Muslims often argue that the Bible is reliable where the Qur’an confirms it, but corrupted where it contradicts the Qur’an. Fair enough. How does the Quran confirm the Bible? Believe it or not, in some very trinitarian ways. In Surrah 3:45 the Quran says "When the angels said, ‘O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good news of a Word from Him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, distinguished in this world and the Hereafter, and among those brought near.’ What's interesting is that the Quran itself doesn't provide any explanation of the way in which Jesus is the Word. It's also interesting that this Word is personal and has a name. Since the Quran is confirming the Bible in this passage, I think the natural place to go to understand what it means for Jesus to be the Word, is John 1. That's where we see the Word as both God and with God. So it at least seems like the Quran is confirming that aspect of Jesus' nature. Surrah 4:171 is also very interesting in the way it confirms the Bible. It says "O People of the Book, do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the messenger of Allah, and His Word which He cast to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say, “Three.” Stop; it is better for you. Allah is only one God." How interesting is this? We get Jesus identified as Allah's Word again, but now we also see the "Spirit from him". Obviously, Him in this verse is Allah. But here's the even more interesting part, the author of the Quran seems to understand the relationship between Allah, His Word (Jesus), and the Spirit. Immediately before this statement, Allah reminds them that there's a boundary to the religion that shouldn't be crossed. And then after it says "Do not say Three." Stop. It is better for you. Allah is only one God." So we see here that even though you have Allah and Jesus, His Word, and His Spirit, we still only have one God. And the boundary that shouldn't be crossed is saying that there are three. That's extremely trinitarian.

Let's start discussing Islam apologetics here. It would be good to share what we've encountered. Let's try to keep each thread on a single topic, and then we can organize the threads into the Islam category to find them later. Let's also try to be mindful of how dense a single comment is. Try to be precise and focused. I will go first because I have something on my mind that I want to work through with you guys. Mark 13:32 "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, except the Father." So the question I am asking is does the Son actually know in some sense? If so, what sense? And how would we defend that from the Bible? I will tell you upfront that right now I am exploring what it would mean if He actually did not know. I think a plain reading is that He does not know. The fact that His knowledge is lumped with the angels leads me to believe that over other explanations (since we would not try to reconcile the angels knowledge in the same way). So the question is what follows if it's true that the Son doesn't know? The OT passage he's alluding to is Zech 14:7 "And it will be a unique day which is known to Yahweh..." @Tim Tant asked me if I believe the Son can learn a fact. That was a good question and my gut reaction was no. The problem is I don't know why. I think our first instinct is to say God knows everything, so if Jesus is God he must know everything exactly as the Father does. But is that true? Which made me ask why is omniscience rooted in the being of God? So I looked into it. That idea comes from the classical doctrine of divine simplicity, developed through Augustine and later systematized by Aquinas. It's a product of classic theology. Scripture clearly teaches that God knows all things, knows hearts, knows the future, and possesses knowledge in a way creatures do not. But Scripture does not say: 1) God’s knowledge is identical to his essence. 2) Every divine person must therefore possess every item of knowledge identically.

There had been an earthquake that led to a dam breaking causing massive flooding and loss of life not too long ago in China or India or on the border not sure. Anyway you could see the videos on social media of people getting swept away. Not sure of the numbers but many died. I’ve heard often claimed that natural disasters, as well as suffering, get lumped into the problem of evil. But are these things really evil? Something that can be levied against God or something to discredit his goodness? Of course we as Christian’s apologists deny this. I personally have used the butterfly effect. What’s evil or bad here may be the cause of great good elsewhere and we could never truly know but I admit this is nebulous and may not be a sufficient answer for many. But the thought occurred to me, I don’t think natural disasters can be categorized as evil. They are a part of a natural cycle of the world we live in. Yes sometimes people get caught in the crossfire so to speak but to use people dying in natural disasters as a discredit for a good God to me seems no different from using death in general as a contention against God since it too is a natural process. That is to say there is no morality behind nature nor death itself. They are simply processes thus they cannot be evil. Idk if this idea has been fleshed out more deeply anywhere else but I wanted to throw it up here to ask what y’all think and if there is any errors in my thinking.

@Amed Maksut made the following comment in a longer thread with me. I am moving it here in hopes that everyone can follow along, including me. Lol My reply will be in the comments. Link to his original comment: https://www.skool.com/captive-thought-college-prep-8580/new-video-uploaded?p=7fafa205 @Aaron Yost We can throw out the verdicts of all these early big church figures and also the 5th, 6th, and 7th ecumenical councils which eventually condemned and anathematized Origens teachings. It wasn’t only him that was condemned as a heretic but there was a whole following of people who were labeled origenists who all preached the same thing, that the son and Holy Spirit are creatures. -But first may I get an answer to my previous question, “do you agree that if someone holds the belief that the Holy Spirit is created, which means He isn’t co-equal or co-eternal with the Father is considered a heretic?” (Which you’ve agreed to be Origens beliefs) -Also if you want to focus on a single quote of his and explain it to me we can, but if we agree on my previous question of him being a heretic for believing the Holy Spirit to be created then we can move to a different Church father I mentioned to prove my original point if you still disagree. -If not we can continue and choose the quote from Origen which states, “But we are persuaded by the Savior who says: “The Father whom sent me is greater than I” (John 14:28, see 6:44) and for this reason would not even bear to have the epithet “good” (see Mk. 10:18) applied to him in its proper, true, and perfect sense, but graciously referred it to the Father, finding fault with the person who wished to glorify the Son too much. We say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit transcend all generated beings, not by comparison, but by an absolute transcendence, but that he is transcended as much and more by the Father, as he and the Holy Spirit transcend other beings, not just ordinary ones. How is it possible even to say what great praise belongs to one who transcends thrones, dominions, rulers, powers, and every name named, not just in this age, but in the age to come (see Eph. 1:21), and in addition the holy angels, spirits, and souls of the righteous? But even though transcending by his being, dignity, power, divinity – for he is the living Word – and wisdom being so many and so great, he can in no way be compared to the Father. For he is the image of his goodness and the emanation not of God, but of his glory and his eternal light, and the exhalation not of the Father, but of his power, and the pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty, and the spotless mirror of his activity (Wis. 7:25–6; Heb. 1:3), the mirror through which Paul and Peter and those like them see (see 1 Cor. 13:12) God, because he said: “He who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me” (John 14:9, see 12:45).”

Hey guys, I just posted my interaction with Ahmed Ragab. It's under the Fundamentals of Islam course. I would love to get a conversation going about that conversation