Talk:Islamic view of the Trinity

Regarding the reference to Syriac literature
The article says this: 'Interpretation of these verses is varied[1] and the most straightforward appears to be 5:73. It has been interpreted as a potential criticism of Syriac literature that references Jesus as "the third of three"'.

What evidence is used to arrive at this interpretation? It comes across as speculation.

Untitled
Which part is POV? Blubberbrein2 10:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not include the opinion of all scholars. I or other editors should work on it. Quran talks a lot about trinity. The article is incomplete at the moment I think --Aminz 11:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, that is clear, this aricle more like a stub and does not contain all views Blubberbrein2 11:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems with page
Valentinians and Ophites cannot be taken as any example of a widespread "Christian" belief in anything, because those people were uninhibited Gnostics who often claimed to reverence Jesus in some way (along with many others that they also reverenced) but had extremely little in common with any form of real mainstream Christianity. If Muslims drag in the Valentinians and Ophites, I could drag in Hassan-i-Sabah, the Qarmatians, Hurufism, Druze, Alawites, Qadianism and the Bahais -- none of this has much relevance to mainstream Christianity (in the first case) or to mainstream Islam (in the second case).

Out-and-out "Mariolatry" was simply not ever a widespread Christian doctrine at any time (though some practices of popular piety among the uneducated approached Mariolatry in some times and places, this was never approved of by Christian scholars). AnonMoos 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

=Jewis Quran= I find the Qur'an's use of the words 'We' and 'Us' interesting in terms of trinity and Islam. "It is We Who will inherit the earth, and all beings thereon: to Us will they all be returned." (sura 19 v 40) - Muhammad believed that because the Latin and Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic Jews and Christians were often casting off the Tribes of Ishmael using their written Law that Moses gave Israel to replace the Oral Law, Oral Torah of the Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian, and Arabic Nations, the we learn by dreams and visions from Spirit El Highest reproving us, and bringing us back to his path, and seeing dreams and visions correcting his path that he wrote out, Muhammad believed rightly that Moses wrote the Torah that merely establish the Oral Torah of the Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian, and Arabic Nations,  he believed it to be a Merciful deed to write in Arabic the Oral Torah of the Semitic Nations, that Moses and the Apostles of Jesus wrote out, so that they would see that they all taught the same Covenant from the same El Highest, called Allah in Arabic which developed mostly from Aramaic. He wrote the goal of this Merciful deed and purpose of his Text in his Arabic Text in Surah 1 and 2: The Chapters and Verses did not exist in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures till around 1200 to 1400 AD, and because they wanted to change what the Text said, to match the most popular Politics of the Religious Establishment at the time, the Latin Catholics often added a Chapter or verse division right in the middle of a Phrase, and bent the newly divided scriptures to support their Political Position. This developed new Conflicts with the Ottoman Empire and the Eastern Jewish and Christian groups. The Surah and Verse divisions were then added to the Quran dividing phrases right in the middle to support their Political Position. The division among the Greek Byzantine Empire and the Arabic Ottoman Empire that the Latin Catholic cause adding the Divisions from their Latin translation, led to the fall of all three Empires. adding Surah 2:1-2 is an example of that dividing a phrase by a verse to change what the Text says. The deceivers like those at Fox News and CNN and their dual agent CIA fake Muslim spy, and like those fake Muslims in ISIS and Al-qaeda that teach this mistranslated English Text against those that believe the Arabic Text, and murder them, the deceivers always invent a mystical reason to hide that they are deliberately hiding what the original text says causing division, and stirring up Antisemitic Vigilantes, so that they can divide and murder the believers, like the deceivers that embellished the English Quran Translation in this Moshin Kahn Translation adding lies in English that are not in the Arabic, saying,

الم ﴿١﴾ (1) Alif-Lam-Mim. [These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur'an and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings.] ذَ‌ٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ  هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ ﴿٢﴾ (2) This is the Book (the Qur'an), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqun [the pious believers of Islamic Monotheism who fear Allah much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allah much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)].

They deliberately contradict Muhammad and Moses and Jesus by their Latin Maccabees Catholic and Nazi Protestant Doctrine as believers of "believers of Islamic Monotheism," as their Nazi Latin Catholic Monotheism 5:73  لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ وَمَا مِنْ إِلَـهٍ إِلاَّ إِلَـهٌ  =  they do blaspheme who say the El is the third of three, and no El but El, was used to accuse the believers of worshiping multiple Gods and Lords, that they call Polytheism   and throw the Gods and Lords into the Lions Dens and Gladiators Rings of Rome, like they doing getting us trapped in the crossfire of their polarized controversies, because Moses and the Prophets and Jesus and his Apostles, all taught about the same El Highest of us Elohim.

John 10:30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. John 10:31 ᾿Εβάστασαν οὖν πάλιν λίθους οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν. John 10:32 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· πολλὰ καλὰ ἔργα ἔδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός· διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον λιθάζετε με; John 10:33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι λέγοντες· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε, ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Θεόν. John 10:34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· οὐκ ἔστι γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν, ᾿Εγὼ εἶπα, Θεοί ἐστε; John 10:35 εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπε θεοὺς, πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή, John 10:36 ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασε καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς, ὅτι εἶπον, υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰμι;

I am Joseph be calm and acquaint related I am Elohim and Father unto Jesus אני יוסף הרפו ודעו כי־אנכי אלהים ואב ליהושׁע׃

be calm and acquaint related I am Elohim exalted with the Nation sea exalted within Earth הרפו ודעו כי־אנכי אלהים ארום בגוים ארום בארץ׃

Psalm 46:10 (46:11)

The fake Jew Maccabees and Nazi USA murdering us blood descendants of Israel that are saying the same Jewish doctrine about me the son of Adam Joseph being the Messiah, the Christ, not Jesus the Apostle and High Cohen of our Samaritan Jewish Religious Belief, like it says in  all of of our Hebrew and Aramaic and Persian and Greek Scriptures, in 5:72 Muhammad said the truth that as Elohim I am the El, Allah, the Messiah, the Christ  that they blaspheme calling me the son of Mary, when Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 calling Yahweh his Lord, your Lord the El, Allah to worship.

they do blaspheme who say the El, Allah, is the Christ, the Son of Mary and Jesus said, my son Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord

لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَقَالَ الْمَسِيحُ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اعْبُدُواْ اللّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ

5:72

The correct Quran translation of 2:1-2

2:1 الم

الم = A. L. M Farsi الم alom. Russian Алиф Aleph. Лам Lam. Мим meem, German Alif-Lam-Mim Italion Alif, Lâm, Mîm.

2:1 الم 2:2 ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ .

ἔλεος =الرحمة = mercy the abreviation is where English got the word Alms, الم = A. L. M for English Alms = ελεημοσυνην

Translation

2: 1 Alms or a Merciful deed 2: 2 that the book is no doubt guidance for the cautious

The fake Jews and Christians that took over our 17 Volume Aramaic Concordance and Lexicon and threw us out, rewrote our definition of Aramaic word # 12119 which is the word = ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ = הַדָּבָר= ο λογος = Verbum, simple meaning a word, or a worded message, like, what is the word or news? or he got no word about the situation, teaching a Trinitarian doctrine as Monotheism, 5:73    لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ وَمَا مِنْ إِلَـهٍ إِلاَّ إِلَـهٌ  =  they do blaspheme who say the El is the third of three and no El but El saying that Holy Spirit El Highest is the third of three El, and that contradicts the Scriptures, they they rewrote our Lexicon to say. "no one by God knows the mystery of the meaning of ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ " and they are the same people making the Quran Mistranslations, and running the fake Muslim ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Unsourced controversial stuff
I think the article is quite misleading. It presents the Qur'an as claiming that the Christian Trinity consists of God, Mary and Jesus instead of God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus, but the Qur'an makes no so such claim. The verses given here criticize the worship of Jesus and Mary (which is widely practiced by Catholics to this day (From my own experience, as I am from a Catholic background, I was taught a prayer adressed to Mary) and I think it is actually part of the Catholic creed, see the Wikipedia article titled "Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church" or also this page link ) ; but they do not define Trinity, nor do they explicitely identify it with God-Mary-Jesus.

From what I found by looking quickly on the Internet, it does not seem to be a common Muslim belief that the Christian Trinity consists of God, Mary and Jesus. See these articles for example link or link title. On the other hand, it seems to me that this is rather a claim from Christian polemicists to prove that the Qur'an cannot possibly have a divine origin (the logic being that if the author of the Qur'an had a crooked knowledge of Christian beliefs, it can therefore not be the all-knowing God). Have a look at this for example: link title.

Now, what is the mainstream Islamic understanding of the doctrine of Trinity? It would be nice if the claims the article make be justified by quotations from leading Muslim scholars (I mean 'Ulamas or the like). Otherwise, non-sourced polemical and controversial stuff should, I think, be removed, or explained more in detail (but this would require the article ot be thoroughly sourced as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The question is indeed not whether modern Muslims believe that Christians consider the Trinity to be God-Jesus-Mary, but whether the Qur'an does.

It is a simple concept that people seem to have a hard time getting their head around. The Quran, since the beginning of it's existence, teaches one belief concerning God and one belief only. That God is one, with no partners ascribed, or any partners associated. When Muslims take the shahada - the testimony that brings them into Islam - they are declaring, in other words, that God is one with no partners nor any associates (and that Muhammad SAW is his last messenger.) This Testimony of faith alone, which Islam is built upon, reject the mere idea of the Trinity. There is absolutely no confusion on this fact; The Quran as made it crystal clear and the Quran is not open for interpretation. There is no Trinity in Islam. Evercat (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Quranic View, in reality
Quote: [4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak)the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist,it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son,.....................

In the above cited verse, the possible members of trinity, according to their order in verse, could be;

1. Son + Mary + Father (Allah) = Isa + Marium + Allah (wordings according to verse)

2. Father + Holy Spirit (word)+ Mary = His + Word + Marium

3. Son + Father + Holy Spirit = Messiah, Isa son of Marium + Allah + Word

If we just try to make all other possible sets of trinity from the verse, disreagrding the order, then we get following sets;

1. Father + Sons (apostles) + Mary

2. Sons + Mary + Holy Spirit

3. Father + Holy Spirit + Sons

4. Son (son of god, a spirit) + Sons + Son (son of Mary)

5. and many more +++

One can easily notice that actually all possible forms of a christian trinity, be it of any sect or cult, are actually hidden in the verse and with just a little more consideration, one can figure out them easily. one may object that "Holy Spirit" is not mentioned in the verse. Well, the verse has used the phrase" His word which He communicated". We very well know that Holy Spirit or Gabriel is the only angel who performed the duty of ( communicating)messaging between God and earthlings. And in many places Quran has attributed Gabriel, the Holy Spirit as the one who delivers the words of God. Even if u dont accpet this, then we still have a last option, the word spirit itself. It can be taken as a synonym to Holy Spirit which actually should not be the case.

As a matter of fact, actually Quran condemns all forms of trinity and in its address to trinity, does not explicitly mentions the members, rather mentions the concept and this thing is in no way contradictory to the omniscience of the God. As we know time is kept on changing thus the beleifs of the past are not exactly the similar beliefs in present and the beliefs of present will not exactly be the similar beliefs in future; Thus it becomes evident that if an Omniscient God would have explicitly mentioned the members of trinity, it would have been restricted to the concept of trinity for that period only, be it in past or present, but, God has exhausted all the possibilities of trinity and its members in the concerned verses. It would be interesting to know that Hindus also have a concept of cosmic trinity of gods whose members are Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the sustainer & Shiva, the destroyer. Now Hindus could also ask that why did not God mention the members explicitly? It was because of the diversity of cultures and era that God only explicitly mentioned the concept of Trinity, which is a common one but nowhere He has told the names of the members. So, it does prove in this case that God is indeed an omniscient entity and Quran appears to be its true-word.

As for Mary, the God has stressed that people should not worship Jesus and Mary and should not take them gods beside Allah. In this case, we can clearly understand that according to early christians, Mary was concieved as the Mother of Jesus, the Son God. This was a very potential designation for a person to be called as Mother of God, as it is recited in Hail O`Mary. Common people and especially females, could easily think that as Mary is the Mother of God so she is potentially more Important then the Son as she is the one who has begotten him, thus it could cause the worship of Mary and indeed it happened the same way and as u told, still in practice now a days. Thats why, Quran has explicitly mentioned that Neither Jesus nor Mary should be regarded as God in any sense, rather God is alone and not three. Now three in any concept be it Son, Father and Mother OR Son, Father & Holy Spirit OR Son, Holy spirit and Mary OR Mary, Holy spirit and Father whatever......... The concerned verses have sufficiently exhausted all the potential members of christian trinity as well as any other members of any other trinity by just rejecting the very concept of trinity. The concept of trinity was again discussed actually in 5:73 where God says:

Quote: [73] They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

Again, the mentioning of the members of the trinity is absent. Only one member that is God, Allah or Father is mentioned. All other members are not mentioned. The same word "Desist" is used in both the verses dealing with trinity but no such word is used in the verse dealing with idolatry. Thus, it becomes clear that the verse 116 of chapter 5 does not deal with the concept of trinity but it deals with the pagan concept of idolatry. As, we also know that the idols of both Jesus and Marry can be found anywhere either in the eastern cultures or in the western cultures which motivates an idolater to worship either or both of them.

Well, one states that wherever three deities would be narrated, it would always mean a Trinity? or potentially a Christian trinity? Before, i make any further response, i would like everyone to consider the fact that if we read Quran, one may find that whenever it addresses the concept of trinity, it remains silent about the members but whenever it addresses the issue of idolatry and forbids the worship of any particular deity/person it explicitly mentions its name*[*53:19-23]  Similarly, the verse 116 of chapter 5 does not deal with trinity at all but the idolatry of Jesus and Mary.

In order to understand my above stated statement, let we have a look again that what does the first part of said verse says:

[5:116] And behold! Allah will say: "O 'Isa the son of Maryam! didst thou say unto men, 'Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?"

Well, the verse has not mentioned explicitly the word trinity or three as we see. Further in this verse, the word "Derogation" has been used. According to the Cambridge dictionary, derogation means:

derogation no pl 1. lessening menosprecio m 2. abolition abolición f adjective:derogatory showing strong disapproval and not showing respect.

All the meanings of the word strongly suggest that derogation means to lessen or a communication that belittles somebody or something. Before I proceed, let we see what the official Christian concept of trinity is;

Quote: The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV.

Well, it is very clear now that members of trinity are co-eternal and co-equal. Does this concept relates with what is presented in verse 116 of chapter 5? It says "in derogation of God" which explicitly means that lessening the authority and role of God(father) and increasing the role of Mary and Jesus. Thus it is very clear and open that no trinity concept is actually narrated, rather; the idolatry of Jesus & Marry as gods is addressed.

Conclusion:

In the light of all available articles, holy writings and authentic history it is very clear that the verse 116 of chapter 5 of Quran does not address the holy trinity of Christians rather it only addresses the concept of idolatry of Jesus and Mary and condemns the worship of Jesus or Mary or both.

Anyone who has read the verse sees that this argumentation fails. Have a closer look at this: "Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him:"

This tells us that Jesus is:

- an apostle of God

- the word of God which God bestowed on Mary

- a spirit proceeding from God

The verse is not talking about the Holy Spirit when it says "word" or "spirit", it is talking about Jesus.

So in reality, the options that you gave are those:

1. Father + Mother + Son = Allah, Mary and Jesus

2. Father + Mother + Word = Allah, Mary and ... Jesus

3. Father + Son + word = Allah, Jesus and ... Jesus (Jesus in the trinity two times, he must be way more important than Allah ...)

Those other options which include the Holy Spirit would require the Quran to mention the Holy Spirit. And to my knowledge, it does not. So he clearly have a wrong definition of the trinity here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.233.21 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)



I think the following paragraphs adequately summarise the present last paragraphs. What do you think, is it satisfactory?



Some Muslim commentators and Western scholars believe Q as referring to Mary as part of the Christian Trinity. Critics use this to argue that the Quran's author was mistaken about orthodox Christian beliefs, wherein Mary is a human and the third part of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, Muslims argue that past heretical Christians have explicitly believed Mary to be a divine being, while general Christian beliefs implicitly exalt her to a divine status. Others argue that Q5:116 in fact does not allude to the Trinity since the term itself isn't stated in the verse and instances where the Trinity is explicitly mentioned (Q and Q), Mary's alleged divine status is not noted. Some recent Western scholarship support a rhetorical understanding of the Qur'anic accusation of Mary's divinity claim in Q5:116; arguing the verse generally gives an example of Shirk and admonishes it.

Notes

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Muslims do not believe in trinity because:
Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks.

The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence. ________________________________________

Praise be to Allah who is proof of His existence through His creation, of His being external through the newness of His creation, and through their mutual similarities of the fact that nothing is similar to Him. Senses cannot touch Him and curtains cannot veil Him, because of the difference between the Maker and the made, the Limiter and the limited and the Sustainer and the sustained. He is One but not by the first in counting, is Creator but not through activity or labour, is Hearer but not by means of any physical organ, is Looker but not by a stretching of eyelids, is Witness but not by nearness, is Distinct but not by measurement of distance, is Manifest but not by seeing and is Hidden but not by subtlety (of body). He is Distinct from things because He overpowers them and exercises might over them, while things are distinct from Him because of their subjugation to Him and their turning towards Him.

He who describes Him limits Him. He who limits Him numbers Him. He who numbers Him rejects His eternity. He who said "how" sought a description for Him. He who said "where" bounded him. He is the Knower even though there be nothing to be known. He is the Sustainer even though there be nothing to be sustained. He is the Powerful even though there be nothing to be overpowered.

Praise be to Allah Who lies inside all hidden things, and towards Whom all open things guide. He cannot be seen by the eye of an onlooker, but the eye which does not see Him cannot deny Him while the mind that proves His existence cannot perceive Him. He is so high in sublimity that nothing can be more sublime than He, while in nearness, He is so near that no one can be nearer than He. But his sublimity does not put Him at a distance from anything of His creation, nor does His nearness bring them on equal level to Him. He has not informed (human) wit about the limits of His qualities. Nevertheless, He has not prevented it from securing essential knowledge of Him. So he is such that all signs of existence stand witness for Him till the denying mind also believes in Him. Allah is sublime beyond what is described by those who liken Him to things or those who deny Him.

This is why Muslims can not believe in trinity. --Aminz 20:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity
This is not the place to debate the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity in any great detail, but here's a little explanatory diagram which may clarify the basic nature of the doctrine a little. AnonMoos 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There's now even an Arabic-language version of the diagram on Arabic Wikipedia at ar:Image:Turs-ul-Iman_Shi'ar-uth-Thaluth.png -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice that the Trinity is not a trinity of parts and not a trinity of partners, but a trinity of "divine Persons" where finite human language fails to capture divine aspect; as soon as language says "three" there is a strong sense of parts, but Aquinas showed "no parts" in God, but still three divine Persons; God cannot fall apart or be separated into parts; no separation. The inaccurate mental picture of human beings as persons does not control here; of course human persons can be separate from one another. Islamic oneness of God matches the oneness of the Triune God; both Islam and Trinity are not in conflict with regard to parts or partners. Islamic God simply does not address the actual Trinity, only other trinities. Aquinas Orthodox Trinity rejects "parts" and "partners" as does Islam. Jesus' divine Person is never separated from his God nature; the Holy Spirit's divine Person is never separated from His God nature; the Father's divine Person is never separated from his God nature; no parts, not separable. A similar anthropomorphic confusion enters when Qur'an wrestles with "son" of Mary. The humanity of Jesus formed a sonship of Mary; the divinity of Jesus existed before Mary existed; that she is reverenced as the Mother of God does not mean she is adored as god, nor as the cause of Jesus' divinity. The Qur'an's does not face but an anthropomorphic assumption about "son" without addressing the divine Person Jesus. The Incarnation is not addressed. Easily orthodox Christology has Mary as non-divine herself while still being "Mother of God;" there is no threat to the absolute oneness of Triune God. 2602:304:47BE:96F0:9185:BBDA:FECB:C615 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Diagram
I made up a custom image just for this article; click on image for a full explanation. AnonMoos 21:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a useful addition! gr, Peter L 21:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, TO MY MIND, this is not a good addition since it only pushes a particular POV. --Aminz 00:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Christian part of the image is bigger than the Muslim part of the image because the Christian doctrine is more complex than the Muslims view of the Trinity. Did you click on the image and look at all the caveats and footnotes on the image description page? As for "no Muslikms believing that Muhammad claimed that Mary was part of the Christian Trinity", have you looked at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/marytrin.html ? In any case, I was going along with what was in the main text of the article... AnonMoos 01:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Christians have a complex understanding of Trinity, but Qur'an as I understood, has a simple answer to this claim: There is a distance between the creator and the creatures. (what distance greater than the distance between creator and creation can be imagined?). The Islamic rejection of Trinity does not hinge upon how trinity can be, but to say that it any kind of associating creatures with creators is inconsistent with the character of God, and also the claim that Jesus never said such a thing. Anyway, I couldn't find any passage in the link you sent for me saying that Muhammad believed Mary was a part of trinity. Can you please show me the passage? Also, What is written in the main text is POV. That's why the article is tagged un-neutral. --Aminz 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Deviant forms of Trinity
I don't understand this bit from the article:


 * Masson, William Montgomery Watt and Richard Bell have suggested that this verse criticizes a deviant form of Trinity that overstressed "the distinctiveness of the three persons at the expense of their unity as substance".

Under Islam, any form of Trinitarianism would be deviant. Evercat (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Scholars generally place the Qur'anic statements as reactions to the contemporary local beliefs. From the stress on Mary, they try to recover the form of trinity they believed in. Then they compare it with the orthodox Trinity. --AAA765 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I feel the article gave undue weight to the idea that these verses aren't referring to the Trinity. Certainly the obvious reading of "God is not the third of three" is as a rebuttal of the Trinity. Evercat (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and who's Griffith? Evercat (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, Evercat. I will put a link of the whole article here. If you think the article is giving undue weight to a view, please provide a fair summary. Right now, I am not happy with the current version since it seems your version is giving undue weight to "misunderstanding" idea (which is not a correct word for two reasons: 1. Assuming that Muhammad wrote the Qur'an, he must have got his information from somewhere; hence this is reflecting the belief of some people and hence it can not be a misreperesentation of the belief of those people. And these people were, in anycase, the first people addressed by those verses; 2. The Qur'an does claim describing the orthodox view). --AAA765 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the link.
 * Please note that this is an article in a prestigious source (Encyclopedia of the Qur'an) written by experts in the field. Also, please note that at this moment some sourced material have been removed. I am happy if the article covers these material in the same vein as the scholarly article. Please check whether the "misunderstanding" idea is the dominant idea in the article so that it would deserve being mentioned at the beginning and then qualified by some later quotes.--AAA765 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, why shouldn't we have discussion after each verse.
 * Best wishes, --AAA765 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your own source notes several times that the Mary-as-part-of-the-Trinity thing is important:


 * "The teaching in this verse is certainly that Christians place other beings alongside the true God. If it is taken in its context, the implication can be drawn from q 5:72 and 75 that one of these is Jesus [...] it is even possible to infer that the other was Mary"


 * "this verse has been read in relation to the Trinity and linked with others such as q 6:101, which denies that God has a consort and therefore a son, to assert that Christians believe in a godhead comprising God, Mary and Jesus."


 * "may be directed at a particular form of deviant belief, such as that associated with the Collyridians [...] This suggestion is helpful in linking the accusation with a historical referent but it raises the problem of why the Qurʾān should take this comparatively little-known belief as a representative formulation of the Trinity."

So I don't think I'm giving it undue weight at all, especially since the only paragraph that mentions it in the article immediately notes that the Qur'an does not explicitly call Mary part of a Trinity, and gives Hulmes view that it's not really a misunderstanding. The article as it is now also mentions the views of Thomas and Griffith.


 * "Assuming that Muhammad wrote the Qur'an, he must have got his information from somewhere; hence this is reflecting the belief of some people and hence it can not be a misreperesentation of the belief of those people."

It may well reflect the belief of some people, but if he thinks it was the orthodox Christian view then it would be problematic.


 * "The Qur'an does claim describing the orthodox view"

This doesn't parse as written.

Anyway, I will do a little editing now. Let me know what you think. Evercat (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Evercat, I am very busy in real life and barely surviving. Life is really tough for me. I have a request from you. I ask you that you read the EoQ article and provide an honest summary of that in the article here. I think you are a very good and experienced editor. It is not a matter of me being correct or you. That is not important and I am willing to accept that I am wrong in all places if the article becomes a sincere reflection of the EoQ article(and other scholarly articles). --AAA765 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually quite busy myself, besides which I find the EoQ entry a bit hard to follow at times. Also remember that the EoQ article is just one man's opinion. Is there any problem with the article as it is now? I've removed the word "misunderstands". Evercat (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Griffith
I must say I find Griffith's views extremely implausible. He seems to think that "third of three" is being used as a proper noun which refers to Jesus, and that to say "God is not the third of three" only means "God is not Jesus". This is theology at its worst. Evercat (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Evercat, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to judge the merit of the view. But this view should have been sufficiently notable as it has been included in the EoQ article. And in any case, Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. --AAA765 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's ultimately about producing a good encyclopedia. Being verifiable is good, but it should also not be completely absurd. I think it's absurd and you don't seem to have an opinion on the matter, so I don't see why either of us would want to include it. Nevertheless, I have left it in there for now. Evercat (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename article
The article title implies that there is some form of Trinity expressed in Islam, which is the very opposite of the actual case. Suggest renaming this article to Islamic view of the Trinity or similar.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Evercat (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Let Us Emphasize That The Qur'an Does Not Adequately Represent What The Trinity Is
In the Qur'an, Allah demonstrates that he is ignorant of the Christian religion. The creator of the Universe, the Most High God, has not been informed that Christians do not believe that the trinity is a triad of Allah, Jesus and the Mother of Jesus (Maryam). I hope that this has been noted in the article. No one told Allah, the All-Knowing God, that Christians profess a belief in One God in three persons (three simultaneous states), and not Three gods joining arms together in heaven (although, to be fair, perhaps Allah was foretelling Mormonism).

I don't think that any Christian would deny that the Trinity of the Qur'an constitutes Shirk, moreover. Therefore, the Trinity is not honestly and adequately represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.166.114 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this discussion section should be more aptly retitled, "Let Us Emphasize That Some Bible believers with Fixed Points of View May Not be Able to Read the Article Objectively and Consider Alternative Theories Than Their Dogma". As the article itself states, there is only one verse which mentions taking Jesus and Mary as divine beings next to God. That verse does not make any specific mention of a trinity.  As the author of the Encyclopedia of the Koran states, that verse may be a general warning against virtual divinization of Mary as "God Bearer" and even as some fundamentalist Protestants accuse Catholics of virtually deifying Mary (without making her part of the trinity).  It should be noted that the Koran also refers to Jews as taking their Rabis as 'Gods' even though it was well known that the Jews did not literally deify their Rabis into a multi-part Godhead.  There is an obvious alternative message, but if you're dogmatic and close minded, then you aren't open to considering it cause you're just trying to "prove" your religion is right.  So good luck with that. (Kitkat21 (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC))

With all due respect,

Both Mary and Jesus ate food, according to the Quran. In other words, Allah is trying to say, "They ate food! And I don't eat food, suckers!" So, clearly, this passage indicates that Allah is of the opinion that Mary has been set up in partnership with him as a god beside him. Christians would freely admit that Jesus ate food and remained God at the same time, much as God ate food with Abraham and remained God at the same time. But no one would have a problem with Mary eating food, because NOBODY WORSHIPS MARY (no, not even Catholics). As for the rabbis, does Allah object to their dietary habits as well? I recall only his special preoccupation with Mary in this regard, since the Quran places special emphasis on the alleged triad of which she is a part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.158.14 (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but your arguments make a number of assumptions and liberal interpretations to reach your desired conclusions. First, you make the assumption that the argument the Koran is putting forward is that since Mary and Jesus eat food, neither is God.  Therefore, the Koran believes Mary is part of the Trinity.  However, the argument could be easily construed, since Mary and Jesus ate food, both are nothing but plain humans.  This does imply that Mary was part of the trinity Godhead in the Koranic view, but merely that in the Koranic view Christians viewed her as something aside from another plain human being.  As is described in the article itself, some Christian sects truly worshiped her and the Church itself put her forth as Godbearer, which is more than just another human being.  Indeed, Catholics continue to address prayers to her, an act that would be considered shirk in Islam (i.e., associating others with God).  Hence, the Koranic argument need not be interpreted as anything more than that Jesus and Mary are both human beings.
 * Second, to say that nobody worships Mary is to transplant your non-Islamic viewpoint of what it means to "worship" onto Islam. To be quite explicit: the question is not what do Christians think it means to worship someone/something, rather the question is what do Muslims think it means to worship someone/something. Hence, the Islamic viewpoint that Jews and Christians have taken their rabbis and clergy as Lords.  To quote 9:31 from the Koran: "They have taken their rabbis and monks as Lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him."  I have never met any devout Jew or Christian who believes they worship their clergy, but the point is that by the Islamic standard (which is clearly different) they do.  By the Islamic standard, addressing prayers to Mary (a common Catholic practice) or venerating Mary as the 'Godbearer' could all be considered shirk, associating others with God (i.e., deifying others beside the one God by Islam's standard).
 * Finally, your last argument about the "triad" of which Mary is supposedly a part, is again to make a logical leap from the verses provided. The verse says: "Did you say to people: 'Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God'." The verse does not mention specifically that the Godhead that is being addressed is the trinity.  You may think this is semantics, but it is not.  If I say for example, that "People believe Magic Johnson and Larry Bird are 2 great basketball players beside Michael Jordan" this is not the same as saying: "People believe there are 3 great basketball players: MJ and Magic and Bird beside him."  In the first statement, there could be 10 people that are considered great basketball players besides Jordan, I am only mentioning 2 others in this specific conversation to make whatever point I wish to make (i.e., I make no assertion re: the number of great players).  However, in the latter statement I am actually and clearly addressing the belief/assertion that there are three great players, Jordan and the two others.
 * Just to hammer this final point, review these Koranic verses from 3:79-80: "It is not (possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the prophetic office, should say to people: 'Be ye my worshipers rather than God's': on the contrary (He would say) 'Be ye worshipers of Him Who is truly the Cherisher of all: For ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly.' Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and patrons. What! would he bid you to unbelief after ye have bowed your will?" These verses have been interpreted by Muslims to be addressing the issue of Jesus and whether he instructed his followers to worship him.  Notice that in these verses it's asserted that he would not instruct his followers to take ANGELS and PROPHETS for Lords and patrons, without a mention of his mother, Mary.  If your assertion is accurate that the trinity in the Koranic view includes Mary, then these verses are very peculiar.  In actuality, the trinity is orthodox Islam is generally thought to include the angel Gabriel as the Holy spirit and the above verse may be the basis for this.  I will need to do further research and amend this article if I find evidence that clarifies this.  The various Koranic verses we have discussed show that the Koran addresses the Christian deification (by Islamic standards) of angels, prophets, Jesus, the clergy, and Mary.  Therefore, it's erroneous and convenient for you to decide that references to Mary mean that she is being included in the trinity while you do not make the same conclusions regarding the other figures mentioned in analogous verses.
 * Hence, it makes more sense to interpret these verses in total as Koranic admonitions against what Muslims regard as the deification and worship of anything besides God. Whether it be clergy, angels, Mother Mary, or Jesus. Again, if you're trying to prove your religion is right, good luck with that... but centuries of very knowledgeable people have failed to do so on behalf of all of the major religions, and I don't think such debates will be settled on wikipedia.Kitkat21 (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus (Issa) is the Word of God... but he's not God?
Most English translations of the Qur'an (most notably Yusuf Ali's) totally butcher the text so as to appeal to non-Muslims, particularly to Western audiences, as well as to clarify Islamic theology that is not clearly expressed in the text, but at least this is not the case with Abdel-Haleem's translation, even though it is still slightly misleading (what is translated as "Trinity" should actually read "three" in the Arabic, for example).

Jesus is the Word of God (Kalimaat'ullah), as well as a Spirit proceeding from God (Ruh'ullah). Well, that's exactly what Christians believe. Welcome to the world of the Trinity.

Jesus IS the Word of God (and, as God's own Word, he is thus deity) and his relationship to God is, essentially, Spirit from Spirit (i.e., Light from Light, Very God from Very God). How many prophet's were called, literally, the Word of God and the Spirit of God? This is what is so ironic about this passage: it practically paraphrases John 1:1, the definitive Trinitarian text in the New Testament. John himself was influenced (by way of terminology) by Rabbinic commentaries and the work of Philo, which regarded the "Memra [or Davar] of the Lord" as the divine extension of the deity which intimately reaches mankind, according to the theophanies of God on earth as revealed in the Torah.

So, the Qur'an provides what is actually a very eloquent exposition on the Trinity in this passage, even though it denies the existence of the Trinity in the very same breath.

Might we incorporate this information into the article? It could be valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.158.14 (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would oppose any such addition due to UNDUE and original research unless someone wishes to delve into the full Islamic interpretation of the logos "The Word" and add your point as a dissenting minor point at the end of that section assuming you can find a reputable reference. While in the Koran, Jesus is described as a word from God, he is not interpreted as "The Word of God" in a literal sense.  The Islamic interpretation of the logos is different than the Christian and would need to be explained as background before any such inclusion. Just to illustrate the point, in Islam, the Koran is the word of God, but it is not God and early Muslims hotly debated whether it was created or not created... yet neither the Koran nor God are equivalent to Jesus in Islamic belief. Kitkat21 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

One in Being
The article contains this statement in the lede: "The Qur'an repeatedly and firmly asserts God's absolute oneness, thus ruling out the possibility of another being sharing his sovereignty or nature." This statement clearly implies that belief in the Trinity involves multiple "beings" sharing in God's sovereignty or nature, since this is the thing that Islam is claimed to reject in the context of explaining its rejection of the Trinity. But Christian Trinitarian belief does not acknowledge multiple BEINGS who share the Divine nature, but multiple PERSONS. The Persons/Hypostases are distinct, but they share a nature/being/substantia/ousia. I don't know what Muslims believe, but can this sentence be rewritten so that it is a response to actual Trinitarian belief rather than to a misunderstanding of Trinitarian belief? Trinitarian Christians also believe in God's oneness, the essential unity of His Divine Nature. 68.51.248.189 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic view of the Trinity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007023742/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Muslim beliefs edit
Regarding your edit, the deleted portion is quoting Muslim arguments, specifically Ibn Taymiyah's. I believe, for this purpose the source is reliable enough and it is not directly relevant whether the statements are accurate or not. Furthermore, if these actions (Mary's statues are made, or given the title of "mother of God", or prayed to) are not taken by any significant Christian group, then it can be added that Muslims allege such actions onto Christians. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I did look at the source before editing it out. The issue is how the note and statement generalized all Christians and misrepresented the source, as opposed to specifying some, sometimes or other Christian beliefs. It is essentially a faulty generalization and incorrect by claiming it is a general Christian belief. The source itself says some, sometimes or Others, so the statement and note is not reflective of the source:
 * "Mary is mentioned alongside the Messiah, because some Christians took her as another god and worshipped her as they worshipped the Messiah. As for those who do not believe in that, they still ask of her what should be asked of God, to the extent that they say to her: Forgive me, have mercy on me, and so on, based on a belief that she will intercede with her son concerning that. Sometimes they say: O mother of God, intercede for us with God. And sometimes they ask her for their needs, which should be sought from God, and they do not mention intercession. Others worship her as they worshipped the Messiah"
 * As you can see, no where does that conclude nor support what this statement says:
 * "...while general Christian beliefs implicitly exalt her to a divine status."
 * For the section in the note, although it does partially reflect the source (Statues is not mentioned anywhere)
 * "Such as when Mary's statues are made, or when she is given the title of "mother of God", or prayed to etc."
 * It uses the information to support the faulty generalization and misrepresentation of the source. Now I understand that this article is for the Islamic view of the trinity although the statement and note combined- presents these as accurate statements by misusing the statements made by Ibn Taymiyah
 * I'm fine with adding back the examples that are actually listed like "mother of God" or being prayed to, although it needs to specify past Christian sects as mentioned by the source. I assume the statements were made in good faith, although as you can see they do not reflect the source accurately ChaoticTexan (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

So according to you, the only thing that was needed was to add the qualifier "some Christians"? Wouldn't just adding such have been better instead of completely removing the sentence? Following is the proposed correction:

On the other hand, Muslims argue that some past heretical Christians have explicitly believed Mary to be a divine being, while general beliefs of some Christians implicitly exalt her to a divine status.
 * Note: Such as when Mary is given the title of "mother of God", her statues are made, or when she is prayed to by some Christians.

The statues part is cited here (in Arabic).

Regarding Taymiyah's statement itself, I respectfully disagree with your understanding. The "some Christians took her as another god" and "Others worship her" parts are irrelevant here as they are not referring to the removed portion. The "Sometimes they say: O mother of God, intercede for us ... sometimes they ask her for their needs..." is not stating as only some Christians performing such practices but rather that Christians at some times perform such practices - sometimes they pray for intercession and at other times they pray without mentioning intercession.

Furthermore, Taymiyah is quoted as: "... because some Christians took her as another god ... As for those who do not believe in that, they still ask of her what should be asked of God...". The two "sometimes" sentences which come after this are talking about "those who do not believe in [Mary being God]" and not all Christians. At most what one can say is only that Taymiyah didn't say anything about how common such practices are.

Moreover, the source article's commentary preceding Taymiyah's quotation also suggests that the author believes it to be a common Christian practice - "Taking Mary as a goddess means either clearly stating that she is divine, which was a belief attributed to some ancient Christian groups, or what we see of the Christian practice that is widespread among them of devoting some acts of worship to her, such as praying to her, seeking her help, and prostrating to her image. Whoever worships a thing has taken it as a god, even if he does not clearly state that." [emphasis added]

Additionally, even if it is to be accepted that this source is not calling such practices as general Christians ones, we can use other sources that may do so. For example, the "Mother of God" title appears to be accepted by the vast majority of Christians, and statues are pretty common too. Though, praying to her appears to have difference of opinion.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the newer version, I am still against it unless it clearly states that it is an Islamic perspective or from Ibn Taymiyah. As theotokos, thoughout a majority of Early Christianity, was referring to Mary contributing towards the formation of the flesh. Unlike this says.


 * Although, I am not here to debate this, as I comprehend this is for the Islamic perspective although blakented statements misrepresented as facts are to be corrected or removed (I am referring to the note).


 * I propose this instead:
 * On the other hand, Muslims argue that past heretical Christians have explicitly believed Mary to be a divine being. Additionally, islamic scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyah, claimed that the general beliefs of Christians implicitly exalt Mary to a divine status. Such as when Mary is given the title of "mother of God", her statues are made or when she is prayed to by some Christians.


 * This removes the note, and covers that statement under the Islamic perspective. Having it as a note in the original edit, made it seem like supporting evidence for the generalized claim. Both sources should be cited for statues and the "mother of God" examples, as they are not the same article from what I could translate.


 * Similarly, I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the article. At first you specified that the deleted part was quoting Ibn Taymiyah. Although, no where in the article does it mention that word per word. Although I do agree on the basis of other statements made by Ibn Taymiyah such as:


 * "This is clear, on the basis that what is narrated from the Christians is that they believe that the divine descended upon Mary and was incarnated in the Messiah. This is in accordance with their beliefs.


 * "Based on that, every verse in which Allah mentions their views refers to all of their groups and refers to their belief in the Trinity and the notions of the divine descending upon Mary and being incarnated in the Messiah. Thus it includes all types of Christians and all types of their blasphemy."


 * Here he is clearly grouping all Christians, although I believe the confusion and different interpretation for both of us lies in the compiled sources the article uses. As I was also referencing this section:


 * "Sa‘eed ibn al-Batreeq spoke of them doing this, when he mentioned the Councils of Constantinople and Nicaea. He said:


 * They held different views and different beliefs. Some of them said that the Messiah and his mother were two gods besides Allah; they were the Marianists. End quote.""


 * From my perspective, this statement paired alongside Ibn Taymiyah's commentary was referencing past beliefs. I think you may understand my comprehension of it, even if we disagree.


 * "For example, the "Mother of God" title appears to be accepted by the vast majority of Christians, and statues are pretty common too"


 * Yes, theotokos is part of the doctrine for the Catholic and Orthodox church, although Protestants make up approximately 36.7% of the global Christian population, and consider Mary to be an ordinary woman who followed God. Here you can scroll down to Protestantism for more information.


 * Now, although the Catholic and Orthodox church both utilize theotokos, they constantly address the missusage of the term. They seem to mainly face criticism from Protestants. Although they view theotokos as affirming both the humanity of Jesus derived from Mary, and the divinity of Jesus. Although neither the Catholic nor Orthodox church ever considered Mary to be an equal to God. That isn't to say that there has never been instances of people doing that throughout history, because there has been times where people do that.


 * This gives a good explanation of Catholics' perspective. So, yes, technically a majority (not vast) of Christians fall under Catholicism and Orthodoxy, making theotokos the majority, although it is clearly not interpreted by either as equating Mary to the status of God. I was never against the examples, just the phrasing and structure of the statement and note.ChaoticTexan (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)