Gabriel informed Mary that she would carry a Son, she asked, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”49 Gabriel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”50 The narrative is completely devoid of any sexual interaction between God the Father and Mary; rather, the reader is informed that it is through the working of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived. Commenting on this fact, Wayne Grudem states, “Scripture clearly asserts that Jesus was conceived by a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit…”51 Thus, the text of both John’s and Luke’s Gospels depict Christ as uniquely, rather than biologically, the Son of God. Further, Christ is the Son of God not because of conception, but because of His economic relationship to the Father. Therefore, the Qur’an is not rebutting the text of Christian Scripture but is reacting against a misunderstanding of orthodox Christianity at best and more directly Arab paganism.
Does Allah have a Son?

Without question, the Qur’an denounces the idea of Allah fathering a son in the genetic sense. Interestingly, the Qur’an addresses Muhammad’s course of action pending the figurative establishment of Allah having a son. According to Surah 43:81, “Say: If the All-merciful [God] had a son, I would be the very first to worship [him].” Some Islamic commentators believe that in this passage Muhammad was stating that, if it could be proven that Allah had a son, he would be the very first to submit unto and worship him.52Commenting on Surah 43:81, Yusuf Ali states that, “The prophet of Allah does not object to true worship in any form. But it must be true: it must not superstitiously attribute derogatory things to Allah, or foster false ideas.”53 If one takes the Surah in its context, it would appear that Muhammad made this statement because of his conviction that Allah has no son; yet, if Allah’s “fatherhood” could be established he would be willing to accept the son of Allah as God.54 Arab Christian Chawkat Moucarry notes that famed Muslim commentator Fakhr-ul-Din Razi believes that, of all the possible interpretations of this Surah, the preceding is the most viable.55 For Moucarry, Fakhr-ul-Din’s interpretation raises a few questions. He asks, “Is there really evidence that God has no son? If so, where is this evidence? What if the case for God having a son is made? Are Muslims prepared, like the Prophet, to worship and to serve him?”56

In continuation, the most famous Surah to reject the idea of Allah having a son was not historically used as a refutation of the Christian doctrine of incarnation, but was instead a criticism of Arab polytheism.57 Surah 112:1-4 reads, “Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.” Moucarry proposes that the use of this Surah as a condemnation of the Christian understanding of the Son of God comes long after it was used against its intended targets, pagan Arabs. It is only after the expansion of Islam that this Surah was understood as a repudiation of Christian Trinitarianism.58 Moucarry believes that if the Muslim interpreter intends to remain literally and historically grounded in the text of the Qur’an, he must acknowledge this fact.59
...Muhammad’s knowledge of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (which was well established by the sixth century A.D.) is questionable at best. The Qur’an clearly misrepresents what Christians actually believed and still do believe about the triunity of God. However, the Qur’an rightly and accurately condemns the pre-Islam polytheism that permeated the Arabian Peninsula. What Muhammad denied then was the pagan deities of his native peoples, yet he mistook the Christian doctrine of the true Trinity as being nothing more than a Christianized version of pagan belief. With Muhammad’s primary denial of the Trinity being aimed at the doctrine as it relates to the Sonship of Jesus Christ, and with that notion being corrected above, what then can be said in denial of what Christians actually believe regarding the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus? Simply put, Muhammad denied the very same doctrines that Christians have denied for over two-thousand years. The difference being that for over fourteen-hundred years Muslims, as prescribed by the Qur’an, have attributed to Christians a belief that no orthodox Christian has ever held to. So, did Muhammad deny the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as it relates to the incarnation of Jesus Christ? No!​

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Tbh, I more or less hold her opinion and I guess I don't see what's so crazy about it, other than she deviated from the pretty orthodox views of the school. Abrahamic faiths have tons of linking threads including an undying hatred for each other.

But honestly, it might be in her best interest to find work in a secular institution

Working in a secular institution can be far more enjoyable at times compared to working in a religious one. But of course, everyone has their own experiences....ggg

​

 

[AionPhanes]

Allah is NOT Yahweh Elohim [the LORD God, the triune Godhead.] For someone who claims to be the Vicar of Christ on earth and Pontifex Maximus, this statement reveals a total misunderstanding of both Christianity and Islam. How can Muslims possibly adore "the one God" whom we know as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, when they not only REJECT THE TRINITY but call Christians infidels because they do not accept Islam?????

Please note carefully what the Koran has to say, and why the Roman Catholic position is utterly false and misleading:

Whoever seeks other than Islam as a religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers (Sura 3:85) [THE LOSERS ARE DESTINED FOR HELL]

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion, and do not say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, is the Messenger of Allah, and His Word that He conveyed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say, "Three." Refrain-it is better for you. Allah is only one God. Glory be to Him-that He should have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and the earth, and Allah is a sufficient Protector. (Sura 4:171). [REJECTION OF THE "THREE" IN THE TRINITY]

They disbelieve those who say, "Allah is the third of three." But there is no deity except the One God. If they do not refrain from what they say, a painful torment will befall those among them who disbelieve. (Sura 5:73) [REJECTION OF THE TRINITY]

Allah will not forgive that partners be associated with Him; but will forgive anything less than that, to whomever He wills. Anyone who ascribes partners to Allah has strayed into far error. (Sura 4:116) [REJECTION OF THE TRINITY]

In the Koran, Jesus is simply "the son of Mary" and Islam rejects Jesus as "the Son of God", let alone God manifest in the flesh. Pandering to Muslims and Islam has become the trademark of the church of Rome.

I realize that Muslims understand God differently and I'm certain that the Pope and the Bishops at Vatican II did as well. It's common knowledge that Muslims, much like Jews, do not consider God to be Trinitarian in nature. The Vatican statement doesn't reject the Trinity either it merely teaches that Muslims worship God not that they agree with us about all his attributes.

 

[Zoness]

Working in a secular institution can be far more enjoyable at times compared to working in a religious one. But of course, everyone has their own experiences....

truncated​

Are you accusing me of some falsehood or misrepresentation? If so, I implore you to explain exactly where that occurred. Unless I misunderstand your image?

But really, working for a religious institution is usually walking on eggshells. I would imagine that contractually, you have to adopt the religious beliefs of the employing institution otherwise you risk termination. Unfortunately, the professor learned firsthand that being too ecumenical was (apparently) seen has a major violation. I merely suggested she would not have that specific conflict at a secular institution.

 

[Job8]

The Vatican statement doesn't reject the Trinity either it merely teaches that Muslims worship God not that they agree with us about all his attributes.

Well if the one true and living God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (as revealed in the Bible), and other religions (including Islam) reject this God, then how can they worship "God"? They worship another "god". Do you see that? There is no commonality of worship, since Jesus is God, but Islam and the Koran say that Jesus is NOT God. Therefore the church of Rome once again proves its falsity. Now we have a rabbi, a priest and an imam in Berlin setting up a place where they all can "worship". Is this true worship or a sham?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Are you accusing me of some falsehood or misrepresentation? If so, I implore you to explain exactly where that occurred. Unless I misunderstand your image?

But really, working for a religious institution is usually walking on eggshells. I would imagine that contractually, you have to adopt the religious beliefs of the employing institution otherwise you risk termination. Unfortunately, the professor learned firsthand that being too ecumenical was (apparently) seen has a major violation. I merely suggested she would not have that specific conflict at a secular institution.

Odd....

Don't know where the reaction came from, as the posting itself was in regards to the issue of how experiences can shape/define what we individually see in certain things that others may not. It's an analogy I've been blessed by before. My apologies if the image took you off guard. Some religious institutions you have more grace with when knowing the boundaries or networking. The same dynamic occurs at a secular institution....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I realize that Muslims understand God differently and I'm certain that the Pope and the Bishops at Vatican II did as well. It's common knowledge that Muslims, much like Jews, do not consider God to be Trinitarian in nature. The Vatican statement doesn't reject the Trinity either it merely teaches that Muslims worship God not that they agree with us about all his attributes.

Most Jewish Christians in the Early Church had the same mindset when it came to them noting plainly that Jews who do not have full awareness of who God is are not automatically lost or at odds with God's working in the world. There was an excellent work on the issue I was thankful for called In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity....... an excellent work in regards to explaining what it was like for Jews in the Diaspora and what they did when it came to how they related to the Messiah.

​

There's also the amazing work by Oskar Skarsaune called Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries

Additionally, there are other good scholars to consider such as Mark S. Kinzer and Philip F. Esler. ..as well as Daniel Boyarin in Justin Martyr Invents Judaism - Church History, Vol. 70, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 427-461 when it comes to noting the ways that Justin of Martyr did many things similar to reinventing practices in Judaism as other Jewish leaders did.

That said, there are some dynamics which are a bit difficult to navigate since what can happen (if others are not careful) is that they end up advocating what's known as Dual Covenant Theology - the idea that others do not need to know of the revelation of Christ Jesus and that's a dangerous road to take. Happened a lot throughout the Evangelical world (especially with others like John Hagee) whenever you'd hear claims for people to "Support Israel!!!!" at any costs or any price - while simultaneously ignoring what the Lord said in regards to what it took to connect with the Lord and find true peace in Him alone....although this is in large part a reaction to Replacement theology ideas saying the Jewish people are all cursed automatically rather than addressing how many things done were and are STILL being done in ignorance - and yet Christ is the salvation.

An Incomplete Religion? w/ Dr. Michael Brown 1/2 - YouTube
An Incomplete Religion? w/ Dr. Michael Brown 2/2 ​

Everyone has to go through Yeshua, as He is the Gate--and although not all roads lead to God, the Lord can meet others on any road (As He often does) .....for the Lord has met others/brought them to faith in Yeshua for salvation when they previously denounced Him - whereas others who did know about Him actively rejected him anyhow...to their detriment. But God's Mercy is truly powerful....and in the midst of that, many things occurred to help others see Him better.

Mark Kinzer (Who has done extensive work in the Catholic world when it comes to Jews in Liturgical circles) did an excellent review on the matter in his academic paper entitled Finding our Way Through nicaea: The Deity of Yeshua, bilateral Ecclesiology, and Redemptive Encounter with the Living God - as it concerns the reality of some of the struggles that were present behind the council.....the battles over defining what Biblical Monotheism is and how to practice Christocentric Monotheism. For many Jews, to hear of "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" was akin to promoting polytheism - even though other Jewish Christians had no issue with the concept of Yeshua being God just as God the Father. And for many, it's a BIG deal to say "Yeshua" more than "Jesus" during the prayer.

People are people - and they're human, prone to make mistakes sadly. But the Lord can still work through it..

As Mark Kinzer said best in his paper, we cannot think about Yeshua apart from the creeds, because none of us can or even should isolate ourselves from the traditions that inform our thought. Granted, the councils that devised the creeds were anti-Judaic and that the creeds themselves lack reference to much of the biblical story (such as Israel’s history and role), meaning that the creeds are missing a major portion of the biblical message. But rather than rejecting it as many do, there are some practical ways to address it.

• The Divine Council
• Divine Plurality in the Dead Sea Scrolls
• Trinitarian Jewish Thinking Before Jesus

• Understanding Israelite Monotheism - The Divine Council.

• Did the Religion of the Biblical Writers Evolve from Polytheism to Monotheism? A Paper and Response to Thom Stark

• Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism: Toward an Assestment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible - The Divine Council

The Vatican statement doesn't reject the Trinity either it merely teaches that Muslims worship God not that they agree with us about all his attributes.

And unfortunately, as much as it seems people try to denounce anything the Vatican does (generally reflective of people for Hyper Protestant thought), it is interesting whenever people seem to speak about what Islam does or does not say. For it's often the case people do NOT actually deal with what is in a text. Anyone claiming the Qu'ran claims Christ is not God (according to Islam) has little clue about Islam when dealing with the text alone and what others who grew up Muslim have often pointed out. For it is the case that many within Muslim culture believe/accept Jesus as God and have been pointing it out despite all of the repeated claims that all Muslims universally reject Christ as God (or that it has ever been the case that there is substantial amounts of communities where Muslims have proclaimed Christ to be God/Messiah). Talking with others who grew up in Islam/worked with others in it, it is interesting when seeing the ways that many in Islam have noted that Isa is greater than Muhammad...and that Jesus is the Prophet while Muhammad is simply the Messenger...as Muhammad is called rasul Allah, i.e., the "messenger of God." Muhammad is not the last prophet nor is he the one who seals up the prophethood as if no one is greater than him - for according to Islamic narrations, Jesus is the last prophet who will eradicate unbelief and usher in the final hour. ..thus meaning Jesus seals up prophecy and vision, not Muhammad (more at Is Muhammad the Last Prophet? - Answering Islam ).

As one resource noted best (for brief excerpt) :

In the Qur’an, Jesus is twice referred to as the “Word of God,” a title that many consider to be the highest title given to any person in the book. While describing Jesus’ miraculous conception, the Qur’an states: “The angels said, “Mary, God gives you good news of a word from him [God]…’” (Surah 3:45). The second passage brings this truth to greater light: “People of the book, don’t exaggerate in your religion, and only say the truth about God. Truly the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is God’s messenger and his word which he sent down on Mary, and a spirit from him. So believe in God and his messengers and do not say three. Stop it. It is better for you. God is one God. Far be it from him to have a boy. He owns what is in the heavens and the earth. God is a sufficient trustee.” (4:171). There’s quite a bit in this verse, and we should spend some time unpacking it. First, notice the titles given to Jesus. Each echoes biblical truth regarding his identity. He is the Messiah (Jn. 4:25-6), the Son of Mary (Mk. 6:3), God’s Messenger/Prophet (Mt. 13:57, Heb. 3:1), the Word of God, and a spirit from God (1 Co. 15:45).​

It is safe to say that a large majority of Muslims agree that Jesus (Prophet Isa) is going to return, which automatically contradicts the idea that Allah will not send mankind another messenger. The one verse in the Quran that many Islamic leaders cling to is that Muhammad( pbuh) is the "Seal of the Prophets."(33:40) - though many have thankfully sought to address what it means to be the "Seal of the Prophets?" ...and noted that it means many things but one thing it does not mean is that Allah will never send guidance for a long time afterward.

There was no general agreement among early Muslims that the phrase 'Seal of the Prophets' meant that there would be no prophets after Muhammad - for it is thought that the doctrine of Muhammad being the final prophet was adopted as official Islamic doctrine in the early years of the 4th Islamic century(late 10th century AD) mainly as a counter to the numerous revolts that had occurred and were still occurring against the caliphate in the name of various persons claiming to be prophets.

Technically, the word 'Seal'(khatam) can mean ornament, signet ring or a seal ring which is worn (like to seal a document) - and as many Muslims have noted, the phrase 'Seal of the Prophets' means Allah giving Muhammad his seal of approval or regarding Muhammad as an ornament among the prophets of Allah. Additionally, some commentators also state that khatam an-nabiyyin means the 'Sealer of the Prophets' in the sense that Muhammad is the one who gives the seal of approval to the proceeding prophets.......something that directly goes in support of Isa (Jesus) being the Messiah since even Muhammad - exposed to it when seeing Christianity in His time - noted others needed to follow Him. For others trying to argue Muhammad was saying he was the final prophet, He did not say at any point he is the Final Messenger, which the Quran makes a clear distinction between (nabi and rasul).

The reality of partial truth being revealed even if/when the Quran is inconsistent on various parts because of incomplete information...

Many Muslims/others from Muslim background have noted this when sharing plainly on the ways Isa was always meant to be superior to Muhammad - with many noting that others need to follow what Christians have noted when it comes to acknowledging that the Messiah is truly the Son of God sent to redeem mankind....even though their brothers/sisters may've not had the best understanding on all points. For them, During the daily salat, they refrain from saying the shahadah unless they omit the second phrase, "and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah" and instead insert "and Isa (Jesus) is the Eternal Word of Allah" or "and Isa (Jesus) is the Sovereign Lord." They acknowledge that only the Bible is the Word of God and that the Qur'an, while containing beautiful Arabic and important insights into Arab culture, has no authority over the Bible.

Additionally, they note how in the Qur'an, Jesus is greater than Muhammad...evidenced by how Jesus' titles in the Qur'an are greater - noting several honorary titles such as titles of Messiah, the Word of God, the Spirit of God (Sura 4:169-71), the Speech of Truth (Sura 19:34-35), a Sign unto Men, and Mercy from God (Sura 19:21). For even in the Qur'an, Jesus lived a life that is much more extraordinary than Muhammad. Jesus' miracles in the Qur'an are greater, for the Qur'an affirms several miraculous aspects of Christ's life....such as the virgin birth of Christ (Sura 19:16-21; 3:37-45)....that Christ performed miracles (Sura 3:37-45; 43: 63-65)....the prophethood of Christ (19:29-31)...and it also affirms that Christ did not die but was raised up to heaven by God (4:158; 19:33) - for that which is LIFE ITSELF cannot be conquered by death - while in contrast, according to the Qur'an, there is very little, if anything, supernatural regarding the life of Muhammad. .

And since this is evident in the Qur'an, it is wise for all Muslims to study the life of Jesus in the Bible. For not only is the Bible an accurate historical record, but it is a text that Muhammad encouraged Muslims to study (Sura 10:94; 2:136; 4:163; 5:56; 5:68; 35:31). Muhammad believed the Bible in the sixth century AD was accurate - but we have many ancient New Testaments that predate the sixth century.

And again, as it concerns what the Qu'ran says about Christ:

And here's a list of explaining that Jesus is God from the Quran:

1) Qur'an states only Allah can speak in parables (Surah 24:35; Surah 14:25). Jesus speaks in parables in the Bible that no other prophet ever told (Matthew 13:34, 35; Psalms 78:2; Isaiah 6:9, 10).

2) Qur'an says that only Allah will return on the clouds on the Last Day (Surah 2:210). The Bible says that Jesus will return on the clouds quite often (Revelation 1:7; Mark 13:26; Acts 1:9-11; Daniel 7:13).

3) Qur'an says that only Allah will judge mankind (Surah 6:57; Surah 7:87). El-Bokhary explained that he heard from Ibn Abbas, who had heard the Prophet Mohammed saying about Christ, "The Last Day will not come until the son of Mary comes back as a fair Judge to administer justice and wipe out injustice." The Bible also says that Jesus will judge mankind (John 5:22; Romans 2:16; Jude 1:14, 15; 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalm 7:6-8; Psalm 94:1-2; Isaiah 9:6).

4) Qur'an says that only Allah can create (Surah 6:102; Surah 15:86; Surah 22:73). But the Qur'an also teaches that Jesus creates as well (Surah 3:49; Surah 5:110).

5) Qur'an says that only Allah can heal (Surah 26:80). Mohammed said in an authentic Hadith, "Oh, Allah, there is no healing but yours." Meanwhile, in the Qur'an we find Christ saying about Himself, "I heal those born blind, and the lepers" (Surah 3:49). The Bible also discusses that Messiah will heal (Matthew 9:35; Matthew 8:5-17; Mark 5:34; Exodus 15:26; Psalm 107:19-21; Isaiah 53:4-5).

6) Qur'an says that only Allah has the power over life and death (Surah 15:23; Surah 36:12; Surah 50:43). In his book Beginning and End, Ibn Kathir tells a verified story of Islam that proves Christ had the authority to give death as well as life. It is told that Christ saw a woman crying over her daughter, who had died long ago. He asked her, "What makes you cry, woman?" She said, "My daughter died and I have no more children." Christ asked her, "Would you like Me to raise her from the dead?" She said, "Yes, O Spirit of God!" So, Christ stood by the grave and called the girl three times. On the third time, the little girl came out and talked with her mother. Then the girl asked Christ to let her return. He told her, "Go back!" The grave closed and she was dead. (Beginning and End by Ibn Kathir, part 2, page 84). The Bible teaches that Jesus has power over life and death (Luke 7:13-15; Matthew 9:25; John 11:43-44; Matthew 27:52-53; Matthew 28:5-7; Revelation 1:18).

7) Qur'an teaches that only Allah is Omniscient and therefore can be Judge (Surah 27:65; Surah 6:59). But Qur'an teaches that Messiah is all-knowing (Surah 3:49). The Bible confirms this (Matthew 9:3-4; Hebrews 4:12, 13; Job 42:1, 2; Psalms 94:11).​

There are a lot of other areas where it often seems that Muslims and Christians have A LOT of misunderstanding....but as the Catholic Church and others have noted, that does not mean there is NOT commonality or that one has any bearing even trying to claim both are not worshiping God. Some may worship him with more ignorance than other, but worship is still occurring....

As another noted wisely IN A Muslim Who Loves Jesus (for brief excerpt):

Anyone who cannot value a tradition that shares with Christianity not only an emphasis on one God, Jesus, prophecy, accountability before God, resurrection, God’s concern for the poor and for social justice, mercy, and forgiveness both divine and human, must have an artificially either/or view of the universe. Obviously this does not mean I agree with everything I find in Islam, and I suspect that from their own standpoint many Muslims would object to certain views that I hold and opinions that I have expressed. Another (seemingly fair) criticism of pluralism is that it regards as unimportant precisely the distinctive features of various religious traditions. But this doesn’t help in practice, any more than it helps mutual understanding between different cultures to make a sweeping assertion that all such cultural differences are unimportant.

The differences are important. But so are the similarities. How would an exclusivist make sense of the fact that other traditions exist that share so much in common with Christianity? How would an exclusivist relate to such traditions, and what if anything suggests those particular ways of relating to these other religious are required by the Biblical witness? Let us not return to the example of Paul calling people to reject the worship of idols and sexual immorality and experience salvation in Jesus. We know he did that. But what is the relevant evidence when considering how he related (or might have related) to an individual or a tradition that emphasized one God, righteous and merciful, who demands our submission and will hold us accountable for our actions?

We know the answer to this question.

We know the answer to this question. Once again, I find myself drawn back to Romans 2, where Paul claims that those who have received divine revelation through Scripture and are part of the people of God, but do not follow its teachings, are further from God than those who have only God’s general revelation and respond to it positively. Paul states this as clearly as one could hope.
To turn around and claim that people who bear the moniker “Christians” (and perhaps even assent to the historic creeds) and fill the world with hate have an advantage over those who bear other labels but stand for love for God and neighbor is to betray what Paul stood for, and more importantly, what Jesus himself taught.

I think now we’ve found the crux of the matter. Is it what one believes about God and Jesus that saves a person, or their attitude towards God and Jesus, and putting into practice of what they have understood about right and wrong, good and evil? On the one hand, other religious traditions have different views of Jesus. On the other hand, some Christians twist the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament to mean something other than they do. For instance, conservative Evangelicals teach kids that the story of the wise and foolish builders is about “building your life on the Lord Jesus Christ“, whereas in Matthew 7:21-27 the point is about hearing Jesus’ words and putting them into practice. He even says that there will be individuals who call him Lord who will be cast out as evildoers.​

God already said (John 4) the same dynamic was present with the Samaritans when they were worshiping what they did not know (meaning they worshiped without having full understanding of what was present/what their faith was pointing to and hoping for in light of the coming of the Messiah) while the Jews worshiped what they knew/were aware of (even though they needed more awareness given to them of how what they knew they were given by God was going to be needing update) - yet the Lord needed worshipers who'd worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. It really is not difficult in the slightest to examine the documentation from the Bible and the Quran that Jesus Christ is God ..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

She didn't say "we believe the same things about God." The fact that Christians and Muslims believe different things about God wouldn't invalidate her statement. That we disagree about Gods nature doesn't imply that we are not talking about the same God. If a person with vision problems pointed at a guy named John Doe and said; "John Doe right there is 6 ft tall and has blue eyes", and another person says; "No, that person, John Doe, is actually 5 ft 10 and has green eyes," that wouldn't imply that the two people are talking about a different John Doe. They merely disagree about his attributes. Same thing with Muslims and Christians regarding the God and creator of the universe.

There was an interesting documentary on the issue you pointed out, as it concerns the ways that believers in Indonesia have the same dialogue happening here in the U.S. and yet have differing results..

​

The issue with others worshiping God can really be found directly within the practice of St. Paul and others who did the same. Within Acts 17:3, Paul identifies the altar "to an unknown god" as a groping after God, and says, "What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you" (vs. 23). Paul goes on to cite several Greek poets as pointers to the truth found in the gospel. Of course, Paul never suggested that the religious perspectives he found in Athens were sufficient to bring about the true and complete knowledge of God. They are pointers to the truth, not the truth itself. Their value for Paul lies in their capacity to point people to the gospel of Christ. Yet in this capacity, they have real value. Paul's sermon illustrates a broad theme found throughout Scripture. Melchizedek and Jethro, the father of Moses, stand outside the covenant community and yet are channels through whom God instructs his people.



The intersections between Islam and Christianity are truly nuanced and varied - and complicated when seeing how things have developed on both sides. The Maverick Philosopher weighed in recently on the hot topic of the day (https://t.co/EsiaynDEWJI ) and I appreciate what another noted when sharing the following:

Over at the Eclectic Orthodoxy Facebook page, one reader asked, “Suppose for a moment that everyone agreed that Christians and Muslims worship the same God (and agreed on what that meant). What then? What practical difference would it make?” Good question. My answer: “Probably not very much.” To acknowledge that Christians and Muslims worship and serve the same God is simply to say that the words “God” and “Allah” refer to the same divine reality, namely, the one transcendent Creator. It does not entail that Christians and Muslims are in perfect agreement on the divine attributes and the character of God. It does not mean that Christians and Muslims agree on the identity of Jesus of Nazareth or on the prophetic role of Muhammad. It does not mean that the differences between the two religions are inconsequential. And it certainly does not mean Christians have abandoned the claim that salvation is only found in Jesus Christ or adopted a unitarian understanding of divinity. All it says is that when a Christian prays “O God, merciful and compassionate, who art ever ready to hear the prayers of those who put their trust in thee” and a Muslim prays “Glory to Thee, O Allah, and Thine is the praise,” they are addressing the same divine Person. Ditto for third-person discussions about God.

How is it possible for “God” and “Allah” to refer to the same Deity when Christians and Muslims vigorously dispute core doctrines about him? Consider this trivial example from ordinary life. You believe that John is wicked and contemptible. I believe that he is delightful, profoundly wise, and exceptionally virtuous. Yet we both agree that the name “John” denotes the same person, despite our contradictory assessments of his character. In other words, the proper name “John” successfully refers, even though we dissent on specific descriptive statements about him.

(1) Christians and Muslims claim that “God”/”Allah” designates the one Creator of heaven and earth. (2) Christians and Muslims claim that they worship and serve the same Deity Abraham and Moses worshipped and serve. These two claims, both together and individually, are sufficient to establish referential identity. Nothing more is needed.

I was going to elaborate a bit more on reference and theological language, but fortunately three philosophers have recently shared their thoughts on this topic: “On Worshipping the Same God” by Michael Rea and “God, Allah, George Washington, and Eric Clapton” by Dale Tuggy, along with Tuggy’s follow-up piece “God, Allah, and Mistaken Identifications.” And for a philosophically sophisticated take, see “Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?” by William Vallicella.

It’s about reference, not full agreement on the doctrine of God. If you’d like to explore this topic further, I recommend that you begin with William Alston’s essay “Referring to God” in Divine Nature and Human Language.​

Also, As has been said before in the following:

​

The way i see it is Islam worships the same God as Christianity and as the Jews. Of course there are differences to how we understand and approach God.

Paul cites the "unknown God" to the Athenians as the true God and he offers to revel to them how this unknown God can be knowable. This isn't relativism making every worshipable thing as the true God just gone about the wrong way but it is keeping the redeemable values and instead of introducing something new Paul shows how God can be revealed with what they already know showing them God was always there.

With islam it is even closer. The God of islam is rooted in the God of Abraham and everyone knows this. They have the same source but they diverge. But just because they see things differently doesn't make the source different. God still stays the same even if he is worshiped differently and understood differently.

We have all heard of the elephant analogy where each man describes the elephant differently. But what about the man who can only describe the elephant from a distance and cannot experience the elephant with their senses. They never experience the elephant but know it is real. They may get a lot of the details wrong but this doesn't make the elephant they are describing as wrong it only makes the details wrong.

This doesn't make islam right but It also doesn't make God false. muslim's worship an unknowable God and because of that will never know redemption through islam but that God is the same God that we worship. we just worship him in spirit and in turth.

I like how one of my EO friends noted the issue. As said best in Do Christians and Muslims (and Jews) Worship the Same God >> Eclectic Orthodoxy...:
(for brief excerpt):

The respected theologian Miroslav Volf, who has written a book on Islam (Allah: A Christian Response), quickly accused Wheaton College of bigotry. “[Hawkins’s] suspension is not about theology and orthodoxy,” he declared in a column in theWashington Post. “It is about enmity toward Muslims.” Perhaps. Perhaps not. In any case, it’s hard to see how this accusation adds to the public debate. Yes, Americans (Christian and non-Christian alike) are now uneasy about Islam as a religion—and for understandable reasons. Donald Trump’s demagogic rhetoric discloses a fear that lies deep in the American psyche. 9/11 changed us. If Volf wishes to help Americans deal with Islam and terrorism, then he needs to constructively address these fears. He is of course quite right that the effective waging of war requires, often unjustly, the drawing of “sharp and hard boundaries”; but knowing that hardly assuages my anxiety, and it certainly does not encourage me to relax those boundaries.


Volf is more helpful on the question of God as the object of corporate adoration and service. I have not yet read his book Allah , but fortunately Volf enjoys virtual omnipresence on the web. In a 2011 interview , he shifts our attention to Judaism and restates the question: “Do Christians and Jews worship different gods?” “No,” he answers. “Jews and Christians worship the same God. They just understand God in a different way—Christians in a Trinitarian way, and Jews not.”

​

I agree. When Jesus taught his disciples to pray “Our Father who art in heaven,” he was not teaching them to pray to a different God than the God of Israel. He was revealing to them something new and fresh about that God. When after Pentecost the disciples of Jesus began to proclaim the gospel, they did not invite their Jewish hearers to convert to a different religion. They invited them, rather, to believe that in the death and resurrection of Jesus and the outpouring of the Spirit, YHWH had fulfilled, and was fulfilling, his covenantal promises.

The evangelistic mission of the Church is premised on the conviction that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the Father of Jesus Christ are identical. As the Apostle Paul confesses, in clear allusion to the Shema: “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:6). Western Christians sometimes get uneasy with the identification of the One God with God the Father; but this unease only betrays their relative ignorance of Eastern formulations of the Holy Trinity. This early patristic understanding of the Trinity has been well stated by Fr John Behr:

The Father alone is the one true God. This keeps to the structure of the New Testament language about God, where with only a few exceptions, the word “God” (theos) with an article (and so being used, in Greek, as a proper noun) is only applied to the one whom Jesus calls Father, the God spoken of in the scriptures. This same fact is preserved in all ancient creeds, which begin: “I believe in one God, the Father …”

“For us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 8:6). The proclamation of the divinity of Jesus Christ is made not so much by describing Him as “God” (theos used, in Greek, without an article is as a predicate, and so can be used of creatures; cf. John 10:34-35), but by recognizing Him as “Lord” (Kyrios). Beside being a common title (“sir”), this word had come to be used, in speech, for the unpronounceable, divine, name of God Himself, YHWH. When Paul states that God bestowed upon the crucified and risen Christ the “name above every name” (Phil 2:9), this is an affirmation that this one is all that YHWH Himself is, without being YHWH. This is again affirmed in the creeds. “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God … true God of true God.”​

..............I do not see why Jewish conviction should count in this intra-Christian debate; but it is interesting nonetheless. The great Jewish rabbi and philosopher, Moses Maimonides, regarded Christianity as simply another form of paganism: “Therefore one must know that in every one of the Christian nation’s cities which has an altar, meaning their house of worship, it is a pagan house of idolatry without any doubt.” On the other hand, he defended Islam against the charge of idolatry: “These Ishmaelites are not idol worshippers in the least, and [paganism] has been long since cut off from their mouths and their hearts, and they worship the singular God properly and without any blemish.” For this reason Jews are traditionally permitted to enter mosques and to even pray within them, but are forbidden to enter Christian churches. Yet the Rambam also permits Jews to discuss the commandments of God with Christians but not with Muslims, because, asRabbi David Novak explains, “Christians believe Hebrew Scripture in toto to be the revealed word of God, whereas Muslims believe that primary text to be the Quran; for them, Hebrew Scripture is a flawed revelation.”


.....Christians believe that God has become incarnate in Jesus Christ—Jews and Muslims do not. Christians believe that God has fully revealed himself in Jesus Christ—Jews and Muslims do not. Christians believe that God has revealed himself in “Three Persons, Father, Son and Spirit”—Jews and Muslims do not. Clearly these are important differences, yet does it logically follow that Jews and Muslims worship and serve a different God than do Christians? I think not. Volf identifies the critical point:

​

If somebody postulates the existence of more than one god, I would have to say we don’t worship the same god. If somebody says that God is basically one with the world, I would also have to say we don’t worship the same god. What binds Muslims and Christians, and what is central to my argument, is that God is one, that God is distinct from the world, and that the one God has created everything that is not God. There is a radical divide between creature and creator. This is a fundamental monotheistic belief. Muslims, Christians, and Jews share that belief. Therefore, they believe in the same God. Polytheists and idolaters do not share that belief.

Volf is exactly right. To speak of the transcendent Creator is not to speak of one of the gods; it is not to speak of a being at all. When we invoke the divine oneness, we are not numbering divinity, as if we might possibly count two, three, or more Gods. As Denys Turner astutely observes: “God’s oneness is not the oneness of mathematics, as it would be were I to say of any creaturely oneness: ‘I’ll have one pie for lunch, not two’” (Thomas Aquinas, p. 120). Christians, Jews, and Muslims together intend the infinite divinity in their doxological, confessional, and theological language (cf. Francis Beckwith’s blog article). They may vigorously disagree about Jesus Christ and the divine attributes, but their disagreements presuppose the one God, maker of heaven and earth. How could it be otherwise?


As a Christian I believe that on key points Islam tragically, even blasphemously, misrepresents the character and nature of the holy Transcendence. I see no reason to contest St John Damascene’s judgment that Muhammad was a false prophet. I deplore Islamic persecution of Christians around the world. I continue to worry whether Islam can constructively accommodate modernity and affirm genuine respect for the dignity, freedom, and rights of the individual. And I fervently believe that Muslims desperately need to hear the good news of Jesus Christ. Yet I do not deny that in its prayer and theological reflection Islam intends the same God whom Christians know and confess as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.​

I think the simpler issue to keep in mind is that there is no uniform Muslim and that's part of the battle, in light of Muslims who believe Jesus is God (alongside noting the Triune yet Unified nature of the Lord) and did so from the text of the Qu'ran alone....and thus making it the case that people claiming universally "Muslims don't believe Jesus is God" do not really deal with what Muslims have said which disagrees with them. There's a HUGE dynamic at present in many places where people have not learned to overcome fear of Muslims and deal with what they have actually said.

​

One of the most prominent voices I've seen on the issue is Professor Faouzi Arzouni’ , who grew up within Islam and has noted repeatedly what his experiences were like coming to see Isa Al Masih (more shared in Faouzi Arzouni - Qur'an-Bible Comparison )

.........................

​

Concerning the many complex dynamics with Islam (which hit home for me since I had family who grew up within Islamic sects and whom I've witnessed to a lot in helping them see Christ), there was actually an excellent article on the issue here which broke down the matter when it comes to some of the fear-based responses people have been giving a lot....

• De-mystifying ISIS and radical Islam - Anglican link

As one of my friends (who's Eastern Orthodox) reminded me on, it's essential to admit one must have a better sense of context before thinking one can interpret the text. There are different sects of Islam, just as there are of Christianity (or any other belief) and adherence to the particular understanding of these groups can alter the way the text is understood and how one acts. And for an excellent chart on the matter that breaks down a lot...

​

It's truly an on point chart when it comes to showing just how diverse the Islamic world is. And on the issue, the chart doesn't even take into account the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (which is a dynamic, fast growing international revival movement within Islam) or the camp involving Muslim Open Theists or several other camps within Islam itself not noted...including with regards to Baha’i which arose out of the Islamic worldview/camp and is considered in several places in the Muslim world to be a sect (even though this has been debated by others seeing where it has evolved into) - for as another noted:

Shi`ism as a background for the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith was born into a Shi`i environment in Iran and almost all of the early converts were from Shi`i Islam. Thus, in the same way that a number of Jewish institutions were grown up within Christianity, some of the institutions of Shi`ism were carried forward into the Baha'i Faith. Some of the teachings of the Baha'i Faith are also to be found in embryonic form in Shi`i Islam."......and "The origins of the Bahá'í religion are firmly rooted in Islam.... Bahá'ís mark the beginning of their history with the declaration of the Báb in Shiraz, Iran, on May 22, 1844.... Sayyid 'Alí-Muhammad, who later took the title of the Báb (meaning Gate), claimed to be the return of the long-awaited Qa'im, the Imám Mihdí, the Hidden Imam whose return in the flesh had been awaited for a thousand years by pious Shí'ís....The Bábí movement quickly gained a following among the scholars of the Shaykhí school within the ulema, and eventually a wider following among ordinary Muslims in Shí'í Iran. ...but the followers of the Báb were declared heretics by the orthodox Muslim clergy, persecuted and scattered.... The Báb himself was imprisoned and eventually executed in 1850"...."...."​

But I digress. The point in noting all of that is showing the fact that not all Muslims have ever seen issues universally the same and part of being honorable on the part of Christians is for us to be able to speak accurately on the issue rather than throwing wholesale condemnation on people simply for saying they associate with Muslims. This is no different than Christians saying they'd appreciate it if others would not be quick to claim that Christianity is "the White man's religion" simply because of what other Christians did in the name of it while promoting White Supremacy /using scripture improperly to do it....

And again, Christians are just as diverse as the Muslims...

​

Some of this has been discussed more in-depth elsewhere, as said here:


​

 

[dlamberth]

I realize that Muslims understand God differently and I'm certain that the Pope and the Bishops at Vatican II did as well. It's common knowledge that Muslims, much like Jews, do not consider God to be Trinitarian in nature. The Vatican statement doesn't reject the Trinity either it merely teaches that Muslims worship God not that they agree with us about all his attributes.

A practice offered to me once is to follow the three aspects of the Trinity down to where they become One. It's at that place where they meet which is where I see no difference between God as experienced in Christianity and with that of Islam.

 

[Zoness]

Odd....

Don't know where the reaction came from, as the posting itself was in regards to the issue of how experiences can shape/define what we individually see in certain things that others may not. It's an analogy I've been blessed by before. My apologies if the image took you off guard. Some religious institutions you have more grace with when knowing the boundaries or networking. The same dynamic occurs at a secular institution....

It must have been a misreading on my part. I took the bottom phrasing as something specifically targeted at me since the image was in response to my quote and had a specific directive targeted at "someone" (me? quotes and all). I misunderstood your intent, please disregard.

I guess I see you mean, I guess I have just had different experiences to lead me to believe differently.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A practice offered to me once is to follow the three aspects of the Trinity down to where they become One. It's at that place where they meet which is where I see no difference between God as experienced in Christianity and with that of Islam.

What I've seen is that the full understanding of who the Lord is (When it comes to the Trinune nature of the Lord which is simultaneously expressed in perfect unison/oneness) is that that Isa/Jesus will get His Word across. Here's one story of a believer in Christ in how he came to know the Lord:

That said, it is beautiful when seeing the ways that the Lord has worked through both Muslims and Christians to do amazing things in God's Kingdom.

​

On the issue, I was discussing this recently with another one of my good friends (who is Antiochian Orthodox and lives in PA) and found it fascinating to consider the work they have done/were doing there, prior to the war in Syria before Father Paolo Dall'Oglio was kidnapped years ago and is now considered dead. For most of its history it belonged to the Syrian Orthodox Church but was eventually deserted until Fr. Paolo came and was able to see it rebuilt/got permission to make it into a place of prayer again. Amazing that both Muslims and Christians come to this place seeking refuge and place of prayer - and the Lord works amazing miracles/grace regardless.

As said best elsewhere:

-"Mar Moussa el-Habashi is actually three different buildings. The central monastery is the oldest structure and parts of it date to the 6th Century, although the bulk is 14th Century. The two buildings to either side of the monastery, a nunnery and a visitors’ lodge respectively, are more obviously modern and were built in the years since the monastery was resurrected.

Abandoned sometime after 1830, when it changed from Syrian Orthodox to Syrian Catholic hands, Mar Moussa owes its current existence to Father Paolo Dall’Oglio, an Italian Jesuit, who first began visiting in the 1980’s when it was little more than a shell.

Determined to revive its fortunes, the Father began rebuilding in 1984, working on the site each summer until 1990, when he felt able to move in with a small community of monks, nuns and lay-helpers.

Work has continued ever since, most notably on the 14th century church murals, which were painstakingly restored over the course of 12 years by a joint Syrian-Italian team. Basking in their rich colours, it is hard to imagine that only a few years ago, the frescoes were on the verge of disappearing completely, badly damaged by the elements and overly zealous visitors, who felt compelled to scratch out the eyes or the faces of the saints in the name of religious ‘propriety’." ( http://www.singhbartlett.com/news/2014/10/14/deir-mar-musa )​

Outside of that, there's another book I am reminded of that actually covered some of the things done ....it is by William Dalrymple

Some of this was discussed more in-depth elsewhere, as seen here:

There've always been differing forms of Islam and many of them more than compatible with Christianity (more shared in #4 ). Despite the long and well-known history of conflict between Christians and Muslims, their mystical traditions--especially in the Christian East and in Sufism (more here, here, here, here, here, here , here, here, here , here, here, here and here/ here / )--have shared for centuries many of the same spiritual methods and goals....and on that, its interesting to consider how things often connect. And on the issue of connections, I'm reminded of a solid book on the issue that one can go online and look up under the name of "From the Holy Mountain: A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East" ( )

Its by William Dalrymple, who is a Catholic who went/explored the East for some time. His book traces the Eastern Orthodox congregations scattered across the Middle East from their ancient origins, reviews how they have fared under centuries of Islamic rule, and discusses the complex relationship between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity in the region. As said in the book (for an excerpt):

"
Across the length of what was once the former Ottoman Empire the twentieth century has seen, with the rise of education, self-consciousness and modern nationalism, the bloody unravelling of that complex tapestry - most recently and painfully in Bosnia, but before that in Cyprus, Palestine, Greece and Turkey. In each of these places pluralism has been replaced by a savage polarisation. In drips and drabs, and sometimes in great tragic exoduses, religious minorities have fled to places where they can be majorities, and those too few for that have fled the region altogether, seeking out places less heavy in history such as America and Australia. If the twentieth century has seen Europe change to a multicultural society, the same period has seen country after country in the Middle East change in the opposite direction, to a series of monolithic monoethnic blocks.

Only in a few places such as Syria does the old intricate patchwork survive, but in these areas the old ways can be found surviving still. Shortly after seeing Muslims coming en masse to pray in the Christian basilica at Seidnaya, I saw Christians coming to sacrifice a sheep at the shrine of a Muslim saint in the ruins of the old Byzantine city of Cyrrhus, north west of Aleppo. I was told that a Syrian Orthodox girl struck down by some apparently incurable sickness had had a dream telling her to visit the shrine of Nebi Uri at Cyrrhus. She had done so, spent the night in his shrine, and the next day had been healed.

The sheep, which was covered with flowers and ribbons like the Old Testament scapegoat, was being slaughtered as an offering.

"We believe that if you are generous and give a good sheep to fulfil your vow," said the Sufi Sheik who presided over the shrine, "then you will ride that sheep at the Day of Judgement. That sheep will carry you into Paradise."
"And the Christians believe this too?" I asked
"There is no difference between ourselves and the Christians on this matter," said the Sheik, "except that sometimes the Christians make the sign of Christ over the forehead of the person want cured."

Again and again in the Middle East I came across this extraordinary Christian-Muslim syncretism, this porousness of faith, where the ideas, practices and superstitions of one religion have trickled imperceptibly into another. But there was something else too. It wasn't just that in many places Christianity and Islam were still managing to coexist: seeing them together, and seeing the way the Eastern Christians practised their faith, brought home quite how closely the two faiths are really linked.

Today the West often views Islam as a civilisation very different from and indeed innately hostile to Christianity. Only when you travel in Christianity's Eastern homelands do you realise how closely the two are really connected, the former growing directly out of the latter and still, to this day, embodying many aspects and practices of the early Christian world now lost in Christianity's modern Western-based incarnation. When the early Byzantines were first confronted by the Prophet's armies, they assumed that Islam was merely an heretical form of Christianity, and in many ways they were not so far wrong: Islam accepts much of the Old and New Testaments and venerates both Jesus and the ancient Jewish prophets.​

For more info on what William has said, one can also go online/look up an article he did under the name of "Op-Ed Contributor - Sufis - The Muslims in the Middle - NYTimes.com"().

One of the best examples of Christian concepts expressed in Sufism can be seen in a Sufi Muslim known as Ibn Arabi, who was loved by many and hated by more. He was considered one of the greatest of all Muslim thinkers. He believed that Jesus was the Word, the Spirit and the Servant of God. Even God's mouthpiece. And as he said best, "The person who catched the disease of Christ can never be cured."

Its not a surprise to me to hear the man say that...for the Sufis have always had a particular fondness for him. The predecessors of the Sufis did have contact with the Christian Desert Fathers from whom they learned their ascetic ways....and with the Sufi Muslims, they were originally monks who lived seclusion from what they viewed as a widespread corruption of Islam. Many of them lived in intentional poverty, instead seeking nourishment spiritually and many of them were completely devoted to living according to the teachings of Jesus. The Sufis believed that to serve God was to love God, purely and simply. They rigorously expended themselves in songs and dances, in pure worship of this creator God who made them so that they could live in a love relationship with Him. As a side note, the Sufis were one of the first religious sects to recognize the equality of men and women. Women could be Sufis and also be teachers and leaders over men.


__________________

 

[seashale76]

Since we all somehow believe in the same God, I would now like to request all Jews and Muslims on this board to explicitly state that they believe and profess Christ is God and that they worship the Holy Trinity. It should be no trouble for you to do so. We all believe and worship the same God, after all. I eagerly await this moment.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It must have been a misreading on my part. I took the bottom phrasing as something specifically targeted at me since the image was in response to my quote and had a specific directive targeted at "someone" (me? quotes and all). I misunderstood your intent, please disregard.

I guess I see you mean, I guess I have just had different experiences to lead me to believe differently.

It's not a problem.

That said, where others are coming from always makes a difference. I've seen this multiple times when working with Jews noting that they have ZERO problem with the Trinity (and being Jewish myself, as shared before here/here ). It is always wild having to deal with others on all sides - be it Christians assuming one couldn't be a Jew AND believe in Christ or Jews claiming no one could be a Jew/believe in Christ and then having both of those sides go against each other while ignoring Jews in-between/Christians agreeing that Christ was divine......so it is a big deal having to come to that conclusion even when dealing with other Jews who may not believe, just as it's a big deal with Muslims coming to Christ).

Unfortunately, what can be the case is confirmation bias ..or begging the question where people already go into things looking for the negative before they even deal with anything else.

In example, You say "There are Muslims who came to faith in Christ Jesus simply reading the Qu'ran" and then people ask (in a limited environment) "Well all the Muslims here need to say they believe in Jesus as well for it to be true!!!!!!" (which is foolish since others not believing has little to do with the many communities around the world demonstrated/shared with their testimonies as well who believe in Christ and not all will be present at a location) or they ask for all Jews present to do the same while ignoring the Jews around the world disagreeing or those saying outright the concept of the Messiah being Divine is WELL within the bounds of Judaism (as Dr. Daniel Boyarin has noted often here and here and here).

If you had others who grew up Jewish and came to trust in Jesus - or others who also grew up Muslim/work with other Muslims noting Isa is the Messiah/God as seen in the Qu'ran, it does not logically follow in any way that all who are Muslim around the world automatically believe the same or that you're automatically ignoring Muslims who speak (culturally) claiming Jesus is not God or Triune.

It also does not follow logically that others saying "They don't believe in Christ" verifies that the texts in both camps actually say that Christ is neither God or that what others choose not to believe are true for all. Moreover, for those who have yet to come to understanding the Trinue concept, it has NEVR been the case that God said at ANY point in the scriptures that they were incapable of deeply understanding the Lord on any level. As stated elsewhere, there are others within the world of Orthodoxy who've noted that someone may not be Trinitarian and yet that does NOT mean that they do not believe in Christ or that they are unable to understand the Trinity.

And that's a supreme irony to me whenever others choose to say those not having a Trinue understanding are automatically cut off from God - as it's a trip seeing the fact that this debate occurring since the beginning of U.S history (as many of the Founding Fathers were Unitarian in thought, including George Washington ) and yet we in the spirit of Americanism (a heresy ) will automatically celebrate all the ways God used the Founders to impact the world ....and yet we'll also state at the same time that Muslims could never glorify God because of where many have said they do not believe in the Trinity (based on the inaccurate presentation of the Trinity that Muhammad dealt with - a presentation even Christians agree to when seeing forms of Trinitarian thought not accepted at the Councils).

• Do Unitarians Understand the Trinity? - Orthodoxy
• Belting Unitarian Evangelicalism - Orthodoxy
• Unitarianism and the Bible of the Holy Trinity- Orthodoxy
• Were the early Christians unitarians? - Orthodoxy

Ultimately, though I can see the validity of others not believing in a Trinity and yet still seeing Christ as the Messiah/God and Salvation of all, of course I believe that the Trinity is the Orthodox way to go for completion - in large part due to seeing the constant references of Jesus to the "Father" and to the "Spirit", and the record that all three were present in some way at John's baptism. Arguably during Jesus' ministry, we were actually WATCHING 2 "persons" of the Trinity operating together - i.e. the "Son" indwelled by the "Spirit". .....and other scholars in Eastern Culture (from Evangelical Christianity) such as Dr. Ravi Zacharias did an excellent job pointing that out - be it in his book Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend or other places:

Ravi Zacharias explains the Trinity
What does SON mean in son of God if its trinity by Ravi zacharias(RZIM)
​

Nonetheless, although advocating the Trinitarian view as the most consistent for understanding God, that does not mean that all who have yet to fully understand the concept of God as Triune in nature are automatically against Christ Jesus Himself. Some of this was also discussed more in-depth as seen elsewhere back in the day when other Messianic Jews/Jewish Christians were discussing among themselves:

But did not Tertullian in the 1-2nd century state that the majority of believers in his time favored the Modalist view of the oneness of God? Against Praxeas And it was Epiphanius who stated in the 3rd century how many modalists there still were around in Mesopotamia and Rome. Sabellius was the founder of Modalism.

So, I disagree that the notion of oneness/Sabellism/modalism was 'worlds away' from the early believers. It was the very thing that brought them to the coucil of Nicea.

Modalism differs from unitarianism in that it believes Jesus is fully God.

However, I do agree with you book recomendation. I have enjoyed reading Geza Vermes dead sea scrolls book.

Modalism is an interesting concept to tackle....particularly when it comes to the sheer complexity of the Lord. Although I personally feel that there've been some excellent discussions in sharing how some forms of Modalsim are indeed logical/Biblical (as seen here and here), there has been so much baggage that goes with terms because of how they were not seen favorably in one point in history - and we, divorced from the actual environment in those times, can react even when people may have the same heart to honor the Lord - and yet we assume they don't want to because they speak differently than us....the eternal battle that seems to always occur with Non-Trinitarians and Trinitarians and the battles each camp does with one another - as well as within their own camps when addressing variations that don't reflect the Messiah

I'm reminded of what occurred for many in Oneness Pentecostalism. Having friends that're Oneness Pentecostals since I grew up with that, there were (and still are alot of variations) and langauge issues--and it seems that issue is being discussed more so within the body and there's a lot of mutual dialouge going on as to how often misunderstandings occur even when there's similarity. In example, T.D Jakes (who came from a Oneness Pentecostalism background) actually shared in depth with many notable teachers/preachers who had a Trinitarian background and shared on his reasons for how the Trinity can be misunderstood ( more shared here, here, here, here, here and here ). As James McDonald said, "I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might. His [Jakes's] website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations."


Personally, although I can see the validity of others not believing in a Trinity and yet still seeing Christ as the Messiah/God, I Believe in the Trinity - MOSTLY because of the constant references of Jesus to the "Father" and to the "Spirit", and the record that all three were present in some way at John's baptism. Arguably during Jesus' ministry, we were actually WATCHING 2 "persons" of the Trinity operating together - i.e. the "Son" indwelled by the "Spirit".

Although I can more than see the logic in a Trinitarian viewpoint, I'm not really dogmatic about it. I think it is a system of thought which can make alot of sense on who the Lord is--especially when it comes to references on things such as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit operating,. However, I think we need to be careful when we include or exclude people from the kingdom. If you deny that Jesus is Lord/God, that is clear as the Bible speaks plainly to that. The relationship of the Father to the Son to the Spirit? That is not as clear in the Bible, IMHO...

And when it comes to the concept of differing modes or manifestations, many have felt that it is no different than the concept of the Trinity where God is in 3 persons, same essence and yet differing emphasis...like a SINGLE individual having a conscious mind - and then having a sub-conscious mind/thoughts (still them - but with deeper ideas discussed which even the conscious mind is unaware of) and then having a soul/spirit. .....or for another analogy, imagining how H2Othat takes on multiple forms (i.e. ice, steam, liquid, etc).

Of course, saying that the Trinity is like the 3 forms of water really doesn’t help explain things 100% because the water can’t be all three parts at once (at least not for long). And yet, the Bible states that God is that way. How this can be is never explained, so we’re not asked to understand it. We’re just asked to believe it.

It's the concept the early church understood when it came to MYSTERY:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy+3:16&version=NIV

​

God's Personhood is always essential since it shows that there's Diversity within the HEavenlies and that Diversity is what makes it possible for Man to be Diverse, be it within Himself (soul, spirit, mind, body, etc) or with others...especially concerning the realm of family when it comes to that central unity. A lot of people have a problem with the concept of the Trinity working together---but there's no reason to, IMHO. I think one concept that should be considered is the concept of subordinationism.

As another believer wisely noted best here /here (for brief excerpt):

The orthodox idea of the Trinity, as established in the early councils and creeds during the fourth century, is that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit are simultaneously three distinct beings, and all the same being, none subserviant to another, all three with complete equality and a single will. Until recently subordinationism was also considered a heresy of the trinity. It is only within the last few decades that the idea of hierarchy within the trinity has been promoted by complementarians within evangelical circles. Their teaching “equal in being, unequal in role” states that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father..Most of my understanding of the trinity is from John 14-17. The 3 are too distinct to not be acknowledged in being, yet too interrelated and united to be completely dissected. The Spirit is both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Jesus is the Son, yet He is the being of God in flesh. God is the Father, yet he chooses to reveal Himself in Flesh and in Spirit. It is all beyond my understanding, yet a real part of fully knowing God through my relationship with Him. I am united with the Father and Jesus through the Spirit living in me, revealing to me the Father’s love and His will. By the Spirit, I am in Christ and He is in me, and usually, I don’t try to separate it all out.
​

Since Islam was considered a heresy within the Early Church - and it was NOT the case that those who were heretics were automatically considered unsaved (although it was clear that they were on shaky ground/not as safe as those in Orthodoxy), Muslims by default can also be included in that territory today and many have noted this when they came to Christ. They pointed out plainly where Christ revealed Himself to them in dreams and revealed to them how they were truly seeking Him and He brought them into fullness.

Those wishing to set up artificial boundaries rather than dealing with others where they are will always either the false scenarios or try to pigeon-hole any not fitting into the binary system of thought they have developed. I really couldn't care less about Muslims or Jews in when they say they do not believe Christ Jesus God - or, for that matter, any Christian reacting by not actually reading the actual text of the Qu'ran or addressing Muslims/Jews around the world saying the concept of Triune nature is not opposite (as those refusing to deal with the issue were already intellectually dishonest by avoiding what disagreed with them in order to try making their case). It is not as simple as people try to make it out to be.

Within this thread, if you are someone who grew up Muslim and came to know Isa/Jesus and place faith in Him, the thread is dedicated to them since they often seem marginalized by both Muslims/Christians alike ignorant of the fullness of what happens in theological circles. Not all Muslims are the same and Christ is the way to salvation - but if others are bent on not listening, then that's their choice. As you noted, those having differing experiences will always be prone to believe differently. But what's in the text is in the text and no one has to await any Muslims here or Jews here (especially if they are ones having a history of being antagonistic toward anything Christian and vice-versa) for the issue to be true with Christians and Muslims who've noted Christ together. It's that simple....

For anyone seriously wanting reference:

• Muslims ‘See’ Jesus & Follow Amid Risk
• muslims coming to Christ
  
• Muslims, Christian and Jews at the Table
  
• Nomad 91: Dave Andrews - The Jihad of Jesus
• A Muslim Saved My Life with Don McCurry
• Islamophobia in the Church: The Jonah Syndrome
  
• Can You Be a Muslim and a Follower of Jesus? – Part 1
• Can You Be a Muslim and a Follower of Jesus? – Part 2
• Can You Be a Muslim and a Follower of Jesus? - Part 1
  
• Can You Be a Muslims and a Follower of Jesus? - Part 2
  
• Is the God of Muhammed the Father of Jesus? - Part 1
  
• Is the God of Muhammed the Father of Jesus? - Part 2
  PLAY
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Is the God of Muhammed the Father of Jesus? – Part 1
  
• Is the God of Muhammed the Father of Jesus? – Part 2
• Sufism: The Hunger for God in Islam with Dave Cashin
  
• The Optimistic Muslim – Dealing With The Reality Of Jesus
• Understanding Muslim Worldview with Dr. Jerry Rankin
  
• Answering Muslim Objections to Christianity with Dr. Daniel Janosik

Jesus is our salvation!
​

Going back to what occurred with the Wheaton Professor, many ended up taking her WAY out of context. As said best elsewhere:

But she was not making a theological statement; she was living a theological statement about God’s love for all people, and about what it means to stand in solidarity with others.

In a world filled with fear it’s important to note the nuance.

Wheaton appears on the surface to be responding to perceived lose of distinctive Christian identity – certainly a valid concern. They were afraid; and so they hunkered down, redoubled efforts, and drew their lines. They hijacked a story about Christian witness and made it into a story about Christian theology. ​

And as it concerns Christians actively working with Muslims, there are many beautiful examples I'm thankful for - as shared before here:

By Ahmed Rehab:

This was the singlemost moving moment I have ever experienced in my career combatting Islamophobia. A profound moment in contemporary American history, ironically nestled away from onlookers by an elevator bank, a moment that I wish all Americans could have seen, but not many people were ever going to know even happened.

Well, not if I can help it:

There they were as I passed by after a press conference, a group of Christian pastors huddled around her, immersed in emotional prayer, one after another, embracing, sobbing.

And there she stood, still in her headscarf in the middle, a sort of meditative Madonna figure, a Rosa Parks, standing silently but defiantly, emotional but resolute, eyes closed, fists clenched, soaking in the prayers, caught between the Christian faith she loves, the college she reveres, and the Muslim people she has decided to risk all to singularly stand up for.

Not a Muslim in sight (well other than Gerald and then me), no cameras in sight. She and this horde of Christian faithful were not standing there to impress us Muslims, or to posture for the publicity cameras; neither of whom were there. They stood behind closed doors with a glass window that allowed me the fortune of chance witness, in a private hallway by the elevators. They were there because they believe in standing up for what's right period, calling on God to give their sister strength.

The sister, professor Larycia Hawkins, was suspended by Wheaton College from her job as a popular tenured professor for donning the hijab in solidarity with Muslims whom she saw were facing an onslaught of bigotry... and for declaring that Muslims worship the same God Christians do. She had just reiterated at an earlier press conference, flanked by these clegy men and women who flocked to support her, that she sticks to her Christian faith, but that she will also continue to stick to her act of solidarity and love for Muslims. Weighed down by the suspension, by her mom not doing well, by a prodding media frenzy she is loathe to entertain, she marches on as a defiant voice of resilience in a cacophony of contemporary Islamophobic rhetoric, expressions, and attacks.

I joined the huddle. I joined their prayer. At the first onset of silence, I asked if I could give a Muslim prayer. Please do, they said... "O God, Allah, bless our Christian neighbors and friends. Give them strength in their courage. And give ME the courage to one day be like THEM."

A surprised and emotional professor came to embrace me afterwards, "Thanks for being here for me and for that prayer, it means so much to me that you came," she said. I had never felt more embarrassed. "Are you kidding me? Thank YOU for being there for all of us!" I said.

This is the other America. This is the other Christianity. It's here. But it is under attack too. It stands strong and resolute for us; with us, and without us - when we are not there.​

What a beautiful person.

Wow...

That is indeed beautiful to see what they did. In the same way there was a wall of Muslims that was made to protect the Christians during protests...and other similar moments Muslims came through for Christians - and vice versa, as it concerns the Copts..

• Egypt Muslims form human shields at churches

.......

​

 

[AionPhanes]

Delete

 

[AionPhanes]

Since we all somehow believe in the same God, I would now like to request all Jews and Muslims on this board to explicitly state that they believe and profess Christ is God and that they worship the Holy Trinity. It should be no trouble for you to do so. We all believe and worship the same God, after all. I eagerly await this moment.

Christ isn't the only person of the Godhead. Muslims and Jews could worship the One we call the Father and yet reject the Trinitarian nature of God or Incarnation. They would then disagree with us about the nature of God while still worshiping God.

 

[LoAmmi]

Since we all somehow believe in the same God, I would now like to request all Jews and Muslims on this board to explicitly state that they believe and profess Christ is God and that they worship the Holy Trinity. It should be no trouble for you to do so. We all believe and worship the same God, after all. I eagerly await this moment.

More simply, I give Christians the benefit of the doubt in that they are attempting to worship HaShem, they are simply in error about His nature. I do not believe Christians are attempting to worship another deity like a Hindu is, but rather that they are mistaken. Muslims are closer to the way we view HaShem, they just have mixed up messages.

 

[DamianWarS]

This is really an issue about if we worship the same God or not (clearly Wheaton thinks we do not) and there are a few other current threads going right now with a similar topic. To me this is an issue of the heart rather than a theological issue. Theologically speaking God and Allah are different if we are to look at their characteristics that are revealed to us through the Bible/Quran. Soteriologically speaking we are different and salvation cannot be obtain by following the teachings of Islam/Quran but instead it is only through Christ.

That part is clear yet there are many Muslims worshiping and following Christ in countries that persecute them for this that continue to call themselves Muslim and continue to worship Allah and continue to answer the call to prayer. They are not on the fence on who they worship but rather to them they have always worshiped the one true God with all their heart, soul and mind they just now do it in truth rather than blindly. When I see a true follower of Jesus say these things I have no right to argue.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Christ isn't the only person of the Godhead. Muslims and Jews could worship the One we call the Father and yet reject the Trinitarian nature of God or Incarnation. They would then disagree with us about the nature of God while still worshiping God.

That seems somewhat Partialist, which makes me uncomfortable; because according to Trinitarian dogma one cannot separate one Hypostasis from another, to worship the Father is to worship the Son and the Holy Spirit. Perichoresis and all that.

I would say that, yes, Jews and Muslims worship God--they worship the same God and Holy Trinity we worship--they just do not believe those things about Him we do, most notably that God is Holy Trinity.

-CryptoLutheran