In Al-quraan it is written: He is God, the One and Only;ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š God, the Eternal, Absolute;ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. - Surah 112
In terms of polemical works against the dogma of the Holy Trinity, the Qur’an has to be one of the poorest and most intellectually inept works at that.
When considering the many verses in the Qur’an that concern the idea that the Allah of the Qur’an does not beget or is not begotten, it is quite clear that the intention of the author is to address the Orthodox Christian concept of God which involves the fundamental principle regarding the Father begetting the Son before all ages. The problem with the Qur’an is that the concept of begetting that it attempts to refute is a concept that the author understands in a strictly carnal/physical/literal context. This is absolutely absurd to say the least, for such a context is certainly not in mind when the Orthodox Christian recites the Nicaean Creed, and no less was it in the mind of our Holy Nicaean Fathers who sought to defend and uphold that creed upon its being framed in the first place.
In other words, the author of the Qur’an launches a straw man attack which inevitably leaves us with two possible conclusions to draw concerning that very author: either that author was ignorant, or that author was a liar. Needless to say, either conclusion leaves the author of the Qur’an with a pretty poor resume in their application to be the One True God.
So much of this is not unlike Pagan Myth
In fact, it is quite unlike any pagan myth; you just need a good dose of honest scholarship to realise that. Where do you plan to start with this one: Osiris, Mithras, or Dionysius? Believe me, you’re bringing nothing new to the table; I have been through all this before many times.
and to the Semitic Monotheism is alien
And what exactly do you mean by “semitic monotheism”? You’re going to have to explain yourself a little clearer so I know exactly what kind of online articles you’ve been reading.
and considered the product of later innovations (Bid'dah)
We are not concerned with what is considered, or what is claimed, or what is believed, but only what is. I believe the idea of progressive revelation has already been discussed with you in the thread you initiated elsewhere in this forum. Whilst the concept of the Incarnation was alluded to in the Old Testament, it was explicated in the New Testament, and further expounded by the Holy Fathers of the Church; in other words, it was progressively revealed according to the discretion of God Himself, for His own purposes and according to His own will.
the message of Isa was introduced to the Pagan World and altered by their Philosophies.
Please notify me when you are ready to engage in reasoned and evidence-based discussion.
I believe that we (Jews and Muslims) grasp the Christian Trinity
I have read over your posts, Mumin. You evidently do not grasp the basic and fundamental metaphysical concepts necessary to understand the Holy Trinity (insofar as it has been revealed to mankind). You’re not fooling anyone on this site by claiming to understand the Trinity, when those of us who indeed have studied Nicaean Theology can clearly see that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I recommend that you read the dialogue between 13th century Muslim philosopher Al-Waraq, and his Coptic Christian opponent, for a good understanding of how and why Muslims simply do not understand the Concept of God that they purport to reject. I do not have that work before me at this very moment so I will provide you with the reference for it another time.
we simply don't find it in Judaic nor Islam revelations.
What you do or do not find does not answer the question as to what is or is not there. For the believer in Christ, exegesis of the “Judaic revelations” is subject to Christ who explicitly claimed to embody the very exegesis of the Law, and His Church which was established through His Holy Apostles by His authority.
As far as what can be derived from Islamic “revelations”, that is irrelevant to our understanding of true Christianity. Muhammed was a man who had no historical connection with Christ or His Apostles, and who bears no credibility with respect to his claims to a mythical connection to Christ and the Prophets. Period. Thus, whilst I can understand the concern to consider the Old Testament in our discussions of Christian doctrine, Islamic literature such as the Qur'an or the hadiths bear no relevance to such discussion.