Muslim Theology and the Word.

Okay, as of late I've had a thought going on in my head in my attempts to reconcile the Great Religions. What I want to know is, is there a reason that Muslim theology cannot accept the Trinity. Now hold on obviously I don't want the simplified saying that God is complete unto himself or anything like that. Specifically I want to know where exactly the Incarnation of Christ (the Son or the Word) becomes incompatible with Muslim belief.

1. I understand that for God to have a natural son would be incompatible with most muslim teaching. However Christ is the Incarnation of God in human form. Which means that Christ is only God's son inasmuch as he was born from a human mother (Mary). However is it incompatible for God to enshroud himself in human flesh and be on earth in a physical form?

2.If not is God unable or unwilling to do this? If he is unwilling, why?

3. I understand God looks like nothing else in creation according to Islam. However if this is true is God unable to appear as anything else? According to Christian belief man cannot fully comprehend the vision that is God the Father, yet we are taught that as man (the Son) other men and women could experience him. Is any of this incompatible with Islam?

I don't know much about Islam but I like to think I know enough of Christian theology to compare the two if enough information is given. That's why I'm asking for some of are better versed muslim members to help me figure out this theological questions. I await your guys' responses.

He is infinite and supreme. However, why would God the supreme take on a inferior form?

Who's to say that Jesus was an inferior form, as Jesus had no sin, he would be the most "superior" human that ever existed. And as such would be the most perfect human form God could inhabit.

According to Christianity God humbled himself by coming into the world as Christ so that he himself could remove the sins of mankind from the world. This is the reasoning behind God taking an "inferior" form. So in Muslim theology, if God chose to take on the sins of mankind would that be a good enough reason to limit himself for a time.

In Islamic theology man cannot fully grasp the concept of God, in Islamic Mysticism too man can only get a glimpse of God's glory the full to be only experienced through reunion with God. Well the whole son part is incompatible, through prayer one can get closer to God, however, one cannot fully understand something that is beyond him.

Well experiencing the Son would not be experiencing nearly the fullness of God, and no one understood Jesus fully back then, obviously as this is reflected in countless debates on what the Bible truly means even to this day. So couldn't the Son be merely "glimpsing the glory" of God and thus make it compatible?

. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation from Him.

Does not contradict the fact that Jesus is the Word (or the Son) which is one of the persons of God.

You shall not say, "Trinity." You shall refrain from this for your own good. GOD is only one god.

Now does this mean that God cannot have separate persons as in Christianity or that you shouldn't believe that God is a collection of separate deities, because in Christianity God is most certainly a united singular deity unto himself whose glory is manifested in the different persons.

From this quote:

[23:91] GOD has never begotten a son. Nor was there ever any other god beside Him. Otherwise, each god would have declared independence with his creations, and they would have competed with each other for dominance. GOD be glorified; far above their claims.

I would say that the previous is due to a confusion about the true nature of the trinity and as such does not dispute the fact that Christianity believes in one God who has no equals nor partners.

Be He glorified; He is much too glorious to have a son.

Now again if this is reference to a biological son of course Jesus is not his biological son. To put a rather crude and somewhat inaccurate depiction, Jesus is the glove of God's hand, rather than a separate being in Christianity.

Affirms the continuation of prophethood, and also the humanity of Jesus therefore not being able to reconcile the son as part of theology.

But since God is not unable to become human, why could Jesus not be fully human and still God? I know God would not become inferior without a good reason but if there was a good reason he could do this right?

Confirms Jesus' propethood, while close to God as the Messiah he is not God.

The Messiah doesn't mean he can't also be God. The Messiah just means that he (Jesus) is to be anointed as a King, specifically the King who will save the chosen people of God. What this means is that God is saying that the time for earthly king's is over and that the only King is to be the King in Heaven (himself).

The Messiah would never disdain from being a servant of GOD, nor would the closest angels. Those who disdain from worshipping Him, and are too arrogant to submit, He will summon them all before Him."

The Son was quite adamant about worshiping and glorifying the Father. In fact it is the utmost submission, God submits to his own wiser self.

[112:3] "Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten.

....Now this one is trickier but I believe it can be worked with. In Christianity we believe that God was never created nor will he ever be destroyed. So the second half is accurate, now the first part needs to be worked around in a more legal manner with translations to come into accord, whereas I could say that Christ proceeds from the Father rather than being merely begotten by the Father (as the Nicene Creed states.)

From the wording of this I am led to believe that this is a direct counter on the wording of the Nicene or Apostle's Creed that Muhammad would have been familiar with. Which means that this certainly had an agenda on it that would make it in direct opposition to Christianity which I feel is outside of the spirit of Islam. However I as it is ridiculous for me to try to reconcile two faiths while disputing the authoritativeness of the Koran and Islamic tradition while maintaining those of the Bible and Christian tradition I will merely state that the same original (Arabic) words in the Koran differ subtly from the original (Greek) words in the Creed, then the difference in the word "begotten" can be forgotten. I know it's a bit of a cop out but unlike the Koran, the Nicene Creed is not authoritative, it is in fact a summary of Christian belief and as such can be changed in order to incorporate new revealation.

I would say that all of the proscriptions about the fact that God (Allah) is one being without a mate and without children is more in line to distance itself from the pagan Arabic past, than to distance itself from Christianity. As the pagan Arabic Allah was the head of a rich pantheon which had wife-Gods and children-Gods, this was done to maintain that this Allah was not the same as the pagan Allah, much in the same way the Jewish El was not the same as the Phoenician El.

Trinity as in three persons coexisting that make up one God or however it is defined. The singularity of God is stressed in that. God is one, no mates, no son; we have the 99 names of God, which simply put are different attributes of God. God has attributes in Islam not personalties.

God has attributes in Islam not personalties.

Ah, but the separate persons are not separate personalities, it is here sadly that the English language is lacking to provide a proper word. To give an example of the trinity think of God as a human mind, made up of the ego, superego and the id. In it you may think of the Holy Spirit as the id, impulsive in it's total and unrestrained love in this world, however that love can be detrimental for beings that cannot comprehend God, so that means that we must have the superego, who acts as the conscience, this is the Father who creates the laws that all beings must follow or be destroyed. This is obviously a bit harsh and thus we have the ego or the Son who mediates between the other two and maintains the proper harmony on earth.

No remember just as a normal human mind has one personality split into the ego,superego and id. So God has one being separated into the three separate persons. If you separate any of the parts you do not have a true human mind and if you separate the persons you do not have a true God.

If Jesus was God then God died, and God is no more. To me that simply does not make sense.

His human body died, Jesus (God's) spirit cannot be destroyed. This is why Jesus is fully human but God the Father and the Holy Spirit are not, and why the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (somewhere Akolouthos just had an aneurism. ).

It is below him, and Jesus therefore is a special messenger of God, as is Muhammad and Ibrahim.

Isn't it up to God's own divine will what is below him, and not up to the intuition of man?

Jesus son of Mary is only a messenger of Allah and His Word

Actually this verse is pretty ironic considering that in the Gospel of John, Jesus is referred to as "the Word made Flesh". Thus the humanity of Jesus could quite easily be merely a messenger of "the Word (of God)", and still be acceptable to Christian ears.

Sorry I don't mean to be as trite as that but I got a smile out of that line. I also do not mean to be difficult, but the matters in the discussion force me responses to be difficult, as for the Centuries Islam and Christianity have been trying to create a rift between each other instead of trying to build upon common ground.

Christians say we are the Childern of God. Muslims don't say that.

Originally posted by gcle2003 I can't see much point in debating what Muslim theology might have been. It could have been anything.   It is what it is.

And what is it?

The point of the thread is to discuss the compatibility of the Trinity to Islamic concept of oneness of God, and as a form of dialouge.

Going Bahai are we Janus?

The concept of the trinity and islam are for all purposes completely irreconcilable. The Quran makes it clear, that God is indivisible, inseparable. Without returning Christianity to an earlier state (ie Islam) the two religions are fundamentally different.

Jesus is a messenger specially created to deliver Gods word. He is not a superior human being to Muhammed, Ibrahim, Moses, or Ismael. It is wrong to draw distinctions between prophets. (pbut)

From the wording of this I am led to believe that this is a direct counter on the wording of the Nicene or Apostle's Creed that Muhammad would have been familiar with. Which means that this certainly had an agenda on it that would make it in direct opposition to Christianity which I feel is outside of the spirit of Islam.

That is very interesting indeed. I would consider it highly unlikely that Muhammed knew of the wording of the Nicean creed, but the author of the Quran certainly did.

Originally posted by xi_tujue Christians say we are the Childern of God. Muslims don't say that.

Yes, except the Prophet himself did not put the words into writing, however, his followers did, then later on the collections were collected into the Qu'ran.