Now, of the article in the OP.
I decided to read it, it was predictably very baseless and crude.
From the article:
This is both condescending to Muslims and intentionally obfuscating the situation within the false presumption that the Trinitarian is automatically correct.
In posts such as:
https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/where-did-jesus-say-“i-am-god-worship-me”.8420/post-370968
We have seen that the Trinity has nothing to stand on, it is a late philosophical and apologetic invention used to stamp out heresies such as Arianism and enforce separate Christian identity from Jews (even though that already occurred as early as Marcion and Paul).
Muslims are not trained by Muslim apologists to say anything, this is just conjecture. The irony here is that the writer of this article is "training Christians to say" what is in the article and repeat it without being critical of the basis of their own beliefs.
So this article is just obfuscation and sophistry, as the Trinity itself is, in order to simply dodge the problem which they created, not Muslims.
Jews and Unitarian Christians reject the Trinity for a reason, as to Christians apostatize and become Exchristians over this problem.
If the Trinity was a Biblical doctrine (which it historically isn't, as it originated at Nicea but took till Constantinople to being fully fleshed-out) then it would be directly stated, however the contrary is true:
https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/where-did-jesus-say-“i-am-god-worship-me”.8420/post-370994
It is however found throughout Hadith.
E.g.
Abu Mahdhura said that Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) taught him Adhan like this: "God is the Greatest, God is the Greatest; I testify that there is no god but God, I testify that there is no god but Allah; I testify that Muhammad Is the Messenger of Allah"
The concept of Tawhid is on almost ever page of the Qur'an.
Variations of La ilaha illa'llah; such as La ilaha illa'huwa, are found in famous ayahs like Ayat al-Kursi (Surah 2:255).
"
Muhammad is the messenger of God" is directly found in Surah 48:29. The importance of Muhammad is outlined in many passages of the Qur'an, of which refer to him as the Prophet or Messenger.
No, that's not what they do on this matter. The writer is falsely equating multiple things here. The idea of Jesus being divine, while denied by Muslims, does not equate to the doctrine of the Trinity.
There are Christians in the 2nd and 3rd century who attached divinity to Jesus but did not believe in the Trinity (again as the Trinity is a much later doctrine and it would be an anachronism to attach it to what earlier people believed).
The closest we have to the Trinity in the earlier period was a kind of Duotheism where Jesus was in some way regarded as God but there was no Holy Spirit (which was not seen as a deity, etc). In this view we have two different gods who are both seen as equal (even though Jesus says in the NT that he is subservient to the Father and only takes orders).
Then you would not complain about verses like Surah 4:157 would you? or only when convenient to your argument?
It's important to note that this writer says "the Gospels", but the Qur'an speaks of a singular Gospel, not four biographies of Jesus.
The Qur'an never directly mentions or engages with the Bible, but where it crosses over in it's material it serves the role of refuting and rebuking (such as Jesus' crucifixion).
This writer is stuck in their own world, with no intentions of sincerely considering this, so they selectively take what they want in these areas.
These are some good refutations on the subject:
https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/07/acts17apologetics-take-brief-look-at.html
Islam prophet allah shamoun apostate critiqued cira international spirit christian Jesus muhammad aisha jew bible moses messiah jihad caravan war
truthanvil.blogspot.com
Islam prophet allah shamoun apostate critiqued cira international spirit christian Jesus muhammad aisha jew bible moses messiah jihad caravan war
truthanvil.blogspot.com
This is factually incorrect, they are dated to the second century and only speculated to being dated in the late first century.
This is presupposition, there is no internal evidence that the contents of Matthew Mark Luke and John have anything to do with any eyewitnesses and they are self-evidently not written from the point of view of an eyewitness, nor disciple.
They are written just as the quoted verses state, that they are compiled oral tradition.
On John 21:24, this must be contrasted with John 20:30.
Irenaeus was the first to start constructing the version of the canon that resembles the one most Christian sects use, this was in 190CE.
As for Clement, his view of the canon doesn't resemble Clements, nor the later Christian NT canon. There were lots of books he both included and rejected. For instance he considered: Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, Traditions of Matthias, Preaching of Peter, I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas and Apocalypse of Peter to all be canonical, inspired books.
Well that is objective fact, and their earliest manuscripts aren't in the language Jesus spoke either.
The NT texts are considered "inspired", not the literal direct dictated speech of God (of which the Qur'an claims). The NT texts, as compositions and compilations considered "inspired", to hold ground in this argument mustn't fall into these massive pitfalls. If you had any intellectual honesty you'd realize how bad the Christian situation is.
Plus, there are more variations in manuscripts than there are words in the entire NT, this is massively problematic because ever attempt to synthesize manuscripts to reconstruct a NT will only be the guess and bias of the person attempting to reconstruct it (as we get with critical editions which make their way to English translations long down the line).
That is just a lie, there is no 'original text'. All academic scholars are permanently left in the dark about this, unless ancient 1st century documents were uncovered, which is not realistically to be expected.
This is an unfounded assumption and an example of circular reasoning.
After this passage in the article, the writer goes on to a usual Christian apologetic to which has already been refuted in this thread.
But in the following section the writer continues:
Which is an example of misquotations that the NT authors are convicted of.
Psalm 110:1 means “The LORD says to my King/Ruler: “Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
Which in it's historical context is very obviously about David himself.
Or that the NT authors are simply trying to compare Jesus to David for polemical reasons.
In a selective reading of Daniel 7.
However Daniel 7 interprets itself directly:
23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.[b]
26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’
28 “This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself.”
Christian interpretations of this passage go completely against what follows, where Jesus denies such an interpretation:
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
Jesus immediately refutes their claims to blasphemy against him.
Presupposition as to eyewitnesses. And circular reasoning as to using the Bible to prove the Bible, if we were to take such presuppositions seriously.