15 Christians killed in their sleep by suspected Nigerian Islamists

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So what interpretation do they subscribe to? How do they resolve the contradiction present in the text? There is no way to read this particular set of passages without what you dismiss as eisegesis. Like I said, consistency was the only assumption I made. Without that, inconsistency is the only other option for how to view the text.

There's no contradiction in that text. You quoted 3:85, but didn't precede it with 3:84. 5:72 and 5:116 are mis-interpretations of 'Trinity Doctrine'. Christians aren't Tritheists and only worship the 'G-d' of Abraham.
​

 

[The Real]

There's no contradiction in that text. You quoted 3:85, but didn't precede it with 3:84. 5:72 and 5:116 are mis-interpretations of 'Trinity Doctrine'. Christians aren't Tritheists and only worship the 'G-d' of Abraham.
​

5:72 and 5:116 don't refer simply to the trinity, since both passages include propositions that criticize the worship of Jesus and Mary, either as gods or as the son and mother of god, individually, not just as part of a trinity. These explicitly outline which believers in Jesus are going to hell and which aren't, thus explicitly contradicting your pluralist reading of 3:84 and 29:46. I would argue that said pluralist vision is your own eisegesis at work, even if you're drawing on historical context.

1. 5:72 refers to associates, and to God's identity with Jesus. Even without a trinity, if someone believes that God shares an identity with Jesus, that person is going to hell according to the verse. This verse clearly disputes the notion that God can be identified with Jesus.

2. In addition, as I'm sure you're aware, there are numerous verses in the Quran that reject the notion that God begat a son of any kind and claim that those who believe that he did are blaspheming.

From 1 and 2, it is clear that God's relationship to Jesus cannot be identified either as a father/son relationship or as the identity of the two, and to do either or both of those is explicitly labeled blasphemy. Therefore, any Christians who believe those things are blasphemers and incompatible with Islam. We also know that any teaching that includes those beliefs is not the teachings of the prophets. Thus, the identification of all the prophets and their teachings with one another in 3:84 is not an identification of all of the alleged followers of those prophets with one another.

As for Christians not being Tritheists, that's your assumption. What Christians believe about themselves may not square with the doctrines about the nature of God and the trinity. It isn't for either of us to say that Christians as a whole believe or don't believe anything.

 

[Marvel]

So which part of Nigeria has the oil

Niger delta (aka south-south) and parts of the southeast.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

1. 5:72 refers to associates, and to God's identity with Jesus. Even without a trinity, if someone believes that God shares an identity with Jesus, that person is going to hell according to the verse. This verse clearly disputes the notion that God can be identified with Jesus.

No, it actually refers to Trinitarians, only them. It is apparent when you read Suras 73-75.

2. In addition, as I'm sure you're aware, there are numerous verses in the Quran that reject the notion that God begat a son of any kind and claim that those who believe that he did are blaspheming.

Then the Bible and the Qu'ran are in-agreement, since in neither book does 'G-d' beget a 'son'.

That's all from me. No need to derail this thread further.
​

 

[the cac mamba]

I see like eyes. Ill be over there being friendly elsewhere ------------------>

hows it feel to know that youll be going to allahs hell?

 

[Mr. Somebody]

hows it feel to know that youll be going to allahs hell?

I feel nothing. They have their beliefs i have mine. I guess we'll c whos right, later. Im going to stick with worshipping the Almighty as i know him. I think my relationship and understanding of scripture makes me alright

 

[The Real]

No, it actually refers to Trinitarians, only them. It is apparent when you read Suras 73-75.​

Like I said, the Trinitarian statements are obviously conjunctive. When it says "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary' while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord," the conjunctive nature of the first sentence is clear. It's not just wrong to believe that Allah is the Messiah and the son of Mary as a single belief, it's wrong to believe either that Allah is the Messiah or the son of Mary, because both present the problem in the next sentence- they "associate others with Allah," which is the true rule of which making God a man or a son is only one manifestation out of many. This also why the Quran contains several independent verses about God having no son and no associates that are idependent of even an implicit mention of the Christian trinity. For example, in 9:30, Jews who believe that Ezra is the son of God are called blasphemers.

If these passages only refer to Trinitarianism, then by your argument, not only would any of the Abrahamic adherents who believed that God was Jesus or that God was the son of Mary individually, or that God could be identified with another man or as the son of a woman other than Mary be considered acceptable Muslims, the European Pagan slaves that some Muslims had at the time must have been considered proper Muslims, as long as they worshiped one God and believed in some kind of last day. I think it is clear that this was not the case.

Also note 5:14-15, which specifies Islam's relationship to Christianity. It specifically states that Christians have forgotten the original teachings of God, and that "finally there is a clear book" (meaning the previous books are unclear.) In other words, the other books may contain truth, but their own interpretations are to be measured only against the Quran, not independently. This contradicts several other passages in the Quran which would appear to give Christians and Jews wholesale acceptability.

Then the Bible and the Qu'ran are in-agreement, since in neither book does 'G-d' beget a 'son'.

That's all from me. No need to derail this thread further.

John 3:16 presents a problem for your view, especially in the original Koine Greek, where Christ is described as Monogenes, the only/unique son. You don't need the term "begotten" for the verse to present the problem.

The original topic ran its course. People can steer it back that way if they want. I think this is as interesting a discussion, and there's been no trolling or disrespect thus far.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Like I said, the Trinitarian statements are obviously conjunctive. When it says "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary' while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord," the conjunctive nature of the first sentence is clear. It's not just wrong to believe that Allah is the Messiah and the son of Mary as a single belief, it's wrong to believe either that Allah is the Messiah or the son of Mary, because both present the problem in the next sentence- they "associate others with Allah," which is the true rule of which making God a man or a son is only one manifestation out of many. This also why the Quran contains several independent verses about God having no son and no associates that are idependent of even an implicit mention of the Christian trinity. For example, in 9:30, Jews who believe that Ezra is the son of God are called blasphemers.

You're not reading those Suras correctly:

5:72 They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.

5:73 They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

Here is the first indication of error, Christians don't place 'G-d' third. The 'Father' is always first, i.e., 'Father, Son and Spirit/Holy Ghost'. The ONLY Christians who placed 'G-d' anywhere other than first were Trinitarians (Maryanya). As such, these Suras are criticizing those Christians, not ALL Christians.

5:74 So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

'They/them' in this verse and the preceding/next is referring to Trinitarians.

5:75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

The beginning of this Sura is showing that Mary and J were human. The second is an admonishment of Trinitarian beliefs that put Mary and J at the same level of worship as Allah.

If these passages only refer to Trinitarianism, then by your argument, not only would any of the Abrahamic adherents who believed that God was Jesus or that God was the son of Mary individually, or that God could be identified with another man or as the son of a woman other than Mary be considered acceptable Muslims, the European Pagan slaves that some Muslims had at the time must have been considered proper Muslims, as long as they worshiped one God and believed in some kind of last day. I think it is clear that this was not the case.

Your thinking is understandable, however, those verses ONLY apply to Trinitarians. Anything else is eisegesis.

Also note 5:14-15, which specifies Islam's relationship to Christianity. It specifically states that Christians have forgotten the original teachings of God, and that "finally there is a clear book" (meaning the previous books are unclear.) In other words, the other books may contain truth, but their own interpretations are to be measured only against the Quran, not independently. This contradicts several other passages in the Quran which would appear to give Christians and Jews wholesale acceptability.

Christians and Jews are acceptable since they believe in 'G-d'. The 'clarity' is arrived at because some Greek/Hebrew words/phrases don't translate into Arabic, not that the previous 'revelation' (according to them) was unclear. Read Surah 10:94.

John 3:16 presents a problem for your view, especially in the original Koine Greek, where Christ is described as Monogenes, the only/unique son. You don't need the term "begotten" for the verse to present the problem.

Then it's a misunderstanding on your part (and theirs), since 'Son/Son of G-d' is a title, not a denotation of geneaology. There is no problem here unless you are Trinitarian which the vast majority of Christians (and all Jews) are not.

The original topic ran its course. People can steer it back that way if they want. I think this is as interesting a discussion, and there's been no trolling or disrespect thus far.

LOL, give it time, I'm outta here before it starts.​

 

[Mr. Somebody]

You're not reading those Suras correctly:



Here is the first indication of error, Christians don't place 'G-d' third. The 'Father' is always first, i.e., 'Father, Son and Spirit/Holy Ghost'. The ONLY Christians who placed 'G-d' anywhere other than first were Trinitarians (Maryanya). As such, these Suras are criticizing those Christians, not ALL Christians.



'They/them' in this verse and the preceding/next is referring to Trinitarians.



The beginning of this Sura is showing that Mary and J were human. The second is an admonishment of Trinitarian beliefs that put Mary and J at the same level of worship as Allah.



Your thinking is understandable, however, those verses ONLY apply to Trinitarians. Anything else is eisegesis.



Christians and Jews are acceptable since they believe in 'G-d'. The 'clarity' is arrived at because some Greek/Hebrew words/phrases don't translate into Arabic, not that the previous 'revelation' (according to them) was unclear. Read Surah 10:94.



Then it's a misunderstanding on your part (and theirs), since 'Son/Son of G-d' is a title, not a denotation of geneaology. There is no problem here unless you are Trinitarian which the vast majority of Christians (and all Jews) are not.



LOL, give it time, I'm outta here before it starts.​

He came through for friends. I knew TheReal was reaching like he usually does.

 

[The Real]

You're not reading those Suras correctly:

Here is the first indication of error, Christians don't place 'G-d' third. The 'Father' is always first, i.e., 'Father, Son and Spirit/Holy Ghost'. The ONLY Christians who placed 'G-d' anywhere other than first were Trinitarians (Maryanya). As such, these Suras are criticizing those Christians, not ALL Christians.

'They/them' in this verse and the preceding/next is referring to Trinitarians.

The beginning of this Sura is showing that Mary and J were human. The second is an admonishment of Trinitarian beliefs that put Mary and J at the same level of worship as Allah.

Your thinking is understandable, however, those verses ONLY apply to Trinitarians. Anything else is eisegesis.

I agree that they are not criticizing all Christians and have never disputed that point. I disagree that they only criticize trinitarians, because that divorces the verse both from logic and from its context completely. I notice you did not address the surah condemning Jews who make Ezra a son/associate of God. There is also 9:31 which condemns Jews and Christians who take "scholars, priests and monks" as authorities beside Allah, too. What these prove is that any number of associates, not just 3, is blasphemy. The trinitarian case is only one instantation of a more general rule.

That proves there is no way to interpret the verses without their component propositions. Believing that Jesus is God and the son of Mary is blasphemy if, and only if, believing Jesus is God is blasphemy and believing that God as the son of Mary is blasphemy. That is absolutely not eisegesis, but rather entirely textual.

Christians and Jews are acceptable since they believe in 'G-d'. The 'clarity' is arrived at because some Greek/Hebrew words/phrases don't translate into Arabic, not that the previous 'revelation' (according to them) was unclear. Read Surah 10:94.

The point of the passage is that Christians have failed to understand their own text and have overlooked and concealed parts of it, and that Islam, with it's "clear book" clarifies that true meaning. There would be no point calling the Quran "the clear book" if one believed that all the books were equally clear.

Then it's a misunderstanding on your part (and theirs), since 'Son/Son of G-d' is a title, not a denotation of geneaology. There is no problem here unless you are Trinitarian which the vast majority of Christians (and all Jews) are not.

Monogenes specifically means only or unique. About that, there can be no dispute. Christians could have chosen to write one son instead of only son by rendering it differently, but there is nowhere in the NT that monogenes does not refer to an unique/only child. In short, my argument here doesn't rely on whether or not Jesus is genealogically the son of God or not, but rather on his status as special or unique, and thus not identical with all the other prophets, as the Quran claims elsewhere and as you posted as well. Let's clarify further: what does it mean for Jesus to be the "only/unique son" of God? My argument is that whatever the answer is, it cannot square with the Quran.

 

[frush11]

Niger delta (aka south-south) and parts of the southeast.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

fukk let them have their muslim holy land then

 

[theworldismine13]

fukk let them have their muslim holy land then

they already tried Nigerian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Squirtle]

@Slaimon avoiding the thread like the plague.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I agree that they are not criticizing all Christians and have never disputed that point. I disagree that they only criticize trinitarians, because that divorces the verse both from logic and from its context completely.

Not at all.......

Altafsir.com - The Tafsirs -

Allah then revealed about the Nestorian Christians of Najran who claimed that Jesus was the son of Allah and that Jesus and the Lord are partners, saying: (O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate) do not be extreme (in your religion) for this is not the right course (nor utter aught concerning Allah save the Truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary) and through His word he became a created being, (and a spirit from Him) and through His command, Jesus became a son without a father. (So believe in Allah and His messengers) all the messengers including Jesus, (and say not “Three”) a son, father and wife. (Cease!) from making such a claim and repent ((it is) better for you!) than such a claim. (Allah is only One God) without a son or partner. (Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth) are His servants. (And Allah is sufficient as Defender) as Lord of all created beings and He is witness of what He says about Jesus.

Exegesis by Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

The bolded/underlined portions explicitly state who those verses 5:72-75 are referring to. 'They/them' refers to a specific heretical sect of Christians who worshipped a 'Trinity' consisting of 'G-d', Mary and J, not what was created in Nicea. Logic and context are preserved by history. Going into other Surahs without this understanding clouds interpretation of text.​

 

[The Real]

Not at all.......

Altafsir.com - The Tafsirs -



The bolded/underlined portions explicitly state who those verses 5:72-75 are referring to. 'They/them' refers to a specific heretical sect of Christians who worshipped a 'Trinity' consisting of 'G-d', Mary and J, not what was created in Nicea. Logic and context are preserved by history. Going into other Surahs without this understanding clouds interpretation of text.​

Could you pm this to me? We can continue away from this thread if you're worried about derailing.