Reasons for the Anti-Trinitarian Doctrine of Islam
by Salam
Falaki
I wanted to
do a study of Christian literature in the Arabic language of the time before
Muhammad until today. In the Vatican, there is a large collection of work,
about five volumes, describing the history of the Christian Arabic literature,
written by a German Catholic called Graf. I read the relevant parts of this
voluminous work and I was very disappointed because I found out there is
practically no Christian Arabic literature available today from the time before
Muhammad. In fact, no complete Bible was translated into Arabic at the time of
Muhammad and for a very long time afterward. The first Arabic Bible was not
available until the sixteenth century. If I were to speak of the
anti-Trinitarian doctrine of Islam only from existing literary sources, I would
have nothing to say on this topic. Since we do not have sources, I have to
limit myself to general observations. I will try to approach the subject from
two points of view.
Why is there an Anti-Trinitarian Doctrine in Islam?
The first one
is from the point of view of the development of the history of doctrine,
especially the doctrine of the Trinity before the time of Muhammad. This
is church history and those of you who have studied theology probably know most
of this, so it is a review, but it is important to keep in mind. The first
aspect I want to highlight is the development of the doctrine of the Trinity
before Muhammad and a view of Muhammad in the context of this development.
The second
point of view is a purely biblical point of view, both Old Testament and
New Testament. I will try to summarize some of the most important points of the
doctrine of the Trinity in and through and from the Bible.
Let us begin
with the first aspect:
The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity before
Muhammad
Before the
real divisions in the church concerning the Trinity took place, there were two
extreme views.
One group of
people had a view that said the Logos, the Word of God, is subordinate to God.
This implies a general tendency to separate God and man in Jesus Christ.
The other
extreme took the position that God and the Divinity of Jesus are the same,
meaning, if you speak about Jesus, you speak about God. These people emphasize
the unity of God and man in Jesus Christ.
These two
differing views brought fourth the two most famous heresies concerning the
doctrine of the Trinity.
The first
heresy is called the Subordinating Logos Christiology, which says that Christ
has something godly in him, but is definitely below the Father. He is not of
the same essence as the Father; he is man with some divine attributes.
The other
heresy was the so-called heresy of Docetic Christiology. Docetic comes from the
Greek word docane, which means to appear. For these people the humanity of
Jesus was nearly non-existent.
In the Subordinating Logos Christiology the divinity of Jesus was undervalued. Docetic Christiology stated that the human nature of Jesus was inferior to the Father and they said, He only appeared to be a human being, in reality He was truly and fully God, living in the world.
These two
extremes led to a controversy called the Arian or the Trinitarian controversy.
In the controversy two people, Arius and Athanasius represented the two
opposing viewpoints. Arius taught that Jesus is an ideal man, different from
the Father, a created being and not born of God or begotten of God.
Athanasius on
the other hand said Jesus is wholly God and completely God. He is of the same
essence as the Father. He is not a created being, but is generated or born of
the Father.
The result of
this controversy, which did not only take place between these two people but
within and between whole churches, was that a council convened in the year 325
in Nicaea. The council advanced the position of Athanasius, meaning Athanasius
prevailed. The formula that we repeat in our Nicaean creed is:
Jesus is of the same essence as the Father; he is begotten, born of the Father, and not created.
The first
solution of the Trinitarian problem was to say that Jesus is of the same essence
as the Father. He was begotten, born of God and not created. The whole problem
as to how the divine nature of Jesus could co-exist with the human nature of
Jesus was still open. Historically, it has been difficult solving the problem
of doctrine regarding the trinity.
This dispute
lasted a period of 125 years, between the years 325 and 451. During this time,
there were three positions. The School of Antioch, which is in the northeastern
part of the Mediterranean Sea, the School of Alexandria, in Egypt and an
intermediate position taken by the pope in Rome. This controversy is referred
to as the Christological Controversy and not the Trinitarian Controversy as we
saw previously.
Two men,
Nestorius and another called Cyril of Alexandria disputed the basic question as
to what happened when Mary gave birth to Jesus. Nestorius said Mary is the
mother of Christ and gave birth to Christ. He stressed the unity of the outer
appearance of Jesus, of the bodily form of Jesus.
Cyril of
Alexandria contradicted this and said, Mary is not primarily the mother of
Christ but she is the mother of God because Jesus Christ is identical with God.
He is of one essence with the Father. This is why these words were added later
to the Nicaean creed:
We believe in Mary, the bearer (mother) or the one who has given birth to God (theotocos is the Greek word).
Consequently,
he stressed the unity of the divine nature of
Jesus and not of the bodily form of Jesus. The bodily form
is what is in the world. The divine nature is
what transcends the world. If Mary is the mother of God then a unity of the
nature of Jesus with the Father is not prominent. If one considers Mary to be
the mother of Christ, the human being Christ, then there is a unity of the
bodily form of Jesus.
The council
of Ephesus dealt with this dispute in the year 431 and during this council,
Cyril won against Nestorius. As a result, the church excommunicated both
Nestorius and Arius. The whole problem did not come to a final solution, so
another council was held twenty years later in 451, the Council of Chalcedon.
In this council, three positions were proposed.
· First of all, Flavian of Constantinople, said, that Jesus was composed of two natures, divine and human and could be separated.
· On the other extreme Dioscur of Alexandria, still in the School of Alexandria, said Jesus has only one nature, divine and He cannot be separated into human and divine.
·
Pope Leo I had proposed several months before that the
council adopt the formula that in Jesus is two natures in one person. He was
the first who introduced the concept of a person into this whole discussion.
Pope Leo I prevailed during the Council of Calcedon and the Chalcedon Nense (we call it, the Chalcedon Creed) was adopted, as follows:
Jesus is one unique person, true God, and true man, undivided and not united with each other.
The result of these
disputes and of this council was that the earliest church of Christianity split
into three groups. They were:
·
Some of
the excommunicated churches called duophysites, which means those who believe
that Jesus has two completely distinct natures, human and divine. This was the
church in Mesopotamia or the Nestorian Church that was originally founded in
Iraq and Persia. Later on, due to missionary activities, they had reached areas
of Arabia, India, China, and Central Asia. This church evangelized diligently
and boldly.
·
The monophysite churches with nationalistic
tendencies, who conducted services in the national languages. These churches
included the Copts in Egypt, the Nubians in Sudan, and the Jacobites in Syria
and the Armenians in the Caucasus. They believe that Christ has only one
nature, divine.
·
And those who adopted the formula of Pope Leo I.
This was the imperial church of the Byzantine Empire called Orthodox Church,
who had the central power. The church in Rome that later was called the
Catholic Church also adopted the formula. And later on, most of the Protestant
Churches adopted this formula. In Protestant services, you can hear the
Apostolic Creed, the Nicaean Creed or the Chalcedon Creed.
So,
there was a church split making divisions into the main imperial church, which
had the power – the missionary church, which was Nestorian – and the many national churches such as
the Copts, Nubians, Jacobites and the Armenians. This entire split took place
towards the end of the fifth century, more than one hundred years before the
time of Muhammad.
There are two points to notice in connection with the reasons for the anti-Trinitarian doctrine of Islam.
·
It is possible that the teaching by Cyril of Alexandria that
Mary is the mother of God who gave birth to God somehow got to Muhammad in
Arabia, perhaps while he was traveling in Syria while in charge of the caravans
of his first wife Khadija. At the time, the Jacobites were in Syria teaching
that Mary gave birth to God and did not give birth to a human being. The false
understanding of what the Trinity is might have one of its sources here.
·
Another point is that the Orthodox Church tried to suppress
the other heretical points of view, both Duophysitism and the Monophysitism.
They waged unrelenting wars against the Nestorians and against the national
Churches. They were more against the national churches because the Nestorians
lived under the rule of a non-Christian kingdom
in Iraq and Persia at the time. They profited from being able to live as
Nestorians in this kingdom and were not directly affected, but the Byzantines
attacked this kingdom and relentlessly fought against the other national churches.
By having such a division in the church, Muhammad was able to overrun the whole
area for the simple reason that the Christians were not united.
Consequently,
it is possible that the reason why the anti-Trinitarian doctrine of Islam was
able to spread was that the Christians were not united on the question of the
Trinity. One might ask why they were unable to unite. It is my belief that one
of the main reasons is that they tried to explain the biblical doctrine of the
Trinity in terms of Greek philosophical concepts. Trying to force concepts of
Greek philosophy on the biblical account of the Trinity brought about these
divisions. In terms of logical thinking and of the concepts used in the context
of philosophy, the final statement is that it is not possible to say anything
coherent about Jesus. The two natures cannot be separated but at the same time,
they are not united. These simple contradictions are left to stand. The concept
of the human nature of Jesus has led to many
difficulties and to many sub-heresies later on.
In order to
see what the problem really was, we must go one-step further and ask what the
Bible really teaches about the Trinity and how the anti-Trinitarian doctrine of
Islam is explained against the background of the Biblical understanding of the
Trinity.
Looking at
the Bible concerning the trinity, we first observe that the Trinity in not
merely about an eternal sovereign being, but the Trinity always relates to
things God does in the world.
Therefore,
when the Bible describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it hardly ever
describes the Trinity in terms of something that is independent from the world
and has an existence of its own, but as something that is always intimately
connected with the world. This connection is the action of God and the Word. As
you look at the Trinity in the Bible, it is natural to first highlight that God
does something. He acts and in acting in the world, he is happening in the
world. We will see that the fundamental difference between the orthodox type
and influence from the Greek point of view about God is the difference in
understanding the word “to be." Does the word “to be” primarily mean
uninterrupted existence and persistence in being, or does the word “to be” mean
that something happens. There is an action; there is a happening, an event,
connected with God.
The Bible
teaches not so much the continual life of God across time, across all events
but it teaches that God happens, that God acts, that God does something.
Moreover, in His acting, His revelation, His creating, His dwelling in the
world, and His saving the world, He reveals himself as a Trinitarian God.
There are
four parts to the Biblical aspect of the Trinity. Each part of the four aspects
is like one part of a four-part puzzle. I will try to show how all four
parts/aspects fit together.
·
The Trinity in view of God creating everything that
exists. In terms of creation, God does something when He creates the world.
·
The Trinity in view of God dwelling in heaven. His
dwelling in heaven is concerned with his ruling and directing world affairs.
·
The Trinity in view of God’s revelation on earth through
Jesus Christ. In other words, God reveals himself.
·
The Trinity in view of God saving humanity through Jesus
Christ.
1. Let us first look
at the Trinity
in view of God creating everything.
Beginning
with the first verse of the Bible, “In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) and verse two which says, “the Spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters.” He was moving over the surface of the waters.
Verse 3 says, “And God said, ‘Let there be light’.” Here the Word of God is
involved in creation. The Trinitarian aspect in this connection is that God the
Father creates, the Spirit, implied in creation is the Holy Spirit, and finally
the Word used in creating the world, is Jesus Christ, the Son.
There is
another aspect to this, which comes out when you compare Genesis 1 with John 1.
First, let us look at the complete account of Genesis 1. God creates heaven and
earth by the Spirit through the Word. On the first day, light was created and
God separated the light from the darkness. On the second day, the firmament
which separates the waters above from the waters below, the third day, land,
sea and vegetation, on the fourth day celestial bodies were created, on the
fifth day fish and birds. Here you see the word life appearing for the first
time, living beings created on the fifth day and finally on the sixth day,
animals and human beings - man.
The first
verse of John says, “The Word was,” then “the word was with God” and finally
“the Word was God." One of the fundamental questions in interpreting the
Bible is how to interpret the words “to be, I am, you are, he was or he
is." My suggestion is that from the Hebrew point of view, and John was
Hebrew, not Greek, the happening is more important than the continual life of
God. If you “are,” the important thing from the Bible is not that you exist
eternally, but that something happens with you, through you and in you. This is
why faith is important because you believe that God acts. This is why love is
important because love is not a theory, not a personal characteristic, but love
expresses itself in action. I do something out of love. This is also why hope
is important because I believe that something is going to happen to me that
will surpass everything that I can expect here on earth. I suggest that the
word “was” can be understood in terms of happen. It was an event. Not so much
that the word happened with God or that the word happened as God.
Looking at the Trinitarian sayings in the rest of the Gospel of John about God help us to understand. The fact that the Word happened at all is because the Father generated this Word. The Father is the source of the Word as if it were God saying something. The Father’s accomplishment is the Son who was generated from the Father.
Finally, the
Word happened, as God or was God is understood through the spoken word of
Jesus, also recorded in John 4:24: “God is Spirit." So that both the
spoken word of God, as well as the accomplishment of the spoken word, which is
the Son, is seen spiritually. The Spirit is that aspect of God, which in a
certain sense binds all the aspects together.
Here in the
first three verses of John, there is an indirect reference to the Trinity. You
have an indication that God is one in the act of saying the word and bringing
forth the word which then creates the world, because in John 1:3-5 it says
“Through Him, through the Word, all things were made, in Him was life and that
life was the light of men and this light shines in the darkness." This is
an indirect reference to the Trinity. It is the first way of explaining the
Trinity in view of a specific act of God, namely in His act of creation.
2. The next aspect is
the Trinity in
view of God dwelling in heaven.
The important
thing about the Bible is that when God created creation he did not opt to stay
outside of creation but dwelt in creation. The Old Testament speaks about God
dwelling in heaven. Meaning, God is not far away but he is very close. The Old
Testament speaks of God living in creation in heaven. It speaks of God as
Yahweh, the name of the revelation of God, the Lord of hosts. The hosts are the
created angles in heaven who sit around the throne of God. God enthroned in
heaven expresses the fact that God is close to world. On earth, there are human
beings, created men and women. Here on earth, God Himself is not in creation,
but the image of God is in creation because men and women are created in the
image of God.
We see the
next indication of the Trinity by analyzing the word, Yahweh. You are probably
familiar with the verse in the Old Testament, Exodus 3:14 where God appeared to
Moses in a flaming bush and Moses asked Him, “Who shall I say sent me to the
people of Israel?" God answers: “aehyeh ‘ashar aehye”. Here the
traditional translation is, “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be."
You see from the diversity of translations of this verse there is a fundamental
problem, how do you translate the word “being." The Hebrew word for being
is the verb “hayya” and it is used twice in the first person singular in God's
reply. That means, I be, or I am being. Again, if you understand the word being
not so much from existence but from happening, that God happens – He does
something – He acts – things happen through Him, you can look at the meaning of
this sentence explaining the name Yahweh in this way.
There is one
peculiarity of the Hebrew language that relates to this verb, “aehyeh,” “I am”
or “I happen," that is used twice in God's reply. The verb is expressed
both times in a form which grammatically is called the imperfect. The Hebrew
language has only two tenses, the perfect, and the imperfect. The perfect
expresses all accomplished events, for example, he became king; i.e. the
process of becoming a king is finished. Another example would be he spoke;
meaning the process of speaking is over. There is also the form of the
imperfect, which can mean both present and future. This is strange to us
because we are accustomed to distinguishing between present and future with the
choice of words we use. This is why in translations of this verse you sometimes
see differences in the phrase that is used – either “I am who I am” or “I will
be who I will be." The word "aehyeh" in our view means both, “I
am” and “I will be,” because the Hebrew does not distinguish between future and
present. They only distinguish between accomplished and not accomplished,
between perfect and imperfect. This verb is used in an imperfect form and it
includes both, the present tense and the future tense. Therefore, it could be
both, present and future.
With the same
verb being used twice in God's reply, you have four possible meanings of the
verse. Either both verbs are present or both are future or one is present and
the other is future or one is future and the other present. Yahweh could mean:
·
I happen now as the One who will also happen in the future,
or
·
I will happen in the future as the One who also happens now,
or
·
I happen now as the One who I happen now, or
·
I will happen in the future as the One who I will happen in
the future.
It can be
argued that this aspect of Yahweh is happening; remember Yahweh is God in
creation and God in heaven. Therefore, this aspect of God happening within
creation can be closely associated with what we call God, the Father, because
as something new happens in God and from God, you always have to ask how it
relates to things that will happen in the future. Can there be some sort of a
guarantee of a truthfulness, of a faithfulness in God, so that what will happen
in the future can somehow be linked to the past and what happens in the future
can be trusted as being something that has to do with the past? I believe there
can be; if so, this is the nature of the Father. While if you only look at the
fact that God is simply acting and that He accomplishes something, both in
Himself and in the world then the understanding of God as the Son can be associated
with it. And finally, if you ask yourself, how will happenings in the future
relate to past acts of God. How do the past acts of God (e.g. Jesus Christ
dying for us on the cross) influence God acting in the world today? This is the
Holy Spirit in action, the aspect of God that we call the Holy Spirit in the
forefront.
This is the
most speculative part of my whole presentation. To go into detail to explain my
position, it would require many Bible studies about how the Bible speaks about
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to show how the interpretation of the
words, “aehyeh ‘asher aehyeh’” come very close to the biblical explanation of
the Trinity.
From this
point of view the fact that the Hebrew word for God most often used is a plural
word, “elohim” portrays the fact that God happens very often, even continually.
The many deeds of Yahweh in relation to the word, the many actions of Yahweh,
many things he accomplishes is the fact that God is not the eternal being
behind everything, but he is the one who is present in every act that he does.
His actions, his deeds, his saving, his revealing, his creating are the things
that are in the foreground and not an abstract concept of an eternal being
behind everything.
Now we come
to the third piece of the puzzle.
3. The Trinity in
view of God revealing Himself on earth.
Here is a
summary of what we have discussed so far. God created everything through the
Word and by the Spirit. There is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in connection
with the Word of God that was, that was with God, and that was
God. There was a separation of all creation into heaven and earth. God in
heaven is Yahweh, and Yahweh implies the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Now we come
to the new part about the image of God in creation. Created human beings are
made in the image of God in Genesis 1:27. The same terminology in used in
Colossians 1:15 pointing to Christ; Christ is the true image of God in
creation.
The next hint
to the Trinity comes from an analysis of the word Christ. What does the word
Christ mean? The word Christ is the Greek version of a Hebrew word called
Mashiah or ha-Mashiah. Our Jesus Christ is the anointed one and true Mashiah –
the prophetically revealed Mashiah who is coming at the end of the world. God
anointed Him with the Holy Spirit. The Father, the first person of the Trinity,
is revealing Himself on earth through Jesus Christ. Three offices in the Old
Testament use the word Mashiah. It was used for the ruling king of
Judah, the son of David, for the priest who atoned for the sins of the
people before God in the tabernacle or in the temple and finally the serving
prophet.
It is very
important to note that the title son of Yahweh is used exclusively in the Old
Testament for the ruling king. In 2 Samuel 7:13-14 Yahweh speaks to
David through Nathan and tells him “I will establish the throne of his kingdom
forever” and “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me." He
uses the same terminology for the messiah as the ruling king as
for the son of Yahweh. Another verse is Psalm 2:7, “He said to Me, ‘Thou art My
Son, today I have begotten Thee.’" He does more than represent Yahweh
before men He is the Son of Yahweh before men.
The atoning
priest has an intermediate position between the two. First, he represents
Yahweh before men, for example, the Israelites could go to the priest and tell
him, “I have this difficulty. Tell me what God says I should do." Then he
would take two lots out of his pocket and he would cast the lots. It was
understood that God spoke to the people of Israel through the priest by casting
lots. The priest represented Yahweh before men and on the great Day of
Atonement, the priest also represented men before Yahweh when he took the blood
from the atoning sacrifice and entered the Holy of Holies, the presence of
Yahweh, and put the blood on the Ark of the Covenant. Another example of the priest representing men is the two stones on
his shoulders and the breastplate. The names of the twelve tribes of Israel
were engraved on the breastplate and on the stones on the shoulders, showing
that he was the focal point of the whole nation in the presence of Yahweh.
Finally, the serving
prophet was a slave of Yahweh; abd-Yahweh is the term found in the book of
Isaiah, and he is the one who serves Yahweh in complete obedience. Whatever
Yahweh tells him to say or do, he does without questioning. He is referred to
as the son of man. Looking at the book of Ezekiel, you see that God
addresses the prophet Ezekiel as the son of man. Also in the vision of
the book of Daniel the title son of man is in Aramaic, not Hebrew. The
important thing about the son of man in the Old Testament is that he is
not the son of man before men on earth but he is the son of man
in heaven before Yahweh because the prophets participate in the counsel before
Yahweh in heaven. Remember Yahweh is God dwelling in creation, namely in the
heavenly part of creation. A prophet is a person who is completely obedient to
Yahweh and who enters into counsel before Yahweh in heaven. The strange thing
about him being a son of man is not that he comes from human descent,
but that he is the son of man in heaven. Therefore, whenever Jesus uses
the title Son of man, keep this in mind. He is the Son of man
because He has access to heaven; He is in God’s presence.
The
Trinitarian aspect of this analysis of the word of Messiah is the following.
The Messiah is the one who is anointed by the Holy Spirit and thus is the Son
of Yahweh. In this case, Yahweh is the first person of the Trinity, the Father.
If you look
at the whole analysis from the point of view of the Gospel of John, it is
interesting to note the following possible associations. John 1:14 states,
“...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” The Word did this as a human
on earth representing God – the image of God in creation and “we beheld his
glory." Glory is usually associated with kings. A king has glory.
However, this glory is full of grace and truth. The characteristic of grace
is associated with the priest because with the priest you have the institution,
the promise of atonement and forgiveness. Forgiveness associated with atonement
was a promise by God offered to his people free of charge. Finally, He is full
of truth because of His complete obedience to God, the Father and
because of being in the presence of God and in heaven. The prophet has access
to what really is true about God. In Jesus Christ, John beheld, or we behold,
the glory of God full of grace and truth.
It is
possible to associate the I am words of the Gospel of John with each one
of these three offices of the Messiah.
·
I am the good shepherd (the shepherd is another word for the
king) and I am the gate to the sheep - can be associate with the ruling
king.
·
I am the resurrection and life and I am the bread of life
can be associated with the renewal of life through the atoning priest.
·
I am the light of the world and I am the vine, you are
the branches can be associated with the office of the prophet of the
Messiah.
Another way
of associating these verses can be summarized in this most famous verse, John
14:6 “I am the way, (the gate to the sheep) and I am the truth
and I am the (bread of) life (resurrection).”
Now we come to the last piece of the puzzle.
4. The Trinity in
connection or in view of God saving humankind
The name of
the Christ, the Messiah, is Jesus. His name shall be Jesus. At the name of
Jesus, every knee shall bow on heaven and on earth (Philippians 2:10). This
word Jesus comes from the Hebrew “Yehoshua” which is composed of two elements
“yeho” which is Yahweh and “shua” which means saving or helping. The word Jesus
means Yahweh saves. From the point of view of the Gospel of John we understand
that saving means saving from death to life as John says in these two important
verses:
John 3:5
“Unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of
God."
Therefore,
you are saved from death unto life only by being born of the Spirit.
John 6:63 “It
is the Spirit who gives life."
This aspect
of the name of Jesus, i.e. Yahweh saving, can be viewed as intimately connected
with the action of God as can the Spirit and the Word. So the Trinity this is
the last piece of the puzzle is (1) Jesus, who is the Christ and the Son of
Yahweh, and (2) Yahweh, the Father of Jesus acting in Jesus by the Spirit Who
gives birth and gives true life.
Now all the four elements of the puzzle are together. The first element is in relation to creation, an indication of the Trinity in the case of God creating the world. The second element is in relation to dwelling and governing from heaven, an indication of the Trinity in the case of God dwelling in heaven. The third element is in relation with the revelation of God through Christ, an indication of how the Trinity functioned in connection with God revealing himself in Christ. And the last element, which is the priestly element of God saving the world through Jesus Christ, an indication of the Trinity in the case of Yahweh saving (which is what the name Jesus literally means) by the Spirit Who gives life.
Muhammad
accepts the following about the Trinity in context of the Bible and what we
have talked about:
·
That Allah created all in heaven and earth
·
Christ is a serving prophet of Allah, i.e. he is Abd Allah
·
Christ is a son of men
·
Christ has brought the truth
·
Christ is associated with the Spirit of God
In analyzing
the way in which the word “ruh,” the Arabic word of Spirit is used in the
Qur’an, then you find a hidden clue about the Trinity. The four parts of the
puzzle from the biblical point of view of the Trinity are concealed or
eliminated in the Qur’an. The Qur’an has rigorously suppressed the name Yahweh,
and not only Yahweh but also the title Lord, which is what the
Jews used in place of Yahweh. Neither appear in the Qur’an, nor in all of
Islamic theology. Also the name Yahweh in connection with the name Jesus (Jesus
means Yahweh saving) has been lost by simply the changing the name Jesus, or
Yasu in Arabic, to the name 'Isa, which no one is sure where Muhammad got this
name. Islam also misinterprets the word al-Masih. They translate it not from
the Arabic root masaha, which means to anoint, but from the Arabic root saha,
sahayesihu that means to wander about, to be a tourist. The Christ al-Masih is
not the one anointed with the Holy Spirit but he is a
tourist. Asaha is very close to the word al-Masih. Asaha is the standard
Arabic word for tourist. The name Christ is misunderstood in such a way that it
only explains the way Jesus taught. Namely that he wandered around, speaking to
people but it does not indicate He is a priest and it suppresses His being a
King and as a King, the Son of David, the Son of Yahweh.
Finally, all
these things add up to say that the way Islam understands the Word and how it
applies to Jesus Christ is concealed. Therefore, with this understanding of the
Qur'an, you see a suppression of the revelation of the Trinity by analyzing, in
the Bible, how God speaks, namely that the Word came about with God and
the Word came about as God, which is the very nature of God, which is
Spirit. You see from this analysis the parts from the Bible that Islam took and
the parts from the Bible that Islam concealed.