And I believe that whoever holds this opinion and is of this confession is a monotheist and that the only divergence between them and Muslims is the prophecy of Muhammad, son of ‘Abd Allah.
Elias of Nisibis- The Vizier and the Bishop Face to Face about the Trinity
A quick reading of the document from which this quote is taken would quickly demonstrate its falsehood: the prophecy of Muhammad is certainly not the only divergence between Christians and Muslims. The vizier had brought to Elias the charges of polytheism and unbelief on account of the doctrine of the Trinity as one substance in three hypostases, and Elias adequately demonstrated to the vizier that the doctrine of the Trinity was not tantamount to polytheism, and that it was reconcilable with monotheism. Elias did so without shying away from the doctrine of the Incarnation. This is shocking to me: I would imagine that Christians professing belief that the man whom the Muslims believe is a prophet was actually God would be considered a terrible heresy. Nevertheless, it appears that the idea of God coming to earth as a human was not as problematic to the vizier as the idea of God having a wife or the idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were of different substances, thus causing him to proclaim that the prophecy of Muhammad was the only point of difference between the Christians and the Muslims.
This is likewise the case in the dialogue between Timothy and Mahdi. It appears that Mahdi was terribly troubled by the idea of God having a wife or a Son through intercourse, and was likewise frustrated at the idea of the Father and the Son being distinct but one, he did not seem to demonstrate absolute repugnance at the idea that the prophet he called ‘Isa was actually God. Perhaps this was not completely clear in his mind, as he continued to attempt to insert Muhammad alongside Jesus within the Scriptures; it would make sense to insert Muhammad as a prophet alongside Jesus the prophet, and it would make sense to insert Muhammad the deity alongside Jesus the deity, but the Qur’an never portrays Muhammad as a deity, so it would not make sense to state that Mahdi thought Jesus was God. Why then did he not object to the idea of the Incarnation out of hand?
In my mind it appears that there is (or was in the first few centuries of Islam) a hierarchy of heresies: unbelief being the gravest, followed by polytheism and then the rejection of Muhammad. The vizier in the first reading even appeared to maintain that Christians would be capable of reaching heaven if they were not polytheists, stating that “I believe that every monotheist Christian is worthy of praise and final victory, even if they do not recognize Muhammad, son of ‘Abd Allah–peace be upon him–as a prophet” (Elias of Nisibis, 104). Would this be the case even if they believed that God became incarnate?
Paul Elhallal 
Thanks for this, Paul. This seems to me a very good question. This brings to mind the distinction of doctrines that are rejected because of their specific content and those which would imply content that must be rejected. I still don’t know Islamic theology well enough to know precisely what grounds the incarnation of God would be rejected. From these pieces, as you note, it seems to have more to do with the unwillingness to imagine that the Creator could have carnal relations. Thus, if the bishop has sufficiently shown that this need not be the case, perhaps Jesus as incarnate God is more palatable. If the transcendence of God is called upon, it seems that Christians would have recourse to similar arguments as those employed against the Arians (i.e. can God transcend His transcendence?). In this, I wonder if highlighting the belief that it is specifically the Son who is made manifest, while the Father is only seen through the Son would be helpful. Wherever the conversation might go from there, it seems that the bishop has established a good starting point by noting the necessary translations and interpretations that must go on within the Scriptural bounds.
LikeLike
Hey Tyler,
Thanks for your comment. I think you’re correct in stating that the unwillingness to see the creator as having carnal relations might be the main impediment here, but I think that there’s even another step that needs to be considered, namely that if God were incarnate in Jesus, there would be absolutely no reason for Muhammad to exist. For the vizier who proclaimed that the only difference between Christians and Muslims is the prophecy of Muhammad, it would be a devastating argument for the existence of Islam altogether.
LikeLike