The Quran, Torah, and Trinity

Some scholars argue that the Quran complements the Torah given to the Jews, as the Torah does not contain a description of God's nature mentioned in Surah 112 verse 3 of the Quran, which questions the idea of Trinity. How can this argument be clarified?
The topic you bring up involves several layers of religious interpretation and debate among scholars. Let's unpack this step by step:

1. Surah 112 (Al Ikhlas) of the Quran: This is a short chapter (surah) that describes the oneness of God (tawhid). The verses you're referring to are:
Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent."

This is a clear declaration of monotheism and negates the idea of God having offspring or being born from something. Many interpret this as a challenge to the Christian idea of the Trinity and God's sonship.

2. The Torah and God's Description: While it's true that the Torah emphasizes the oneness of God, the Torah does not contain the explicit language found in Surah 112 of the Quran regarding God not begetting nor being begotten. This difference is often cited as evidence for the Quran being a complementary revelation.

3. Quran as Complementary: The Quran itself claims to be a final testament that confirms what came before it (previous scriptures) and also acts as a guardian over them, correcting any deviations or misunderstandings. This is the foundation of the belief that the Quran is complementary to earlier revelations like the Torah.

However, it's essential to understand that these interpretations and beliefs are rooted in faith and religious traditions. The interpretation of scriptures, whether it's the Torah, Bible, or Quran, can vary widely among scholars and believers within their respective faiths.

Monotheism: Unitarian and Trinitarian

Does the term "monotheism" include both Unitarians and Trinitarians?

Yes, the term "monotheism" broadly refers to the belief in a single, all-powerful God. Both Unitarians and Trinitarians are considered monotheists, but they understand the nature of God differently.

Unitarians typically believe in the oneness of God and reject the concept of the Trinity, emphasizing the singular nature of God.

Trinitarians, on the other hand, believe in a Triune God, meaning that one God exists in three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, yet these three are co-equal and co-eternal.

While both groups affirm the existence of one God, their interpretations and theological understandings of that oneness differ significantly. Therefore, in a broader sense, both Unitarians and Trinitarians can be included under the umbrella of monotheism, but with important distinctions in their beliefs about the nature of God.

Which view of monotheism aligns better with Jesus' statement in John 17, verse 3: Unitarian or Trinitarian?

In John 17, verse 3, Jesus says, "Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." This highlights the differences between Unitarianism, which sees God as a single entity and views Jesus as a prophet, and Trinitarianism, which believes in one God in three persons, including the divine nature of Jesus.

Analysis of John 17, verse 3 shows that Jesus references God the Father as the "only true God," aligning with Unitarian views of God's singularity. Jesus' distinction between himself and the Father supports this perspective, as it implies a subordinate role for Jesus.

On the other hand, Trinitarians may argue that this verse acknowledges the relational aspect of the Trinity, asserting that Jesus' focus on the Father does not lessen his own divinity.

In conclusion, Unitarianism seems to align more closely with John 17, verse 3, emphasizing God's oneness and the distinction between God and Jesus. However, Trinitarians argue that their interpretation encompasses a unified yet complex view of God. Ultimately, interpretations depend on underlying theological beliefs.

The Comma Johanneum: The History and Controversy Behind 1 John 5:7-8

It often disturbs some devout Christians to learn that parts of 1 John 5, verses 7 and 8, as found in the King James Version and New King James Version, are actually present in only a handful of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Could you kindly elaborate more on this?
The passage in question, commonly referred to as the Comma Johanneum, is found in 1 John 5, verses 7 and 8 in the King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV). Here’s how it reads in those translations:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

The specific portion that is controversial is:

”…the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

This specific wording is not found in the majority of early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The Comma Johanneum is absent from nearly all Greek manuscripts before the 14th and 15th centuries.

1. Earliest Manuscripts: The earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of 1 John (such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century) do not contain the Comma Johanneum.
2. Church Fathers: Early church fathers like Origen, Cyprian, and Augustine also do not quote this Trinitarian formula, suggesting it was not present in the manuscripts available to them.
3. Latin Tradition: The Comma Johanneum appears in some Latin manuscripts from the 4th century onward, primarily in the writings of certain Latin theologians. It was included in later Latin translations, particularly those influenced by the Vulgate.
4. Introduction into Greek Texts: The insertion of the Comma into Greek manuscripts is believed to have occurred during the Middle Ages, significantly influenced by the Latin tradition. Its occurrence is limited to a small number of late medieval Greek manuscripts, specifically approximately seven to eight in total.

The King James Version translators in the early 17th century relied heavily on the Textus Receptus, a Greek text compiled by Erasmus in the early 1500s. Erasmus’s initial editions of the Textus Receptus did not contain the Comma Johanneum, since he found no Greek manuscript that included it. Under pressure from certain theologians and after being shown a Greek manuscript (likely created for this purpose), he included it in his third edition (1522). This inclusion led to its presence in the King James Version.

Most modern Bible translations (such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and NRSV) exclude the Comma Johanneum or place it in a footnote, recognizing that it is not supported by the earliest and most reliable manuscripts.

Conclusion

The inclusion of the Comma Johanneum in both the King James Version and the New King James Version reflects historical context rather than original authenticity. Although this may be troubling for some Christians, it underscores the complexities involved in the transmission of biblical texts. Unlike most modern translations, its presence in these versions stems from varying manuscript traditions, and scholars largely agree that it was added to the text of 1 John at a later date.

Abrahamic covenant and Islam

Islam is considered a restored religion of Abraham, based on the perspective that both Judaism and Christianity have deviated from his original teachings.

Adherents of Islam assert that Judaism has altered the command regarding the sacrifice of Abraham's son, holding that the son in question was Ishmael rather than Isaac.

Furthermore, they contend that Christianity has diverged from the tenet of monotheism by introducing the concept of the Trinity and modifying the practice of circumcision.
Therefore, from the Islamic viewpoint, Islam embodies the authentic restoration of the teachings of Abraham as presented in the Quran.

Was the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled through Ishmael rather than Isaac?

The belief that the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled through Ishmael rather than Isaac, including the promise of land from the Nile to the Euphrates and the blessing to all nations through Abraham’s seed, is held by some, particularly within Islamic tradition. Here’s a more detailed articulation of their argument:

Ishmael and the Covenant

1. Ishmael as the Firstborn: Supporters of this view argue that Ishmael, being Abraham’s firstborn son, was the original heir to the covenant. They emphasize that Ishmael was the first child of Abraham, born to Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian maidservant.

2. Sacrifice Narrative: They contend that the narrative of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son originally referred to Ishmael, not Isaac. This is based on the belief that ancient scriptures were altered by Israelite scribes to emphasize Isaac’s role.

3. Blessing and Land Promise: The promise of land from the Nile to the Euphrates and the blessing to all nations is seen as applying to Ishmael’s descendants. Islamic tradition views Ishmael as an ancestor of the Arab peoples, and thus sees the fulfillment of these promises through the Islamic Hajj and in the rise of Islamic civilization.

Scriptural Alteration Argument

1. Scribal Changes: They argue that ancient Israelite scribes altered the scriptures to shift the focus from Ishmael to Isaac. This was done to establish a theological foundation for the Israelites’ claim to the land and their unique covenantal relationship with God.

2. Evidence from Quranic Texts: The Quran does not name the son of the near sacrifice, but Islamic tradition identifies him as Ishmael. This is supported by the timeline in the Quran, which implies that the promise of Isaac's birth occurred following the sacrifice event, suggesting that Ishmael was the probable candidate.

In conclusion, the perspective that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the true heir to the Abrahamic covenant is rooted in the belief that Ishmael, as the firstborn, was the original recipient of God’s promises. This view is supported by interpretations of Islamic tradition and arguments regarding scriptural alterations. While this belief contrasts with the traditional Judeo-Christian view that Isaac was the chosen heir, it highlights the diverse understandings and interpretations of Abrahamic history within different religious traditions.