English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

10 answers

Those who do not accept the Trinity doctrine reject it in part because the word "Trinity" is not found in Scripture. Of course, there is no verse that says "God is three Persons" or "God is a Trinity." This is all quite evident and true, strictly speaking, but it proves nothing. There are many words and phrases that Christians use, which are not found in the Bible. For example, the word "Bible" is not found in the Bible.

More to the point, opponents of the Trinity doctrine claim that a Trinitarian view of God’s nature and being can’t be proven from the Bible. Since the books of the Bible are not written as theological tracts, this may seem on the surface to be true. There is no statement in Scripture that says, "God is three Persons in one being, and here is the proof. . ."

However, the New Testament does bring God (Father), the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit together in such a way as to strongly imply the Trinitarian nature of God. Three Scriptures are quoted below as a summary of the many other biblical passages that bring together the three Persons of the Godhead. One Scripture is from the Gospels, another is from the apostle Paul and a third is from the apostle Peter. The words in each passage referring to each of the three Persons are italicized to emphasize their Trinitarian implication:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19].

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all [2 Corinthians 13:14].

To God’s elect. . .who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood [1 Peter 1:1-2].

2006-12-25 19:55:05 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

Not only is the word trinity not found in any bible, but the idea of the trinity is not taught either.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

2006-12-27 14:46:23 · answer #2 · answered by TeeM 7 · 0 0

Funnily enough the closest the Bible ever comes to mentioning God as a trinity in its complete form is John 1:1, even then it is still only really reffering to 2 indivdiuals.

The idea of a trinity is a pagan belief adopted by the Church , like Christmas and Easter.

2006-12-26 03:54:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

[004:171] O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allâh aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Îsâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allâh and His Word, ("Be!" – and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Rûh) created by Him; so believe in Allâh and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allâh is (the only) One Ilâh (God), Glorified is He (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allâh is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.

[004:172] The Messiah will never be proud to reject to be a slave of Allâh, nor the angels who are the near (to Allâh). And whosoever rejects His worship and is proud, then He will gather them all together to Himself.

2006-12-26 03:53:52 · answer #4 · answered by onewhosubmits 6 · 0 0

It isn't. The notion of the trinity is an invention of the Catholic religion, and no basis in scripture.

In fact Jesus only claims to be the ONLY son of God in one chapter of the bible (the third Chapter of John,) all other chapters he only refers to himself as the "son of man". Professing to be mortal like the rest of us.

2006-12-26 07:55:08 · answer #5 · answered by Rev. Two Bears 6 · 0 0

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.........The Word is Jesus Christ.........No, the word trinity is not in the bible...........

2006-12-26 05:56:54 · answer #6 · answered by mitch 4 · 0 0

Bile?

2006-12-26 03:53:07 · answer #7 · answered by Evil Atheist Conspirator 4 · 0 0

merry christmas

2006-12-26 03:52:46 · answer #8 · answered by cinabolic 3 · 0 0

None of them!

2006-12-26 03:57:20 · answer #9 · answered by -♦One-♦-Love♦- 7 · 0 0

Where are the originals?

If you mean to refer to the Injeel (the book revealed to Jesus /Eesaa, may Allaah exalt his mention) by the term (original bible), then we do not know the location of the copy you are asking about. But what we can say surely and without any doubt is that the Injeel has been altered and changed by human beings throughout history and the original copy no longer exists.

Therefore, a Muslim has no need to search for its original copy after Allaah has sent the great Quran. Allaah Says (which means): {And is it not sufficient for them that We revealed to you the Book [i.e. the Quran] which is recited to them? Indeed in that is a mercy and reminder for a people who believe.}[Quran 29:51].

He also Says (which means): {And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam], the Book [i.e. the Quran] in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it.}[Quran 5:48].

On the other hand, if by the term (original bible) you are referring to the book used by the Christians, then we say the following:

In the Quran Allaah informs us that He revealed a number of books, including the pages of Prophet Abraham, the Psalms of Prophet David, the Torah of Prophet Moses, the Injeel (Gospel) of Prophet Jesus, and finally, the Quran of Prophet Muhammad. Of these revealed texts only the Quran remains intact in its original form. All of the others (as complete books) have been lost, their remains have survived only as fragments or tampered with in some way so as to make their authenticity doubtful. No where in the Quran is the Bible even mentioned, to say nothing of its being among the revealed texts of Allaah, or as Christian claim "The Word of God." Further, we know from respected scholars that although some fragments of the Psalms, the Torah, and the Injeel (the teachings of Prophet Jesus) may be found in the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, the Bible can not rightfully be called "The Word of God." Why is this so?

As one publisher (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois) stated: 'The Bible may look like one book, but it is actually sixty-six books in one. Thirty-nine books make up what we call the Old Testament, and twenty-seven make up the New Testament. It is possible that more than forty writers were used by God to write all sixty-six books.' (Quoted from the "Holy Bible" – New Living Translation, Gift & Award Edition, l997, p. vii)

So if the Bible is neither narrated by God nor written by Him, and, as such, is not ‘the word of God,' then what is it? By any objective criteria, the Bible is a book containing a compilation of stories, legends, folk tales, folk lore, myths, sagas, narratives, poetry, fragments of scriptures (fragments from the Psalms, the Torah, and the Injeel as already mentioned), letters (esp. in New Testament), visions, dreams, accounts of events from doubtful sources (not eye witnesses), editors’ or scribes’ notes, as well as human errors.

For those who believe in it, it is a book that has historical, cultural, moral and ethical values, and a source of spiritual teaching and guidance. It is a book held in high esteem, primarily by Christians who see it as a divine book and the source of their religious beliefs. But, in the final analysis it is only a book with many limitations and imperfections which disqualify it from being called "The Word of God." Whoever makes such a claim then the burden of proof rests with him. On the contrary, the Glorious Quran is the Speech of Allaah and, through the Angel Gabriel, was revealed to Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam; later compiled into a book more than 14 centuries ago it remains in its original form until today.

Some common misunderstandings about the Bible include the following:

* The Bible is one book, the Old Testament. The Bible contains sixty-six books (or more depending upon the denomination one belongs to).

* The Old Testament (OT) is the Torah followed by the Jews. The OT contains some fragments of the Torah which was lost and the Psalms, but the Talmud is the book followed by the Jews and is totally unrelated to the Bible.

* The New Testament (NT) is the Gospel of Prophet Jesus, or the Injeel. It is neither. It is made up of twenty-seven books, none of which was narrated or written by Prophet Jesus although the NT may contain fragments of the Injeel (sayings and teachings of Prophet Jesus). The Injeel as revealed through Prophet Jesus has been lost. The fragments which may be cited in the NT may not be authentic or in their proper context. So it is erroneous to equate the NT with the Injeel mentioned in the Quran.

* The Bible is a holy book, narrated, dictated by God and is infallible. While this is a claim, this misconception has already been addressed. Since the Bible is 'only' a book, there is no need to call it a forgery, a corrupted text, etc. The Quran is the only authentic "Word of God," His Speech, and Allaah has promised to protect it from distortion of any kind until the Day of Judgment and He has kept His promise. Not one letter or syllable has been changed over the past l4 centuries.



What are the difference between Torah and Qur'an?

The common ground between the Noble Qur'an and the Torah is that both are Books revealed by Allah the Exalted through the Archangel Jibreel (Gabriel), peace be upon him. Yet, the essential differences between these tow Books are the following: 1) The Holy Qur'an is preserved by Allah Almighty against interpolation and adulteration, as Allah Says (interpretation of meaning): Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'ân) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)[15:9]. As for the Torah, it did not escape such interpolation and adulteration. 2) The Holy Qur'an was sent down on Allah's Messenger, Muhammad, sporadically (in steps) according to separate occasions and events, while the Torah was revealed all at once. 3) The Qur'an constitutes a commanding law whose validity is continuous till Doomsday, whereas the Torah was abrogated by the Qur'an being the last revealed Book and being supremely predominant over all of the previous Scriptures. Allah Almighty Says: And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Qur'ân) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Mohayminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures)[5:48]


Do the Words 'Torat' and 'Injeel' in the Qur'an refer to the Original Uncorrupted Scriptures?

Question:

In your response to the recent article "If the Bible is corrupted..." (17th January), I feel it is also worth mentioning that the verses in question, (10,64) and (5,68) and other related verses obviously do not, and cannot refer to the "mainstream" scriptures that were/are corrupted in possession at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and those that we have now.

I think, from my general understanding of these verses, the Qur'an obviously refers to the true, original, uncorrupted scriptures that were given to the people aforetime (i.e. Jews and Christians). This is especially apparent in Surah 5, verse 68.

So the Torah and the Injil mentioned in the Qur'an most certainly cannot be the "Old Testament", the "Pentateuch" or the "New Testament" as we have today, but the original Torah and Gospel as was revealed to both Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh).

Therefore is it not better understood logically that these verses in fact refer to the scriptures that were revealed in a pure state and not the corrupted versions?

Answer:

The Qur'an, by the names 'Torah' and 'Injeel' refers to what was called 'Torah' and 'Injeel' in the environment in which the Qur'an was revealed. It is obvious that had the Qur'an implied something else by these words, it was then necessary to clarify that the words were being used to imply something different from what they were commonly used in the environment. It should be kept in mind that the implication of words in a good piece of literature cannot be against the common usage of such words. If such is the case, it can only be considered a flaw of that piece of literature. For example, in the contemporary English language, the phrase "the prophet" (in singular form) is used only for Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)[1]. If any contemporary English writer uses the phrase to imply any other person, it would only be considered a serious mistake and flaw in his writing, unless he/she explicitly or implicitly[2] clarifies in his writing that the phrase has been used in a meaning different from its generally understood connotation.

It may, however, be noted that the 'Torah' and the 'Injeel' (especially the Injeel) that we have in our hands today are not necessarily the ones which were referred to as the Torah and the Injeel by the first addressees of the Qur'an. This is substantiated by a few references of the Qur'an to the Jews and Christians living in the environment of the revelation of the Qur'an. For instance, the Qur'an has referred to a particular sect of Jews, who hold "`uzair" to be the son of God. This obviously is a reference to a particular sect of Jews, who held `uzair to be the Son of God (as the mainstream Jews do not, generally, ascribe to this belief). Furthermore, it should be interesting to note that the Qur'an has referred to the Christians in its environment, by the name of "Nasaara", while, it is known that the general (mainstream) Christians had come to be known as "Christians" or "Maseehee" from a very early period of Christianity (as is mentioned in the Biblical book "Acts of the Prophets"). In view of this fact, it seems quite plausible that the Christians living in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an were generally those who ascribed to the Nazarene creed. The Nazarenes were a Syrian Judeo-Christian sect that came to be recognized in the fourth century AD. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Although they [the Nazarenes] accepted the divinity of Christ and his supernatural birth, the Nazarenes also maintained strict observance of Jewish laws and customs, a practice that had been dropped by the majority of Jewish Christians. They used a version of the Gospel in Aramaic called the Gospel According to the Hebrews, or the Gospel of the Nazarenes.

However, it is extremely unfortunate that the Injeel according to the Hebrews or the Gospel of the Nazarenes (which was probably the book referred to as 'Injeel' in the environment in which the Qur'an was revealed) is nowhere to be found anymore, as has been mentioned in the quote of the Encyclopedia.

This is my opinion regarding the references of the Qur'an to the two books. However, do let me know if I have failed to fully clarify my point of view.


[1] Refer to the word 'Prophet' in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Encyclopedic Dictionary, third impression, 1995.

[2] Implicit clarification may be through the context in which the word is being used.


The Qur'ân came to humanity after all the previous revealed scriptures had either been lost or, like the Torah and the Gospel , corrupted. Allah speaks about how people had corrupted the scriptures, saying: “Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: ‘This is from Allah' to gain from it a paltry price. So woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they gain from it.” [ Sûrah al-Baqarah : 79]

2006-12-26 03:54:00 · answer #10 · answered by A2Z 4 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers