Why Muslims Don't Believe in Concept of Trinity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Have you seen the link of the interview with Dr. Dirks? He answers this question quite succinctly in that piece.

This is a fascinating subject, and I wish I had the time to get into it. If I did have the time (maybe after the kids go to college and retirement?), I'm not sure Dr. Dirks is the one I'd choose to lead me through this topic. Or at least, I'd want to read a whole range of scholars on this subject and not just this one guy. If you you google, you can find rebuttals to Dr. Dirks, for example, the points he draws from a called the Ebionites.

This is the problem with being an auto-didact: if you start to study a field, you really need to do the work of figuring out the range of opinions. Don't just assume you understand after listening to one guy in a vacuum.

So, no to just reading just this one guy's position in a vacuum. There are plenty of scholars, also from Harvard, and even from other universities, who have thoughts on the subject. Possibly Dr. Dirks in a few years, when I have the time to compare his opinion to the opinions of a whole range of other scholars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its better for those who want an answer to that question to simply view the link. Post Dr. Dirks answer here and the islam haters will react like a shark smelling blood. Its evident he is an intellectual and well read. He is a soft spoken man. He said he felt like he was betraying his congregation standing up on the pulpit after he read the original manuscripts. He says these documents are not seen by everyone, but very good seminary schools will have them. He was lucky enough to attend Harvard.

No one is going all shark on him. He's entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else. I sense that you're expecting that his conversion will shatter minds, and it is simply not a factor that you hoped it would be. Someone converted. So what?

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its better for those who want an answer to that question to simply view the link. Post Dr. Dirks answer here and the islam haters will react like a shark smelling blood. Its evident he is an intellectual and well read. He is a soft spoken man. He said he felt like he was betraying his congregation standing up on the pulpit after he read the original manuscripts. He says these documents are not seen by everyone, but very good seminary schools will have them. He was lucky enough to attend Harvard.

No one is going all shark on him. He's entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else. I sense that you're expecting that his conversion will shatter minds, and it is simply not a factor that you hoped it would be. Someone converted. So what?

+1.

a more typical reaction to reading ancient biblical texts is to simply give up religion all together. It's all so obviously stitched together by ancient people with limited knowledge of the world

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that out of all things to discuss about Islam, the fact that it doesn't believe in trinity is as uncontroversial as it gets.

Who really DOES believe in trinity, besides Christians?

Even some Christians don't believe in the trinity.

+1. As that Dirks piece even points out, Harvard has been showing these early Christian-era documents (gnostic, contemporaneous jewish and various sects of the early Christian era) to seminarians for the last 20-30 years at least. It's not like this is anything new. These early Christian-era documents have been around for about 1900 years now, and many protestant catholic seminaries in the country teach them, as part of teaching how various doctrines like the trinity evolved.

In fact, if these other documents are so persuasive, why did only one single Harvard seminarian see these documents and then convert to Islam 20 years later? Consider that thousands of other Harvard seminarians saw these documents and never converted to Islam.

If you think Harvard is so great, then you won't be wowed by a ratio of 1 convert to Islam / 10,000 (or whatever) Harvard seminarians.

I have no doubt that many of these thousands of Harvard seminarians came out wondering about the Trinity. But only one converted to Islam.

Put me down in the "don't care" camp. I like Jesus' message better than other messages. I'm not converting to Islam because OP posted some link about one Harvard seminarian.

Yes, these documents are persuasive to some who see them, but if they do not convert it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't compelling. It would take a kind of fortitude not common to most people to actually leave Christianity because of what they've seen. If every seminarian converts, it would certainly shake up the Christianity faith and thats a monumental burden few people have shoulders broad enough to bear.
Here are a few more former Christian clergymen who converted, sometimes after seeing the orignal manuscripts that contradicted the Bible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHBY2nGxJS8
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=808_1318966592

and here are others that we actually know about (from http://www.missionislam.com/comprel/former.htm)
Dr. Jerald F. Dirks - Former minister (deacon) of the United Methodist Church. He holds a Master's degree in Divinity from Harvard University and a Doctorate in Psychology from the University of Denver. Author of The Cross and the Crescent: An Interfaith Dialogue between Christianity and Islam (ISBN 1-59008-002-5 - Amana Publications, 2001). He has published over 60 articles in the field of clinical psychology, and over 150 articles on Arabian horses
Abdullah al-Faruq - Formerly Kenneth L. Jenkins, minister and elder of the Pentecostal Church
Viacheslav Polosin - Former Archpriest of the Russian Orthodox Church
Anselm Tormeeda - 14th century CE scholar and priest
Khadijah 'Sue' Watson - Former pastor, missionary, professor. Master's degree in Divinity
Ibrahim Khalil - Former Egyptian Coptic priest
Anonymous Female Missionary - Former Catholic missionary
Martin John Mwaipopo - Former Lutheran Archbishop
Raphael - Former Jehovah's Witness minister
George Anthony - Former Catholic priest
Dr. Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar) - Former missionary

And other researchers have also come to the same conclusion as Dr. Jerald Dirks that Trinity is a man made concept, and not from the original manuscripts. Here's a research article that concludes, "Research, therefore, proves that even the concept of the Trinity, as taught by Christian religions, did not exist, and could not have existed, during all of Biblical history. The deduction, by factual research and logical reasoning, is that there is absolutely no evidence or proof that there is a Trinity. The evidence, in fact, proves the opposite -- there is definitely not a Trinity." Source: http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

Although most Muslims have not done extensive research, they all believe that divinity of Jesus and trinity are two concepts they can never understand or accept. It surprises some Muslims, however, that Christians believe Muslims will go to hell for not accepting that Jesus is God. This is quite different from most Muslims who do believe Christians may still go to Heaven despite the errors in their belief system.

Trinity is such a critical part of Christianity and Muslims are sometimes asked by Christians why they do not believe in it. It is incomprehensible to Muslims that God Almighty would turn himelf into a man. It is a difficult concept to grasp if one believes God is above man. However, if Trinity and the divinity of Jesus were, in fact, man made concepts developed because of geo-political issues at the time, it confirms to Muslims that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam truly deliver the same message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its better for those who want an answer to that question to simply view the link. Post Dr. Dirks answer here and the islam haters will react like a shark smelling blood. Its evident he is an intellectual and well read. He is a soft spoken man. He said he felt like he was betraying his congregation standing up on the pulpit after he read the original manuscripts. He says these documents are not seen by everyone, but very good seminary schools will have them. He was lucky enough to attend Harvard.

Whoa - Harvard! would we be impressed? Should we assume that what he says can be trusted???

Yes, and he's African American and from the ghetto too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its better for those who want an answer to that question to simply view the link. Post Dr. Dirks answer here and the islam haters will react like a shark smelling blood. Its evident he is an intellectual and well read. He is a soft spoken man. He said he felt like he was betraying his congregation standing up on the pulpit after he read the original manuscripts. He says these documents are not seen by everyone, but very good seminary schools will have them. He was lucky enough to attend Harvard.

No one is going all shark on him. He's entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else. I sense that you're expecting that his conversion will shatter minds, and it is simply not a factor that you hoped it would be. Someone converted. So what?

You are making this entire thread all about you. It's not. It was intended to be about why MUSLIMS do not believe in the Concept of Trinity. Dr. Dirks is but one person who converted after seeing original manuscripts. Readers of this thread may find this fascinating regardless of whether it "shatters minds."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Have you seen the link of the interview with Dr. Dirks? He answers this question quite succinctly in that piece.

This is a fascinating subject, and I wish I had the time to get into it. If I did have the time (maybe after the kids go to college and retirement?), I'm not sure Dr. Dirks is the one I'd choose to lead me through this topic. Or at least, I'd want to read a whole range of scholars on this subject and not just this one guy. If you you google, you can find rebuttals to Dr. Dirks, for example, the points he draws from a called the Ebionites.

This is the problem with being an auto-didact: if you start to study a field, you really need to do the work of figuring out the range of opinions. Don't just assume you understand after listening to one guy in a vacuum.

So, no to just reading just this one guy's position in a vacuum. There are plenty of scholars, also from Harvard, and even from other universities, who have thoughts on the subject. Possibly Dr. Dirks in a few years, when I have the time to compare his opinion to the opinions of a whole range of other scholars.

I concur and plan to start investigating this subject more also.

Dr. Dirks is just one person and he is valuable if only to make people curious and want to learn more. I don't think I ever implied he should be the only person to lead anyone through this topic. I agree that a whole range of scholars should be read. I looked at the rebuttals to Dr. Dirks. Were you referring to this document? http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/dirks/dirks_theology1.html

The Ebionites were apparently much closer to following what is contained in the original manuscripts, however, than people today. If trinity (and divinity) had not been added later, the original manuscript would probably describe a religion very similar to Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No one is going all shark on him. He's entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else. I sense that you're expecting that his conversion will shatter minds, and it is simply not a factor that you hoped it would be. Someone converted. So what?

You are making this entire thread all about you. It's not. It was intended to be about why MUSLIMS do not believe in the Concept of Trinity. Dr. Dirks is but one person who converted after seeing original manuscripts. Readers of this thread may find this fascinating regardless of whether it "shatters minds."

I agree with PP, and I'm the one who posted about investigating this more when I have time.

You don't get it. We all knew about this trinity debate beforehand, and it's not a huge deal in the scheme of things.

For perspective, someone here could google dozens of Muslim scholars who left Islam because of the various unscientific verses in the Quran (supposedly God's word, so getting science wrong is a problem), or because of theological disagreements about free will. I doubt anybody producing such a list of ex-Muslims would cause you to leave Islam immediately, would it? Can you start to see how silly your one scholar and your one dozen people sounds to us, in the scheme of things? Further, putting yourself out as some kind of expert on the trinity seems pretty funny to us. I would never claim to be an expert on the trinity, although I didn't mention that I have already read 1-2 scholars on this (not your guy Dirks). As I said before, reading just 1-2 scholars simply isn't enough. The fact that you drop 12 names of people you haven't read, and you mention "Harvard," isn't very compelling. Further, I wasn't going to say this, but your track record of googling and posting things you haven't bothered to read, let alone understand, undermines your credibility and, sorry to say it, raises understandable suspicion about bias in sources you do link to.

Your logic is baffling, when you say that not accepting the trinity means somebody should convert to Islam. You claim that thousands of seminarians suffer from a "lack of fortitude" because they don't "convert" to Islam. Obviously, these thousands of seminarians may or may not believe in the trinity. But this has nothing to do with whether they have a "lack of fortitude" for not immediately converting to Islam. Like me, they are still Christians, because they prefer Christianity to everything else about Islam.

Whatever I learn about the trinity in future studies, I can promise you that I won't be converting to Islam.

I--and very likely these seminarians you accuse of "lack of fortitude" -- won't convert to Islam because I don't find anything attractive in how Islam treats women and non-Muslims. I'm not converting to Islam because I can't reconcile the fact that the Quran is supposed to be God's own words with various unscientific verses in the Quran. I'm not converting to Islam because I agree with Jesus that personal behavior is much more important than a set of rules about eating, cleaning and such, as a way to God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its better for those who want an answer to that question to simply view the link. Post Dr. Dirks answer here and the islam haters will react like a shark smelling blood. Its evident he is an intellectual and well read. He is a soft spoken man. He said he felt like he was betraying his congregation standing up on the pulpit after he read the original manuscripts. He says these documents are not seen by everyone, but very good seminary schools will have them. He was lucky enough to attend Harvard.

No one is going all shark on him. He's entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else. I sense that you're expecting that his conversion will shatter minds, and it is simply not a factor that you hoped it would be. Someone converted. So what?

You are making this entire thread all about you. It's not. It was intended to be about why MUSLIMS do not believe in the Concept of Trinity. Dr. Dirks is but one person who converted after seeing original manuscripts. Readers of this thread may find this fascinating regardless of whether it "shatters minds."

I agree with 1st PP, and I'm the one who posted about investigating this more when I have time. Further, YOU are making this about CHRISTIAN SEMINARIANS who don't convert to Islam because of what you call a "lack of fortitude."

You don't get it. We all knew about this trinity debate beforehand, and it's not a huge deal in the scheme of things when comparing religions. The seminarians obviously know about this debate, and 99.9999% of them haven't converted to Islam.

For perspective, someone here could google dozens of Muslim scholars who left Islam because of the various unscientific verses in the Quran (supposedly God's word, so getting science wrong is a problem), or because of theological disagreements about free will. I doubt anybody producing such a list of ex-Muslims would cause you to leave Islam immediately, would it? Can you start to see how silly your one scholar and your one dozen people sounds to us, in the scheme of things? Further, putting yourself out as some kind of expert on the "correct" view on the trinity seems pretty funny to us. I would never claim to be an expert on the trinity, although I didn't mention that I have already read 1-2 scholars on this (not your guy Dirks). As I said before, reading just 1-2 scholars simply isn't enough. The fact that you drop 12 names of people you haven't read, and you mention "Harvard," isn't very compelling. Further, I wasn't going to say this, but your track record of googling and posting things you haven't bothered to read, let alone understand, undermines your credibility and, sorry to say it, raises understandable suspicion about bias in sources you link to.

Your logic is baffling, when you say that not accepting the trinity means somebody should convert to Islam, and if they don't convert, they lack "fortitude" and don't have "broad shoulders." What? Plenty of Christians have written against the trinity, yet they are still Christian. Like me, these seminarians are still Christians, because they prefer Christianity to everything else about Islam.

Whatever I learn about the trinity in future studies, I can promise you that I won't be converting to Islam. I guess somebody has to spell this out for you.

I--and very likely these seminarians you accuse of "lack of fortitude" -- won't convert to Islam because I don't find anything attractive in how Islam treats women and non-Muslims. I'm not converting to Islam because I can't reconcile the fact that the Quran is supposed to be God's own words with various unscientific verses in the Quran. I'm not converting to Islam because I agree with Jesus that personal behavior is much more important than a set of rules about eating, cleaning and such, as a way to God. I am Christian because I think Jesus' own words are compatible with my values in a way that the Quran is not. I could go on, but I hope you understand now.

[Anonymous]

Oh my. There you go getting emotional again. Why did you make this thread about you again? I post why Muslims have various beliefs to clarify and you think my post is an unabashed attempt to bring you over to my religion.

The trinity concept (and divinity concept) are probably the two aspects of Christianity that are incomprehensible to Muslims. This is why I think so few Muslims convert. I think another PP who is not even Muslim did her own research and wrote a well written answer refuting the death to apostates theory you and your islamophobes have tried so hard to advance.

Why am I even discussing the Muslim rejection of Trinity? To show interested readers that Christianity (crucial parts of it) have been made up or altered, that in the original manuscripts Jesus did not mention trinity or divinity, and so if you take away the man made "add ons" to this great faith, Christianity is remarkably similar to Islam. This would show that Gods message, sent to mankind at different periods throughout history was one and the same. Thus, we, Christians, Muslims, Jews are brethren. No need to fight amongst us, and no need to proselytize. We are the same. Its a unifying revelation, no?

I am truly interested in the unscientific verses from the Quran. Please share with all of us.

And I do not wish for you to convert. If you remain Christian, Muslims still believe the gates of Heaven are open to you, despite the fact that parts of Christianity were created by man.

[Anonymous]

You misread also. Yes for a seminarian to convert requires fortitude because one would be acknowledging that the belief system he held so dear consisted of man made ideas. But one could reject Trinity and the divinity concepts yet still be a Christian. Thats what Dr. Dirks did and he simply called himself an atypical Christian.

[Anonymous]

Nobody refuted the death to apostates rule in Islam. They said it exists but isn't always applied historically. Adk the Yazidis whether it exists, though.

[Anonymous]

Oh my yourself. I'm not emotional, and, like others here, I'm getting weary of how you fabricate these personal insults.

I addressed your obvious disappointment that people didn't follow your links and immediately convert to Islam because, you clearly said, allegedly we and many seminarians lack "fortitude."

I explained the very rational reasons--emotion has nothing to do with it--why the trinity issue is a small part of the big picture. The big picture is this: Islam's values are inconsistent with many Christian values about women, how to treat your enemy, and much more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

... so if you take away the man made "add ons" to this great faith, Christianity is remarkably similar to Islam.

No. Christianity and Islam are very, very different in fundamental ways.

It's astonishing you claim this after all the discussions on the many threads you started. Threads on which your statements about Christianity were refuted over and over.

It's a shame we even have to reiterate these threads from just the last few days. I wouldn't bother, but some reader might actually think your statement was fair or truthful.
-- You claimed Christianity allows polygamy just like Islam. This was categorically refuted.
-- You claimed Christianity allows concubines just like Islam. This was categorically refuted.
-- You claimed Christianity requires women to veil just like Islam. This was categorically refuted for women going out in public. Arguably (depending on the weight you place on Paul's letters) a woman who is praying should veil, but there's no widespread agreement among Christians on this.
-- Islam's shariah law requires that people who leave Islam be killed. Christianity does not require this, in fact true Christianity does not set Christians above non-believers and requires that Christians love their enemies. You have said you don't believe shariah, however, shariah was developed by Muslim jurists over 13 centuries and is followed by the vast majority of muslims today, so you can't possibly claim, categorically, that "all" Islam forbids executing people who leave it.
-- Christianity, unlike Islam, does not impose special taxes on non-believers. Christianity, unlike Islam, does not impose even more dire consequences on people who follow non-Abrahamic religions. As noted, true Christianity does not set Christians above non-believers and requires that Christians love their enemies.

And so on. Anybody can go back to these other threads to see how these issues played out in detail. I suggest anybody who is curious actually do revisit OP's threads.

Please stop summarizing debates, in which many of us participated, in a way that's patently false. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody refuted the death to apostates rule in Islam. They said it exists but isn't always applied historically. Adk the Yazidis whether it exists, though.

Oh yes, the world, particularly the Muslims put credence in what ISIS is doing. Practically every Muslim nation and numerous organizations have roundly denounced ISIS' actions as they are not in accordance with Islam. Christian crusaders spilled more blood than probably any other religious group in history, does it follow that Christianity orders killing?

Are we on that track again? That what fanatical or extremists do is symbolic of the actual religion? It is not.