Tags
In my initial response to Mushtaq, I have explained why the whole methodology he is following is fatally flawed. Christ wrote no book, He is the Word, and He founded a Church, and that Church is the body which established both the nature of the NT and of the Trinity: the two go together, and to use to book to disprove the doctrine is pointless, as that is to misread the book.
Nonetheless, let us deal, patiently and with prayerfulness, with the points raised by Mushtaq. His full text can here found on the special page ‘Dialogue with a Muslim’.
Mushtaq asks why none of the prophets nor Jesus used the words ‘Three’ or ‘Trinity’ or ‘Triune’. This is explained in my post here ‘Dialogue with a Muslim’. Jesus established a Church which used these words. It did not, as Mushtaq implies, simply stumble across them in the fourth century. Jesus Himself told His followers to:
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
It is from here, as well as many other NT passages that the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, drew its doctrine of the Trinity. See, for example, what the Blessed Apostle John writes:
“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God… God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him… By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. / And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. / God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God.”
Here too, there are “Three”. To state that the word ‘Trinity’ is not used, is correct, but to state that the concept of the three, and the Father, Son and the Spirit are not taught in Sacred Scripture is to err. To say that such passages are anything to do with the ‘Royal we’ is to err.
It is to deny the prophetic witness of the Beloved Apostle. John here:
Who is it that conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth.
Who can dare say that the Book canonised by the Church founded by Christ does not bear witness that He is the Son of God, and that the Spirit does not so testify? Who can say that Christ and the Father are not one in the face of the words of St John at the beginning of his magnificent Gospel:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
So, no, Mushtaq, you have not shown that the Book canonised by the Church founded by Christ, does not speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or that it does not use the figure of three when it describes God; neither have you shown it is anything to do with the Royal Plural. These are but attempts to avoid the Truth taught from the beginning, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself told His disciples to baptise in those names.
So, in the face of this, for Mushtaq to quote from Old Testament prophets, who had not been enlightened, is as useless as to quote from the Koran. The prophets of old Israel had not had the full enlightenment given to John and the Apostles; the prophet of Islam had even less enlightenment as he turned away from what had been revealed to mankind through Christ and His Church.
All Along the Watchtower 
Although an incomplete analogy can be drawn from a common occurrence in nature it does illustrate the consistency of the concept that seems such a mystery: that of the butterfly. First the being of butterfly is recognized and understood as having the nature of a caterpillar or worm. If we named this animal Bill we would speak of his personhood (his uniqueness) among others with the same nature. But through the natural transformation of the species, this wormlike creature morphs into a an animal (the same entity that we have called Bill) into an animal with a nature that is of the butterfly: a flying insect without any resemblance in nature to its previous state. The essence of this animal has not changed: it is still the same animal but it has shed its initial nature or essence into one quite different. The ‘what’ of a butterfly is different to every eye from the pupa from which it developed over time. The ‘oneness’ of Bill has not changed: it is the same being.
Though in the case with God, we see that it is the nature of God that He possesses 3 persons (the ‘who’ which is identified as the One God in three persons) and that the second person has assumed a 2nd nature without relinquishing the first. So Christ is a single person with 2 natures and that God is a single entity that cannot be separated from the others but operates in 3 persons (a mystery that is far more remarkable than the analogy of the butterfly). Thus we share with God a common nature that allows us to have commonality in the image and nature of God and restores that Divine connection lost by our original natural parents: Adam and Eve.
So the concept of the possession of more than one nature or the possession of more than one person in a single entity is not beyond our meager and limited scope of human conception. It is mysterious to say the least but then so is the natural order than God has produced in this world that abounds in mystery as well.
LikeLike
Thank you, dear friend.
Yes, it is hard to get any analogies here, isn’t it? But I think, and hope to show in a future post, that for Mushtaq to claim that the Father is ‘complete God’ is at the root of his error. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, and together they make up the completeness of the Godhead.
LikeLike
Indeed it difficult to relay the ineffable mystery of God to those who have not a mind of Faith for the acceptance of these things. I hope you find a way to reach Mushtaq as he does seem to be cordial and willing to speak: though I have not noticed his return from the first posts.
LikeLike
I hope so, too my friend.
He has just responded to the first of my posts today promising a full reply in due course.
LikeLike
Well that might prove to be interesting. I have to hand it to you, my friend, for taking on such an ambitious project.
LikeLike
Thank you. It was difficult to know quite how to proceed. Mushtaq’s answers were very full, but to expect people to look in the comboxes would have been fruitless, so I hope that putting them on their own page, with links back to the main blog, might work. We shall see 🙂 x
LikeLike
I certainly wish you well in this endeavor to explain our understanding to one who is outside the Christian culture. 🙂 x
LikeLike
Well, as I haven’t fared too well with Bosco and Spook, who can say 🙂 x
LikeLike
All we can do, is keep trying. Success will come if it is God’s Will and the Holy Spirit deems it fit to change the minds and hearts of those we speak to. 🙂
LikeLike
I agree, dear friend. We are but vessels in His hands, and I can only hope that His Spirit will supply what my poor hands fail to provide 🙂
LikeLike
Well hopefully the Holy Spirit will guide you as to what is necessary to get the process started. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, I can only hope so 🙂 x
LikeLike
Another splendid post Jess. I remember a lecture I went to by Rabbi Reuven Firestone a few years back – I can’t find that recording, but here’s one that is similar: http://fora.tv/2008/09/18/An_Introduction_to_Islam_for_Jews
LikeLike
Thank you, Struans, I will look at it with great interest.
I am grateful for your good opinion – as always 🙂 x
LikeLike
Greetings Mushtaq, in the name of the blessed Jesus may the peace of God rest upon you. As I make a response I will place your topic numbers appropriately.
5) Early Church Fathers
You are probably aware various branches of Christians take different approaches in establishing the reliability of their beliefs. This also applies to the concept of the trinity. For some the fact their church tradition has established a concept as truth is adequate for them. I will return to this approach later.
1) Don’t say three
Apostles Write of Father, Son and Spirit as God
Ignatius 70 – 110 AD a bishop at Antioch who new the apostles well referred to the ‘Triad’ of God.
Irenaeus 175 – 195 AD a bishop of Lyons, France spoke of “The Son and Spirit as God’s two hands”
Tertullian 220AD was first to use the term ‘Trinity’
We could also frame the Biblical revelation by speaking of the ONE God as existing in THREE ‘personal modes of being’.
Oneness and threeness can also be expressed mathematically without contradiction or illogicality. Consider a cube it has 1 height + 1 width + 1depth 1+1+1 = 3 dimensions but 1x1x1 = 1 cube.
There are many things in nature that are one which we experience in three The sun as a heavenly body, as light, as heat it all in its totality both one and three at the same time. Should we be surprised that we see in nature a reflection of it creator.
1a) Then don’t say two!
Many Islamic scholars claim that the Quran is an eternal book in heaven written in Arabic. This is deemed essential as there was never a time when Allah was without his word. But this is a great difficulty for Islam it presents two eternal entities God and his eternal written word; whereas Christianity has only one eternal entity the one God who exists in three personal modes. Jesus before His birth existed eternally as the Word of God begotten from the heart of the Father.
6) Truth is established from holly books – which was what the Fathers of the church did!
However for a Muslim I am of the opinion that to establish a concept as truth from the original Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostolic scriptures would be far more convincing for you. This is what the notes I sent you pursue. It is not that I object to the concepts of the fathers of the Christian church but that I personally return to the same source material used by them in establishing the truth of the ‘trinity’ concept. This does open up another line of enquiry which is that of the evidence for the authenticity of the Christian scriptures. I am aware of the Islamic contention that they have been altered but consider your case totally without grounds.
The facts are clear that the original Christian scriptures penned by the apostles and their intimate associates reveal that there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
The categories of scriptural evidence for the three modes of God need to be searched out throughout scripture and some of these are given below being the majority of the contents page of my notes (previously sent), which supply many more texts.
(A mode is a way of being as H20 is one molecule but has three ways of existing as that molecule steam, water and ice)
The Name of God in the Old & New Testaments
THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST
The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament
God Has an Image or Likeness
Old Testament Appearances of God (frequently in the image of a man) Gen. 16:7-13, 17:1-3, 18: 1-3, 13, 17, 20-26, 33, 19:I, 24-27. 32: 24-30, Hosea 12:2-5; Exodus 3:2-6, 7, 11-18; Numbers 22:21-35; Joshua 5:13-15 & 6:1-2; Judges 6:11-24; 13:3 & 18-22; Isaiah 6:1
Jesus Is The Angel of The LORD
Titles of Yahweh Ascribed To Jesus
Divine Offices of Yahweh Ascribed To Jesus: Father, Creator, Saviour, Judge, Redeemer
Divine Characteristics of Yahweh Ascribed To Jesus
The Works or Activities of Yahweh Are Ascribed To Jesus
Texts About Yahweh Ascribed To Jesus
Spiritual Service Is Exclusively For Yahweh, But Is Rendered To Jesus
Christ, The Messiah is Identified as God in The Old Testament
Old Testament Worship to Christ (Jesus) Implies That He is God
They Will Look on ‘Me’ (i.e. in context ‘Me’ is God) Whom They Have Pierced – who was pierced?
Jesus Taught His Disciples What ALL The OT Scriptures Said About Himself
The Deity of Jesus in the New Testament
Jesus Personal Claims to Deity (I Am = Yahweh) – Jesus Is God & He is Called God – Jesus Is Lord – ‘Greek Kurios’
Divine Titles of Jesus
Jesus is declared to be The Son of God by God, by His enemies, Jewish leaders accused Jesus of blasphemy for claiming equality with God/Son of God
Worship is given to Jesus
Divine Characteristics Are Ascribed to Jesus
The Blood of God
The Deity & Personality of The Holy Spirit
The Trinitarian Formula
The Rock – an extended study of just one of Yahweh’s titles that is ascribed to Jesus
Verses Not In The Original Text Historical Contributors to Trinitarian Understanding & Current Foes of Trinitarianism
7) Unitarians
You have questioned this by reference to Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs). Such sects have always been an extreme minority just as there are unorthodox Islamic sects. They did not stem from the most eminent scholarship and the JWs have added words to the holly books that are nowhere found in the original text in order to make their case and hide this fact from their followers. JW will not / cannot substantiate the scholarship behind their New World Translation of the Bible. They cannot provide the translators names or qualifications. Try as I may I cannot get them to continue in dialogue with me when I present them with evidence of their faulty translations and request this information.
2) Majestic plural is not proof of Triune God
Here no doubt you are referring to the Old Testament name for God Elohim which is a plural form. You are correct it is not a proof it is only an indication that there may be something more about the nature of God than solitariness. The creation text that refer to GOD (Elohim) creating man however give further suggestion and evidence of something more that a solitary ‘Oneness’ of GOD. We read “Let us (plural) make man in our (plural) image (singular)”. Notice there is a plurality in the creation but a singularity of image – who is this image of God in which man is created? In the New Testament further revelation informs us that “Jesus is the image of the invisible God”.
Mushtaq the weakness in your case is that you have picked out just a few scriptural facts and texts. However to establish scriptural truth you need to harmonise the whole Biblical scripture and accept its teaching.
Metaphors of God are not proof of Triune God
Again you are correct when you speak of metaphors but it is a different matter when the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles speak of the appearances of GOD as a man and when the apostles attribute to Jesus the functions that belong solely to GOD (See appropriate scriptural categories above and in my notes)
4) Why does the Old Testament not teach the three – why is it insistent upon the one?
You ask why the three of God is not directly spoken of in the Old Testament (the scriptures of the Jews). I would compare this with the ‘abrogation’ in the Islamic tradition of scriptural understanding. This being the standard means of interpreting the Quran. If a revelation given to the prophet Mohamed changed an earlier revelation then the latter revelation is the superior.
When considering the concept of ‘trinity’ the facts are similar the New Testament trinity theeness concept is not an abrogation of the Old Testament Oneness concept but a development and clarification of that oneness as the unity of the tree modes of the one God. What the Old Testament implies the New Testament makes specific.
The nations of old had many Gods they were polytheistic and the Lord had to establish the truth of Hid Oneness before he could reveal That He was One in Three modes.
The church arrived at this understanding by careful consideration of the whole of scripture and you may confirm it by your own study.
5) Early Church Fathers
To return to the value of church ‘tradition’; the church from the beginning taught that Father, Son and Spirit were each divine and personal. The formulation of statements of doctrine in technical terms to describe this became necessary in the face of heretical teaching originated by the heretic Arius who was only a church presbyter. One means tradition was to appeal to the collective opinion of the leaders of the churches that were established by the apostles, which leaders could trace their succession from the original apostles. This means provides a double check as it were on the understanding of the apostolic scriptures and teaching.
I do not think such a means provides absolute proof but it is strong evidence and the earlier the closer in time the statement by these fathers is to the time of the apostles the greater the likelihood of their reliability. It is in this manner that I consider and value church tradition.
LikeLike
Rob – excellent. Would you like this to also be a post? It is certainly good enough 🙂 x
LikeLike
Jess you can do what you think best I just want it to get to Mushtaq and any other Muslims who may read it.
LikeLike
Ok. I will leave it here, but also make a post of it for you :). I think it an important contribution.
LikeLike
Thanks
LikeLike
Would you like it to go up now, I have it ready?
LikeLike
That’s fine Jess Thanks
LikeLike
It was well worth a post in itself Rob – I loved it.
I hope that together we can show our friend Mushtaq why we believe as we do 🙂
LikeLike
Rob, I have just put it up here:
https://jessicahof.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/rob-responds-to-mushtaq/
LikeLike
Long post otta be against the law.
LikeLike
I put it into a post here
https://jessicahof.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/rob-responds-to-mushtaq/
Bosco.
LikeLike
Do you mean Sharia Law
LikeLike
Thank you Rob! I am waiting for the answer of remaining summary points 8~11. When you will have completed it, we shall have a nice exchange of ideas. Be Happy! We shall have a very great dialogue! I appreciate your efforts in replying Summary # 1 of my dialogue with Madam Jessica.
LikeLike
Good sister Jess, please dont discourage good brother Mustafa or whatever. Dont kee[ telling him Jesus started a church and then hint that it is the dreadful CC. The CC give chrisianity a bad name.Jesus didnt found a church anyway. he is the church. And if, if, if, jesus ever endorsed a church, it wouldnt be that graven image stuffed CC. You can take that to the bank
LikeLike
Bosco, I am simply saying what Jesus said. He founded a church. We can argue over which one it is, but not that He did 🙂
LikeLike
Muslims know what they see. the CC beats its drum the loudest. They think of christianity as catholicism. And they dont want any part of it. Part of their history that they teach their kids is how the devilish CC attacked them and ruthlessly slew them. They know the business end of the CC. The tip of a sword.
LikeLike
If that is what they teach they miss out some important facts Bosco. The Crusades were a response to Muslim conquests of the Holy Land and Egypt. Trying to recover what was stolen from you is surely natural?
LikeLike
Nations may be engaged in war the power of government has been allotted to them by God – but I do not think it should be the pursuit of the church of Christ. I think the crusades are not a subject for brief comments in a post designed for Muslims. I hope you do not think I am being too pushy here Jess.
LikeLike
Not at all Rob, and I should not have mentioned it but fir Bosco’s comment. It is important, though, that we do not hide historical facts about which some of our Muslim friends are not always well informed.
LikeLike
I’m aware that Bosco comments led to an unhelpful chain. My concern is that such a topic require more than brief comments as it is extremely sensitive and I think various people here would handle the topic in different ways.
LikeLike
I agree, Rob
LikeLike
I wasnt aware the vatican owned egypt and israel. God took it from the hebrews for idolatry. Their land was full of idols and clowns bowing befor them. And they angered god by worshiping a queen of heaven. The world know now that god hates making and bowing befor idols because they all know god dispersed them just for that simple reason. Even athiests know that much. Israel belongs to god, not the Vatican.
LikeLike
Bosco, I can’t work out if you are being silly or just don’t know stuff.
The Holy Land and Egypt were part of the Roman Empire and were Christian when they were conquered by Muslims in the seventh century.
LikeLike
Then by your own admission, the CC is the Roman empire with a new name. In that case, the western world is still under the iron fist of Rome. Which, i am inclined to agree with you. Ive never brought up the subject befor. I dont consider it important enough to bring it up. And, its a tough subject to hash out. “Is the Roman Empire still alive and under control of Rome”. Its time is at and end so really dont care about it. But, for anyone interested in history of Rome, the mace, the symbol of Romes authority, is in the US house of Reps and is on the back of the american dime. If anyone has a US dime, you can flip it over and see the Mace. America is letting people know we still are silently Ruled by Rome.
LikeLike
In which case, Bosco, it seems odd that Constantinople and the East broke from Rome in 1054.
LikeLike
Dialogue with a Muslim friend: The Holy Name.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (TOC # 4) –
TOC Title = Dialogue with a Muslim friend: The Holy Name (3D)
TOC Date: 06 Oct 2013
Dialogue between: Muhummad Mushtaq Tariq and Jessica Hoff
TOC Author: Muhummad Mushtaq Tariq
TOC compression ratio: 9 pages compressed to 2 pages (4.5:1)
1-JESSICA:
In my initial response to Mushtaq, I have explained . . . ?
1-MUSHTAQ:
Please read her previous articles answered by me. Here I don’t want to repeat same stuff.
2-JESSICA: (baptizing them in name of Father, Son Holy Spirit & Son of God) . . . ?
2-MUSHTAQ:
I have two answers:
Answer 1: (Son of God is expired term after invention of Trinity)
Answer 2: (Indication of corruption in concept of God by Church)
3-JESSICA:
Apostle John writes about Son of God . . . ?
3-MUSHTAQ:
I have following THREE answers:
Answer 1: (Son of God is expired term after invention of Trinity)
Answer 2: (John waited for 70 years to open door of corruption in Gospel)
Answer 3: (Authorship of the Johannine works is controversial in scholarship)
4-JESSICA:
Who can dare say that the Book canonized by the Church founded by Christ does not bear witness that He is the Son of God . . . ?
4-MUSHTAQ:
Answer 1: (Son of God is an expired term after invention of Trinity)
Answer 2: (Possible error of ‘s’ in John 1:1)
5-JESSICA:
Truth taught from the beginning, that Blessed Jesus is the Son of God, and that God is Father . . . ?
5-MUSHTAQ:
Answer 1: (Son of God is an expired term after invention of Trinity)
Answer 2: (Disciples of Blessed Jesus were illiterate in Trinitarian definition of Trinity)
Answer 3: (Allah and Muslim worship is not strange to Prophets)
END OF TOC
1-JESSICA:
In my initial response to Mushtaq, I have explained why the whole methodology he is following is fatally flawed. Christ wrote no book, He is the Word, and He founded a Church, and that Church is the body which established both the nature of the NT and of the Trinity: the two go together, and to use to book to disprove the doctrine is pointless, as that is to misread the book.
1-MUSHTAQ:
Thank you Madam Jessica for your article that you wrote for me.
However, if readers want to see reality of these claims what Madam Jessica “has shown”, then please read her previous articles answered by me. Here I don’t want to repeat same stuff.
I have replied each and every point raised by Madam Jessica in previous articles, response is awaited from Madam Jessica, and therefore, now there is no need to repeat my answers here. Now we shall discuss this article at hand.
2-JESSICA: (baptizing them in name of Father, Son Holy Spirit)
Nonetheless, let us deal, patiently and with prayerfulness, with the points raised by Mushtaq. His full text can here found on the special page ‘Dialogue with a Muslim’.
Mushtaq asks why none of the prophets nor Blessed Jesus used the words ‘Three’ or ‘Trinity’ or ‘Triune’. This is explained in my post here ‘Dialogue with a Muslim’. Blessed Jesus established a Church which used these words. It did not, as Mushtaq implies, simply stumble across them in the fourth century. Blessed Jesus Himself told His followers to:-
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
It is from here, as well as many other NT passages that the Church founded by Blessed Jesus Christ, the Son of God, drew its doctrine of the Trinity.
2-MUSHTAQ:
I have two answers:
Answer 1: (Son of God is expired term after invention of Trinity)
Quran: Surah/Chapter 010 – Yûnus. Verse 68.
They say: Allah hath taken (unto Him) a SON. Glorified be He! He hath no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Ye have no warrant for this. Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not?
I have already discussed in detail this verse (baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) in this set of 5 articles (In “Early Fathers” and “Blessed Jesus and Trinity”) so no need to repeat same answers here.
You again used “Son of God”, I have explained already that “Son of God” is an expired term after invention of Trinity. See my summary points “Divine Sonship contradicts Trinity” and “Son of Triune God contradicts Trinity.”, still waiting to be answered by you.
So I feel no need to repeat my response here.
It is sad that you ignored to reply 11 summary points one by one in my Summary #1 of our dialogue, which has now resulted in repetition and duplication in our dialogue, though our dialogue is still friendly, but it is leading to a random and repeated pattern of arguments, I shall try to avoid duplication and randomness in our dialogue through the Summary points etc of our dialogue so that it will help to move forward our dialogue in an organized manner, rather than moving in same circle.
Answer 2:(Indication of corruption in concept of God by Church)
Quran: Surah/Chapter 002 – Al-Baqarah. Verse 199.
Then hasten onward from the place whence the multitude hasteneth onward, and ask FORGIVEness of Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
What you call, Church “drew” its doctrine of Trinity, this “drew” is the thing we Muslims call corruption, when Prophets and Blessed Jesus had not right to use number three to define concept of God, then how can Church be so more intelligent and more powerful than Blessed Jesus to define God with number three?
It can be clarified by a simple question.
Is concept of God (Trinity) a basic requirement of salvation? Answer surely is yes, then Why did Blessed Jesus not use number “three” to teach concept of God to his nation?
3-JESSICA:
See, for example, what the Blessed Apostle John writes:
“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Blessed Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God… God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him… By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. / And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. / God abides in those who confess that Blessed Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God.”
Here too, there are “Three”. To state that the word ‘Trinity’ is not used, is correct, but to state that the concept of the three, and the Father, Son and the Spirit are not taught in Sacred Scripture is to err. To say that such passages are anything to do with the ‘Royal we’ is to err.
3-MUSHTAQ:
I have following THREE answers:
Answer 1: (Son of God is expired term after invention of Trinity)
Quran: Surah/Chapter 010 – Yûnus. Verse 68.
They say: Allah hath taken (unto Him) a SON. Glorified be He! He hath no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Ye have no warrant for this. Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not?
You again used “Son of God”, I have explained already that “Son of God” is an expired term after invention of Trinity. See my summary points “Divine Sonship contradicts Trinity” and “Son of Triune God contradicts Trinity.”, still waiting to be answered by you.
So I feel no need to repeat my response here.
Answer 2: (John waited for 70 years to open door of corruption in Gospel)
Quran: Surah/Chapter 002 – Al-Baqarah. Verse 79.
Therefore woe be unto those who WRITE the Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.
All Christian scholars agree that Gospel of John was written in 90-110 AD. i.e. 70 years later Blessed Jesus had left the earth. Why was it not written within few years after Blessed Jesus had departed? Within few years after Blessed Jesus had departed there were certainly many people alive who actually saw Blessed Jesus and listened directly from him, but after 70 years, most of them would have dead or too old, forgetting many things, and remaining will be on oral traditions. Why Apostle John had to wait for 70 years to write it? Therefore, if Gospel of John is so much different from remaining three gospels in style as accepted by Biblical scholars, then it is no wonder it must be man made work which was waiting 70 years to pass away when original people seeing and hearing would be dead and man made additions may easily be inserted without resistance from those present in times of Blessed Jesus.
Answer 3: (Authorship of the Johannine works is controversial in scholarship)
Quran: Surah/Chapter 002 – Al-Baqarah. Verse 79.
Therefore woe be unto those who WRITE the Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.
What is the proof that the text that you are quoting here was spoken or written by Apostle John? And not by any pagan triad / triple deity inspired pagan? Sure you have no such proof, on the other hand, You are referring to Apostle John which is a controversial figure in Christianity for Christian scholars. To learn how, read following:
“The authorship of the Johannine works” (the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation) has been debated by scholars since at least the 2nd century AD.[1] The main debate centers on who authored the writings, and which of the writings, if any, can be ascribed to a common author. Ancient tradition attributes all the books to John the Apostle.[2]
In the 6th century, the Decretum Gelasianum argued that Second and Third John have a separate author known as “John, a priest” (see John the Presbyter).[3] Higher criticism, representing most liberal Christian and secular scholars, rejects the view that John the Apostle authored any of these works.
Many modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works,[4] although others, notably J.A.T. Robinson, F. F. Bruce, Leon Morris, and Martin Hengel[5] hold the apostle to be behind at least some, in particular the gospel.[6][7]
There may have been a single author for the gospel and the three epistles.[2] Some scholars conclude the author of the epistles was different from that of the gospel, although all four works probably originated from the same community.[8] The gospel and epistles traditionally and plausibly came from Ephesus, c. 90-110 (Long after Blessed Jesus had departed), although some scholars argue for an origin in Syria.[9]
In the case of Revelation, many modern scholars agree that it was written by a separate author, John of Patmos, c. 95 with some parts possibly dating to Nero’s reign in the early 60s.[2][10]
NOTES:
======
[1] F. L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 45
[2] Stephen L Harris, Understanding the Bible, (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985), 355
[3] Since the 18th century, the Decretum Gelasianum has been associated with the Council of Rome (382), though historians dispute the connection.
[4] “Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them.” Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355
[5] Hengel, Martin. Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Blessed Jesus Christ, |page=40 |ISBN 978-1-56338-300-7. Trinity Press International; 1st edition, 2000. p. 40
[6] Morris, Leon (1995) The Gospel According to John Volume 4 of The new international commentary on the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, ISBN 9780802825049, pp. 4–5, 24, 35–7. “Continental scholars have … abandoned the idea that this gospel was written by the apostle John, whereas in Great Britain and America scholarship has been much more open to the idea.” Abandonment is due to changing opinion rather “than to any new evidence.” “Werner, Colson, and I have been joined, among others, by I. Howard Marshall and J.A.T. Robinson in seeing the evidence as pointing to John the son of Zebedee as the author of this Gospel.” The view that John’s history is substandard “is becoming increasingly hard to sustain. Many recent writers have shown that there is good reason for regarding this or that story in John as authentic. … It is difficult to … regard John as having little concern for history. The fact is John is concerned with historical information. … John apparently records this kind of information because he believes it to be accurate. … He has some reliable information and has recorded it carefully. … The evidence is that where he can be tested John proves to be remarkably accurate.”
Bruce 1981 pp. 52–4, 58. “The evidence … favor[s] the apostolicity of the gospel. … John knew the other gospels and … supplements them. … The synoptic narrative becomes more intelligible if we follow John.” John’s style is different so Blessed Jesus’ “abiding truth might be presented to men and women who were quite unfamiliar with the original setting. … He does not yield to any temptation to restate Christianity. … It is the story of events that happened in history. … John does not divorce the story from its Palestinian context.”
Dodd p. 444. “Revelation is distinctly, and nowhere more clearly than in the Fourth Gospel, a historical revelation. It follows that it is important for the evangelist that what he narrates happened.”
Temple, William. “Readings in St. John’s Gospel”. MacMillan and Co, 1952. “The synoptists give us something more like the perfect photograph; St. John gives us the more perfect portrait”.
Edwards, R. A. “The Gospel According to St. John” 1954, p 9. One reason he accepts John’s authorship is because “the alternative solutions seem far too complicated to be possible in a world where living men met and talked”.
Hunter, A. M. “Interpreting the New Testament” P 86. “After all the conjectures have been heard, the likeliest view is that which identifies the Beloved Disciple with the Apostle John.
[7] Dr. Craig Blomberg, cited in Lee Strobel The Case for Christ, 1998, Chapter 2. Marshall, Howard. “The Illustrated Bible Dictionary”, ed J. D. Douglas et al. Leicester 1980. II, p 804 Robinson, J. A. T. “The Priority of John” P 122
Cf. Marsh, “John seems to have believed that theology was not something which could be used to read a meaning into events but rather something that was to be discovered in them. His story is what it is because his theology is what it is; but his theology is what it is because the story happened so” (p 580-581).
[8] Ehrman, pp.178-9.
[9] Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. p. 334. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
[10] Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. p. 468. ISBN 0-19-515462-2.
4-JESSICA:
It is to deny the prophetic witness of the Beloved Apostle. John here:
Who is it that conquers the world but the one who believes that Blessed Jesus is the Son of God? This is the one who came by water and blood, Blessed Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth.
Who can dare say that the Book canonized by the Church founded by Christ does not bear witness that He is the Son of God, and that the Spirit does not so testify? Who can say that Christ and the Father are not one in the face of the words of St John at the beginning of his magnificent Gospel:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
4-MUSHTAQ:
I have two answers.
Answer 1: (Son of God is an expired term after invention of Trinity)
Quran: Surah/Chapter 010 – Yûnus. Verse 68.
They say: Allah hath taken (unto Him) a SON. Glorified be He! He hath no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Ye have no warrant for this. Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not?
You again used “Son of God” (in Trinitarian Sense) which you already have failed to defend or justify. I have already talked in detail on Son of God that it is an expired term after invention of Trinity, Summary point “Divine Sonship contradicts Trinity” and another summary point “Son of Triune God contradicts Trinity”, still unanswered by you, and father and Son are one, so no need to repeat same stuff here.
Answer 2: (Possible error of ‘s’ in John 1:1)
Quran: Surah/Chapter 010 – Yûnus. Verse 68.
They say: Allah hath taken (unto Him) a SON. Glorified be He! He hath no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Ye have no warrant for this. Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not?
John 1:1 contradicts first commandment of Moses and many teachings of Monotheism in Bible. John 1:1 either means 2 parts of God or at least two gods. Is it a an error like many other errors in Bible?
Let us see it from the Qur’anic perspective John 1:1 then, and if it corresponds with what Blessed Jesus himself said in the Bible. Blessed Jesus is mentioned several times in the Qur’an as a “Word from Allah.”
In the Qur’an: Surah 3, verse 45: “(Remember) when the angels said: ‘O’ Mary! Verily Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word from Him, his name will be Messiah Blessed Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the hereafter, and of those who are nearest to Allah.’” In the Holy Qur’an Blessed Jesus is also called a Word from Allah, i.e. a Word belonging to Allah, corresponding with I Corinthians 3:23: “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.” In John 1:1 it should have been written: “.. And the Word was God’s.” The mistake could have been in the translation from Aramaic to Greek. In the Greek language Theos is God, but Theou means God’s (see Greek dictionary, Greek Bible, or Muhammed in the Bible by Prof. Abdul-Ahad Dawud, former Bishop of Uramiah, page 16). A difference of an apostrophe “s” letter, but you can see the very big consequences.
It changes the entire meaning. Why is Blessed Jesus called the Word of God in both Scriptures? The creation of Blessed Jesus in the womb of Mary was without the agency of a sperm from a man. It was only with the decree / word of Allah: “Be!” as mentioned in the same Surah 3:v47: “She (Mary) said; ‘O’ my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.’” He said: “So (it will be), for Allah creates what He will. When He has decreed something, He says to it “Be”
and it is.” (In Arabic the word is “Kun”).
5-JESSICA:
So, no, Mushtaq, you have not shown that the Book canonized by the Church founded by Christ, does not speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or that it does not use the figure of three when it describes God; neither have you shown it is anything to do with the Royal Plural. These are but attempts to avoid the Truth taught from the beginning, that Blessed Jesus is the Son of God, and that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Blessed Jesus Himself told His disciples to baptise in those names.
So, in the face of this, for Mushtaq to quote from Old Testament prophets, who had not been enlightened, is as useless as to quote from the Koran. The prophets of old Israel had not had the full enlightenment given to John and the Apostles; the prophet of Islam had even less enlightenment as he turned away from what had been revealed to mankind through Christ and His Church.
5-MUSHTAQ:
I have three Answers:
Answer 1: (Son of God is an expired term after invention of Trinity)
Quran: Surah/Chapter 010 – Yûnus. Verse 68.
They say: Allah hath taken (unto Him) a SON. Glorified be He! He hath no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Ye have no warrant for this. Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not?
You again used “Son of God” (in Trinitarian Sense) which you already have failed to defend or justify. I have already talked in detail on Son of God that it is an expired term after invention of Trinity, Summary point “Divine Sonship contradicts Trinity” and another summary point “Son of Triune God contradicts Trinity”, still unanswered by you, and father and Son are one, so no need to repeat same stuff here.
Answer 2: (Disciples of Blessed Jesus were illiterate in Trinitarian definition of Trinity)
Quran: Surah/Chapter 003 – Al-Imrân. Verse 164.
Allah verily hath shown grace to the believers by sending unto them a messenger of their own who reciteth unto them His revelations, and causeth them to grow, and teacheth them the Scripture and wisdom; although before (he came to them ) they were in flagrant ERROR.
So, Madam Jessica, you have not shown that the Books written by disciples of Blessed Jesus, speak Father as first member of Triune God or Father in meaning of Creator and Master? , Son as second member of Triune God or in meaning of Loved ones? Holy Spirit in meaning of third member of Triune God or in meaning of angel?
The Royal Plural I have answered in detail and also summarized. Full and Detailed Dialogue # 1 and Summary #1 are to be re-studied by readers to refresh details.
I don’t want to repeat here those details.
Again, Blessed Jesus is NOT Son of God, it is an expired term after invention of Trinity formula, Divine Sonship contradicts Trinity and now Blessed Jesus has become Son of first part of Triune God, I have answered in detail and also summarized answers in our previous discussion.
So, in the face of this, for Madam Jessica to call Old Testament prophets they had not been enlightened on basic requirement of salvation (Concept of God /Alleged Trinity) is blasphemy in the eyes of we Muslims, you Christians may believe or think whatever about Prophets of Old Testament as per your faith, but We Muslims accept and respect all these Prophets, We believe they were guided by God and were full aware of basic requirement of salvation (i.e. Concept of God i.e. Monotheism, not Trinity).
In my Summary points I have quoted from Quran, you have not responded all points of Summary # 1, perhaps you have not read my quotations from Quran there, therefore, it is useless for you to quote from the Koran.
The prophet of Islam is the Final Prophet of God. Even today, Christianity and Islam are the two largest world religions. And We Muslims accept and believe All prophets of Old testament From Adam till Moses and Blessed Jesus.
Answer 3: (Allah and Muslim worship is not strange to Prophets)
Quran: Surah/Chapter 002 – Al-Baqarah. Verse 136.
Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto Us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob. and the tribes, and that which Moses and BLESSED JESUS received, add that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
Since title of your article here is “Holy name”, so I want to tell something about Holy name “Allah”, and holiness of his worship, and holiness of his religion.
The name Allah seems to be strange to non-Muslims and Christians but this name has been used by all Prophets since Adam until Muhammed (pbut). It is a contraction of the two Arabic words Al -Ilah, i.e. The God. By dropping-the letter “I” you will find the word Allah. According to its position in an Arabic sentence it can have the form “Allaha” that is close to the Hebrew name of the Creator, i.e. Eloha. The Jews are using the plural form of respect when they say “Elohim”. (in the eastern languages there are two types of plural: one is of numbers and the other is of respect).The word “Allaha” sounds closer to the Aramaic word for God used by Blessed Jesus, namely “Allaha” (see Encyclopedia Britannica 1980 under Allah and Elohim). So while the name Allah is strange to non-Muslims, it is not strange to all Prophets from Adam to Muhammed, (pbut) as they propagated
in principle the same Islam, i.e. total submission to ALLAH. The word Allah denotes the personal name of the Supreme Being. It is not subject to plurality or gender, so there is no such thing as Allahs, or male or female Allah, as there are Gods and Goddess in the English language. It is also confusing to use the words God and Creator as many English-speaking Christians still consider Blessed Jesus to be God and Creator.
Not only the name Allah is strange to the non-Muslims but also the way Muslims worship Allah with ablution, bowing, kneeling, and prostrating. Modern Christians have deliberately abandoned the ablution (washing of face, arms, feet, and moistening of the hair) prior to worship; but it is still a requirement for Muslims. All the Prophets did this
ablution as seen in the following passages of the Bible: Exodus 40:31-32: “And Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet thereat, when they went into the tent of the congregation, and when they came near unto the alter they washed; as the Lord commanded Moses.” Although Paul corrupted the teachings of Blessed Jesus (pbuh) he was still faithful in respect to ablution as seen in Acts 21:26. “Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them as in I Corinthians 11:5,6 and 13: “But every woman that prayeth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her head also be shorn; but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be entered into the temple’…” Muslim women perform their prayer with their head covered. Judge for yourself; is it better that a woman prays unto God with her head covered or uncovered? Muslims worship with bowing, kneeling, prostration and without shoes as done by previous Prophets. Psalm 95:6: “O’ come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our maker.” Joshua 5:14: “And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship.” I Kings 18:42: “And Elijah went up to the top of Carmel; and he cast himself down upon the earth and put his face between his knees.” Numbers 20:6: “ And they (Moses and Aaron) fell upon their faces and the glory of the Lord appeared upon them.”
Genesis 17:3: “And Abram fell on his face and God talked with him saying…” Exodus 3:5 and Acts 7:33: “And He (God) said (to Moses) Draw not nigh hither, put off thy shoes from off thy feet for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” And when
Blessed Jesus went into the garden of Gethsemane to pray to God for deliverance from the snare of the Jewish Doctors and Pharisees “he fell on his face and prayed to God”.
It is the method of worship to God, worship method of Prophets, followed by Muslims, Muslims also use name of God spoken and heard by Prophets “Allah”, the English words “God” and “Lord” were never spoken and heard by Blessed Jesus and Prophets, since English language was not born at that time. English began to develop after 1066!
In the end, I thank to Madam Jessica for participating in a friendly and respectful Christian Muslim Dialogue, I am sure that readers of this Christian Muslim Dialogue will also have learnt some truth about the two greatest religions of the world i.e. Christianity and Islam.
Regards,
Muhummad Mushtaq Tariq
LikeLike