Why i don't believe in the Trinity

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by vampyregirl, Apr 16, 2012.

  1. zakariyya21

    zakariyya21 Valued Member

    I'm saying not saying that, I'm saying if the Quran said that Mary was a part of the trinity (for which i'm still waiting for the proof) then there must have been a group amongst the christians who believed this doctrine (Mary as part of the trinity), seeing as none of the Christian scholars in that time, accused the Quran as having a mistake in not understanding the christian doctrine, which would have disproved the claim the Quran is from God, and nobody can say the Christians in the time of Muhammad (pbuh) never heard the Quran because Muhammad's companions' lived amongst the christians for a very long time in the lands of the christians until even christian kings embraced Islam, this message spread as far as Rome, Christianity has been varied in doctrine for a long time so if a group of christians believed this it wouldnt suprise me this wouldn't suprise me.
     
  2. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Sura 5:116
    And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Did you say to men, 'worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to You! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would indeed have known it. You know what is in my heart, though I do not know what is in Yours. For You know in full all that is hidden."

    Put it next to 5:72-73 and 4:171, and Mary comes out as part of the trinity, which conflicts with Christian doctrine, so Christians and Moslems agree. Additionally, Christians agree that Jesus never said, "Worship me in derogation of God." That is not Christianity either. Double agreement, then.


    Nominally Christian, perhaps, but yes, that is what I concluded, myself.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2012
  3. zakariyya21

    zakariyya21 Valued Member

    You are making your own interpretation of the Quran when we already have it interpreted by the hadith of the prophet and the speech of senior companions of Muhammad (pbuh) and we have last names for each of them.

    As for the Quran being a confirmation if you read the Quran in context according to the understanding of the first 3 generations of the muslims and those that followed them in righteousness. Then you'll find they said the Quran confirmed what the Jews and Christians had in their book regarding the advent of Muhammad (pbuh)
    and this was the confirmation spoken of. You'll also find that one of the other names for the Quran is Al Furqan which means the criterion which allows us to desipher the truth from the falsehood in the previous scriptures, as they have been changed as the quran tells us.


    but as for your questions regarding the stories of the Prophets we have them related in the hadeeth.

    The sources of evidence for the Muslims are the Quran and ahadith, the speech of a companion that hasnt been contested by another companion and the scholars of Islam.

    Cutting Pasting and bringing your own interpretation of quran doesnt work in Islam as we have the tafsir (explanation) already given.
    Also you explanation is false because it contradicts the hadeeth and Quran and hadeeth never ever contradict eachother.



    The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- delivered a sermon in which he said: "To proceed: The best of all speech is Allah Almighty's Book. the best of all guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. The worst of all matters are newfangled matters. Every newfangled matter is an innovation, and every innovation is misguidance."

    Umar -- Allah be well-pleased with him -- came to the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- and said: "We hear from the Jews narrations that impress us, do you think we should write down some of them?" The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- replied: "Are you all going to fall into the same chaos (amutahawwikun) in which fell the Jews and Christians? I brought it [the Religion] to you pristine and pure. If Musa were alive, he would have no alternative but to follow me!"

    Another version states that `Umar -- Allah be well-pleased with him -- passed by a man who was reciting a book, so he listened for a while and was pleased with what he heard. He asked the man: "Can you copy what is in that book?" He replied yes, whereupon `Umar bought a piece of hide for himself and brought it to the man who copied on its front and back [in Arabic].17 Then `Umar brought it to the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- and began to read it back to him. At the same time the Prophet's -- Allah bless and greet him -- face changed color. Whereupon one of the men of the Ansar [`Abd Allah ibn Zayd]18 slapped down the book with his hand and said: "May your mother lose you, Ibn al- Khattab! Can you not see the face of Allah's Messenger since you began to read from that book?" The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- then said: "I was not sent except as an opener and a sealer. I was given the pithiest expressions with the vastest meanings and the openings of all discourse with true concision. Therefore let not those who are in chaos induce you into chaos."

    Another version states that `Umar -- Allah be well-pleased with him -- brought the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- a book he had taken from one of the People of the Book. He read it to the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- who became angry and said: "Are you all going to fall into chaos, O Ibn al-Khattab? By Him in Whose Hand is my soul! even if Musa -- Allah bless and greet him -- were alive, he would have no alternative but to follow me."20

    Another version states that `Umar -- Allah be well-pleased with him -- came to the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- and said: "O Messenger of Allah, I passed by a brother of mine from Banu Qurayza who wrote me some epitomes from the Torah, shall I not show them to you?" Hearing this the Prophet's face -- Allah bless and greet him -- changed. `Abd Allah ibn Thabit said to `Umar: "Do you not see what is on the face of Allah's Messenger -- Allah bless and greet him --?" `Umar said: "We are well-pleased with Allah as our Lord and Islam as our Religion and Muhammad -- Allah bless and greet him -- as our Messenger!" The Prophet's -- Allah bless and greet him -- anger abated then he said: "By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! If Musa came to you one morning and you were to follow him and leave me, you would be going astray. You are my lot among the nations and I am your lot among the Prophets."21

    Another version states that `Umar -- Allah be well-pleased with him -- came to the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- with a copy of the Torah in his hand and said: "O Messenger of Allah! This is a copy of the Torah." The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- remained silent. As [`Umar] began to read the Prophet's face kept changed. Whereupon Abu Bakr said: "May your mother and grandmother lose you! Do you not see what is on the face of Allah's Messenger -- Allah bless and greet him --?" `Umar looked up to the Prophet's face and said: "I seek refuge in Allah from Allah's anger and the anger of His Prophet! We are well-pleased with Allah as our Lord and with Islam as our Religion and with Muhammad as our Prophet!" Then the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said: "By the One in Whose Hand is Muhammad's soul! If Musa were to appear before you and you were to follow him and leave me, you would be going astray and leaving the straight path. And if he were alive and heard of my Prophethood, he would follow me."22

    Subsequently, `Umar in his caliphate forbade the copying or keeping of Biblical material, as shown by his hitting with a stick a man who had copied down the book of the Prophet Daniel.23

    10a. The hadith "I have left among you two matters..."

    The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said: "I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: Allah's Book and the Sunna of His Prophet."24 Another version adds: "And these two shall never part ways until they show up at the Pond."25

    Zayd ibn Arqam narrated: "The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- stood among us at a brook named Khumm between Mecca and Madina [three miles from al-Juhfa]. He praised Allah -- Almighty and Exalted -- and glorified Him then said: `To proceed: O people! Truly I am now only waiting for a messenger [of death] sent by my Lord so that I may respond. Therefore I am leaving among you the two weighty matters: Allah's Book - in it is the guidance and the light, therefore hold fast to Allah's Book, and conform to it!' - and he encouraged people to do so, and urged them. Then he said: `And the people of my House. I remind you of Allah -- Almighty and Exalted -- concerning the people of my House! I remind you of Allah -- Almighty and Exalted -- concerning the people of my House (ahl bayti)! I remind you of Allah -- Almighty and Exalted -- concerning the people of my House!'"26
     
  4. zakariyya21

    zakariyya21 Valued Member



    Really none of those verses expicitly say Mary (pbuh) is a part of the trinity, that's your own assumption that alot of christians come to when they read those verses which is understandable, however closer examination of those verses allow me to understand why Muslims/Moslems and christians debate this issue.

    Now for the Muslim worship is directed to God alone with no intermediary. My own background is Roman Catholic to Pentecostal Christian to Islam (summarised), when I was young I was sent to R.C school and taught a few prayers that would go directly against Islamic doctrine because in Islam suplication is an act of worship which we only direct to God alone and if we suplicate to other than God we are guilty of shirk (which is associating partners with God) now examples of these suplications would be the Hail Mary prayer and the Matthew Mark Luke and John bless the bed that I lie on prayer to name a few. This is what I feel those verses are getting at not Mary (pbuh) as part of the trinity it's talking about the deifying of Mary by supplicating to her.
     
  5. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    I agree with that, provided that the Koran is read third in time. If you lay it on top of the Old and New Testaments, and read it as a 3rd revelation, there need be no conflict. Everything can fit together harmoniously. It's perfectly fine. Everything is good.

    However, when that order is reversed, conflicts arise immediately. The mistake I see Moslems commonly making is to forget that they are 3rd in time, and to forget that the Koran must be read in the context of what came before it. The mistake that Christians make is to ignore the Koran altogether.


    Could you not be making the same mistake with respect to the trinity? And maybe other points of doctrine, too? Christianity has, what, a 600-year headstart over Islam?


    The Bible is not a "new matter," or a "new innovation." It preceded the birth of Mohammad by many centuries.


    Why do you believe that these "narrations" are the recorded Old Testament, as opposed to the quite lengthy Jewish oral tradition?


    That doesn't speak to reading the Bible. It speaks to a lack of central leadership, and indeed, that was lacking in the 600's for Jews and Christians. The Prophet was right.


    Same as above. This speaks to leadership more than to throwing away the Bible.


    You can't seriously say that Mohammad wanted people to throw away that which Allah had previously given to the very prophets mentioned in the Koran. That's untenable.

    That's fine, but it doesn't mean throw away the messages given to the prior prophets of Allah. That's unspeakable.


    I agree it's not explicit, but it is the closest that the Koran comes to defining the trinity that it abhors. If we read the Koran in its proper historic place, that being 3rd in time after the Old Testament and the New Testament, then there must be a trinity compatible with it. The genuine Christian version is compatible because the genuine Christian version is fiercely monotheistic.

    I'm not a Roman Catholic because the practice of Roman Catholics in my area crosses the line of idolatry. In my opinion, too many of them are worshipping Mary. Not venerating her, which is technically okay, but worshipping her. I have a big problem with that, so I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you.

    Technically, a prayer to Jesus is directed to God alone, because Jesus is God, to a Christian. Roman Catholics and Protestants generally have tried to rationalize how this works. That's a dead end, I think. I do not believe it can be rationalized. Eastern Christians have never tried to rationalize it. They call it a "mystery" (for real), and leave it alone. In a sense mysteries are bad, but then, no Moslem understands Allah, right? He is a mystery, too. It's okay to not understand God.

    Catholics and Orthodox of all types have a tradition of praying to saints as well, not because the saint has inherent magic powers, but rather, as requests for the saints to pray to God on their behalf. This can be abused, yes. I have found abundant cases of people praying to saints as if the the saints had inherent power. That is improper. The way it is supposed to be, is that you ask the saint to pray to God on your behalf, the same way you would ask a living person to pray to God on your behalf. Strictly speaking, that's not an intermediary. If you asked your parents to pray for you, your parents wouldn't be an intermediary between you and God. Same idea with the saints.
     
  6. zakariyya21

    zakariyya21 Valued Member

    We put the Bible behind our backs because we don't accept it as the divinely reavealed books rather a changed misinformation.

    We accept the Quran as the word of God which means it is timeless whatever has not changed from the books preceeding it was kept and whatever had changed was thrown out. The Quran must not be interpreted in context of the previous books as they are corupt and there is no more interpretation of the Quran as it's already been interpreted by the companions.

    In Islam their is no more interpretation of Quran.

    Now as for supplicating to saints this is also shirk (associating partners with God) because supplicating to the dead is forbidden in Islam. Asking your mother who is alive to pray for you, is not the same as asking a dead person to suplicate for you.
    This is shirk, Jesus (pbuh) is not God so this is also Shirk.

    Also the only people who believe in trnity are the Christians and some other pagon religions like that of the ancient Egyptians,

    The Jews who predated christianity never ever accepted this trinity belief neither did Jesus (pbuh).

    So The Christians must have errd when the Muslims and Jews both agree on monotheism and both the Muslims and Jews believe the trinity concept is polytheism.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2012
  7. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Well, fix that, and a whole lot would change!
    Factually, you haven't a let to stand on when you say that the text of the New Testament has changed. That thing has been analyzed to death. There are no substantive changes at all, nothing that makes the slightest bit of difference to anything.


    You can't accuse me of overlooking your centuries of development, and then throw in this warn out, trite, false accusation. Doing so is both utterly hypocritical, unlearned, and unfriendly.


    The Christian version of the trinity is monotheistic. Get it in your head already. False accusations are a sin to Allah, and that's what you're doing every time you accuse Christians of being polytheists. :woo:
     
  8. zakariyya21

    zakariyya21 Valued Member


    Please explain how the christian trinity is any different to what the ancient Egyptians believed.
     
  9. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou has beheld that the book proceded forward from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceded forward from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fullness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.
    Wherefore, these things go forth in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.
    And after they go forth from the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
    And all this they have done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.
    Wherefore, though sees that after the book has gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
    And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all nations of the gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou has seen with the gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest, because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understandng of the children of men, according to the plainess which is in the Lamb of God, because of these things which are taken out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan has great power over them.
    1 Nephi 13 24-29
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2012
  10. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    [​IMG]
     
  11. zakariyya21

    zakariyya21 Valued Member

    please remove the guns from your post
     
  12. zakariyya21

    zakariyya21 Valued Member


    Allah accused the christians of being polytheists in the quran. So I dont see how calling christians polytheists is a sin.
     
  13. LilBunnyRabbit

    LilBunnyRabbit Old One

    The Christian trinity is a three-in-one affair, more like different perspectives on the same entity than three separate entities. Calling them polytheists is misleading at best.
     
  14. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    Akimac, there was a large non-trinitarian movement in the church up through the 4 century. So VG's arguments can't be dismissed so easily.

    References are quoted at the end of the article if you are interested.

    BTW, maybe someone can explain this better.

    God the father is god and is part of god but is not all of god, god the son is god, is part of god, is not all of god and even though he is eternal, has always existed, is still somehow the son of god and then there is god the holy spirit who is also god, a part of god and not all of god. Yet the three of them somehow make up god, yet are distinct from each other.

    Is it something like this?

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    He's dismissing her arguments because she's not making any, and he discussed Arianism early on. Also, it wasn't up to the 4th century, Arianism by definition is from the 4th century, and survived well into the 8th.
     
  16. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    Yes, she is making points as valid as you guys. She is saying her mythology doesn't believe in the trinity. You are saying yours does and it's right because people way back when believed this so it must be true. I posted something that said wait, not everyone back then believed that and you pick at me with the dates.

    The dates have nothing to do with it as they are from the right general time frame and show that trinitarianism was not as accepted as presented. Simple as that. The church named those teachings as heresy because they won and down played them because as the winners they get to write history.
     
  17. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    That's not what she said though. If that was what she'd said everyone would have just been "whatever". Indeed, this IS what Aikimac is saying she's doing. I sometimes wonder what thread you're reading from some of your responses.
    The dates have everything to do with it as as Aikimac stated, the main reason that trinitarianism won out was because it was what the church had believed for the most part from the get-go. You're also confused about the Arian crisis generally (and I think getting it a little mixed up with Nestorism), Arians were part of the church. It wasn't the church against the Arians, it was a contention between two different groups of the same church. If the Arians had won the debate, the church would be Arian. You can't win against yourself. This is the essence of Aikimac's main argument, this whole subject was heavily thrashed out at the time.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2012
  18. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    This might be the first time we actually agree inside the Religion sub-forum. I'm all, like, :jawdrop:

    And what the Sifu said.
     
  19. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    The point I was making was she was being dismissed because supposedly the early christians were trinitarian. This is not the case as there were several groups that weren't.

    .

    Even today there are non-trinitarian sects besides the LDS.
     
  20. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Re-read the opening sentence of the opening post: "For one, the early Christians didn't believe in [the trinity]."
    That's what the history discussion was about. The opening sentence is categorically wrong. As stated somewhere in this thread, proponents of the trinity eventually won the day by appealing to the oral teachings of the Apostles, which teachings had always been around and taught inside the Church.
     

Share This Page