Bowman

Yes...I have read through most of this debate...however, the premise of what he thinks the Trinity is, is not even really defined

I am Dave Burke, and I thank you for taking an interest in the debate.

Firstly, defining the Trinity was not my responsibility, but Bowman's. He presented a basic definition and I made it clear that I agreed to work with this definition throughout our debate.

Secondly, I repeatedly demonstrated what I understand the Trinity to be, using orthodox definitions straight from the mouths of Trinitarians.

In Week 1 I defined the two essential formula of Trinitarianism as 'Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God' and 'God = Father + Son + Holy Spirit.' Bowman did not disagree with these definitions, though he disagreed with me over the methodology required to prove them.

In the same week I cited the Athanasian Creed to show that despite his claim to use concepts derived solely from Scripture, Bowman was relying on 4th Century theology:

You count the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as 'three persons', then you tell me that they are all 'Yahweh', but you don't want to accept that three persons each called 'Yahweh' comprise three Yahwehs. This reflects the logically incoherent statements of the Athanasian Creed, which states:

So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.

Here we have a series of unBiblical statements which mirror your own assertions exactly. Our readers should now be asking themselves how you can claim to be only using concepts derived purely from Scripture, whilst simultaneously articulating ideas sourced directly from fourth-century theological traditions, in language inspired directly by the metaphysical language of that period.

Bowman did not disagree with this definition.

Then why are we not allowed to see his comments? />

The plus signs in your definition seem to indicate that you think that summation is required.

Regardless...since you feel that you have a mental grasp as to what the Trinity is, well, then show us your very best Trinity-killer verse and detail to us exactly how it supposedly thwarts the Trinity.

This is the same friendly challenge that I extend to all Trinity-deniers just to keep them honest and to see if they know what they are talking about.

As we can see, no one on this 'Unitarian only'forum was willing to take up the challenge...instead, relying on the delete, edit and lock keys...not impressive...

Will you?

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>"Do they not then consider the Qur'ân carefully? Had it been from other than Allâh, they would surely have found therein much contradictions"</span>

The Qur'an and the Crucifixion
There is only one mention of the crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur'an, which is in the middle of an anti-Jewish passage in Surat al-Nisaa (the women). The relevant verses read:-

157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah"; —But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: —
158 Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;
(Q4:157,158)

Several Muslim scholars in history have pointed out that this passage can be taken several different ways. It could be that the emphasis is on the word "they" - ie Jesus was crucified and killed but not by the Jews, who merely believed that they had done this. It could be that the emphasis is on "Christ Jesus the Son of Mary" - ie someone else was crucified and killed. Or it could be that the emphasis is on "killed him not nor crucified him", ie they failed to crucify of kill Jesus, although they thought that they had done so.

Modern Muslims tend to take the verse as proof that Jesus was not killed on the cross, although this is not the meaning held by the earliest Muslim commentators. Al-Tabari, for example, wrote that Jesus was in fact put to death by crucifixion. (Al-Tabari is the father of Muslim commentary: his tafsir and ta'rikh are the basis of most Sunni commentaries on the Qur'an. Much of the Qur'an can't be understood because the context is not available; the Tafsir of al-Tabari fills in much of the detail and hence allows those parts of the Qur'an to be interpreted).

The problem with asking Muslims for evidence is that many Muslims don't see evidence the way that one might expect. For a Muslim, an authoritative commentary on the Qur'an might seem to be very good evidence. The question is what real evidence we can produce for Muslims; the Muslims tend to believe that they need no more evidence than the rather dubious interpretation of the Qur'an.

The evidence for the crucifixion consists of two essential points: the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances of Jesus. These are well attested; the most compelling evidence for the empty tomb is that the Jewish authorities felt that they needed to account for it, while the most compelling evidence for the eyewitnesses to Jesus after the resurrection is in the variety of sources - four Gospels and various epistles (Muslims tend to stop thinking when they come across the Apostle Paul - the list of 1 Cor 15 is very good testimony, but Muslim dislike of Paul tends to cloud their judgement and stop them from considering it).

The point is that the empty tomb shows that the person who was crucified is the one who was raised. If some kind of substitute was crucified, then why did God raise him from the dead?

The witness to the risen Christ is also interesting in that the risen Jesus was careful to identify himself to his disciples. In Jn 20 he shows his hands and his feet, pierced by the crucifixion nails.

The challenge to Muslims is to think about the resurrection and to try to provide an account which is consistent with the real evidence.

Yours

John the Bearded

If I were to read the Qur'an in English, which translation should I use and why? Thank you.