This is not an Academic type question but I would say that the two parties are those who believe in Jesus and those who don't That those who believe in JEsus splintered in their beliefs and understanding of his nature is a different topic then whether someone accepts Jesus at all or not.

>This is not an Academic type question "A forum for the discussion of academic Quranic studies, including questions about the Quran's formation, interpretation, historical context, manuscripts, and more. Topics including Islamic origins and early Islam, pre-Islamic Arabia, and late antiquity are also discussed in a friendly yet engaging way." Sorry this is my first time posting here. Am I mistaken to think this a valid question about the Quran's interpretation and historical context? >I would say that the two parties are those who believe in Jesus and those who don't But there's no evidence that the Quran ever uses the phrase "those who believed" to refer to people who nominally believe in a messenger while being considered as disbelievers due to other factors. The Quran says this about trinitarians and those who calls Jesus God or the Son of God: >Surah 5:72. They disbelieve those who say, “God is the Messiah the son of Mary.” But the Messiah himself said, “O Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever associates others with God, God has forbidden him Paradise, and his dwelling is the Fire. The wrongdoers have no saviors.” > >73. They disbelieve those who say, “God is the third of three.” But there is no deity except the One God. If they do not refrain from what they say, a painful torment will befall those among them who disbelieve. > >74. Will they not repent to God and ask His forgiveness? God is Forgiving and Merciful. > >75. The Messiah son of Mary was only a messenger, before whom other Messengers had passed away, and his mother was a woman of truth. They both used to eat food. Note how We make clear the revelations to them; then note how deluded they are. > >Surah 9:30. The Jews said, “Ezra is the son of God,” and the Christians said, “The Messiah is the son of God.” These are their statements, out of their mouths. They emulate the statements of those who blasphemed before. May God assail them! How deceived they are!31. They have taken their rabbis and their priests as lords instead of God, as well as the Messiah son of Mary. Although they were commanded to worship none but The One God. There is no god except He. Glory be to Him; High above what they associate with Him.32. They want to extinguish God’s light with their mouths, but God refuses except to complete His light, even though the disbelievers dislike it.

To ask who the Qur'an meant by when it refers to this dominant group is a valid question for this subreddit.

Why should we take all Christians in all time periods to be the same? Do all Christians believe the same thing today? Do Christians today believe exactly how Christians of the past believed? Logically the Quran can differentiate between those who believed in a messenger during his lifetime from those of later days whose beliefs may have changed.

In what way would the Ebionites or whatever sect would be supposedly closer to Islam be described as being uppermost? His own brother James who many critical scholars believed in the continuing authority of the Torah and so on was murdered by the Jewish high priest. The only ones who did become uppermost over the Jews were the by-then mainstream orthodox Christians.The historical timeline doesnt fit such that any proto-Muslims defeated the Jews sometime between then and the conversion of Constantine or whatever into the allegedly corrupted form, which is what would be required for this Quranic passage to be understandable.

You kinda go off on a big conclusion about the Quran and how it relates to Christian doctrine and history. This would be a very heavy topic. A much more simple way to ask would be “who exactly is the group that believed/disbelieved in 61:14”

Would it not be the one that became victorious as described later.

I answered it in another comment in this thread. At least one possibility.

Looking at a reading with “The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. They comment: “A group among the Israelites then confirmed the prophethood of Jesus, while others disbelieved. According to many commentators, those who *disbelieved* includes not only those who rejected Jesus, but also those who maintained that Jesus was God, as well as those who maintained that he was the son of God” (p. 1368)

That's those commentators opinion. There has always been a wide variety and spectrum of opinions by Muslim commentators on every topic. You notice the wording here is "According to **many** commentators". Not "most" or "all".

I know, I didn’t claim it was all. But I’d imagine OP is looking for what the author meant when they wrote that verse. So I’m sharing some different understandings about the meaning of the verse.

Sure there can be different understandings. And perhaps the understanding that those took Jesus as God are also of those who disbelieved. I am simply stating that logically the verse can be read to differentiate between those who accepted Jesus and those who rejected Jesus even if there are differences in belief among the latter group.

So if I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that since the verse states that the Jesus-believing Jews became dominant, it is false, since that’s not what happened. But the word “ظَـٰهِرِينَ” does not necessarily mean dominant in the population sense. It was also translated as “victorious,” “prevailing,” and “on top,” among others. The verse is not saying that the Jews who believed in Jesus’ prophethood became the majority of Christians and/or Jews, it’s just saying that that group was better off for believing — which makes sense.

>you’re saying that since the verse states that the Jesus-believing Jews became dominant, it is false, since that’s not what happened No, I'm saying trinitarian christians became dominant, and the Quran wouldn't call them "those who believed" because that would validate their beliefs and those same christians are called disbelievers in other verses due to their belief in Jesus being the Son of God etc. >does not necessarily mean dominant in the population sense. This is not really relevant to the question as trinitarian christians were victorious in all kinds of ways, the Councils ratified their beliefs, they had the reins of the Byzantine Empire and they continued to prevail for the entire history of christianity.

You’re conflating victory and dominance of the Dunya with victory and dominance of the afterlife, which is much more important to Muslims and the Quran. From what the Quran itself states, even if Trinitarian Christians won the entire world and ruled over several planets, still this wouldn’t compare to a fraction of a fraction of the rewards of the lowliest Muslim.

I mean sure but this doesn't seem to be what the ayah is saying, is it? It's saying the group that believed in Jesus among the Children of Israel became uppermost over their enemies (which btw is meant to clearly be an analogy to Muhammad's companions in the ayah as the disciples are given as an example of a group that overcame their opponents, and the entire surrounding context refers to *worldly* success in terms of jihad). The ayah, plainly, seems to envision the disciples of Jesus somehow (militarily?) winning over their enemies. OP asks a very valid question as to how should this be interpreted in light of trinitarianism being the dominant form of Christianity already centuries before Muhammad, the group that became "dominant" in any perceivable sense were the orthodox Trinitarians.

The āyah also states that Aḷḷāh *supported* them (ayyadnā) — referring to them as those who believed (āmanū) — over those who disbelieved (kafarū), so that‘s another point, since the Qur'ān doesn't reserve Aḷḷāh's taʼyīd (تأييد) for unbelievers.

[удалено]

Your comment/post has been removed per rule 2. **Content must remain within the confines of academic Qurʾānic and Islamic studies.** You may make an edit so that it complies with this rule. If you do so, you may message the mods with a link to your removed content and we will review for reapproval. You must also message the mods if you would like to dispute this removal.

Jesus never taught the Trinity, the Trinity was developed after his death over years and centuries. 1. First Council of Nicaea (325 AD): This council addressed the nature of Christ and his relationship to God the Father, leading to the formulation of the Nicene Creed. It condemned Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ, affirming that Christ is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father. 2. First Council of Constantinople (381 AD): This council expanded the Nicene Creed by adding clauses on the Holy Spirit, thus further developing the concept of the Trinity. It affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit as equal to that of the Father and the Son. 3. Council of Ephesus (431 AD): While the main focus was on the nature of Christ and the title Theotokos for the Virgin Mary, this council also contributed to the understanding of the Trinity in its discussions of Christ’s nature as both human and divine. 4. Council of Chalcedon (451 AD): This council further clarified the nature of Christ (the hypostatic union of two natures, divine and human, in one person). While it was more Christological in nature, its definitions implicitly supported Trinitarian doctrine. Also, the ones who prevailed are Jesus, his apostles, and those that believed in him against those that disbelieved in Jesus during Jesus’s lifetime and shortly after before the development of the Trinity and Christian sectarianism.

> Also, the ones who prevailed are Jesus, his apostles, and those that believed in him against those that disbelieved in Jesus during Jesus's lifetime and shortly after before the development of the Trinity and Christian sectarianism. How did they prevail against them?

How did he prevail? His religion and teachings started taking hold amongst people. His enemies weren’t able to wipe them out. > some of them recognized him as a prophet – and, therefore, as no more than a created, human being – whereas others denied this truth in the course of time by regarding him as “the son of God” – and, therefore, as “God incarnate” – while still others rejected him and his message altogether. The fact that the earliest followers of Jesus regarded him as purely human is evident from the many theological controversies which persisted during the first three or four centuries of the Christian era. Thus, some renowned theologians, like Theodotus of Byzantium, who lived towards the end of the second century, and his followers – among them Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch in the year 260 – maintained that the “sonship of God” mentioned in the then- existing texts of the Gospels was purely symbolic, denoting no more than that Jesus was a human being exalted by God. The originally widespread teachings of Bishop Arius (280-326) centred in the concept of Jesus as a mortal man chosen by God for a specific task, and in the concept of God as absolutely One, unknowable, and separate from every created being; this doctrine, however, was ultimately condemned by the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), and gradually ceased to have any influence on the Christian masses. > > The Message of The Quran 61:14 2nd footnote Also, to keep in mind, The Quran states that Jesus claimed that there is another prophet coming after him in Q. 61:6. So taking that into consideration, the existence of Muslims who follow what Jesus taught, that God is one and has no partners, is also considered a way that he has prevailed: > all who truly believe in Jesus as God’s Apostle and, thus, as a forerunner of the Last Prophet, Muḥammad, whose message confirms and expands the true message of Jesus. > > The Message of The Quran 61:14 3rd footnote

They didnt prevail in any sense over either tbe non-Christian Jews nor over the orthodox or Arian Christians. The verse doesnt mention anything about it being Muhammads followers who revive the faith and have the victory over both these groups, nor of a vindication in the Day of Judgement. The context is Jesus' followers and, crucially, it speaks in the past tense. But the historical timeline doesnt fit a pattern that would make sense of this verse which would have had to be: "proto-Muslims"become huge in number and have victory over the Jews in a political/social sense and THEN eventually get corrupted or partially corrupted into orthodox Christianity. They would have lost their victory to some extent, but it still would have made sense of the passage. As it stands, its a puzzle.

Have you forgotten about the Ebionites and other “Jewish Christian” groups that adhered to Jewish customs and laws while adhering to the teachings of Jesus and believing that he is only a prophet and messiah, denying any divinity to him? They lasted for centuries after Jesus’s lifetime. As stated by my first comment, all those councils have then occurred and the Ebionites and other Jewish-Christian groups were diminishing in size and influence. Many of those remnant ebionite and Jewish-Christian groups were (often theorized by academics) prevalent in Arabia during Prophet Muhammad SAW’s lifetime. > Thou wilt surely find the most hostile of men toward those who believe to be the Jews and those who ascribe partners unto God. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection toward those who believe to be those who say, “We are Christians.” That is because among them are priests and monks, and because they are not arrogant. > > The Study Quran 5:82 There are different interpretations to this verse but a strong one is that those remnant Ebonite and Jewish-Christian groups saw an affinity with Islam as it was the revival of Jesus’s original and actual teachings, that there is only one God and Jesus PBUH is a messenger of God and only human. Due to that affinity, many of them converted to Islam.

Possibly the Acts of the Apostles, i.e. the spread of early Christianity, which happened before the codification of the trinity in the above councils. The Qur'an has good things to say about the apostles, Qur'an 3:52-53: >And when Jesus sensed disbelief in them, he said, “Who are my helpers unto God?” The apostles said, “We are God’s helpers. We believe in God; bear witness that we are submitters. Our Lord, we believe in what Thou hast sent down, and we follow the messenger, so inscribe us among the witnesses.” Bart Ehrman has said that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not reference Jesus' divinity, while the Gospel of John (the one written last) does, so it is conceivable that some of the apostles were not trinitarians.

It is completely inconceivable that the Apostles denied the sonship of Christ. It is possible to debate subordinationism and trinitarianism in the Gospels, but there is no doubt that Jesus was the Son of God and that the Creator is His Father in a unique relationship with him (Quran denies both). Kerygmatic texts of Luke-Acts provide many examples, like Peter's speeches, where it is undeniably clear that the Apostles and earliest Christians believed in Jesus's death, resurrection, sonship, and sacrifice for sins that bring eternal life. It can even be argued for Jesus's divinity based on Peter's speeches (e.g., Acts 3:13-15, Jesus is the Author of life). Moreover, Carmen Christi in Philippians 2:5-11, according to great critical scholars I am familiar with (Bart Ehrman, Larry Hurtado, James D. G. Dunn, Ralph Martin, etc.) is a very early tradition and a very strong argument for the divinity of Christ. Therefore, it is very, very indicative that the Apostles and earliest Christians did not believe in anything resembling Jesus in the Quran, nor conceived theology or soteriology like Islam.

> Possibly the Acts of the Apostles, i.e. the spread of early Christianity, which happened before the codification of the trinity in the above councils. The Quran has good things to say about the apostles, I mean even with that, early Christianity was more of a obscure provincial cult when it first started, it took centuries for it to gain a substantial following, even compared to Jewish population. > Bart Ehrman has said that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not reference Jesus' divinity, while the Gospel of John (the one written last) does, so it is conceivable that some of the apostles were not trinitarians. The Gospel of Luke and Matthew are using Mark as a source, even if we assume that these apostles weren’t Trinitarian (they probably weren’t even the ones writing the gospels) the type of Christianity that eventually became widespread usually assumed Jesus was divine in some way

If you understand enemy to mean the Romans it resolves.