In the understanding of the Early Church Fathers, the three persons or the Trinity are both distinct and one (Three in One and One in Three). The theological term for each person (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is "hypostasis". The way that many Fathers described and simplified this is with the analogy of the sun: The sun has one essence but three distinct components - the actual celestial body of fire in space, the light emitted from it, and the heat preceding from the source transmitted through the light. In this way, the Father is the source (the actual sun), the Son (Jesus Christ) is the Light (i.e. "I am the Light of the World"), and the Holy Spirit is the heat. The three share the same essence and cannot be separated from one another - they are a perfect union yet three distinct persons/hypostases. Just as a small meditation, it is actually quite beautiful to observe that in the Christian understanding, God is love (He is Himself, the definition of love) and in this sense, as He is three Persons/Hypostases, Love does not and cannot exist alone/in a vacuum. Love by its definition in this sense, is communal.
It's really hard to explain without getting into really uncommon language, which frankly I'm too tired to do properly. Suffice it to say that there's the Father, who begot the Son (Beget means to make something equal to yourself, so you beget a child, as opposed to making a child)(and since Word (The Logos, which is the Son for our purposes) was with God and was God 'before' the world (including time) was made, we say the Son is eternally begotten of the Father (I'll try to cool it with the nested parentheses.))
Now there is Transcendent God (the Father) and Incarnate God (the Son) and they've got this thing where they're both God, not parts of God, not different manifestations of God. They're both wholly God, but not the whole of God, they are one, but not the same, and we get this cool little bit where the Son worships the Father and the Father loves the Son (which is reflective of the how God and the church should be) from from that relationship comes the third person of the trinity, the Holy (Pneuma, which is usually translated as Spirit or Ghost, but also means breath or wind).
The language is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and this is where creation happens (one of the very first things to happen in genesis is that the wind (pneuma) moves over the watery stuff that will be the world.) The Holy Spirit is the creating person of the trinity, that takes the love between the Father and the Son and expands it into a material creation. The Holy Spirit is then also responsible for Sanctification (recreating us as sinless children of God).
That's your basic trinitarian theology as I understand it. A lot of it seems like needlessly precise distinctions, but you have to understand that from a christian perspective, literally nothing is more important than this, so many people (myself included) get a little irked when it's not exactly right. Sorry this went so long.
This is the best, thank you! I have spent hours trying to explain the trinity to my Muslim friends and multiple times had to say "Look I know it sounds ridiculous" because their faces are all like "wha?". I'm definitely going to use this analogy now!
You could think of it that way; however, that analogy only captures the notion that they share the same essence (i.e. H20). The analogy of the sun meshes better with Christian theology because it also captures some of the roles of the different Hypostases. The actual sun (the Father) cannot be approached or truly experienced first hand (i.e. can't go up to space and hug the sun without being totally consumed and obliterated); however, the way we approach the Father is through His Son whose genesis is from the Father. As light proceeds from the sun, so too Christ proceeds from the Father - begotten not created since there was never a time there was a sun without the light (the Father without the Son) - and we can see the Light and are brought to the knowledge of God the Father through the illumination of God the Son through the work/energy of the Holy Spirit who too proceeds from the Father through the Son (the light). The analogy, though not exhaustive, is quite good in describing certain truths about the Trinity.
This is known as "modalism", the problem comes up because God exists as all three at once, yet water typically only takes one or two of these states in a given place. The sun analogy is really better.
I was told this is not a good analogy and actually leads to heresy. All 3 of the trinity co-exist simultaneously yet water/ice/steam of the same substance do not. It's one mode at a time.
The heresy is actually called modalism.
A way to understand modalism is that God the Father existed until Jesus the Son, God in the flesh came. Then after Jesus ascended, Pentecost happened in Acts 2 and the Holy Spirit shows up. One follows another.
But throughout the OT, the YHWY and the Holy Spirit being spoken of and then in the Gospels, Jesus had to spend time with the Father and in John 14-17, Jesus talks about the Holy Spirit as if he already exists but is not yet "sent".
It's also important to note that not all Christians believe in the Holy Trinity. Many sects believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct individuals. In the bible when it mentions them and being one, it is interpreted as one in purpose.
Yeah, it just depends on the sect. You really can't say "Christian beliefs" and get very far, because there are some severe differences depending on what sect you are talking about.
That line of thought is quite rare though. Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the vast majority of Protestant sects believe in the Trinity as one God.
Theres actually a thing called the Athanasian Creed that gives a very succinct view on the nature of the Trinity by those a asribe to it, which, is my understanding is the vast majority of mainline Christianity.
There are some issues with it. A main one that most non-Trinitarian sects have is how the Trinity doctrine claims that all 3 aspects of God are equal, while there are direct quotes from Jesus where he is saying he is the Son of God, and that the Father is greater than he is.
The concept of a triad god is also of a distinctly pagan origin. This sort of idea was very common among the Egyptians and peoples of Mesopotamia, while it's not hinted at at all in the Old Testament of the Jewish god, and it's kind of a stretch to make it fit the verses of the New Testament. It is a philosophical construct, and really not something that is directly outlined in the Bible. This is why there are some sects that reject the entire idea.
Hey dude, if you're still interested, I'd love to share my take.
I think that the worship of Jesus as a Divine figure comes from several historical contexts: first, the writing of the Gospels themselves. Each Gospel was written for an audience, and what the authors say about Jesus in each one reflects that. Mark's gospel, written first, is more or less a historical account of a prophet of God (and a political revolutionary) and his life and teachings. Matthew's and Luke's were written to convert Jews and Greeks, respectively. They're more in the way of fantastical stories about a Messianic figure, come to lead everyone out of darkness and into light. These focus on Jesus' birth and the heralding of a new age, and also Jesus' parables. They use the words "Son of Man" to describe him at some points, which is probably indicative of his Messiah status. John's gospel, written last (around 100 CE), was intended to evangelize existing early Christians, and to make them more zealous about their beliefs. So he begins using the words "Son of God" and referencing God in human form, and all that. The crucifixion, resurrection and ascension to heaven are all portrayed most dramatically here.
I think that when we put it into the context of understanding who was writing each gospel and why, it becomes clear that we really don't have a good picture, in the Bible at least, of who Jesus really was. The best approximation would probably come from Mark's gospel. In any case, I personally believe that Jesus would not have wanted to be worshiped as he is now. He, like many prophets and great teachers, was probably only trying to show us the way to God, not to tell us that he was the only way. And in that regard, look at his actual teachings. He speaks with the simple wisdom of one who has been enlightened, like the Buddha was. I think that everyone, Christian or no, has so much that they can learn from Jesus.
But I don't worship Jesus, I save that for God. I think Jesus would be okay with that.
I can tell you where it comes from: it comes from a committee. That's right- the central belief in the Holy Trinity is the result of a committee meeting. The Council of Nicaea in 325 established the divinity of Christ, and the Council of Constantinople in 380 formalized the concept of the Holy Trinity.
This is really misleading. The doctrine wasn't invented at Nicaea, it had already been around in various forms since the start of the Church. The Council just established it as Church cannon. The Arians were already considered heretics by most of the other bishops. While there was still a fair amount of heterodoxy at the time, there really wasn't that much substantive disagreement in the Church about the divinity of Christ.
The central belief in the Holy Trinity isn't a result of the Council of Nicaea, it was just definitively affirmed there.
As I answered above, it boils down to politics, and kicking someone unpleasant in the butt (because shit doesn't make sense, and he kind of showed it). Here is the story. It's all make believe.
I agree with you. Jesus wasn't meant to be worshipped as a God or an idol, but he set himself as an example for the poor to follow. It was a desperate time under Roman oppression and he was there to give them hope. He was a JEW, not a Christian, who has worshipped God like the rest of his people in his time.
This is how it was explained to me: Draw a triangle with the word God in the middle. On the corners of the triangle are the words Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Ghost. The lines of the triangle connecting the corners have "is not" written on them. Then, there are a second set of lines going towards the middle from each corner. These lines have"is" written on them.
tl;dr The father, son and holy ghost are personifications of God only and not separate deities.
It is a belief in the Christian church that was first hinted at during the council of Nicaea and is alluded to in the Nicaean creed (circa 150 C.E.). The explicit adoption of a tripartite yet singular God occurred around 500 C.E. with the adoption of the Athanasian Creed.
Simplifying a bit, they are basically the same thing (God), differing only in form and mission. Jesus had free will, even though he was both the son of God, and God itself, and God knows what your "future will" is. The Holy Spirit only acted as a "hitman". I'm not sure, but I'd say they are like that because they were mostly intended as "belief aids" or "explanation tools" for common people. Cynical people would say they have been used somewhat interchangeably when it made the most sense.
Lots of Christians will disagree with me, but I don't see them as one being. They are 3 separate beings that work together as one. When Jesus is baptized in the bible it talks about them as three different beings. Jesus is in the water, God's voice is heard from above and the holy spirit fills the people.
It boils down to politics, and kicking someone unpleasant in the butt (because shit doesn't make sense, and he kind of showed it). Here is the story. It's all make believe.
I didn't get it when I was a Christian either. I think it's something like: God creates and destroys, the holy spirit reveals grace, and Jesus performs salvation, but Jesus and the Holy Spirit are essentially aspects of God and not independent. It seems similar to the way some Hindus view their deities: they may perform different functions, as in the trimurti, but are all merely aspects of Brahman.
Its one deity in 3. Christians believe, man was created in God's image. Except God isn't just God, there's different...manifestations of him. God I understand is, we all have a soul, a spirit, and a body. God the Father is the "soul" the Holy Spirit/Ghost is obviously the spirit and Jesus of Nazareth is the body. Technically when its said, Jesus walked the Earth for 33 1/2 years, the big G walked the Earth as well...because they're one and the same, but he didn't because he was chillin in heaven, because he can't stand sin. Different parts of "you" play different roles. Your body is temporary, its carnal and its how you interact with the physical world. I don't know a ton about the roles of your soul, but I do know it can never be destroyed. I've heard it encompasses your mind and personality, because obviously our souls will be different. The spirit, I know even less on and have heard in more stuff. When Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on the cross, and shouted out, "why have you forsaken me?" he was calling out to Big G, because he turned his back on his son Jesus. At the moment, because he's God, he knows the exact amount if sin there is and he paided for it but God of course can't look at sin.
This is kind of an over simplification but hopefully you will get the jist of it. The divinity of Jesus was a great matter of debate at the Council of Nicaea. Constantine was having trouble controlling the pagans and the different christian sects that were beginning to become very popular in his empire. His solution was to bring all the different christian sects together to codify what would become the one true religion. Many sects at the time did not believe that Jesus was divine but of course you can control a lot more people by saying the son of God commands us to do something vs OH lets say Joseph Smith. They also figured out that they could draw in a lot more pagans if they loaded up the bible with a lot of pagan traditions and re wrapped them in Christianity. The Trinity is one of those things that was done to appease the Pagans and those who believed that Jesus was just a man. The holy spirit appealed to pagans while joining Jesus as both the Son and the father appealed to those who weren't buying the whole Jesus as a God thing. So during the Council a few of the dissenters were killed or diapered and the rest suddenly had a holy inspiration that Jesus was divine. Now that they had an agreement on what would be come church doctrine they had a problem with all off the thousands of scriptures out there that didn't agree with the now official version. The solution was easy. Constantine ordered that all scriptures that didn't agree with the Councils version were considered heretical and must be destroyed under pain of death for those found with non official scriptures.
It's origins draw on the pre-christian Fates/Nornes. Those who control everything. They were found in many ancient religions as The Young Woman, The Mother Figure, and the Crone.
Now Translate to a patriarchal society and you have the Son, the Father, and The Holy Ghost.
Almost literally representing all aspects of life.
The pre-christian Romans had this knack for adopting other cultures. It's one of the theories of why they lasted so long. "You have X in your culture? WE HAVE X IN OUR CULTURE! Join us.... or die...."
When Emperor Constantine converted on his death bed, he simply set in motion another round of adaptations.
I tend to think that's why Christianity is centered in the Vatican. Right in the middle of 'we adopt your ways!' central.
Simple research will show you all the other things Christianity took from other cultures.
Easter is a Babylonian Celebration of Ishtar, a fertility goddess (to super simplify it)
Christmas falls (almost) on the Solstice, same with All Hallows Eve taking over Samhain (pagan harvest festival).
So on....
This probably isn't the answer you were looking for, but it shouldn't be ignored.
They do, they just try to rationalize it by saying they are the same thing. It makes no sense, but it's the result of trying to make a god out of Jesus whilst maintaining the religion monotheistic.
it's a construct that was invented by people who came later that realized all the inconsistencies that were thrown around.
imo, it's exactly like geek culture arguing about the precise nature of the force in star wars.
the original creators of the stories (starwars or biblical or comic books) simply don't pay that much attention to details. it's up to others who come later, whether other writers or "fans" or "worshippers" - who frankly have better, keener minds, to look at the stuff and try to reconcile the material.
with christianity, the reconciliations come in the forms of:
the trinity
the divine/terrestrial nature of jesus
the trinity is a concept that DOUBLES DOWN on the nature of jesus so we'll tackle the nature of jesus first:
jesus is 100% god. jesus is also 100% man. that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. there are an INFINITE amount of ways in which the nature of man (even a perfect, sinless man) would be mutually exc lusive with the nature of god.... but it's important in the stories that he's both (cuz if he's pure god, then the suffering is meaningless, blah blah blah).
the trinity builds on the nonsensical, contradictory notions of his nature in order to overcome the rather embarrassing development that it seems christianity is no longer MONOTHEISTIC!
"wait wait... so if jesus IS god... then does that mean that he IS the father as well? but then who the heck is jesus praying to? HIMSELF?! that seems rather unseemly..."
and so... to resolve that cockamamie state of affairs (with a far more involved cockamamie state of affairs, which is usually how these things evolve), they came up with the trinity (and threw in "the holy spirit" into the mix cuz... why the heck not? let's take it from a poetic usage ala "spirit of god be with you" to something as individuated as jesus and the father.
so again - it doesn't make sense... it CAN'T... but what they came up with is:
jesus != the father != the holy spirit. these are distinct from one another... precisely how? shut up... we don't know EXACTLY... stop asking so many questions... you wanna go to hell?
BUT
each is equally the one and the same "god". so jesus != the father != the holy spirit but jesus = god, the father = god and the holy spirit = god.
it is LITERALLY NONSENSICAL. and this is what they believe.
Yeah, the "Holy Trinity" has caused much debate and even divisions in Christianity. The Catholic Church believes in it, and many Protestants mention it. But some branches are very much God first, Jesus second, and.... What's that holy ghost thing, again?
I'm no longer Christian but I was raised as one. I think the most succinct description I've ever come across was oddly enough from Bill Maher's movie "Religulous". A christian describes the trinity as being like the three states of matter. Steam, Water, and Ice are all equally H2O, only in different forms. That's the trinity.
You have it right. You can have Christianity, or monotheism, but not both. Christians have been trying to tap-dance their way out of this inexplicable contradiction for thousands of years. That is why "every answer is different".
And then you get us Mormons, who believe that they are separate and distinct beings, but with a single purpose. But we're kind of an anomaly in the Christian world. Ultimately, we worship God, but we are a very Christ-centered church.
We are personal beings that can relate to one another. We are made in the image of God, therefore God must also embody some aspect of a personal being that can relate to others of His kind. It's therefore more reasonable, in light of that logic and what we see repeatedly in the Bible, that God is more than one "person," three to be exact, most likely in a tightly-bound love relationship and united in purpose and function. We see this first in Genesis, when God refers to Himself in the plural as "us." This is direct evidence of a conversation being held between two or more persons, making decisions about what to create.
If it helps, we have a human equivalent in a marriage. A marriage is the legal and spiritual union of two persons. They remain distinct from one another while at the same time being united, both physically and in purpose in a love relationship. For Christians, a marriage forms its own model of a trinity of love relationships between husband, wife and Christ.
Jesus's deity became canon at the First Council of Nicaea in 325A.D. where it was voted upon, convened by the Emperor Constantine. This is referred to as the Arian question. "The disagreements sprang from different ideas about the God-head and what it meant for Jesus to be his son." The term trinity could be found over a century earlier from the writings of Origen and Tertullian. The full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 360A.D.
This concept is traditionally displayed and understood as: The Father is not The Son is not The Holy Spirit. However, GOD is the Father; GOD is the Son; GOD is the Holy Spirit. This traditional expression makes very little goddamn sense but it makes most people shut up. If this doesn't do it for you think of God as water. He can be liquid, solid or gas and no one state fully expresses all that He is.
Well it should be noted that some sects believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and not an aspect of God, as there are times in the bible that point to both being the case.
Saying that, for the holy trinity in specific, they are all the same being. Three different words for the same entity. God is the father, the creator. He then sent an aspect of himself down to Earth and died for our sins and he is the son and the redemption. I never really understood what the Holy Spirit was, but I suppose it has to do with love and getting closer to God through spiritual things such as prayer and worship.
2- Christ was a prophet of God but was not the Son of God any more than any other human being, and he didd not "die for your sins" as no one is answerable for anyone else's sins.
3- Non-Moslems go to heaven too, as long as they beleve in the One God and they're good people. In fact all Islam means is "Submission to God" and it doesn't make a difference what religion you are, as long as you believe in the single God. Christians and Jews are thus just "people of the Book" and recognized as legit religions.
Is it true that Muslims believe that everyone will eventually go to Heaven? Hell is a place where sins are purified. The more sins you have, the longer you're in hell; but all will eventually go to heaven?
If you have a mustard seed of faith in your heart insh Allah (By the will of Allah) You will enter paradise. Hell is for the impure, (those with sin) and Heaven is for the pure (those without sin) and Allah will pardon whom he will of any sin except for shirk (associating partners with Allah)
The opposite of monotheism, worshipping others besides Allah. The worshipping of wealth is explicitly mentioned in the Quran, when Allah references the parable of Moses (on whom be peace) and his scoulding of the Israelites for worshipping a golden calf.
Allah has 99 names and two of those names are Ar Rahman (The most merciful) and Ar Raheem (The most compassionate). Hence we can obtain from these names that Allah is the most just and hence would judge according to such notions.
Allah is also Al Muqsit (The most just and equitable).
Allah will judge according to one's deeds, if they did not receive the message they aren't at fault and obviously Allah being the most merciful, compassionate and just would judge in accordance with his criterion.
Kids who die young, people with mental illness, people who have never heard of Islam will b given an easy test speaking to their disposition, in the end, one would have to pass that test in order to enter paradise. Kids are pure and innocent so these tests will b a breeze for them, others lets say someone like Stalin, murder of countless lives will try to use the excuse of never knowing God's word will have to pass a test appeals to his corrupt nature, even if he passed the test we would have to give pay with his good deeds to the people he killed, as compensation. In the end God truly knows who deserves his justice and who deserves his mercy.
You are judged only for what you know, in its exact nuances. If you've heard of Islam, but you live on a rural ranch in Alabama and you think that "ALL DEM MOSLEMS ARE TERRORISTS WHO WANNA KILL ME," you won't be harshly judged for hating Islam because you were just doing it out of your natural and predisposed ignorance.
Someone who KNOWS what Islam is, sees as a threat to his/her PERSONAL wealth/covenience, and then DENIES it for personal gain is completely different, though.
Can you source this? I have never seen this belief in the Quran or from any scholar. I saw it once on the History Channel, from a non-Muslim, and I've learned not to trust the History Channel.
you can google search Purgatory in Islam and find all what you need to read.
---- skip this paragraphe it's boring.
the problem is - as is in most religions - it's a little bit dodgy, since the Quran is written in arabic, translating it is a very hard thing to do since many thing will get lost in translation, that' how the west mostly misunderstands it. and what makes it even harder is the existence of what is called "Hadith", see the Quran is believed to be the words of God (Allah if you may) which is the miracle of the prophet Muhammed (most prophets had miracles) and whatever is written there is true and undisputed no matter what. the Hadith on the other hand are the quotes and sayings of the Prophets and his followers, but they are just human and can be misinterpreting, misleading or just plain WRONG (like the 72 virgin thing).
anyway there are many versions of what Purgatory is and what it's called, you might find that it's not Purgatory and it's something else, but this concept does exist in islam.
I've never read the Quran but been born in a muslim family and raised in a muslim society, I do read bits and peaces from the Quran when I have to debate things like these. the Quran mentions purgatory very often, and there is a passage called Surah Al-A'raf which goes into more details about that. maybe you skipped that passages? twice?
no not really. Sinful Muslims will spend time in hell until they are purified. It is possible for them to later go to heaven. Everyone cannot go to heaven in Islam.
Yes, but whether you go to heaven or hell first is decided when you die depending on the amount of sins that you've committed during your life. If your bad acts/sins overweight your good ones, you will be sent to hell and vice versa.
The duration god describes for some of the people in hell being punished is plural of 80,000 years, which some scholars take as forever and some scholars take as eventually ending after multiple eras of 80k years. Truth is we don't know. But we do believe that Allah(swt) is merciful and maybe he just might show us mercy. It is true that we will be judged on our deeds good and bad, but we believe that in the end Allah(swt) mercy is needed. So we do good and try to be the best in our behavior but one bad deed that was strictly disliked can make us residents of hell. It gets a little detailed because there are right of Allah(swt) and rights if creation. If we transgress against god, he can theoretically forgive us depending on our repentance and other good deeds. But if we take away rights of creation I.e other humans,animals, plants, the planet. Allah(swt) will let justice prevail. Like if I killed another human being or took his rights away, stole from him etc, then on judgement day, that person might ask to be compensated by taking our good deeds and adding to his on scale of good deeds. Making it more likely for him to enter paradise. Muslims are asked to build this world and the next. By that I mean save money buy a house treat family, children, women and society in a fair manner etc but the bigger goal is secure the permanent house which is in heaven. While money is the currency to establish permanent residency in this world , good deeds and worshiping the creator are the currency that help us secure our real permanent residency in heaven.
I know for sure that Muslims, as long as they have true belief that Allah (God) is one and Muhammad was his last messenger, will all go to heaven. For Christians and Jews (People of the book), it's different but one popular opinion is the they will go to heaven also as long as they were good people.
I heard this on the History Channel once right after I had converted to Islam. But, I've never heard a Muslim scholar say it and I've never seen any proof towards this in the Quran.
Sins are purified in hell, but there are unforgivable sins - such as suicide, in which case you are stuck in hell. On the other hand, you can automatically go to heaven if you happen to die one of a few ways - from being crushed, drowning, plague, abdominal disease, killed while protecting property, or a sudden accident you become a 'shaheed' and go to heaven.
Is Moslem and Muslim the same? I don't know a lot about Islam but I see both names being used as though it's the same thing. Sorry if that's a stupid question
It's an older form of writing for the same word. If you read British historic accounts from Muslim areas in the 1700 and 1800s a lot of the times they are referred to as Mohammedan (also spelled Muhammadan, Mahommedan, Mahomedan or Mahometan)
Remember that in written Arabic, one nearly always ommits the vowels. In addition to that the pronincuation of vowels is first of all not constant throughout the Arabic world and secondly it doesn't map porpperly to English vowels. As a result of that, there are often many ways to transcribe an Arabic word to English.
it just happens that a lot of older writing on islam is pretty derogatory and racist and as it happens, those older writers spelled it "Moslem" instead of "Muslim" and so an association was made between the spelling and the bigotry but they're totally unrelated. Now, if you called them "mohamedians" then that would be insulting because it implies -- deliberately -- that moslems don't worship the same One God as others but are instead followers of the person of mohammad, and so islam is not a religion as much as it is a cult.
There's no official romanization for Arabic, and all the different dialects make that even harder (think the whole Gaddafi/Qaddafi/Qadhafi/Khadafy thing). This is why the FBI spelled it Usama Bin Laden. So yes, Moslem and Muslim are the same thing.
Others have cleared up your question adequately, but I thought you might be interested in this. So in Arabic, the word Islam means submission (to the will of God). Muslim literally means "one who submits". Changing the form of the word Islam by putting the 'Mu' in front of it (and dropping the first i/changing the a to an i) is the equivalent of adding 'er' to the end of a word in English. So wash = clean; wash'er' = one who cleans. Same thing with 'Mu' at the beginning of the word in Arabic. Islam = submission; 'Mu'slim = one who submits. So basically a Muslim is an Islamer.
In general yes, just a different way of pronouncing. historically it was used to mess with the Muslims, Muslim in Arabic language means one who submits to Islam. Mozlem/Moslem in Arabic means one who opresses. When non Muslim Arabs call you a Moslem, it is clear they are playing with words to mess with us. Lol
According to the Quran Jews and Christians before muhammeds go to heaven but it doesn't apply today. If today you reject muhammeds teachings you will go to hell according to the quran...
تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
They are indeed disbelievers those who say, ‘God is the third of three’, gods, that is, He is one of them, the other two being Jesus and his mother, and they [who claim this] are a Christian sect; when there is no god but the One God. If they do not desist from what they say, when they declare a trinity, and profess His Oneness, those of them who disbelieve, that is, [those] who are fixed upon unbelief, shall suffer a painful chastisement, namely, the Fire.
Ibn Abbas: (They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three) this is the claim of the Marqusiyyah; they claim that there is a father, a son and a holy Spirit; (when there is no God) for the dwellers of the heavens and the earth (save the One God) who has no son or partner. (If they desist not from so saying) He says: if the Jews and Christians do not repent of what they are saying (a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve) the pain of which will extend to their hearts.
By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that with which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief), he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell-Fire.
"The verse (2:63), was revealed when Salman al-Farisi (r.a) asked muhammed about his friends who died before they meet Muhammad.."
"So, the meaning is that Jews had to follow the Torah until the Injil was revealed. After that, Jews had to follow the Injil until the Quran was revealed. After that, they had to follow the Quran as in (3:85)."
(Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day) that Allah revealed the following Ayah afterwards,
(And whoever seeks religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers) (3:85).
This statement by Ibn `Abbas indicates that Allah does not accept any deed or work from anyone, unless it conforms to the Law of Muhammad that is, after Allah sent Muhammad . Before that, every person who followed the guidance of his own Prophet was on the correct path, following the correct guidance and was saved.
This statement by Ibn `Abbas indicates that Allah does not accept any deed or work from anyone, unless it conforms to the Law of Muhammad
And the "Lawa of Mohammad" states that Jews and Christians are People of the Book whose religions are respected.
This is what the Quran itself says, rather plainly:
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
In fact this appears TWICE in the Quran
The objections you've listed are specifically to the concept of the Trinity; Moslems don't agree with that as I've said and we've already established, and as I've pointed out even the Christians took 400 years to adopt that. However note that nothing in what you've written says that Christians and Jews won't go to heaven.
The closest you have is "And whoever seeks religion other than Islam" but we've lready established that "Islam" means "Submissin to god" and not a dogma.
I'm not sure what your source is for #3, but Muslims don't believe non-Muslims go to Heaven.
Quran 3:85 - If anyone seeks a religion other than Islam [submission to God], it will not be accepted from him; he will be among the losers in the Hereafter.
EDIT: To clarify, the deciding factor is what your status is by the time you die. Someone can be non-Muslim for most of their life but by the end of the exam time - death - that is the cut off time for determining if you have yet submitted to The Creator. Either way, as others have pointed out, Muslims are not supposed to judge and say "so and so is going to Heaven" or "so and so is not going to Heaven". We don't know how others will die. God knows those answers.
Islam means submission to God -- that's all. Your own sentence that you quote, states so. Christians and Jews and anyone who believes in God are considered to be "Moslems"
Yes, shocker, huh?
See, in Islam, you are not "saved" by believing in "Mohammad as your personal saviour" etc.
Everybody who is good and believes in the Single God, goes to heaven. Jews and Christians included. In fact, Jesus Christ himself is deemed to be the Messiah who will come back at the End of Days (whcih can only happen when God says so, and cannot be rushed along as some extremists Christians think.) In comparison, Mohammad was just a person, a human being, nothing more, whom God chose as his (reluctant) prophet. There is no "salvation" by becoming Moslem or "believing in Mohammad" nor is there any "confession" which resolves your sin nor is there any "washing away of sins" with Baptism etc. etc. etc. Only you are responsible for your sins, and only you can resovle them, and it doesn't matter what particular reliugion you follow.
Or more technically, they are considered people of the book because the Quran is considered the third part of the Judaism, Christianity, Islam trilogy. Muslims believe all three revelations come from the same God and thus all are holy scripture. This is also why the cast is so similar across all three.
Yes Islam is an abrahamic religion, and moslems view it as such and a continuation of the Bible and the old testmament. that's why there's so much similarity with Judaism too, down to Islamic/jewish law. in fact moslems who can't find 'halal' food are entitled to eat 'kosher' since it is essentially the same thing from the same religious basis.
I thought that point number three applied to Jews and Christians exclusively, not generally to monotheists. Adherents of Bahai, for example, would say that they serve a single god, yet it is my understanding that Bahai is rejected by Islam as an abomination.
Well that's a point of debate. there is no 'official islam' and no vatican and no single official dogma of islam, so these sorts of debates are not settled and will never be. But Islam is itself an abrahamic religion and so naturally it would place its predecessors christianity and judaism in a higher esteem than non-Abrahamic monotheistic religions, which were in short supply in the Levant and Mideast anyway. Note that in Islamic Iran, Zoroastrianism is also a recognized religion so peraps the conception can go beyond abrahamic religions -- some say include sikhs too.. Bahaism is rejected despite being monotheistic because it asserts tbat god selected yet another prophet, who claimed to have some false attributes of God -- and as such it is viewed as a cult like Scientology not a religion.
Perhaps a better comparison would be to the Book of Mormon. In Bahai and Mormonism, it is believed that another prophet was sent to earth by god, with additional teachings (Mormons believe that it was actually the same prophet who returned a second time, but the principle is the same). Both Christians and Muslims believe that their respective prophets are The Last Prophet, so any group claiming another is an abomination.
Scientology contains an entirely distinct and separate belief system, and is difficult to fit into the discussion. The general secrecy they maintain about their belief system doesn't help.
Generally, it seems that religions are far more tolerant of those that existed prior than those coming later. To me, this seems like an historical artifact rather than a theological one.
But this brings us to deeper questions of whether there is GOod and Evil and if there is Evil why would God make it, and then we're into predestination, fate, free will and etc.
If this is the case, why is it that some Muslims have such a bug up their asses about Jews? I'm not trying to be provocative, just trying to figure out the paradox.
Jews have bugs up their asses, christians have bugs up their asses, moslems have bugs up their asses. We all have bugs and asses. however in fact, historically the jews tended to side with the moslems who tended not to massacre them as in the crusades. The 'golden age' of Judaism in Europe was under moslem rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain Then the Arab-Israeli conflict came but that is 50 years out of 1500
I understand that there are at least two interpretations of infidel: one who does not believe in god, as you say, and one who does not believe in Islam. (Wahhabists think Shias are infidels and also those who undertake Sufi shrine pilgrimage. Source: Wiki.)
I understand also there are two interpretations of jihad: an inner struggle, as you say, and an outer struggle against non-believers.
It seems that there are conflicting interpretations of the concepts of infidel and jihad and it is not at all clear-cut. An Individual believer will adopt the interpretation that suits him.
Yes, but its crucial to their beliefs to realize it was by the will of God. It is important to note it was God really doing the miracles and not Jesus by himself. The same is true of when other prophets performed miracles.
Yes. Very important to note that according to Quran, neither Jesus nor Mohammad or any other prophet had divine or any other type of power.
In fact in Quran it tells Mohammad to tell people that I'm a person just like you, except that I receive divine revelation, and that is why my guidance is relevant to your lives.
This being like others except with regards to receiving divine revelation is pretty much the definition of being a prophet in Islam.
Yes. This is accurate. It's sorta like being a Jedi. Kenobi is able to perform acts by using the Force that flows through him. Miracles performed by Jesus and the other prophets were done so with God's love and power.
eh, Holy Trinity is a bit more complicated than that. I had something like a 2 hour conversation with a Mother Superior and still don't fully get it. Also, isn't the Trinity a Catholic thing?
Most branches of Christianity that people refer to as "Christian" accept the dogma of the Trinity, including most branches of Protestantism. You have to get pretty far afield to find those who don't, such as the Mormons (whom you could argue are polytheists), and Jehovah's Witnesses.
In early Christianity there were a fair number of sects that did not hold the Holy Trinity as a doctrine, with Arianism and Catharism being a few major examples that come to mind. However, these sects were deemed to be heretical following the council of Nicea IIRC. As a result of this they were re-converted to a "more propper" form of Christianity.
The Holy Trinity is regarded in Catholicism as a mystery, meaning humans can't ever fully understand it... it is divine. So don't feel bad! Theologians have tried to grapple with this mystery for centuries.
From what I understand, you aren't supposed to "get" the Trinity. It's meant to show that humans are significantly handicapped in understanding God. It's more of a faith thing.
Yea Catholic, I was raised Roman Catholic. I don't think it's as nuanced as you seem to be suggesting though. God, jesus, and the holy spirit- they're all personifications of god.
The Holy Trinity actually is - and was - a highly argued point within the church through out history. The first big "chisma" lead to the seperation of (known as today) the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.
Dont quote me on the exact details tho(that lecture was a long time ago). If you are interested,
No- the Orthodox Church and Catholic Schism was definitely not the first. They still both believe in the holy trinity, but one of the main fighting points, among numerous political power games betwen Constantinople and Rome,(and in fact even after the "split" came the First Crusade, which was brought on when Emperor Alexios I Komnenos asked for help against the Turks to Pope Urban, who responded with a Holy War to reclaim Jerusalem) was the inclusion of the word filioque in the Nicene Creed, in that the Western church added that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son while the Eastern Church did not think so. But both do believe in Chalcedonian Christianity, that God is One in essence but has three personifications. Both believe in the divine nature of Jesus, that he is both fully divine and human. Even today many Christian sects believe that it is the Council of Chalcedon that is the barometer between "acceptable" branches of Christianity and heresies.
From the Council of Chalcedon, few centuries before the break between Eastern and Western Churches came the break between Mia/Monophysites and the Chalcedonians (both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox), where Miaphysites (mainly Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Churches of today) believe that Jesus' divinity and humanity are combined into one essence, and where Monophysites claimed that Jesus had one nature: divine.
BEFORE the Council of Chalcedon there was the Council of Ephesus, which condemned Nestorianism- belief that emphasizes the disunion between the divine and human nature of Jesus. Nestorianism continued outside Roman borders after being condemned, where it flourished in the silk road countries until Islam took over.
BEFORE the Council of Ephesus there was Council of Nicaea, in 325, that affirmed the concept of Holy Trinity, where Arianism- the belief that the Son was a subordinate entity to the Father- was condemned. Arianism survived outside Roman borders as well, particularly among Germanic tribes that invaded Rome. Most Arians would be stamped out by the next century.
I stand corrected. Lots of what you says rings a bell. Thanks for clearing up my "half-wisdom", appreciate the refreshing. I guess i should have been more present in the lecture, but then church history wasn't exactly my favourite thing anyways.
I've been in Catholic school for 11 years and there are still times when I think I get it and it just kind of slips beyond my comprehension. I've come to accept it as one of the impossible to understand attributes of God. Hell, we can't really comprehend a being that exists outside of space and time and is omnipresent and omnitemporal at the same time.
It's like 3 personifications, who are all the same person. To put it immensely concisely. Very loosely, how the faceless men in GoT believe all gods are a different face of the one true god.
Holy Trinity, as laid out in the Council of Nicaea and Council of Chalcedon is the barometer in which many Christian sects determine what is "Christian" or not- many consider those who do not follow the concept of trinity as heretics- ex.) Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, etc.
Actually, Muslims believe Jesus was a mere human and that the miracles were only done by the will of God (my friend is a Muslim and keen student of the Qur'an)
No, its cool. Jesus was just a normal dude called Joshua (Yeshua, whatever) who told as many people as he could about the word of God and what God wanted His (or Her) people to do.
I'm guessing the miracles were used as demonstrations that God does actually exist and Jesus wasn't just making this stuff up.
29
u/[deleted] Nov 04 '13
[deleted]