You are on page 1of 36



Page 2 of 36

There is an article on Internet which claims that neither the God of Islam is the God of Bible nor
Iesous of Islam is the Iesous of NT.

It is required to answer the article first. Since we find it more interesting and more precise.
But before beginning to answer this it is necessary to present some Preliminaries.
God of Judaism [Yahudaism] God of Christianity and God of Islam is one and the same. The
Divine Being who is the Supreme Being and the only God/Deity. How ever there is a difference
of views about this God.
In Christianity this God is a Trinity [Tri-Unity] or a Triune God. In Judaism and in Islam this God is
Uni-Unity /Absolute Unicity [AU].
Judaism and Islam may dispute over the Attributes of God both they do not dispute over the
Supreme Divine Being is AU OR Uni-Unity.
This fact is acknowledged by many Christian Scholars. It is not a matter of Dispute between
Christianity and Islam. But some Anti Islamic Objection Makers have even tried to make such an
agreed upon thing as disputed.
It is tried to respond one of the argument based on the Knowablity of God.
Second Preliminary
As according to Islam God/Deity is Knowable but not comprehendable by the Knowledges of
Created Supposita, one must know the difference between to types of Knowings.
1] First Meaning
To Know in the first meaning is to comprehend with Knowledge or encirculate by Knowledge.
In this meaning God is NEITHER Knowable nor understandable.

Not OnlyDeity/God/Divine Essence/Divine Being Is Incomprehensible by Finite

Knowledges,Minds ,Rationalities/Intelligences but each and every Divine Attribute Of
Deity/God like Omnipotence, Omniscience, Life etc. is beyond human ability to finite
Minds, finite Knowledges

. Not only IT IS Absolute(ly) Impossible to know everything about God/Deity by Finite

Knowledges and Finite Minds , It is equallu Absolute(ly) Impossible to know every thing
about a single thing about Go SAY Characters tics, Attributes, Essence, Existence ,Nouns.

2] Second Meaning

Page 2 of 36
Page 3 of 36

To know with out Comprehending God/Deity, Divine Attributes etc.

God can never be known comprehensively, God/Deity can be known truly but
incomprehensively and un-exaustly God is an Existent, God is an Essence, has
definite Attributes, definite Nouns and Definite Existence. This defineness
doeth not contradict the infinity .In Divine revelations God Hath stated many
things about His Character, Attributes etc. These are definite proofs that God is
really Knowable.

3] The Disputed meaning.

Some religions believe in the Dogma of Incarnations. Some believe in Multi-

Incarnations and some believe in Single Incarnation. They opine that God can also
be known by a esepcial method/way called Incarnation.

But no one ever says that Absolute Possibility is the Necessary condition for
knowing God by Created Rationalities and Knowledges.

and has personally revealed himself so that he can be truly known. The
multiplication of grace and peace in our lives is dependent on knowing God (2 Pet.
1:2–3), and this knowledge provides sufficient resources for life and for becoming
the people God wants us to be.

3] Third Preliminary

The Creed of Ahlussunnah believeth that God is known but Howness is not
Known. One of the Nouns of God/Deity is ‘Al Ba:t:in. This meaneth that
God/Deity is Neither Comprehensively Known Nor Exhaustly Known BY Created
Rationalities , Knowledges etc.

An other Noun of God/Deity is ‘Az: Z:a:hir. This meaneth that God is Un-
Exhaustively Known and Incomprehensively Known.

So both Holy Knowns are not opposites but do imply one an other and are two
different approaches to same meaning [‘Al Ma”n-y] and same Reality [H:aqi:qah].

There is no Kaifiah [How-ness] of Divine Attributes. That is way we know God

without asking How God/Deity is, How is an Attribute Of God/Deity.

The same is true for Divine Acts. One cannot ask How God/Deity did this , or How
He can do this in regard to the existence of the very Divine Act.

Page 3 of 36
Page 4 of 36

Forth Preliminary

Many Muslim Philosophers and Theologians are of the view that Knowledge of
God/Deity/ Divine Essence/Divine Existence is Absolute(ly) Possible for Human
Beings without the aid of Revelation [‘ILHA:M] and Aspiration [VAH:Y] from
God. So it is very clear that many Theologians and Philosophers do believe that
God/Deity can be known by REASON without Revelation and Aspiration from
Very God/Deity Himself.

Certain Knowledge about God /Deity is Absolute(ly) Possible with reason.How

ever as God Comprehendeth His Essence by His Own Knowledge He can inform
and reveal things better about Himself.

A number of Theologians believe that the Knowledge of God/Deity is inherited in

the Minds and Rationalities of Human Beings.

An other number of scholars believe that the concept and knowledge of God is not
evident , and by/ through Reason God Can be Known, yet not comprehensively.

Fifth Preliminary

A number of Philosophers opine that God Cannot be Known Through reason.

A number of Atheists also opine that it is absolutely Unknowable whether

God/Deity Existeth or Not.

It appeareth that the learned scholar is inspired by each one of the two. Other
wise He must not have said such a thing. However he made just one Exception
that God Can Only be Known through Incarnation or incorporeal Manifestation.

But on what basis he does base his exception? How the exception is known, by
Reason or by Revealed Scripture. Unless and otherwise such an exception is
presented and strictly analyzed such a claim is proofless. So until then this is an
unproved claim. If it is claimed that there are proofs then claim of existing
proofs is just a claim and even this claim requires proof. So all the article
presented by the Anti Islamic Objection Maker is incomplete. What is wanted
that one must accept his assertions with its incompletenesses.

Sixth Preliminary

Page 4 of 36
Page 5 of 36

If it is Absolute(ly) Possible for a Created Essence to Know God then God can
be Known , then God Can be known with or without Incarnation.

If it is Absolute(ly) Impossible for Created Essences to Know God/ Deity then It

is Absolute(ly) Impossible to Know God With or Without Incartnation.

To say it is Absolute(ly) Possible for Created Essence but only through

Incarnation is a Conditional Possibility. It cannot be accepted unless and
otherwise it is taken as an Independent Axiom of a theological system. But if it
is attempted to be prove it is impossible and Un proveable if not Disproveable.

But for sake of an argument consider that There is no method for any Created
Thing to Know God/Deity then the question is how the Human Nature Knows
God. Certainly the consideration implieth that even the Human Nature requires
an other Incarnation and this implieth an Infinite series. So this is Absolute(ly)

Otherwise this consideration is false.

Let it be suppose that Knowledge in Created Supposita of God/Deity is

Absolute(ly) Impossible. Now if a Human Nature claims that There is a God
with Some Hypostases in the Godhead then the Knowledge cannot be shifted
from Created to Uncreated even if the Human Nature is supposed to be
Assumed by the Hypostasis in the God. Since the Human Nature is Creation
even if supposed to be assumed so shift of Knowledge from Created to
Uncreated is Absolute(ly) Impossible. If the very Assumption is studied , the
very self of the act of assumption is Created and once again the problem of
shifting from Created to Uncreated is Absolute(ly) Impossible under the above
supposition. Rather the argument from the Creations Not in Godhead,Not in
God, Not in any Supposed Hypostasis in God is more Powerful since in the case
any Creation is in God or in Hypostasis of God or in the Godhead of God then
there is a Barrier of Godhead between the human beings and the the human
nature. This barrier weakeneth the this source of Knowledge (if it is).So to deny
the Knowablity of God independent of Incarnation , assumption of Human
Nature and Human Nature is to deny the Knowledge of God , if Knowledge of
God then the faith of God. That is the reason irrespective of the Human Nature
and its Possibility or Impossibility ,it is Possible to Know God. If so then God is
Knowable independent of this Possibility [if it is].

Page 5 of 36
Page 6 of 36

Seventh Preliminary

Logical Atheism carefully choses an Axiom System in which it discards any

Axiom which can be used to prove God/Deity. On the contrary Materialistic
atheism argues for proof accepted in Science. But God Cannot be proved
through science since Science not a domain of God/Deity and God/Deity
excludeth this domain. Even this is known by Logical Atheists.

But in the religious systems these axioms which prove God/Deity do exist.

Coming back to the original discussion when a number of theists use Posteriori
method instead of Priori method [‘Addali:L ‘Anni and ‘Addali:l Lammi]. So
including the Posteriori method and axiomatizing it one gets An Axiom of
Knowing God/Deity. But deleting it from the system it becomes impossible in
the system, giving an other system.

This is what that is said that Knowing through Incarnation is just an Axiom in
the system of some incarnists.

Eighth Preliminary

Just like Logical Atheism the Anti Islamic Objection Maker who wrote the
article deletes any Axiom which may lead to Know God/Deity except the
Assumed Assumption of the Human Nature by the Hypostases in the Divinity
[Divine Ousia] Of the Deity. If this axiom is rejected axiomatically God /Deity
becometh Absolutly Unknowable.

Ninth Preliminary 1

It is forgotten or deliberately Neglected that by the Learned Anti Islamic

Objection Maker that Existence of God is a Prerequisite of incarnation in the
case Incarnation is Absolute(ly) Possible. Since the human intellect cannot
detect whether a thing which he considers as a Human Being is a Human Person
or a Nature of Hypostatic Union with its counter part a Hypostasis in the Divine
Nature which is the Divine Ousia. Such things are not evident and if not evident
then reasons are inevitable . Once again a Posteriori method is employed.

But Knowledge of God and Existence of God is a Necessary Condition of the

Knowledge of Absolute Possibility of Assumption of Human Nature.

Page 6 of 36
Page 7 of 36

A Prori Proof is prerequisite in this case which is neglected by the learned

Author of Anti Islamic Objection.

If no God then No Incarnation but if no Incarnation then NOT “Absolute

Necessity” no God.

That is why even those who believe in Trinitical Dogma,Human Nature Dogma
and Incarnation of any one of the Hypostases in the Divine Ousia of Deity do
not say such a thing atleast in the sense taken be the Learned Anti Islamic
Objection Maker. What they generally say is that God is better known be
Assuming a Male Human Nature.

So even they do not say that God is Unknowable without any assumption of
Created Assumed Nature what so ever.

Tenth Preliminary
[Judaism (Yahudaism) and ‘Isla:m do agree that God is Uni-Unity or Absolute Unicity and not a
Trinity/Tri-Unity. Similarly Assumption Of any Non-Eternal Nature is Absolute(ly) Impossible By
God/Deity and Upon Deity/God. But in this Preliminary some discussions are made according to
Athanasian Trinitarian Standard , to shew that this claim of the Anti Islamic Objection Makers are
not even according to the Official Trinitarian Schools].

The basic problem is that the argument from incarnation or assumption of

Human Nature is based on the respective Potentialities of Assumption of
Human Nature and the Potentiality of Human Nature either in God or In
Godhead of God or in Hypostasis in Godhead of God.

But this cannot be the only way to Know Divine Essence/Divine

Being/God/Divinity Deity.

A thing T1 cannot be known if the thing T2 that holdeth the Potentiality/Potency [say P1] of T1
[Qu:vah/S:ala:h:iah] Is Not Known. That is Potentiality of any thing say T1 cannot be known unless and
otherwise the thing T2 in which the potentiality of T1 subsiteth is NOT known,

How ever If it is assumed that that the Potentiality/Potency [P1] of a Thing [Say T1] in a thing [say T2]
can be Known Without Knowing the Thing T2 in which the the Potentiality of the thing T1 subsisteth then
the Knowledge of the Potentiality of thing T1 NOT NECESSARILY Implieth the the Knowledge of of the
Thing T2. This is incorrect but if it is assumed to be correct then in this case the Knowledge of the
Thing T1 which is transited from Potentiality to the Actuality does not imply the Knowledge of T2. Since

Page 7 of 36
Page 8 of 36

if it doeth not imply the Knowledge of its Potentiality P1, it does not imply the Knowledge of the Holder
of the Potentiality.

Note: Potentiality of T1 is denoted by P1.

Any thing say T1 which Existeth due to Motion from Potentiality to Actuality in a thing T2 CANNOT be
Known due to the Knowledge of its Potentiality P1.Since Potentiality [of a Thing T1] doeth not imply the
transition [of T1] from (its) Potentiality [P1] to [its] Actuality.

In other sentences:-

1], if a thing T1 existeth in the thing T2 and T1 cometh in Act due to Motion from Potentiality [say P] into
Actuality [say A] and the Potentiality of T1 is held in the thing T2 then the Thing T1 cannot be known
without knowing its Potentiality P.

2]If it is supposed that the thing (in Actuality/Act) T1 in the Thing T2 can be Known with out knowing
the Potentiality P1 of T1, then it can also be known without the Knowledge of the thing T2.

Since if the Potentiality P1 of a thing T1 in a thing T2 CANBE not Known BUT T1 is known then the thing
T2 in which the Potentiality P1 of T1 Subsisteth can also be not known.


technical reasons Potentiality of T3 is denoted by P2 and not by P3]

In this case ,If there are one or two [ or more ] Potentialities [say P1, P2…..,….] in the the Second
Hypostrasis to Assume the Human Nature and to Actualize the Human Nature (etc.) then it is not
implied Necessarily that the Hypostasis it self is Known.

As this discussion requires some more explanations it is attempted to explain once again in some
different sentence of Speech as follow:=

As the Human Nature and the Assumption of Human Nature in the Hypostasis are not Eternal
according to Athanasian Trinitarians the Potentiality Pi (I=1,2) of each one of the two is in the

Page 8 of 36
Page 9 of 36

Hypostasis which [i.e Hypostasis] is one of the two constituents which constitute the
Hypostatic Union.[The other being the Human Nature].

These Potentialities [P1,P2] require two motions [ one for each to cause the transition of each
one of the two i.e Assumption of Human Nature and the Human Nature from the Domain of
Potentiality into the line of Actualization]. So the Potency/Potentiality of each one [P1,P2] of
them [T1 and T3] is Logically Prior to both of them. If they [i.e P1 and P2] are not known Prior
of them [T1 AND T3] then it is required to know them [P1,P2] first (Which are in the Hypostasis)
,then these two [T1,T3] are known. If it is supposed that T1 and T3 can be known even if their
respective Ptentialities P1,P2 are not known; Then their [T1,T2] (RESPECTIVE )Knowledges
neither collectively nor individually imply the Knowledge of T2 which holdeth these
Potentialities [P1 and P2] in it.

If the Male Human Nature and the Assumption of Male Human Nature in the Hypostasis [T1,T3
respectively] are known or can be known with out their respective Potentialities [P1,P2] in the
Hypostasis then In this case the respective Knowledges of Assumption Of Human Nature [T3]
and the Very Human Nature [T1] do not imply the Knowledge of their Potentialities [P1,P2]
;neither Collectively nor Individually.

In this case these two [T1,T3] Cannot lead to the Knowledge of their Respective Potentialities
[P1,P2]Which are in the Hypostasis [Say T2]. How lever these TWO [T1,T3] may inform about
the Potential Aspects and Qualities of the Hypostases some thing new ,if the Hypostasis, and
the Potentialities [P1,P2] are somehow Known independent of these two [T1,T3]. But neither
the Knowledge of these two [T1 and T3] nor their respective Knowledges their respective
potentialities [P1,P2] can be the Necessary Conditions for Knowing the Hypostasis in the
Godhead , God the Trinity and Godhead of God .

One can safely conclude that:=

If it is supposed that the Knowledge of Potentiality [P1] of Human Nature in the Hypostasis , the
Knowledge of Potentiality [P2] of Assumption and the Knowledge Hypostasis ARE NOT prior to the
Knowledge of Actuality of Human Nature [T1] and the Knowledge of Actuality of Assumption of Human
Nature [T3] then there is no implication that their Knowledges implieth the Knowledge of their
Potentialities [P1,P2] and the Holder of their Potentialities [The Hypostasis].

Page 9 of 36
Page 10 of 36

But the Knowledge OF Potentiality say P1 cannot be posterior to the Knowledge of the thing say T1
which is actualized from Potentiality in the Thing T2.

This shews that God , Godhead of God and the Hypostasis in the Godhead of God [If there is any in
Godhead] can be known without the Human Nature and the Assumption Of Human Nature [If there are

The Knowledge of Hypostasis in Godhead of God [if there is any ] can be attained with out the
Assumption of the Human Nature and the Human Nature itself.

If the Male Human Nature [T1] and Assumption of Male Human Nature [T3] cannot be known
without their Potentialities P1,P2 being Known then as the Potentialities [P1,P2] and the thing
[t2] in which these two [T1,T3] are, are Logically Prior to them [T1,T2].So the Knowledges of
respective Potentialities [P1,P2] and the Thing [T2] is prior to the Respective Knowledges of
[T1,T3]. So it requireth that the respective Knowledges of P1,P2,T2, MUST exist prior to the
respective Knowledges of T1,T3.How ever it may be argued that this Priority is only Logical and
not of Time. But this argumentation is incorrect and wrong.Since the Potentialities and the
Holder of these Potentialites canbe known even if the Actualization of Potentialities hath not
Occurred. This meaneth that the Hypostasis and each one of the Potentialities in the
Hypostasis canbe Known even if there actualization do not occur , or if it occurs even then it
is not necessarily Known [Not the case “Necessarily Not Known”].

As Incarnation , Human Nature, Assumption of Human Nature etc. are Relative(ly) Necessary
and Not Absolute(ly) Necessary, [in Trinitarian Christology] there fore they are Absolute(ly)
Contingent. No Contingent is Absolute(ly) Necessary for Knowing the Absolute (ly) Necessary

Note 1:=The Term Motion may be defined as the Transition [‘Intiqa:l] of some thing say T1 from the
Domain of Potentiality /Potency into the line of Actuality in a thing T2 ,which is in Actualization and not
in Potency. This Motion may be termed as Actualization.

Note 2: There are Potencies/Potentialities of Male Human Nature and the Assumption of Human Nature
in the Hypostasis under discussion.

Page 10 of 36
Page 11 of 36

If there is neither Any Potentialty/Potency of any Male Human Nature nor any Potency/Potentiality of
Assumption of Male Human Nature in the Hypostasis in the Godhead [Divine Ousia] of God, then
Neither the Male Human Nature can be made in the Hypostasis not can be assumed by the Hypostasis.

So it is necessary to assume that each one of the two Potentialities/Potencies are held by the Hypostasis in
Itself AND also that these Potentialies/Potencies are Prior to the Transition of the Male Human Nature
and the Assumption of the Male Human Nature from their respective Potentialities /Potencies to their
respective lines of Actualization.

Note 3:= If the Male Human Nature and the Assumption Of the Male Human Nature are not one and
the same ‘ then they must occur simultaneously .

Note 4:= If the Male Human Nature and the Assumption of Male Human Nature are not one and the
same then their respective Potentialities/Potencies are also not one and the same.

Note 5:= If the Male Human Nature and the Assumption of Male Human Nature are one and the same
then their respective Potentialities/Potencies are also one and the same.

Note 6:= It is beyond the scope of this article to Discuss the Possibility and Impossibility of
Assumption Of Human Nature [Incarnation].


None of the official and Authentic Trinitarians have claimed that Incarnation is the Only Way
to Know God. . Since their Great Theologians have tried to Prove God based on
Reason/Argumentation. These Proofs [whether correct or not is an other issue] do have
one thing in Common, they attempt to prove God/Deity selecting other ways as well which
are independent of Incarnation,Male Human Nature and Assumption of Male Human Nature.

Page 11 of 36
Page 12 of 36

So one who claims that these two are the only ways to Know God say some thing not said by
It must be noted that it is beyond the scope of this article to Discuss the Possibility and Impossibility of Assumption Of
Human Nature [Incarnation].

It is neither Immediately Evident to Finite Rational Supposita of Finite Knowledges and

Rarionalities nor in the innate Knowledge of any Finite Rational Suppositum of Finite
Knowledge whether the one that is seen and perceived by five senses and one that
appeareth as a Human is a Male Human Nature of a Hypostatic Union assumed by the
Hypostasis of the Union or a Male Human Person.

So the demonstrations of such a Male Human Nature and Assumption Of Male Human Nature

Can only be by Posteriori Argumentations and not by Priori Argumentations.

Similarly Posteriori Argumentations can be used to demonstrate the very Divine Essence
[God/Deity] independent of any Assumed Created Nature what so ever.

If similar Argumentations can be used to argue and to shew for the Divine Existent and Very
Self Of the Divine Existent that is the Divine Essence Directly without any Medium/Middle of
any Assumed Created Nature then there is nothing in these Anti Islamic Objections that
maketh them valid and correct.

If there is at least one Hypostasis in the Godhead of God , the very Eternal Self of the Divine
Hypostasis is neither perceived by any Human Sense nor an innate object of Human
Knowledge and Rationality . If all the Knowledges if proceed by the Assumed Created Nature
which is the Male Human Nature in this particular case and neither from the very self of the
Hypostasis nor from the Godhead of the Hypostasis then Hypostasis and the Divine Ousia
[Godhead] becomes Unknown, each one of the two in itself.

Twelve Preliminary

If it is assumed that Divine Essence [God/Deity] is Unknowable in Itself then this is the view
of 5th century BCE Sophists and some Atheists 19 and 20 th centuries CE.

Page 12 of 36
Page 13 of 36

It is a kind of Atheism to claim that Human Minds can never know whether God Existeth or
Existenth Not, since this belief annihilates Faith in Divine Essence [God/Deity].

If it is accepted that God/ Deity [Divine Essence] cannot be known by Finite Supposita of
finite Knowledges with the only exception that God/Deity [Divine Essence] can be known by
the Assumed Created Nature then this meaneth that all Knowledges about God/Deity [Divine
Essence/Ousia] Come from the assumed Assumed Male Human Nature.

If this is so then the grounds for this Exception are infinitely weak . Since If it is Impossible
to Know God/Deity [Divine Essence] from any Creation then it is irrelative whether the
Creation is an Assumed Male Human Nature or it is not.

If it is Possible to Know God from Creations then it is once again irrelevant whether a
Particular Creation is an Assumed Male Nature or not.

To claim that it is Impossible to know God from Some Creations and Possible to Know God
from other Creations is a claim with out any Proof. Since the very act of Assumption of the
Created Nature is it self a Creature. As stated in the Eleventh Preliminary it is certainly not
evident whether the one that is seen and sensed by human senses is a Human Person or a
Human Nature, it requires a proof whether the perceived thing is a Male Human Nature or a
Male Human Person.

What kind of proof can demonstrate the act of Created Assumption itself. Since Assumption
if possible requires an agent that is the Assumer. If Assumption implieth an Assumer then it
doeth not imply that the Assumer is God/ Deity or Divine Essence or a Non- Divine Assumer
[Created Assumer].

Once again it shall be claimed that Only God/ Deity / Divine Essence or an Hypostasis Hath
the Power to Assume. But this is a Preposterous argument. This presumes God/Deity before
the act of assumption. This is a Priori and not a Posteriori.

[This is discussed above].

This denieth the basic concept that Divine Essence is Supreme Knowable. God/Deity / Divine
Essence is not Knowable in the meaning all of His Knowledge comes from the Assumed

Page 13 of 36
Page 14 of 36

Created Nature otherwise it is implied that God/Deity did Not Know Himself prior to the
Assumption of the Human Nature.

It must be noted that Every Existing Thing what so ever it may be is Knowable as it is in
Existence. Divine Essence /Deity /God is Supremely Knowable In Itself/Himself since Divine
Essence [God/Deity] is a Pure Existence and there is no Potentiality of any Existence in
Divine Existence.

The Supreme Knowability is independent of any Assumption and any Assumed Nature.

The claim that they only way to Know God/Deity [Divine Essence] is to know God/Deity
[Divine Essence] by Assumed Nature is wrong and incorrect since God/Deity [Divine
Essence] can be Known from the argument of Motion of Created Existents.

Motion in Created Existents Imply an Uncreated and First Mover. The efficient causality
implieth an uncaused Cause .

Even the Trinitarians do accept that Divine Existent Can be Known through Reasons
independent of the Assumed Nature.

Since their reasons are independent of the assumed Nature.

God/Deity/ Divine Essence can be proved in the similar way by choosing any thing [using the
Principle of Choice] , say an atom or a molecule or a cell or a piece of Metal or a Human
Being or a Planet or else. The Existence of a Created Effect implieth the Existence of an
Created First and Ultimate Cause.

Trinitarians only say that Assumption and the Assumed Nature that the Assumed Nature and
the Assumption of Nature inform some more Qualities and Aspects of God.

But this is a separate issue. This issue is beyond the scope of this article.

As it is beyond the scope of the article to discuss whether the Assumption of Human Nature
and the Assumed Human Nature is Possible or not , it is clear that this is an incorrect claim
and based on the basis of an incorrect claim the Learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker has
Page 14 of 36
Page 15 of 36

Attempted to shew that Islamic God is not the God of Israel.

Below a refutation is presented of an article which attempts to shew that God of

‘Isla:m is not the God Of books Tanakh and NT. However some liberties may be
found taken in answers and replies from the above Preliminaries.


Jesus is NOT in the Quran!

there's a guy named jesus in the Quran, but he's not the Savior!

Qur’a:n and H:adi:th: refer to the One and Only Iesous/ “I:sa: [“ALAIHISSALA:M] the Son of
Marium/Maryam [“ALAIHASSALA:M]

Talking Point #24 – the god of Islam is not

A discussion on the pint 24
Page 15 of 36
Page 16 of 36

The God Of Islam is Knowable but not

By LTSMinistries | October 8, 2012 - 3:34 pm | October 8, 2012 Uncategorized


Let me ask you a question, Christian: Do you know God? Do you know Jesus Christ (of the Bible)? If He
is your Savior, you should not only know Him but you should be living your everyday life in hot pursuit of
Him, trying to get to know Him even better and trying to create a super-close, intimate relationship with
Him. But that word “intimate” really has special meaning to you if you are a member of the “Bride of

According to the Bible, Yehovah God is knowable. Jesus (of the Bible) came into this world that we
might know God:

If it is meant that the word Bible is used for Old Covenant then it is Septuagint which is a
Translation of Jewish Tanakh. Judaism is a religion which is much older than Christianity.
Tanakh is originally and actually the Holy Scripture of Judaism. Christianity only borrowed
Jewish Tanakh through a Greek Translation. So the question is whether the Judaism to which
the Jewish Tanakh originially belongs to believes in Incarnation or Kenosis or Assumption of
Human Nature by Godhead or only Hypostasis in Godhead or else. If no then this is a proof that
Judaism does not recognize such an Incarnative Knowablity of God. Is it rational that a
relatively a new religion far newer than the Original Holder of the Scripture called Holy Tanakh
is unable to understand the Holy Tanakh and a New religion say Athanasian Christianity or
Trinitarian Christianity claims that it understands it better than the original holder of the
religions. Is it rational? Is this a valid reason to use Holy Tanakh of Judaism against Judaism
after borrowing it from Judaism? If Christianity claims that Iesous is mentioned in Septuagint or
inTanakh ten times or hundred times or what the extremists say thousand times, Judaism says
He is not mentioned even a single time. So who is correct? Every rational person shal say that
the religion to which the Scripture Originally belongs to has the right to say what it teaches and
preaches and not a religion which borrow it at a much latter stage.

Not only Judaism but Non Trinitarians Christianity [Unitarianity] believe that God is Knowable
but not in the meaning of Trinitinative Knowablity.


Page 16 of 36
Page 17 of 36

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
John 17:3

This is an Anti Trinitarian verse. It proves that Iesous is not God, not according to this verse.

If FATHER is the Only True God that Logos and Pneuma cannot be God. If Logos is God then
Father is not the Only True God. If Father is the True God and Logos is God then Logos is not the
True God. These are the direct result of the verse. So if Father is the Only True God then this
either means that these is Only One Hypostasis in Godhead [Divine Ousia] or it means that the
Godhead is Father. And Iesous whom the Only True God Namely Farher Has sent is not God but
Mediator or Intercessor.

“No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”
John 1:18 (ESV)

This verse also proves that Iesous is not God.

Since no one has seen God. This means that if some one is seen by any one then the ssen one is
certainly not God if the verse is True. If One Who is never seen is God and One who is at the side
of the unseen God is God then the God at the side of the unseen God ,God the Unseen is atleast
not Logos since Logos is seen as Iesous according to Athanasian Trinity. If one only may ask why
people do such a thing with these verses with out accepting that they are doing such a thing.

(I especially like this translation of this verse because it explicitly says that Jesus (of the Bible) is God!)


Speaking of Jesus (of the Bible), He is the Word of Yehovah and He came to us explicitly for the purpose
of making the Father known to us! But even before that, God revealed Himself to Moses and to Israel:

“He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel.”
Psalm 103:7

Page 17 of 36
Page 18 of 36

Once again the stated above fallacy is committed . Psalm is a Book of Judaism and it is the
book of Judaism long before the birth of the founder of Christianity. So this verse is certainly
read by uncountable Jewish people including Jewish Prophets, Scholars, Commentators etc. But
none of them understood it in the Athanasian and Trinitarian meanings. It is just to read an old
book in accordance to a new book. How much rationality is beneath this attitude? Are Ways
and Act Logos. Is there any Plurality in the very self of Logos. Suppose for a sake of arguments
that Logos The Second Hypostasis in the Godhead of God revealed God the Supreme Being and
the First Hypostasis to Moses [Mu:sa:/Moshe] “Alaihis Sala:m, then at that time Logos had not
assumed the Male Human Nature. So in this case if Logos did not Assumed the the Assumed
Male Human Nature, God the Being was revealed with out any Male Human Nature.

This shews that Assumption of a Male Human Nature is not necessary for knowing God the
Being and the First Hypostasis in theOusia of the Supreme Being.

Note: Logos/Son the second Hyposasis became Iesous according to Christology when the
Hypostasis assumed the Male Human Nature [without conversion but by assumption]. [ ] 1


So to put that in perspective, Yehovah God revealed Himself in the Old Testament to His people and
then He sent His Son, Jesus (of the Bible) to reveal even more about Him! Through Him the Father is

If God reveals himself in Holy Tanakh with out Incarnated Logos , then this means that God
was not only Knowable but also known before Logos was Manifested or Incarnated by assuming
a Finite male human nature.

Page 18 of 36
Page 19 of 36

The Anti Islamic Objection Maker wants to shew that God Yahuvah was revealed by one of the
Hypostasis in the Godhead of Yahuvah.

By this he is trying to mix Judaism and Christianity , two different religions.


“No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”
John 1:18 (ESV)
(I especially like this translation of this verse because it explicitly says that Jesus (of the Bible) is God!)

If someone doesn’t know God today, it is their fault, not His.

Similarly if some one claims that he knows God by knowing some one other than God , it is not
the fault of God but the fault of Claimant. If this verse is taken literally then this verse implies
that Father and Logos are one and the same and not two mutually distinct Hypostases in one
Divine Ousia. If Logos is the ONLY God then this means that Logos is the Only Hypostasis in
Godhead (Divine Ousia) Of God. Now if Logos is the only Hypostasis in Divine Ousia then Either
Logos and Father are one and the same Hypostasis or Father is not a Hypostasis in Godhead
[Divine Ousia]. So this translation is Anti Athanasian Trinity and Supports Sabelain Trinity.

That Father and Logos are just Nouns of one and same Hypostasis just like Athanasians accept
that Logos and Son are just two Nouns of one and same Hypostasis. So this especially liked
translation goes against the Athanasian Trinitarians.

The only response is that Each Hypostasis is the Only God in Trinity. But If the Hypostasis Logos
is the only God then it means that the Father cannot be the distinct Hypostasis. But suppose
that some one irrationally argues that Father is God and Son is the Only God yet both are two
distinct Hypostases in Divine Ousia then the question is what does he means by the term God

In the sentence “Logos is the Only God”. If he means God the Trinity then this sentence means

“Logos is the Only God the Trinity”. This is not Trinity of Athanasius. If the word God means
Triune God then the sentence means “Logos is the Only Triune God” . This meaning is also
against the Athanasian Tritnity. If the word God is used in the meaning of Godhead [Divine
Ousia] then the sentence means “Logos is the Only Godhead [Divine Ousia]. If the word God is
used in the meaning Divine Being or Supreme Being then the sentence means “Logos is the only
Divine Being or Logos is the Only Supreme Being”. But again these meaning is not in harmony
with the Dogma of Athanasian Trinity. In Dogma of Trinitarians Logos is a Hypostasis and not a

Page 19 of 36
Page 20 of 36

So the only meaning is that the word God is used in the meaning of “A Hypostasis in Godhead”.

I may agree that this meaning of the word God can be taken in some other translation of this
verse but this especially liked Translation cannot accept this meaning. In the Dogma of
Athanasian Trinity [as it developed through ages] Plurality of Hypostases does not Imply the
Plurality of Godhead of God. As the number of God depends upon the Godhead and not on the
Hypostasis in Godhead, then according to the Dogma it can be said “ Father is God, Son is God
and Holy Ghost is God yet God is One” But it cannot be said that Father is the Only God or
Son/Logos is the Only God. If the Sentence Father is God means Father is a Hypostasis in the
Godhead , Son is God means that Son is a Hypostasis in Godhead etc. then Father is the Only
God means that Father is the Only Hypostasis in Godhead.

So even Trinitarians have to interpret this verse somehow. But the learned Anti Islamic
Objection Maker is not Loyal to the Dogma of Trinity as well. [ ] 2

In fact, He made it clear that those who do not know Him lack knowledge expressly because they
rejected such knowledge (Hosea 4:1-6). The Bible is THE story about the Father and the Son and exists
so that we can know Him and we can come to believe and serve Him forever.

If the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker uses the word Bible in the meaning of the Holy
Tanakh of Judaism then no scholar of Judaism ever took this meaning from any verse of Holy
Tanakh. So this is what the auther implicitly say that for ages Judaism was unable to
understand its own Holy Book and then a New Religion was founded which understood it in
some meanings totally unknown to the Original Religion of the book.

Is this rational claim? We leave this to the readers. Tanakh . Tanakh is the Story of Yahuvah
who is not a Hypostasis in the Godhead but the Supreme Being and the Divine Being.

To reduce Yahuvah from Sureme Being to a Hypostasis in the Godhead of Supreme

Being is not the Yahuvah of Tanakh of Judaism.

Had Hosea slightest implication of Plurality of Hypostases in Godhead of Yahuvah, Scholars of

Judaism would have detected it even before the birth of the Founder of Christianity.

Page 20 of 36
Page 21 of 36

If the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker uses the word Bible for the NT then NT can be
treated differently. So one cannot accept unless each and every disputed prooftexts of the
Dogma Of Trinity is discussed one by one. [ ] 3

On the other hand, the god of Islam is unknowable and his (unholy) book proves that as well!

The Learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker has used the word Unholy for Holy Qur’a:n. This does
shew how much he dislikes Holy Qur’a:n. In just a single word he has exposed his dislikeness
and hatred towards the Holy “Arabic Scripture . Any how let his personal sensibilities be left and
let the original discussion be continued.

The claim that God of Islam is not Knowable is a false claim. If theword Knowable is used in the
meaning that Human Knowledge can Comprehend God and Divine Essence/Ousia then it is
certainly true. Since only Divine Omniscience Comprehendeth God and Divine Ousia/Essence.

If by Unknowable the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker means God is totally unknown
then Holy Qur’a:n informeth many things about God so that He may be Known but without
being Comprehended by Created Knowledges.

If the learned Author means to be not known as an Incarnated God then this is certainly true
but not to be incarnated does not mean God is not known. Such a claim is neither correct nor

Even from the standard of Athanasian Trinity the second Hypostases Logos was incarnated as
Iesous. But before the conception there was no incarnation even on the standard of Trinitarian
Trinity. So it means that the Entire Tanakh could not make Yahuvah the God Of Tanakh as

Even Iesous did not claim that He is the second Hypostasis in Godhead of God.

So even Iesous was unable to make God known. It was due to the Athanasius and latter
devekopments in Athanasianism made God Known. Hese are the irrefutable consequences of
what the learned Author means. I have seen many Trinitarians who only say that Incarnation,
Kenosis and Assumption of Male Human Nature made God more Known. But none of them said
such a thing that if there is no Incarnation then the God is not Known.

Page 21 of 36
Page 22 of 36

Divine Essence [Deity/God] is Knowable since it is in Existence, and Divine Essence is Pure
Existence without any Potentiality of any Essential Attribute [say Omniscience etc] , and Divine
Essence is Supremely Knowable in Itself [ Ma”lu:m Bidh: Dh:a:t]. if It is not Knowable to Finite
Knowledges , it is in the meaning that it is Absolute(ly) Impossible to be Comprehended by
Finite Knowledges.


Quran is clear that he cannot even be understood.

Yes Qur’a:n is Clear that God Cannot be Understood Comprehensively since no Finite
Knowledge and No Created Understanding can comprehend God. But does not mean that God
cannot be understood. Since the Very Qur’a:n stateth many things about God to make our
Knowledge and Understanding capable of Knowing and Understanding Him without
Comprehending Him. Once again the principle fallacy in the entire incorrect claim is that the
claimant has supposed that if God or any Hypostasis of God cannot incarnate God cannot be
known. This is a wrong supposition. Perhaps this Supposition is taken Axiomatically by the
learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker. So what this learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker is
trying to convince the readers of his article that if Incarnation is impossible then God is
Necessarily Unknowable. The answer to this claim is the direct negation of it, that is God is
Knowable even if Incarnation is Impossible.


To the Muslim, the idea of knowing God is a “metaphysical impossibility.”

This sentence must be discussed with especial attention.

Page 22 of 36
Page 23 of 36

Either a Thing is Absolute Impossible or It is not. [Please let it be allowed to use the term
Absolute Impossible instead of Absolutely Impossible for some terminological reasons].

If it is not then it is Absolute Possible.

If a Thing is Absolute Possible then it is Either Absolute Necessary or it is Absolute Contingent.

Now Logical Impossibility, Paradoxes, Mathematical Impossibility, Mathematical Paradoxes,

defect upon Divine Essence , Incarnation, Manifestation in Corporeal and Created Beings are
Absolute Impossible. In Islam the Incarnation of God in a Human or assumption of Male
Human Nature is as impossible as assumption of Female Human Nature,Assumption of Animal
and Plants Natures , Assumption of Jin Nature or Assumption of Angelic Nature. But this does
not make God Unknowable.


Muslims don’t believe that the god of Islam has revealed himself at all; rather they believe that he has
made his will known (go ahead, find a Muslim and ask him).

Once again the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker is saying nothing but that if the one of
the Only Three Hypostases was not incarnated by assuming a male human nature [ which may
be called as Revelation of God Himself] then God is Unknowable. Once again it is to be said
that this is an entire incorrect supposition. One may ask any Trinitarian who has studied these
topics , whether Incarnation is the only way of Knowing God or there are other ways? It is more
likely that they shall response that it is not the only way to know and to understand God.

Beatific Vision is a better way. So it is possible that all human persons regardless of their gender
are reverted and reduced to human natures and simultaneously assumed by any one of the
three Hypostases so a better Understanding and Knowing of God may occur. After all the
created Human Nature assumed by the Second Hypostasis in Godhead of God knows and
understand its counterpart the Hypostases Logos in Divine Nature [i.e Godhead] farmor better
then humans beings which are not human natures. Why? Why God did not reveal Himself on
the higher scale which is Absolute Possible in Trinitical Theology. But this also means that
Before the alleged Divine Conception of the Deity Of Iesous no one knew God, not even Moses
who is believed to write first five books of Torah, and not other auther of any book of Tanakh.

Even if Moses met the Hypostase Logos in unincarnated form it was just a Theophany not even
a Beatific Vision. So if Logos was in Unincarnated form them Logos was not Iesous since Iesous
according to Christian Theology of Athanasians is the Incarnated Logos. Please ask any student

Page 23 of 36
Page 24 of 36

of Trinitarian Theology or Christology , his /her answer shall be the same, that Iesous is the
Incarnated Logos.

So it is a very correct way to say that Unincarnated Logos is not cannot be known without
incarnation if incarnation is the Necessary and Sufficient Condition of Knowing God or any one
of the Hypostasis. If it is just the Necessary condition then Moses and all the other who pre-exist
Iesous did not know God, His Hypostases etc.

The answer is that If God is not incarnable it is not implied that God is Unknowable.

Divine Will is Absolutely Free and if God Willeth that He is Known there is nothing going to
stop Him. How ever to Make Created Supposita to Comprehend God/Deity /Divine Essence is as
impossible as to Create an onther God/Deity Divine Essence like the God/Deity /Divine Essence.


The god of Islam’s will is known and understood through Islamic (Shariah) law, so every Muslim does
Allah’s will by adhering to Shariah. In line with that, to be a Muslim one must adhere to the five basics

tenets of Islam, the first of which defines or explains their false god to them like this:

It must be known that Shariah is one of the ways of Knowing God. But it is not the only way to
know God.How ever to deny Shariah is a Kufr is another thing. For example all the people who
does not believe in Athanasianism do know God but they do not believe in Trinity and
IncarnationDogma. Does this means They Do Not Know God?

As for Kufr if a Trinitarian began to denounce all the Epistles in NT as Fake and still believe in
first four Gospels ,in the Dogmas of Trinity and Incarnation, does he knows God nor Not? In such
a case he commits an Apostasy yet he knows God and His Hypostases on the grounds of the Anti
Islamic Objection Maker.


“There is only one true God and his name is Allah. Allah is all-knowing, all-powerful and the sovereign
judge. Yet Allah is not a personal God, for he is so far above man in every way that he is not personally

Page 24 of 36
Page 25 of 36

What are the Problems with the Anti Islamic Objections Makers that they make objections on
the Article Of faith common to all the three Abrahamic Religions. Is God Not Omnipotent or Is
God Not Omniscient or If God nor the Supreme Sovereign Judge? Now the question of Person in
case of God. Is God Personal or Is God a Person. The Person is not a single meaning word. It does
have several meanings. In what meaning the God is a Person and In What meaning God is not a
Person, there are may questions in this regard. The learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker does
not state in what meaning he used the word Person or Personal. If by the word Person he it is
meant “A Rational/An Intelligent Essence/Ousia then no Hypostase whosoever communicable to
the Divine Ousia can be called as Person.

If by the word Person he want to deny the First Cause of Greek Philosophers which is impersonal
and not a Person then Muslims are in agreement this concept how ever they prefer to use the
word Essence to refute the impersonal God of Philosophers and some eastern religions.

So There are several reasons for doing so.

1] The “Arabic Word Shakh:s: which is an alternative of Person some time convey such meanings
which may cause problems.

2] The “Arabic word as a term is generally used for created Supposita and this can cause the
same problem as the word Substance and Form may cause for the Divine Essence.

3] The word Dh:a:t is sufficient enough to refute the Idea of an Impersonal God.

4] God is Divine Essence and Divine Essence is God. Attributed with the Attributes of
Omniscience,Omnipotence ,life,Will it becomes unnecessary to use the word Person/Persona etc.

5] If some one likes to use the word Person for the God [Divine Essence] then he may use it if he
finds it necessary and inevitable. But constant use of this word may cause some problems.

6] Last but not the least does the word Persona is used in Tanakh of Judaism. If the entire
Tanakh is without the word Persona this means this word is not required to know God or to
refute an impersonal God.

Now coming to the second objection. Although Iesous is believed to to be Incarnated Logos but
Iesous is constituted of two natures. One of the Nature of Iesous is the Godhead [Divine Ousia].
The other nature is a Human Nature. It is not even a Human Ousia. It is not even a Human
Person. The Divine Nature is distinct from the Human Nature. Both are infinitely different.

Togather they form a Hypostatic Union.

Page 25 of 36
Page 26 of 36

If one touches the hands of Iesous you are neither touching the First Hypostase nor the last
hypostase, nor the Godhead nor the God the Trinity nor they Triune God. So the question is
what are you touching. You are just touching a Created Human Nature of the Hypostatic
Union and not even the Very Self of the Uncreated Hypostasis namely Logos. In a sence/
meaning it is said that you are touching the Hypostase Logos. So what is the sense . The sense is
that the Hypostasis Logos has some how assumed a Human Nature with is directly touched but
if you mean that the very Self of the Hypostasis is touched the Hypostasis of the Hypostatic
Union is neither Physically touched nor is Physically approached just like the other Hypostases
in the Godhead of the God the Trinity.

Now coming back to the question of Knowing and Understanding it is the case that the
Assumed Nature is known neither the Unassumed Nature [Godhead] nor the very Hypostasis
which assumes the nature. This this termed as Knowing the Hypostatic God through the
assumed Nature. I such an Assumption is Absolute Possible even then this is just a way among
several ways of knowing or understanding or both. But is such an Assumption is Absolute
Impossible then there are several ways of Knowing and Understanding God.

To be beyond Creations does not imply to be Unknown. Consider the Athanasian and
Trinitarian Hypostatic Union of the Hypostasis Logos. This Hypostatic Union is far beyond
approach of any human being and is ascended in Heaven as according to Gospels. Now for mor
than two thousand years he is only known through some works. So this knowability is not of
much use .As for the Hypostasis of the Hypostatic Union the Hypostasis is in Godhead which
never incarnates and the human beings are not in Godhead. So there is a Barrier of Godhead. A
Divine Ousial Partition. If separated by Divine Essence what is the scope of being knowable
when this Ousia is far above human and other living beings. Such an objection is invalid. A
human Nature thought assumed is still a Creation and a Created Human Nature cannot break
the Barrier of the Divine Ousia which is between the Divine Hypostases and Created Living

We find Hindu Gods and Goddesses as incarnated in human and semi human form. They
believe in Multi Incarnations and Multi Manifestations of God. Since all the Gods and Goddesses
are Multi-incarnations and Multi –Manifestations of one and same God Barmh /Barahman [Not
to be confused by Barhama which is a Super Incarnation of God Barmh].

So this means that God is far much known in Hinduism then Athanasianism.

Further more there is a female Incarnation as well in Hinduism. But Super Human Female and
Male Incarnations of God Barmh /Barhama:n [Not to be confused by the Hindu cast Barhaman
as well]. For Example according to the Sanatan Dharma Krishna is the Incarnation of Vishnu
who is intern the incarnation of Super Incarnated God Barmh.

Krishna Worshippers however consider Krishna as the direct incarnation above all Incarnations
and Manifestations whether they be Rama or Vishnu. But such minor disputes cannot shew that
Hindu God Barmh is less known, rather the Hindu God is far more known then the Athanasian
God , if this is supposed to be the criteria of Knowing and Understanding.

God/Deity /Divine Essence is above all things including humans by His Supreme Excellence of His

Page 26 of 36
Page 27 of 36

Essence, Nature and Attributes. He is close /near to all things in the meaning He is the Cause
and the Creator of all Created Things. God is not Near/Close in the meaning of Physical contact

Not close in the meaning part is close to the whole, not in the meaning an Essence is close to its
parts, not in the meaning accidents are close to the substance in which accidents subsists,not in
the meaning an Attribute is Close to the Essence in which the Attribute Subsisteht, but in the
meaning that a Cause is said to be close /near to its Effect, Power is said to be close to the thing
in Power, the immediate mover is close to the mover.

It may be said that in these meanings God is an all things as well.

These are sufficient to make God/Deity/ Divine Essence Known.

/ll. N.


Although Allah is said to be loving, this aspect of his nature is almost ignored, and his supreme attribute
of justice is thought to overrule love. The emphasis of the God of Islam is on judgment, not grace; on
power, not mercy. He is the source of both good and evil and his will is supreme.”

A far better terms is that Love is an Attribute of the Divine Essence [God/Deity]. The word
Aspect cannot convey the meaning of the Attribute .At last it is acknowledged that Islam Doeth
believe in Divine Love.

The Justice is another Attribute of God. None of the Attributes are ignored as alleged.
Mercy,Justice and Grace are Divine Relative Attributes . Even Rorgiveness is much more
emphasized in Islam then Justice.

It is known to every religion. Infact one of the objection on Islam by the Hindu Reformist
Dianand Sarsvati was that Islam believes in Justice and Mercy and Grace. According to his views
Justice contradicts Mercy , Grace and Forgiveness alike. This objection from the Hindu Reformist
is a proof that he understood quite well that these are the Divine Attributes of God in the
Religion Of ‘Isla:m. Atleast this person understood Islam correctly and did not tried to distort
Islam by claiming some thing so wrong.

As for the source of Evil the Evil is a Problem of Philosophy and Theology since ages.

Page 27 of 36
Page 28 of 36

There are conundrums ,paradoxes and dilemmas in regard to evel. Say Ethyphro’s
connundrumm or

Epicurious Dilemma. As God is the Absolute Creator the Omnificent ,, the Question is who
created the Evil.

Let Evil is Not Created by God.

There are Three possible ways to look at the Evil if it is not Created by God.

1] It came in existence with out any creator what so ever.

This means that atleast Evil has no God. A partial Atheism.

If Evils can come in existence without God, then why not the Good?

2] Evils are Created by Beings other that Gods. If so then why it is not evil to create a Thing
which Creates Evils. Is this not evil to make a Creater of Evil, or a being which can Create Evils.

3] If Evil is absence of Good then why God allowed the absence , why God not filled the absence
of Good by Presence of Good. Is it not Evil to do so?

Such questions may be asked continuously. But this does not mean that God is the Creator of
All things, Ultimate Creator of every Contingent thing.

If Evil is the absence of Good in Supposita and is not an Existential Thing then the Supposita are
Existential and in this meaning God is the Creator. Actually what Islam says is undisputed in all
three Abrahamic Religion.

Further there is a question whether all evels are just the absence of Good or there are Existential


Listen Christian, here’s the main point: this “Chrislam” idea (the idea of the god of Islam being the same
as the God of the Bible), is this generation’s most stupid invention and will cause many to find the wide
gate and the broad way that leads to destruction, and the churches that are falling for this load of bull

Page 28 of 36
Page 29 of 36

are proving that there are many which go in there (see Matthew 7:14) and they are in fact leading them

To our Christian Brethren it may be requested that one must not trust this false allegation. This
is based on the claim that an Unincarnable God and an Uni-Uinity God or An Absolute Unicity
God is Unknowable and God of NT is Knowable, hence they cannot be one and the same. But
this has been refuted clearly. As the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker has used the words
like Stupid invention, such words must not be responded by equal words. It is claimed such a
thing may lead to destruction etc. these are just false claims. Once the alleged proofs on which
such claims are based are proved to be invalid and incorrect, it is not necessary to respond each
and every claim individually. In Nutshell All these allegations are false. Once again it is tried to
Misuse Matt7:14.


The Bible proves to us that the God of the Bible is knowable and that He wants to be known and
loved. The god of Islam is capricious and prefers to determine his followers’ fate from their beginning
and to hide his nature from them.

The God of Tanakh of Judaism is Knowable without any dogma of Incarnation. From the first
book of Tanakh to the last book of Tanakh the dogma of Incarnation does not exist. It does not
exist in Judaism.

One may ask a Jewish Rabbi about the Dogma of Incarnation and its Existence in Judaism,
himself or herself.

Once again the basic thing which is the substratum of the allegation is that Islam does not
recognize The Dogma of Incarnation. This substratum in these allegations is discussed above in
detail and it is sufficient to say see above.

Page 29 of 36
Page 30 of 36

The word Capricious is easy to use in any sentence. Give a child this word and ask him/her to
make a sentence, it is likely that he/she may make a sensible sentence. But it is very difficult to
prove that God of Islam is Capricious. If Not to be incarnable is to hide then this means that
atleast 3/4 of the Trinity is Hiding and only ¼ of the Trinity is not hiding in the sense of
incarnation. But even the Hypostasis Logos is Hiding in the Godhead which is the Barrier
between the Created Human beings in particular and all created living Beings in general out of
It [Godhead] and the Hypostases in It [Godhead]. The human nature [which is not even a
human person] cannot break this Barrior.

God is hidden in the meaning that God cannot be Comprehended by Human Rationality and
Human Knowledge. Only God Comprehendeth Himself. On the other hand if God is known
without being Comprehended by Created Rational Supposita , Incarnation is neither a
Sufficient Condition nor a Necessary Condition. So this is the actual point missed by the Anti
Islamic Objection Makers of this type.

But one may be quite astonished that how frequently An Anti Islamic Objection Maker is
repeating the same axiom some time explicitly and some timeexplicitly. Some time as a
substratum. This is not the way to refute other religions.


The main message of the Bible is that Yehovah God wants a close, personal and intimate relationship
with you (cf. John 14:17, 20, 23; 17:3; Ephesians 1:17; 1st John 2:3-4; 4:7-8).

God Doeth Want to make relations with His Created Rational Supposita , But what type of this
relation or relationship is this. If it is a relation due to the Assumption of Human Nature what is
often called Incarnation in particular and Manifestation in General then this relation is
certainly not required to Know God without Comprehending God and Understanding God
without Comprehending God. Once again the learned Auther has used the Noun Yahuvah
[Iahuvah] . Once again it is necessary to repeat that Yahuvah/Yahvah/Yehveh is the God of
Judaism, and Tanakh is the Holy Book of Judaism which Christianity has borrowed from
Judaism. So when making Commentaries of Verses , Explaining the Verses of Tanakh one must
primarily look at the Commentaries and Explanations of Judaism and not of a Religion which
borrows the Book and is not the Original Holder of the Book. What Yahuvah wanteth is a
question which Judaism can say in a far better way then Christianity since it is not the Original
Holder of the Book. If Babies and Bahais take verses from NT and interpret in their own way,
Christians say that their explanations are invalid since NT is not their original book . The same is
true for Judaism. First of all Judaism to which Tanakh originally belongs to does not teach the

Page 30 of 36
Page 31 of 36

Dogma of Incarnation. Second Judaism never says that Without Incarnation God is totally
Unknown. Third The Question is who is Yahuvah in Judaism. Is He the Supreme Being or Is He a
Hypostasis in the Ousia of the Supreme Being. Let Judaism answer this question. But it is
insisted that Judaism never understood Its own Holy Book and it was Christianity that
understands the book correctly then please allow me to say that Athanasianisn and
Trinitarianism did not understood the Books of NT. Coming back to Christianity Unitarian
Christians have a consensus inspite of all their internal differences that God of Athanasian
Trinitism/Trinitarianism is not Not the God of NT. So what the relation is required by NT is not
what The Trinitarianism /Trinitism wants.


As a Believer, you can keep His commandments because you know Him.

The question is the word Can only shews ability. It doesnot mean whether you must Keep the
Divine Commandments or you Must not keep the commandments. It is just like the sentence
“You Can Do a Work/Doing. Does it mean You Must do the Work/Doing? The answer is no. The
next question is Does it mean You Must not to the Works/Doing. Once again the answer is no.
This sentence it only mean as a believer you are able to keep commandments. Since an
Unbeliever does not believe in the Divine Commandments. The question is Must a believer keep
Commandments of Tanakh or Not?

This sentence does not say any thing in regard to it .


And if you know Him, then you also know that He’s not the same as the god of Islam in any way.

Page 31 of 36
Page 32 of 36

Once again the sentence is based on the Substratum that God of NT is Known due to the only
way of Knowing and that is according to the Author of these Objections is Incarnation through
Assumption of Non Divine Male Human Nature by a Hypostasis in the Godhead of God. But
neither the God of Tanakh is such a God nor the God of NT is such a God. Verses like “I and My
Father are One[(H)en]”; And the Word Was God” etc. cannot prove that Iesous is the
Incarnated Hypostasis in Godhead.

So it is said that God Of NT is God of Trinitarians then such a claim is incorrect. God of NT is
never seen and One that is seen is not the God of NT. So the God of NT is not the same as God of
Athanasian Trinitarianism.

The hatred of the Anti Islamic Objection Makers is exposed when it is found that he deliberately
does not capitalize the first letter “g” in the word “god” in the Phrase “god of Islam”. Nothing
would have happened if this phase was written as “God of Islam”. But this shews the hatred of
Islam in the heart of Anti Islamic Objection Makers. Truth of Islam cannot be distorted by such a

Trick. Such tricks only expose how much this Author is Anti Islamic.


When you meet pastors who teach and preach the “Chrislam” heresy, be sure to tell them this.

Confront them with the authority of the Creator God of the Bible. And also remind them that…

Jesus is NOT in the Quran!

It is POSSIBLE that the Learned Author shall also advise those people who are
attempted to be Taught by Jews for Jesus that they also confront them with the
Authority of God Of Tanakh; and also remind them that Trinitarian God is Not in
Tanakh, An Incarnated God is Not in Tanakh etc.

Similarly it is POSSIBLE that some day he shall advise the same to Unitarian
Sects of Christianity against the those who attempt to argue that God Of NT is a
Trinity as follow:

Page 32 of 36
Page 33 of 36

Confront them with the authority of the Creator God of the Bible. And also
remind them that… Trinity is not in the books of NT.

Note : It is never minded to capitalize the first letters of some words because
some time it is necessary to do so in order to convey the correct meaning.

Although we do not believe in Trinity but the first letter of the word Trinity is
capitalized for the following reasons.

1] As Trinitarians are accustomed to write so we use what the are accustomed.

2] It may hurt their feeling and in sober discussions hurting feelings is not a
good thing, if it is done by some one who so ever he /she may be regardless of
his/her belief.

3] To dispute a dogma is one thing and to make a disgrace is another thing.

To smallize a letter of a word which is written in Capital i.e Capitalization of

Initial Letters for Majesty in general is just a disgrace in the discussion.

Any how one may thank the Learned Author for writing his inner feelings with

The Smallization of the first letter so that even Christian Brethren may know
that such Persons are biased or unbiased and what are the base and the basis of
biasness if any.

About LTSMinistries

Page 33 of 36
Page 34 of 36


Email Address

Help Keep the Ministry Going!

_s-xclick H9RCEQQDXYL7



1] 7He makes His ways known to Moses, to the children of Israel His deeds.

Psalm 103:7

This verse does not prove Assumption of Human Nature. It is atrange that why this verse is

2] The John 1:18 cannot be used to prove any part of the Dogma of Trinity in the least meaning.

Page 34 of 36
Page 35 of 36

Since the verse is not certain. There are several different problems in the Text. In some Texts the word is

Monogenes huios and in some it is Monogenes theos. Insome text it is Monogenes. If it is supposed that
Monogenes theos is most probably correct and others are most probably wrong even then the word in
the sentence/ verse is not certain. A certainty is the condition before any argument but it is not satisfied
in the verse. So this verse cannot be used in the argument. The difference between Certainty and Most
Probably is very critical. Coming back to the original problem once again if the verse does have the word
Theos then it is either in figurative meaning or in metaphorical meaning, This only means that the word
Theos is used for some one who is not Theos as a fugure or as a metaphor.

No one has seen God at any time,but the only begotten son the one being in the bosom of the Father.
He has declared Him


No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed


No one has ever seen God. The Only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him.

If the word son is replaced by the word God then the meaning is:=

No one has ever seen God. The Only God-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him.

But even in this case the word God is used as a Metaphor or a Figure even with the G written in capital.

Other wise if the Son is the Only God and Father is God then Son is Father .

So the Text becomes self contradictory.

This implies nothing but that Father is in. Himself.

If Logos is the only begotten God and Father is God but not Begotten God then this implies two Gods
one begotten and one not begotten. This directly contradicts the Dogma of Trinity. Since it does not say
Son is Only God or Only Begotten God but simply Son is God.

The rest of Dogma is Father is God, Son is God and Holy Ghost is God but God is One.

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος

Page 35 of 36
Page 36 of 36

.RP Majority Text 2005

If an other Greek Text is Taken then

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος

Nestle GNT 1904

Then the word Theos is used in the figurative or metaphorical meaning even with a Capital

3 1Hear the word of the Lord, O children of Israel; for the Lord has a controversy with the inhabitants

of the land; for there is neither truth nor loving-kindness nor knowledge of God in the land.

1Hear the word of the Lord, O children of Israel; for the Lord has a controversy with the inhabitants of
the land; for there is neither truth nor loving-kindness nor knowledge of God in the land.

3Therefore shall the land mourn, and all that dwell therein shall be cut off, along with the beasts of the
field, and the fowl of the heavens; also the fish of the sea shall be diminished.

4Surely let no man strive, and let no man reprove; for your people are like them who strive with the

5Therefore you shall stumble in the daytime, and the prophet that is with you shall also stumble with
you in the night, and I will silence your mother.

6My people were silenced for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject
you from being a priest to me; seeing that you have forgotten the Torah of your God, I, too, will forget
your children.

Hosea 4:1-6

These verses does not say any thing about the Assumption of Human Nature so why this verse is
referred is a question?


Page 36 of 36