Emperor Constantine was a Heretic
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3849
Printed Date: 22 November 2024 at 5:34pm Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Emperor Constantine was a Heretic
Posted By: Bismarck
Subject: Emperor Constantine was a Heretic
Date Posted: 01 March 2006 at 10:27pm
Emperor Constantine
Emperor Constantine ruled from 306 - 337 CE. He is the reason -- outside of the holy Messiah himself -- that "the West" is Christian. On his deathbed (following the predominant custom of his day), he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, a prominent Arian Christian. (The Arians were the followers of Arius, a Berber or Libyan who taught in Alexandria that Jesus was not eternal and was subordinate to God the Father, a non-Trinitarian doctrine much more in harmony with Islam.)
Put plainly, Emperor Constantine was an Arian Christian.
Indeed, Arianism was dominant for much of the 4th century (300s) because it was backed by the Imperial family (Constantine's descendents). It was not until the reign of the staunchly Trinitarian Emperor Theodosius (392 - 395 CE) that Arianism was officially outlawed within the Roman state. Arianism has been branded heresy by all Christendom since that day.
Put plainly, the man who made "the West" Christian was a heretic!
Lucian of Antioch
Lucian (240 - 312 CE) was a Syrian from Samasota (modern Samsat), Syria. He is known as the father of the "Majority Text", the body of writings the Eastern Orthodox Church (Greek & Russian) regards as the purest surviving biblical manuscripts. Taken together, these manuscripts form a complete Orthodox Bible (Old & New Testaments). The long-since-lost Master Copy was, according to tradition, compiled by Lucian.
This "Majority Text" ultimately undergirds the famous "Authorized Version", often called the "King James Version", so-called. (FYI, King James was a rampant Sodomite, and his authorizing the Puritans to produce an official Protestant Bible in England was literally the least he could afford to do at the time.)
This "Authorized Version" is widely hailed as the best modern translation of the Old & New Testaments. (Catholics would argue this point, of course.)
So, we have established that Lucian gave us the best surviving biblical manuscripts in all of ("Western") Christendom.
In particular, he is hailed by the Eastern Orthodox.
And yet Lucian had a very famous pupil -- Arius of Alexandria. In fact, Lucian is widely regarded as the true author of Arius' school of thought! That is, "Arian" Christianity is more properly Lucian Christianity!
Put plainly, Lucian was an Arian Christian.
Put plainly, the man to whom all of Christendom (outside Rome) gratefully looks for its scriptures was also a heretic!
And, what is more, exactly the same flavor of heretic as Emperor Constantine, the man who made "the West" officially Christian.
If you didn't know better, you'd say those Arians couldn't be all that bad! They made us Christian, and they gave us our best bibles! (And, as it happens, their views were much closer to Islam.)
And yet all of Christendom today brands the Arians heretics. False worshippers! Wolves in Sheeps' clothings!
And yet they gave us our faith and our bibles.
Heretics made "the West" Christian and gave "the West" their scriptures.
This is a logical inconsistency, and falls in the "condemned by thine own tongue" category.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Khadija1021
Date Posted: 02 March 2006 at 2:48am
Bismarck, I am the moderator for IC forum. What is your purpose for starting this thread under the section "Islam for Non-Muslims" or anywhere else on IC forum for that matter? Unless you can show how this topic is relavent to Islam, I will have to delet it. Sister Khadija
------------- Say: 'My prayer and my rites, my living and my dying, are for Allah alone, the Lord of all the worlds. (Qur'an, 6:162)
|
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 02 March 2006 at 3:23am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem
Sister there is no need to delete it posting in the wrong section is not a violation of the forum guidlines, it would be more fitting to move it to interfaith discussion which would acomodate the above topic.
He is pointing out that the original christians were unitarian not trinitarian, there beliefs were more in line with islamic beliefs rather than modern Christian beliefs.
thanks for the information Bismark, ive been looking for something like this for some time.
------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
|
Posted By: Khadija1021
Date Posted: 02 March 2006 at 4:15am
Assalamu Alaikum
Brother Rami, I have moved the thread to the section you suggested but I am unsure if Bismarck is allowed to post here yet given that Bismarck is a new member. Shukrun for your suggestion.
Allah Hafiz
Sister Khadija
------------- Say: 'My prayer and my rites, my living and my dying, are for Allah alone, the Lord of all the worlds. (Qur'an, 6:162)
|
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 02 March 2006 at 4:52am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem
There is no rule as such stoping people from posting anywhere, it is something that they can not do untill after 40 posts at which time we decide if they are to be given access to other sections.
The Islam for non muslims section has no restrictions upon it even after 40 posts.
------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
|
Posted By: Khadija1021
Date Posted: 02 March 2006 at 5:21am
Assalamu Alaikum
Brother Rami, I understand this rule and that is why I made the comment regarding moving this thread to a section of the forum which is off limits at this time for the person who originally started the thread. Bismarck has only posted 2 since started IC. Bismarck started this thread in Islam for non-Muslims section; however, since I moved it to Interfaith section as you suggested, Bismarck can not longer post on this thread. Inshallah you understanding what I am saying. I simply didn't know if we should move a thread started by someone to a section which is off limits to them.
Allah Hafiz
Sister Khadija
------------- Say: 'My prayer and my rites, my living and my dying, are for Allah alone, the Lord of all the worlds. (Qur'an, 6:162)
|
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 02 March 2006 at 5:32am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem
sister there should be no restrictions on interfaith section as far as i know.
------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
|
Posted By: Bismarck
Date Posted: 05 March 2006 at 8:32pm
I forgot to say one other thing about Emperor Constantine and early Christianity.
In round numbers, Emperor Constantine, along with early Christianity in the Roman Empire, was legally Arian until the time of Theodosius (r. 392 - 395 CE). Theodosius was a staunch Trinitarian.
Therefore, we have the following situation:
Christianity was Arian / Unitarian for 80 years, after which time it became Trinitarian
Put another way,
After 80 years of being in power and wedded to the absolute authority of the Roman Imperial Government, Christianity suddenly changed from Unitarian to Trinitarian
Or, finally,
We take Early (Unitarian) Christianity, and we subject it to 80 years of Absolute Power. And we know the saying, "Absolute Power corrupts absolutely." After 80 years in a "bath" of "absolute corruption" -- figuratively speaking -- Christianity suddenly evolves into a Trinitarian variant.
Therefore, if you say that Trinitarian Christianity is true, then what you are saying, right or wrong, is that after gorging on absolute power for 80 years, Christianity actually came out more pure. That is the logical argument you are making, right or wrong. You are saying that after feeding Christianity a diet of Absolute Power, for 80 years, a time period sufficient to Absolutely Corrupt all mere mortals (such as the church officials themselves?), Christianity actually got better, purer, more true, closer to the Messiah's original ministry. That is what you are claiming, right or wrong.
|
Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 06 March 2006 at 7:34am
Greetings! Bismarck, is there any website on this thread? Something new to me.
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 06 March 2006 at 8:26am
bismarck - i dont know where youre going with this. your argumentation seems to be empty. are you saying christianity was unitarian before constantine? are you saying it was not trinitarian during his reign? why have you not brought the holy scriptures to bear on the issue?
|
Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 06 March 2006 at 8:46am
He means indirectly that the holy scriptures was tampered by human words. Why trinity? Why not Unity?
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 06 March 2006 at 1:57pm
pauline35 wrote:
He means indirectly that the holy scriptures was tampered by human words. Why trinity? Why not Unity? |
is that so - kindly provide evidence for the tampering, instead of parroting whatever muslims tell you. we say trinity because it is the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ himself (matthew 28: 19). also we believe in the unity, not three gods (what a dreadful lie). unity implies plurality anyway. how can you even talk of unity if there is only one person in the Godhead?
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 06 March 2006 at 3:33pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem
I can now pick up any diferent version of the bible i like all saying something diferent, NIV, King James, Douay-Rheims Bible, in fact if you compare the NIV to King james the NIV says King James contains verses not found in the older manuscripts relating to the Trinity, a word itself found no where in the bible but a so called understanding of certain pasages by Christian scholars. Well if there is one understanding of these passages than certainly there would be other understanding of them, actualy as many version of the bible there are, there are at least an equal number of diferent ways to understand the bible.
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/ - here is at least 100 of them
I Guess you have a lesser stadard of textual integrity than we do, but we are using our standard to judge your book.
------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 07 March 2006 at 2:49am
rami - "a lesser standard of textual integrity"? - i dont think so. see here:
The link to this website has been removed as it contains anti-Islamic propaganda.
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 07 March 2006 at 6:03am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem
I do think so see here http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/
an actual islamic site not some pathetic atempt at refuting something that scholars far greater than these people could never do.
You actualy believe you have stumbeled onto something no one else has in over 1400 years.
------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 07 March 2006 at 6:20am
rami - are you saying that the link i posted is not an islamic website?
"you actually believe you have stumbled onto something no one else has in over 1400 years" - are you saying then that i have stumbled on to something?
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 07 March 2006 at 10:24pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir rahim
You should read the fine print, this is nothing but fools gold.
This is an introduction to a research work, outlining the issues to be investigated not actual evidence that the Quran wasnt preserved.
The Premise: The basic premise on which the history of the Qur�an
stands is that the Qur�an has been preserved word for word ever since it was revealed to Muhammad........................Formal research work on this project began in January
2002. The corpus of material to be read on this topic runs into several thousand
pages. Major works of Muslim scholars on this subject are in Arabic and Urdu
while those of the western scholars are in German and English. Up till now,
almost 60 of the content has been read and analyzed. Extensive notes have been
taken. Once the analysis of the material is completed hopefully by the end of
2004, the writing phase of this research will begin.
If you are truly interested in the truth go to the site i gave a link to it adresses each one of those points they are atempting to research and look into.
---------------------------------------
This group wants to pretend we are in the time of the khalifah rashidin just after the time of the prophet and take on the role of the imam's of the madhhabs, while the imams had first hand knowledge, evidence and experiance to formulate there opinions this group is atempting to begin there own madhab 1400 years later and on a lesser basis.
------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
|
Posted By: Bismarck
Date Posted: 07 March 2006 at 10:43pm
I am saying that early Christianity was Unitarian, not Trinitarian.
Right or wrong, that is my claim.
Here are some books for you:
- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0962897140/ref=ord_cart_shr/103-0968325-2570266?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance - One God & One Lord : Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith - Mark H Graeser
- http://www.alibris.com/search/detail.cfm?S=R&bid=8656791017&inbag=books&chunk=25&mtype=&wtit=doctrine%20of%20the%20trinity&qwork=1774840 - The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound
by Anthony F. Buzzard
- http://www.biblio.com/books/58378002.html - The Father Is Not the Son: Godhead or Trinity?
Author: Smullin, Ramon D
- How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God -- Richard Hopkins
- http://product.half.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?HalfProductDetails&pr=1649735" target=_blank s_oc="null - When Jesus Became God : Richard E. Rubenstein (Paperback, 2000)
No where in the New Testament are the words "Trinity" or "Homousias" (which means "Of One Essence" to describe the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) ever used.
This automatically implies that neither Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH), nor any of his three "Pillar Apostles" of James (PBUH) , John (PBUH), Peter (PBUH), not to mention Jude (PBUH), nor Paul (PBUH) ever brought up those ideas!
Either that, or they did... and the verses, chapters, or gospels where they did have been lost, destroyed, or corrupted...
If you acknowledge that possibility, then, quite bluntly, the Christian world totally fumbled the hand off given to them by Almighty God. Almighty God walked on this Earth, and the Christians completely screwed up and actually lost the scriptures given to them directly by God Incarnate. Or, even worse, they intentionally corrupted those scriptures to edit out "trinity" and "homousias"! They knowingly corrupted the Words of God!
If we exclude that possibility, as I do, and agree that Christian "scriptures" are, at least, extremely valuable...
Then automatically we exclude Trinitarian concepts of "One Essence".
With all due respect, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it! If Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH) had wanted to reveal the Homousias "one essence" of the Trinity, you would think he would have said so!
And behold! If you accept that Christian Gospels are sound (without any reference to Trinity or Homousias), but still accept that the Trinity and Homousias are also true...
then you must conclude that later Church Fathers, like Tertullian who invented the word "Trinity" in about 200 CE, improved upon Yeshua the Messiah's ministry!
You must then accept that Yeshua the Messiah, the "Word of God", who came to reveal God's Word to mankind, who came to spell it all out and make it all crystal clear and plain as day, failed to be clear! And, since your Trinitarian concept that "Yeshua = God" may Almighty God forgive me is true, as you say, that means Incarnate God failed to be clear! It took Tertuallian, nearly 200 years later, to clarify what Almighty God said in the flesh, walking around on earth!
This is not a logically consistent argument.
The real reason we European Christians do not denounce the Trinity as the clear, obvious, total and utter fabrication of men that it is, is because to do so would get us booted out of our Churches. Our "friends" would ostracize us, we'd be blackballed, and would suffer under this persecution (like the early Christians).
This is not pleasant, and it is understandable that we go with the flow.
Nevertheless, we are still bending and bowing to the wills of other men, and not to the Will of Almighty God.
Afterwrit:
Even Tertullian, about 200 CE, did not claim that the Godhead was 3 in number. The word "trinity" comes from "Tri + Unitas", meaning "Three in Unison". That is,
Trinity = Tri + Unitas = 3 in Harmony
Note that it does not mean "3 Gods" or "3 Equals" or "3 things that are the same"...
rather it means, "3 things that are in sameness", "3 things that are in harmony, unison, similarity"...
And this is actually pretty close to what Yeshua the Messiah said in John 10:30:
I and the Father are one
and again in John 17:21
that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
See? Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH) is clearly giving the Good News that all men can be in "one-ness" with God, even as Yeshua the Messiah was! All men can practice Islam -- submission to / unity with the Will of Almighty God!
That was the whole ***using profanity even in disguised form is not permitted*** point of his ministry!
That was the "Good News" of the "Gospel"!
Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH) went even further, saying in John 14:12 "those who Believe" will do "works even greater than these"! That was the "Good News"! That was why people were so inspired by Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH)! That was why they flocked to his banners! His was giving them hope! He was telling them, "You too can have a direct connection to Almighty God! You don't actually have to buy your salvation by tithing the Temple of Jerusalem!"
That was why Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH) prophecized the destruction of the Temple! The coming in of Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH)...
was the going out of the Temple!
"You can have a direct connection to God through prayer, and you don't even have to break your bank account to do it either!" was Yeshua's (PBUH) sales-pitch! That was why he was so ***using profanity even in disguised form is not permitted*** popular! GOD... for FREE! (All you have to do is Believe and Ask, and Ye Shall Receive from the Bounty of Almighty God!)
As the book "How Greek Philosophy corrupted the Christian Concept of God" argues, Greek mystery religions crept in to the movement, and they introduced this bizarre, non-sensical, breaks-your-brain concept of the "Trinity" and the "Mystery" of it all. I have talked with numerous Orthodox and Catholic fathers and priests on the phone, and it is eerie how they all use the exact same word -- "Mystery".
Revelations 17:5: "MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT"
The author argues the main effect of these mystery religions was to obfuscate the clarity and simplicity of God.
2 Corinthians 11:3 "and I fear, lest, as the serpent did beguile Eve in his subtilty, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that [is] in the Christ;"
There's not supposed to be a "Mystery". Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH) came to REVEAL, not obfuscate, came to bring Almighty God back into the world, not distance you from Him!
But Christianity today teaches, as it taught for 1000 years across Europe, "Hey, sure, Jesus is cool -- but YOU, you sinning wretch! You putrid sinner! Your only hope of salvation for your sorry ass... is to tithe your wealth to the Large Stone Temp... er, excuse me, Large Stone 'Cathedrals' that the Church erected all over Europe!" The Church teaches that you are so sinful God would never love you outside of Cathedral attendance! (Sound familiar? Anyone?)
Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH) came to "destroy the temple, and build back the new spiritual House of God in 3 days"... And Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH) took money from his wealthy donors, and gave it to the poor...
But the Church taxed the poor peasants...
And built up large stone Temp... er, Cathedrals all across Europe.
Try to mesh that with John 4:19 - 24, where Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH) clearly states that the time of trying to "contain" Almighty God in a single location or building is long past, and that True Believers worship Almighty God through prayer in spirit -- not some building "made with hands"! It's clearly right there, in John 4!
The Church is so obviously hypocritical and inconsistent, it defies comprehension.
Oh, and does anybody know what the first thing you see, literally jumping out at you as a relief sculpture along the left wall, when you enter St. Peter's Basillica? Remember, GOD IS LIFE... GOD IS LIFE... GOD IS LIFE...
So does anybody know what the FIRST THING YOU SEE IS IN ST. PETER'S BASILLICA IS?
The G__m R____r with his S____e.
The whole point of the Cross as the symbol of Christendom is that it was EMPTY -- Yeshua the Messiah (PBUH) was RESURRECTED unto LIFE....
What is the symbol of the Church, a symbol of LIFE...?
The list of logical inconsistencies in the Church is as close to endless as any mortal construction has ever been.
|
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 07 March 2006 at 10:50pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem
The word trinity exists no where in the bible if you ask christian scholars to explain it to you they will say it is an understanding arived at from a number of passeges in the bible ie an interpretation.
Combine this interpretation with the claim that the church is infalible and everything else that is claimed about the christian church and you begin to see how an interpretation becomes something more than a persons or groups understanding ie something unquestionable.
------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 08 March 2006 at 11:55am
bismarck - there was one puzzling thing in the book titles you quoted (incidentally i have no money to buy books and barely time to read the ones ive got, unfortunately). one of them asks the question "godhead or trinity?" this you will have to explain. i would say they were the same thing, but the author may have a different definition of "godhead". perhaps you can enlighten me on this point.
and why oh why oh why are we constantly confronted by this blind urge in anti-trinitarians to endlessly point out that the word "trinity" is not found in the bible? do they think were stupid? for the record, i have never ever heard of anyone claim that it was in the bible - talk about building walls in order to knock them down.......
then you go on to say that this "automatically implies that none of the bible writers brought up these ideas" - erm sorry but it implies nothing of the sort, as anyone can understand. the fact that different words were used to explain things does not mean that the things being explained were being changed. the holy trinity or godhead is given by the Lord Jesus Christ himself in matthew 28: 16. note that it says "in the name (not names, it is singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost".--- now would the Lord Jesus Christ do anything, or have his disciples do anything other than in the name of God? - no, he wouldnt. and here we have the definition of God, from God Himself.
there is more of course. but i want to point out other things you said. you said that christ came "to spell it all out and make it crystal clear and plain as day". try as i might, i cannot think of a single scripture to support this. perhaps you can point one out. it certainly does not explain why parables were explained to the disciples privately and not to the general public at large. it seems to me you need to think again as to why jesus came into the world.
btw, you have not specifically said (i dont think) that you do not believe that jesus is God. is that the case?
you said some things ive not referred to. i will come back to them, its just that im tired, having started work at 5.15am (im a postman) it is now 19.50. but your comments that cathedrals were built to contain God are just bizarre, and i dont know why you started rabbiting on about cathedrals anyway. and your comments about st peters are most enigmatic. i dont understand what youre on about there either, and the thought that the love of God is dependent on cathedral attendance is utterly alien to the faith of christ. if you have points to make, make them, but dont get sidetracked by rubbish like this
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 08 March 2006 at 12:29pm
Bismark, are you LDS?
Fredi, there are Christians who to this day are not Trinitarian. My church uses the term Godhead because the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate beings. Not one being in three forms.
(excerpt from the Bible Dictionary in LDS scripture) There are three separate persons in the Godhead: God, the Eternal Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost....... These three persons are one in perfect unity and harmony of purpose and doctrine.
Therefore, it is a separate concept from the Trinity, which states that Jesus was God born flesh.
|
Posted By: Bismarck
Date Posted: 08 March 2006 at 6:11pm
fredifreeloader wrote:
and why oh why oh why are we constantly confronted by this blind urge in anti-trinitarians to endlessly point out that the word "trinity" is not found in the bible? do they think were stupid? for the record, i have never ever heard of anyone claim that it was in the bible - talk about building walls in order to knock them down.......
then you go on to say that this "automatically implies that none of the bible writers brought up these ideas" - erm sorry but it implies nothing of the sort, as anyone can understand. the fact that different words were used to explain things does not mean that the things being explained were being changed. the holy trinity or godhead is given by the Lord Jesus Christ himself in matthew 28: 16. note that it says "in the name (not names, it is singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost".--- now would the Lord Jesus Christ do anything, or have his disciples do anything other than in the name of God? - no, he wouldnt. and here we have the definition of God, from God Himself.
|
Argument:
The Bible is the Inerrant Revelation of God
The Bible nowhere mentions the word "Trinity"
The Inerrant Revelation of God did not use the word "Trinity"
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
Therefore, any use of the word "Trinity" has no Biblical basis
Therefore, if the word "Trinity" is necessary, it must be an improvement upon God's Revelation. Note that the word "Trinity" was not coined during a translation. It was not coined by the first scribes who transferred the Scriptures into Latin, no later than 157 CE. It was a later addition, c. 200 CE by Tertullian. That was the first use of the Latin word "Trinity". (So, holding that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God" rapidly leads to logical inconsistency.)
The concept however dates back to the early 2nd century CE, when Valentinian, a Gnostic regarded today as a heretic, introduced the term. The Roman Trinity came from a heretic. Here is the Wikipedia.org article:
His Alexandrian followers claimed that Valentinus was a follower of Theudas and that Theudas in turn was a follower of St. Paul of Tarsus. Valentinus claimed that Theudas imparted to him the secret wisdom that Paul had taught privately to his inner circle, which Paul publicly referred to in connection with his visionary encounter with the risen Christ (Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 12:2-4; Acts 9:9-10), when he received the secret teaching from him...
He became so prominent among the Christian community that, according to Tertullian Adversus Valentinianos iv, Valentinus was a candidate for bishop of Rome (the date would be about 143) and that he lost the election by a narrow margin...
Tertullian wrote that Valentinus was declared a heretic around 175 A.D. after his death. Tertullian also stated that Valentinus was personally acquainted with Origen...
As mentioned above, Tertullian claimed that Valentinus was a candidate for bishop of Rome and that he lost the election by a narrow margin, after which he turned to heresy in a fit of pique. Epiphanius wrote that Valentinus gave up the true faith after he had suffered a shipwreck in Cyprus and became insane.
Valentinus was among the early Christians who attempted to align Christianity with neo-Platonism, drawing dualist conceptions from the Platonic world of ideal forms (pleroma) and the lower world of phenomena (kenoma)...
While Valentinus was alive he made many disciples, and his system was the most widely diffused of all the forms of Gnosticism...
In a text known as Pseudo-Anthimus, Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three hypostases (hidden spiritual realities) and three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:
- "Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato." (Source: AHB Logan. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).
Since Valentinus had used the term hypostases, his name came up in the Arian disputes in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra, who was a staunch opponent of Arianism but also denounced the belief in God existing in three hypostases as heretical (and was later condemned for his views), attacked his opponents (On the Holy Church, 9) by linking them to Valentinus:
- "Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons � father, son, and holy spirit." [2]
This teaching was later adapted in the doctrine of the Trinity of Nicene Christianity.
Thus, it was Valentinian, a "Gnostic" and allegedly a Heretic, who is well known for mixing Early Christianity with Greek Neo-Platonism, was the first to invent the phrase...
on no other authority...
then his own alleged "Secret Revelations" -- second hand, no less, by his own admission! (Paul to Theudas, and Theudas to Valentinian)
Yeshua the Messiah came to make plain and crystal clear to all. Valentinian said, "Well, actually, wouldn't you know it, but I'm actually an insider, I got the real scoop from Paul, listen to me!"
This has all the earmarks of blatant scriptural corruption. But he was in communion with Origen, and possibly not even fully anathematized by the Church, apparently because, by sucking in recruits from all the Neo-platonists in the Greek world, he developed a huge following... that persisted after his death... and his views were adopted by the Nicene Council!
And finally, Tertullian too, who actually coined the Phrase "trinity" was also declared a heretic! (He was a "Montanist")
Therefore, before the Ever-Watching Eyes of Almighty God, who knows all and sees all, in REAL TIME, and never forgets but always remembers:
I dwell in shame.
|
Posted By: Bismarck
Date Posted: 08 March 2006 at 6:19pm
Angela wrote:
Bismark, are you LDS?
Fredi, there are Christians who to this day are not Trinitarian. My church uses the term Godhead because the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate beings. Not one being in three forms.
(excerpt from the Bible Dictionary in LDS scripture) There are three separate persons in the Godhead: God, the Eternal Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost....... These three persons are one in perfect unity and harmony of purpose and doctrine.
Therefore, it is a separate concept from the Trinity, which states that Jesus was God born flesh.
|
What you just wrote is essentially Tertullian's original concept of "Tri - Unitas" = "Three in Unison".
We have a confusion of word definition: Trinity technically means what you just wrote, "Three in Unison / Harmony"...
But it has come to mean colloquially "Jesus = God Incarnate".
So, technically, the word "Trinity" is misused. The sounds out of your mouth "Trih nih tee" are used to describe a concept (Jesus = God) that those sounds never originally carried!
So weak is Trinitarianism that it relies on what linguists call Verbicide, or "Word - Murder", murdering the definition of the word!
There is truth in the LDS doctrines. The ancients, Hebrew and otherwise, did have contacts with the Americas. And there are some interesting historical parallels in the Book of Mormon, like how the last prophet's ministry is about the year 400 CE, which is when the ailing Roman Empire stopped trading with the Americas, so income dries up, powers fall, etc.
I am not willing to accept the Book of Mormon hook, line, and sinker. Transatlantic trade, with Central America, yes, every word otoh...
|
Posted By: Bismarck
Date Posted: 08 March 2006 at 7:01pm
fredifreeloader wrote:
then you go on to say that this "automatically implies that none of the bible writers brought up these ideas" - erm sorry but it implies nothing of the sort, as anyone can understand. the fact that different words were used to explain things does not mean that the things being explained were being changed. the holy trinity or godhead is given by the Lord Jesus Christ himself in matthew 28: 16. note that it says "in the name (not names, it is singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost".--- now would the Lord Jesus Christ do anything, or have his disciples do anything other than in the name of God? - no, he wouldnt. and here we have the definition of God, from God Himself.
|
Matthew 28:19 - 20 is not in the oldest texts. The Old Syriac Gospels, published by Burkitt and Cureton, omit the very words you said. And the "Young's Literal Translation" acknowledges their dubious heritage:
19having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
20teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days -- till the full end of the age.'
Please note the parentheses. Young is telling you to doubt those words. Indeed, it is those exact very precise words that are missing from the ancient Syriac texts translated and published by Cureton and Burkitt in the late 1800s.
When you read Apocryphal works like the "Acts of Thomas" and "The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle", those texts are mutilated. You will be reading a beautiful paragraph about the great teachings of the Messiah -- and then with the screech of tires and the crash of glass you will see "Father Son Holy Spirit" inserted into every sentence, for half a dozen sentences in a row, sometimes twice in a single sentence practically!
The original underlying text has been obliterated! The words of the Apostles culled from Human Memory! Run over with a Mac truck and spit upon! I challenge you to read the texts yourselves, you will see how glaring and jarring are the obvious interpolations and over-writings into those works! And, after raping those texts and impregnating them with trinitarian doctrine, the Church then discarded them!
Are we at least clear on my allegation? Are we clear that if Matthew 28:19-20 has been expanded with that pseudo-trinitarian reference then mortal men have shoved their words straight in the MESSIAH'S face? Is that at least clear?? Right or wrong, that's what I'm saying!
Do you understand? "Speaking under the influence of the Spirit" means you words are God-Breathed. And face-raping a Man of God by shoving your words down his throat is, therefore, a violation of the sanctity of the Holy Spirit. It is a Sin against the Holy Spirit.
but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation�� Mark 3:29
I am alleging that there are bipedal homonids on the surface of this planet who have knowingly done the Unforgivable. Right or wrong, that is what I allege.
And if it were not so, why are there 20 miles of underground hallways beneath the Vatican, lined to the brim with the last surviving copies of ancient and long-hoarded manuscripts hermetically sealed in amphorae that have never seen the light of day in 1700 years?
When Emperor Constantine and his Arian family came to power in the early 300s, there were dozens of large public libraries across the empire. After Theodosius entrenched the Trinity in the late 300s, those libraries were closed, some, like Alexandria, were torched, and the Head Librarian was vivisected with tiles or potsherds. (Note that his was done by the Church of Alexandria, home base of the Trinitarian Athanasius, opponent of the (more) Unitarian Arius, and seat of the "Alexandrian" manuscripts favored by the Roman church.) Henceforth, Rome was no "Light to the World", propagating knowledge... but a "Black Hole" that sucked in and hoarded knowledge and led straight to the Dark Ages... The number of public libraries in the Roman empire peaked under the Arian Constantine at roughly 40. It then dropped to zero under Theodosius, fewer than it had ever had (it had always had at least a few, in Rome itself). Therefore, as much as Rome was ever a Beacon of Knowledge to the world, it was under the Unitarian Arian Constantine...
And as pitch black as any mortal institution could ever become, it became under the Trinitarian Theodosius -- through brutal murder, massacres, mayhem, violence... the Trinitarian Church practiced VIOLENCE... so much for "turn the other cheek"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, how about "Judge a Tree by its Fruits"? Which is better, Unitarian Arianism, or Trinitarianism? Based on the body count (and book count), Arianism wins.
I hate not being able to convict my enemy for its crimes just because it wasn't too stupid not to wear gloves and not leave fingerprints behind. But if they aren't guilty, why do they act guilty? At some point, all I have is facts, logic, circumstantial evidence, and suspicious behavior. I do not, however, have the original Gospels to show you and say, "see? this is the original vellum on which Matthew wrote, and it doesn't have 28:19-20, see?" I can't do that. That vellum was torched in Alexandria and its ashes tucked away beneath the Vatican.
And therefore the Vatican is innocent.
***using profanity even in disguised form--which includes colored font that is almost invisible--is not permitted***
|
Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 09 March 2006 at 4:49pm
*edited for clarity and re-posted*
Welcome to the discussions, Bismarck (from me, a non-Muslim guest).
�I am saying that early Christianity was Unitarian, not Trinitarian ��
As I see it, this is both a sensible and a defensible statement. Researchers have long sought and found a proto-orthodox Christian 'unitarianism.' It seems to me though, in terms of doctrine, that it is not quite so easy to say what "early" (ante-Nicene) Christianity was, except to say that it was in many ways altogether unfixed. And that is an understatement. Christianity seems to morph at practically every step along its way.
The Mediterranean culture was syncretistic. �Christianity� was one thing in Jerusalem prior to the destruction of that city by Titus (while the desposyni were still alive and James the Just was Patriarch); it was another thing in Galatia and Antioch, where it was first Christianity so-called (St. Paul having gone �unto the Greeks� and all that that implies); and it was quite another thing in Imperial Rome by the time that Constantine declared it the State religion. The target moves. There were not only the doctrines of Jesus, as originally taught, whatever those may have been, but there were also the subsequent and myriad doctrines about him. It seems it is especially these latter which were, depending upon one�s point of view, either �developed� or �corrupted� by the later introduction especially of speculative Greek metaphysics and philosophy.
That said, there were conflicts, quite independent of Christianity and its divergent forms, between the Hebraic (Jewish) and Hellenic (Greek) cultures and, as I understand, it is part of Christianity�s prophetic scenario, concerning itself at least, that the Gentiles, or Greeks, would accept that which Israel in the main would reject. If proof be needed (not by you, Bismarck, I am just writing at this point in general) that there were conflicts between the two cultures, consider Josephus� writings against Apion. Moreover, some see in the �Platonizing� Philo of Alexandria, especially in relation to his concepts of the Logos, precursors to the later Christian dogma of the Trinity and others read the Prologue to St. John�s Gospel as an outright interpolation and, well, direct "borrowing" from Philo. These matters are in dispute. Though this might seem something of a side-track, a question nevertheless to my mind arises: was the non-Christian (Jewish) Philo categorically a Unitarian, Trinitarian, Emanationist or what?
At any rate, it seems to me, and Philo and Josephus for the moment aside, this is Christianity. That there were and are �Christological� controversies at every step of the way is understood and is a given. Christian morphology is complex. The target repeatedly moves. Emperor Constantine, whatever his or the King of the Ostrogoth's beliefs, did in fact convene the definitive Council of Nicea. From that point onward, Christianity, Western Catholicism, or the �Universal� Church, became conciliar �that is to say, matters of controversy, doctrine and dogma were decided by way of councils, even ex post facto, or after the fact, complain though its critics may. To accept the decision of the councils is orthodoxy; to reject is heterodoxy or worse. A question thus arises: did Emperor Constantine accept the decision of the Nicene Council? I am not sure.
Though a long time has passed since I read it (I eventually got burned out on the subject of ante-Nicene history), I will say that one of my favorite inquiries into the matter is that by Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), and I owe him a debt for my no doubt flawed understanding of some of these points.
Servetus
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 10 March 2006 at 1:16pm
bismarck - of course the word "trinity" is not necessary, whoever said it was? more wall-building, im afraid..... as for valentinus, your statement that he claimed that "theudas imparted to him the secret wisdom that paul had taught privately to his inner circle ", quoting romans 16: 25, is precisely the kind of gibberish that the rosicrucians and the order of the lidless eye, among others, feed off. lets quash it now by giving the next verse, romans 16: 26 - "but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" there is no esoteric reference here - the mystery is made manifest to all nations, with reference to the prophets, the apostle is referring to the message he is preaching to all, that is the gospel
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 10 March 2006 at 1:42pm
lets also be quite clear about the Godhead in the new testament. john 14: 16,17 and 26 are revealing - "and i will pray the father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the spirit of truth......"---------"but the comforter, which is the holy ghost, whom the father will send in my name....." note that the Son is praying to the Father, so he is not the Father. he is referring to another (of the same kind) comforter, who is therefore not the Son, but indeed is the Spirit of truth. the other comforter is the Holy Ghost, sent by the Father, and is therefore not the Father. three distinct persons. and yet they are all God - the Father is God (john 17: 1-3), the Son is God (hebrews 1: 8, john 1: 1), the Holy Ghost is God (2 corinthians 3: 17)
if any of our muslim friends wishes to make the case that the "comforter" is muhammad, then please go ahead, but be prepared for a serious demolition job on my part. shams zaman tried it with deuternomy 18: 18. i answered his point, and have not heard from him since
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 10 March 2006 at 2:18pm
also bismarck - i do not understand your word games. i have never heard of a colloquial use of the word "trinity". in any event 1 timothy 3: 16 is very clear - "great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh....". john 1: 14 is also quite clear.
what i find quite disturbing is that you seem to be associating the doctrine of the holy trinity with all the sins and iniquities of the church in the past, in particular the roman catholic church, with reference to face-raping, murder, massacres, mayhem and violence. you even introduce the thought into the use of language with a reference to word murder, although i would have thought your allusion to face-rape would come into that category itself. either substantiate what you are implying, or desist from implying it. it is most objectionable. now you can kick rome in the teeth as much as you like as far as im concerned, at least for the right reasons, but if youre saying its down to the doctrine of the holy trinity, then you must substantiate this.
again you have said that Jesus "came to make plain and crystal clear to all" - you have not answered my objections to this
as for lds teaching, please supply evidence that the americas were known in the mediterranean ancient world, i thought this had all been discredited. how anyone can believe it i dont know. a "prophet" receives a message from God (on gold plates, if you please, which then mysteriously disappear) so we are left with the word of one man, not even directly given by God, but through an angel called moroni ------if any muslims are reading this, does it ring any bells? the scriptures tell us that even satan can appear as an angel of light
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 10 March 2006 at 3:43pm
fredifreeloader wrote:
as for lds teaching, please supply evidence that the americas were known in the mediterranean ancient world, i thought this had all been discredited. how anyone can believe it i dont know. a "prophet" receives a message from God (on gold plates, if you please, which then mysteriously disappear) so we are left with the word of one man, not even directly given by God, but through an angel called moroni ------if any muslims are reading this, does it ring any bells? the scriptures tell us that even satan can appear as an angel of light
|
Actually, there were three witnesses who handled the plates and another 9 viewed the plates including one woman.
Evidence goes back and forth on refuting the Book of Mormon. My father in law has a book written by a NON LDS author and by a reputable publisher that theorizes that the Olmecs of Central America may have been the Nephites as they have carvings with facial hair and we all know that the native peoples of the Americas did not have facial hair. (I'll try to get you the title of the book when I visit his home again.)
As for Prophets. If you believe in the Old Testament and even he new testament. You must believe in prophets. Or you could not have Moses, Abraham, John the Baptist.
Even modern non LDS christians recognize a prophet after Jesus. Or do you think that the Book of REVELATIONS should be removed from the Bible?
|
Posted By: Khadija1021
Date Posted: 11 March 2006 at 4:26am
Bismillah Rahmaneer Raheem
fredifreeloader wrote:
if any of our muslim friends wishes to make the case that the "comforter" is muhammad, then please go ahead, but be prepared for a serious demolition job on my part. shams zaman tried it with deuternomy 18: 18. i answered his point, and have not heard from him since |
Fredifreeloader, you falsely assume that since Brother Shams Zaman or any other Muslim from this forum group for that matter who does not continue to debate with you admits defeated; however, I, for one, simply refuse to continue to debate with someone who is arrogant and bases his "reasoning" on Islamic propaganda instead of seeking reliable Islamic information and reference. The problem I find with people like you who come here simply to �prove a point� and not to actually learn about Islam is that you do not give Muslims the same respect regarding Islam as they do Christians and Christianity.
No Muslim I know denies the validity of the Christian faith nor do they deny that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet of God. In fact, doing so is a grave sin in Islam since we are to believe in God, His angels, the Book and His PROPHETS�all of them. Muslims don't even deny that Jesus (pbuh) was placed in the womb by God or that he was blessed with Divine Revelation while in the womb of his blessed mother Mary. Nor do we even deny that Jesus (pbuh) will return to earth. In fact, we are told in the Qur�an that as long as they are of the righteous, any People of the Book will be rewarded on the Day of Judgment. Divine Writ states:
2:62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
It is as if you, and those like you, assume that if you pay Muslims the same respect they pay you, you will be admitting some type of defeat as well as committing a horrendous crime against Christianity; however, the truth of the matter is that Islam doesn�t negate Christianity any more than Christianity negates Judaism.
fredifreeloader wrote:
as for lds teaching, please supply evidence that the americas were known in the mediterranean ancient world, i thought this had all been discredited. how anyone can believe it i dont know. a "prophet" receives a message from God (on gold plates, if you please, which then mysteriously disappear) so we are left with the word of one man, not even directly given by God, but through an angel called moroni ------if any muslims are reading this, does it ring any bells? the scriptures tell us that even satan can appear as an angel of light |
I strongly suggest that you not compare Islam with Mormonism given that Islam is not a Christian based religion whereas Mormonism is.
Your reference to Satan appearing as an angel of light comes from 2 Corinthians 11:14. It is as follows:
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
That verse does not refer to other prophets but rather to those Paul claimed were parading around as false apostles of Christ. Paul said in the verse immediately preceding the one above the following:
For such men are false apostles, deceitful, workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. (2 Co 11:13)
The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never paraded around or went masquerading around trying to claim to be an apostle of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh). And please don�t say I missed the point because I didn�t, but rather, it is you how has taken verses of the Gospel out of context in order to try to defame and discredit Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
If you have problems with Mormonism, I suggested you take that up as a separate issue and stop treating them conjointly because they are not one and the same issue. I�m sure you love the idea of �killing two birds with one stone�; however, all you are doing is making an utter fool of yourself. Apples and oranges may both be fruit but by no means are they both member of the citrus family.
fredifreeloader wrote:
three distinct persons. and yet they are all God - the Father is God (john 17: 1-3), the Son is God (hebrews 1: 8, john 1: 1), the Holy Ghost is God (2 corinthians 3: 17) |
I want to make two comments regarding your above quote. First of all, John 1:1 does not refer to the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), but rather to the Holy Spirit. John 1:1 is a reference to Genesis 1:1-2 which clearly states that from the beginning was God and His Spirit. Not God and a Ghost. It states:
and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Gen 1:2)
The Spirit of God is not a separate entity from God but rather it is God�s Divine Revelation which is clearly proven in verses 3 through 25 of Genesis 1. God created the heavens and the earth and all that is upon it by merely uttering (by making manifest His Divine Revelation) those entities into existence. Read it and you will see repeatedly, �And God said,�.And it was so.� What does any of this have to do with Jesus (pbuh)? NOTHING! There is simply no justification in connecting John 1:1 with Jesus (pbuh) outside of the fact that Jesus (pbuh) would be manifested by Divine Revelation just as all other entities had been made manifest in the same way. However, this doesn't prove that Jesus (pbuh) existed from the beginning any more than any other entity God made manifest was.
If what you mean by linking Jesus (pbuh) to God through the Word of God in (John 1:1) is that �The Word became flesh� (John1:14), then you need to prove that Jesus (pbuh) and the Word are actually one instead of Jesus (pbuh) merely being given the Word (Divine Revelation) while in the womb of his mother. If you want to claim that Jesus (pbuh) is the Word and thereby one with God then you need to show how he is somehow different than any other entity which God made manifest by His Word. I am not claiming that Jesus (pbuh) doesn�t have special status. He was both created by the Word (i.e., he was manifested by God�s Word, Divine Revelation) and he was also given Divine Revelation. However, by no means doesn't that make him one and the same with God.
Both Jesus (pbuh) and Adam (pbuh) were created in the same manner. That is, they are both manifestations of God�s Divine Revelation without the use of a father. They were also both given Divine Revelation. The difference is that Jesus (pbuh) was manifested by Divine Revelation in the womb of Mary and was blessed with Divine Revelation while still in the womb while Adam (pbuh) was manifested by Divine Revelation without the use of a womb and he was given Divine Revelation, necessarily so, outside of the womb. Yes, this does place Adam (pbuh) as the first prophet of God. You may question how I could possibly claim that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet, however, it is quite clear in the book of Genesis that God gave Adam (pbuh) instructions on living and watching over those things on earth which God gave him command to watch other, if this is not parting unto him Divine Revelation as a means to do God�s bidding, then what is it?
If you read the Gospel of Matthew 1:20 you will note that it states, �because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit� and not that is it the Holy Spirit. Oh, and it doesn�t mention the word �Ghost� either. As I showed earlier, the Holy Spirit is the Word (Divine Revelation) of God, so, Jesus (pbuh) was conceived by the Word of God just as God created the heavens and the earth by His Word. That is, God commanded (made manifest His Divine Revelation), and he, Jesus (pbuh) was.
The Gospel of Mark does not even mention Jesus�s (pbuh) conception. However, at Mark 1:8 we do see that John the Baptist (pbuh) said that Jesus (pbuh) was going to baptize people with the �Holy Spirit�, not with some Ghost, but by using the Word�parting onto them Divine Revelation�which was bestowed upon him while he was still in the womb of his mother.
In the Gospel of Luke, which by the way is the last of the gospels which I have yet to use regarding this matter, you will see once gain that there is no mention of Jesus (pbuh) being one and the same as the Holy Spirit in any respect with regards to his birth.
Now that I have made it clear that there is not true justification for your claim that according to Verse 1 of Chapter 1 of the Gospel according to John proves in any way that it shows that Jesus (pbuh) is one with either God or the Holy Spirit, I would like to turn my attention to the second thing which I wanted to comment on regarding your claim in the last of your quotes above. Verses 1- 3 of Chapter 17 of the Gospel according to John, does not show, much less prove, that God and Jesus (pbuh) are somehow one and the same. In fact, if you read verse 3 carefully, you will see what the relationship between God and the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) truly is. The verse is as follows:
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3)
The above verse clearly shows that God and Jesus (pbuh) are not one and the same but rather they are 1.) the only true God; i.e., God and 2.) the one God sent, Jesus Christ (pbuh). What this says is that for Christians, they need to know God and believe He is the only true God , and the Prophet (i.e., Jesus) (pbuh) was sent to them by God in order for them (Christians�) to receive eternal life. It doesn�t mean they have to or should believe that Jesus (pbuh) and God are one and the same. In fact, it clearly shows that we should not see them as the same, but rather, to acknowledge that they (Christians) believe in God�the only true God�as well as the prophet God sent as the messenger for that group of people (in this case it was Jesus (pbuh) that was send to the Christians). However, it is just as Moses (pbuh) is the prophet God sent to the Jews and they need to believe in God (that He is the only true God) and their (Jews�) prophet, Moses (pbuh), in order to obtain eternal life; and just as Muhammad (pbuh) is the prophet God sent to the Muslims and they need to believe in God (that He is the only true God) and their (Muslims�) prophet, Muhammad (pbuh), in order to obtain eternal life.
The truth of the matter Fredifreeloader is that no matter how much you want �A = B = C� it will never be the case as long as �A = God the Father�, �B = Jesus, the Son of God�, and �C = the Holy Ghost�. I don�t want to get into a big debate at this time of how utterly impossible it is for Jesus (pbuh) and God to be one; however, I do want to point out one problem. If Jesus (pbuh) is God what is the meaning of the following:
(12) And once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, (13) and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. (Mark 1)
For certainly if Jesus (pbuh) is one and the same as God then truly there was no temptation at all for Satan cannot tempt God, because God cannot be temped by evil. It is nothing short of blasphemy of the highest order to claim that God can be tempted much less to say He can be tempted by the likes of Satan whom he banished from His very presence. This is clearly shown in Chapter 1 of the Book of James:
(13) When tempted, no one should say, �God is tempting me.� For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone,
However, I know for a fact that the temptation of Jesus (pbuh) by Satan is by no means to be taken lightly by any Christian. In fact, Christians are supposed to use Jesus� example of successfully overcoming his struggle with Satan in the desert as a guide for their own ability to withstand such trials and temptations in life. This can clearly be seen in Chapter 1 of the Book of James as well. Verse 12 states (which by the way is the verse immediately proceding the one I quoted immediately proceding this paragraph):
Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
The blatant contradictions that arise time and time again if we agree to consider you equation that �God = Jesus = Holy Ghost� do not go away unless we given up the equation. In fact, it wasn�t until I simply gave up Christainity as it is practiced by Christians that I was able to truly love and understand Jesus (pbuh) the way God meant for us to love and understand him. I feel that being a Muslim has allowed me to believe in Jesus (pbuh) the way I should have been allowed to believe in him as a Christian but was continually denied by �Christianity� the right to do so; that is, without contradictions. If you are taking me to be saying that I think Muslims are actually better �Christians� that are Christians themselves, you are absolutely right, at least in most cases.
Ashukru-lillahi Rabbil-Alameen wala- hawla wala quwata illa billah
PAZ,
Sister Khadija
------------- Say: 'My prayer and my rites, my living and my dying, are for Allah alone, the Lord of all the worlds. (Qur'an, 6:162)
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 11 March 2006 at 6:29am
well there you go angela, i didnt know that about the plates. actually my point was not about prophets as such, and you are right about prophets after the Lord Jesus, there were many in new testament times before the completion of the scriptures, and no i certainly dont think the revelation should be removed from the scriptures
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 11 March 2006 at 8:15am
No problem Fredi, I just wanted to clear that up.
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 11 March 2006 at 9:28am
for the record, khadija, i think shams zamans the man. and he is pakistani, a point very much in his favour as far as im concerned, as i know his country well, and they keep beating england at cricket! so you think im reasoning from anti-islamic propaganda? i assume thats what you meant. sharia law is not anti-islamic propaganda, it is islam, and it calls for the killing of apostates (nothing to do with war) this is a fact. just because its not in the quran doesnt mean its not islam
now no muslim accepts the validity of the holy faith of Christ. they may say they do, but they are referring only to the parts acceptable to islam. please dont try to kid me on about this. i am not the "utter fool" you take me for. for instance, "christ died for our sins" is the basis for our faith. the quotation is from 1 corinthians 15: 3 - "christ died for our sins according to the scriptures". Christ shed his own blood to pay the price for our sins (muslims deny this fundamental truth). note that he did this "according to the scriptures" that is to say in accordance with what the prophets of God said - see isaiah 53, for instance. now you claim to believe all the prophets, but you do not believe what they say about the Lords death, and the reasons for it. the truth is that you only believe things as they come to you through the filter of muhammad, who did not know the holy scriptures, as he could not even read his own language.
you then say that "muslims dont even deny that Jesus was placed in the womb by God" - this is very bizarre, because christians do deny this. the Holy Scriptures teach us that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost - matthew 1: 20 - the Lord Jesus was not created and placed, he was conceived miraculously
for your information holy ghost = holy spirit, the latter being the more modern and fashionable term in english. but i am post-modern, and such nonsensical considerations do not concern me
now you are saying that christians who are "righteous" will be ok with allah. but according to muhammad, christians have committed the appalling sin of shirk, because muhammad claimed that we are associating others with God. (this incidentally is not true). shirk, they tell me, is worse than murder
"if you pay muslims the same respect they pay you" - well theres not much respect being paid to the Lords people in northern nigeria right now, suffering as they are under the worst excesses of sharia law, with churches being destroyed right, left and centre, and being driven out of towns
your other statement, "islam doesnt negate christianity any more than christianity negates judaism" is partly right - nothing negates christianity. the Son of God is Gods last statement to mankind. but christianity has completely superseded judaism
i did not raise the issue of lds teaching, i merely commented on it, rightly or wrongly
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 11 March 2006 at 1:08pm
you are wrong about john 1. Jesus was not created, he is the creator, and therefore very much involved in genesis 1. this is very evident from other holy scriptures, such as ephesians 3: 9 - "......God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" also colossians 1: 16 - "....all things were created by him and for him" - the context making it very clear that the reference is to Christ. hebrews 1: 1,2 is also very clear - "God.......hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" you are right however to say that the Spirit of God isnt a seperate entity from God, he is however a distinct person from the Father and the Son, one God blessed forever
the Word of God in john 1 is Christ, the Son of God. this is clear in v.14 - "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father...." - now you are suggesting that the Holy Ghost was made flesh, but he wasnt, it was the Son of God who was made flesh. if there is any doubt about who the Word is, this is revealed in verses 15-36. v.15 says "john bare witness of him..." now it is quite clear that "him" refers to the Word, as that has been the subject of the chapter up to this point. it is very clear that the Baptist is bearing witness of Christ in the verses that follow, indicating that Christ is the Word of God, made flesh and dwelling among us. "his name is called the Word of God" - revelation 19: 13
you have made other points khadija, which i will answer tomorrow God willing
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 11 March 2006 at 1:26pm
servetus - interesting that you should use the word "morph" in your recent post. it made me think of the greek word morphe, obviously related. it crops up in the new testament in philippians 2: 5-8, and is translated into english (in the authorised version at least) by form. v.6 , referring to Christ, says "who, being in the form of God...." and v.7 says "took upon him the form of a servant". note that he was already in the form of God, when he took the form of a servant, indicating that this was an additional thing to what he already was. perhaps you could give us a short commentary on these verses
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 12 March 2006 at 2:39pm
(I wrote:) �It seems to me though, in terms of doctrine, that it is not quite so easy to say what "early" � Christianity was, except to say that it was in many ways altogether unfixed � Christianity seems to morph at practically every step along its way.�
(Fredi:): "servetus - interesting that you should use the word "morph" in your recent post. it made me think of the greek word morphe, obviously related. it crops up in the new testament in philippians 2: 5-8, and is translated into english (in the authorised version at least) by form �"
That is an interesting coincidence, Fredi, and I was unaware that St. Paul used the word in his letter to the Philippians. Thank you for informing me. The word, clearly apt, came to mind while I was writing my above post because it best describes how I see the development of especially �early� Christian doctrine -it morphs.
�� v.6 , referring to Christ, says "who, being in the form of God...." and v.7 says "took upon him the form of a servant". note that he was already in the form of God, when he took the form of a servant, indicating that this was an additional thing to what he already was ...�
At one point in my above post I distinguished between the doctrines of Jesus and doctrines about him. This portion of the epistle, it seems to me, is an example of the latter type.
�� perhaps you could give us a short commentary on these verses�
Thank you. For that, I assure you, I am altogether unqualified.
Best regards,
Serv
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 14 March 2006 at 4:02am
khadija - yes i have heard this from muslims before, that christ is just the same as adam in their view. the bible paints a very different picture indeed. adam was created, but christ was not created. indeed he created adam (see the scriptures i have given in previous post). adam had a beginning, but christ had no beginning. there is also a huge contrast as to their respective legacies. adam, through sin, left a legacy of sin and death, but christ, through his sinless perfection and sacrifice on the cross, has left a legacy of eternal life and peace with God for all who believe on him. - romans 5: 12 - "...by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men , for that all have sinned" ---see also romans 5: 19. -----1 corinthians 15: 45-47 also refers to adam and christ, adam being "the first man" and christ being "the second man", who is the "Lord from heaven"
i appreciate what you said about God communicating with adam and giving him instructions in the garden of Eden. to say this is prophethood, i suppose this depends on the definition of the word. the classic definition of a prophet is one who tells forth the word of God. i dont know if theres a record of adam doing this
you said that in lukes gospel "there is no mention of jesus being one and the same as the holy spirit in any respect with regards to his birth" - indeed not, why should there be? - i dont understand what point youre making here
now as to john 17: 3, you may well quote it, but we know why muslims love to quote the holy scriptures they do. it is because the scriptures you quote seem to agree with the message of islam, and because the message of islam on its own has no validation whatsoever. now the fact that God is the only true God, and that Jesus Christ was sent, does not prove what islam says about him. two verses later we read - john 17: 5 - ".. o Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which i had with thee before the world was" - a verse which clearly indicates the eternal existence of christ (not exactly islamic material is it)
Jesus Christ is a sent prophet, but above all he is the eternal Son of God, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Ghost. johns gospel is full of his Sonship. - john 3: 16, 17, 18. --v18 - "he that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God" - note that it does not speak of belief "in the name of the prophet", but in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. note that those who do not believe in this name are condemned already - what a dreadful position to be in. God has already made his mind up about them! thank God for the way of escape. john 3: 36 also speaks on the necessity of "believing on the Son"--------------john 5:23 indicates the true position of the Son - "..all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him" - note the words of Christ here - if we do not honour the Son even as we honour the Father, we are not honouring the Father. "even as" indicates "in the same way" or "equally". i feel it necessary to point these things out, in case muslims are unaware of the vast difference between islam and the holy scriptures
i do not really understand equations, and i do not see how your A=B=C in any way corresponds to biblical teaching on the Godhead. perhaps you can explain further what you mean by it
on the subject of temptation, you are right to quote the epistle of james. - "God cannot be tempted with evil". and yet it is clear from the scriptures that God was tempted - see numbers 14: 22, psalm 17: 18, as well as the gospel accounts of the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. to clear up what might be perceived as a difficulty, we need to consider what the essence of temptation is. look at james 1: 14 - "but every man is tempted, when he drawn away of his own lust, and enticed" this indicates that it is what is in man, ie. sin, that causes the temptation, not what any external tempter is saying or trying to get him to do. -------now you are a muslim, and therefore do not eat pork, right? i do not know if youve ever eaten pork, but lets imagine you had, and found it to be really disgusting, and it made you sick - that would give you two reasons never to eat it. but then suppose you come round to my house for your dinner, and i have cooked roast pork!! - you would not take it. but then suppose i say oh come on now khadija, why dont you have a little of my delicious roast pork, its soooo tasty, and i can tell youre really hungry. then i would be tempting you, but because of your religious convictions, and your previous bad experience eating pork, you would not be tempted. there would be nothing inside you telling you hmmmm i really fancy some of that, but im a muslim so i better not! my tempting you would meet with no response, because what i would be offering would be abhorrent and offensive to you. so it is with Christ. there is no sin in him, and no desire, no impulse to sin the devil could not find any foothold in him, as he does in us. yes, satan tempted Christ, but Christ could not be tempted with evil
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 18 March 2006 at 9:59am
Do I hear a promoter is on board? The selling of each word is punctuated with offensive breathes. Sometimes I wonder how these people live with the chewing of aged cheese in their mouth? Makes my anatomy purging. Attempting to indulge in un-halal conversation with decent, yet faithful believer resulted in self-declaring conscious or unconsciously, a devilish or satanic cause. Champion a devilish or satanic cause is like tempting the civilised to becoming uncivilised.
Did I sail my message across?
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 18 March 2006 at 10:33am
pauline - you just never seem to be able to let your hatred go. how dreadfully sad. btw, do you actually ever read anything people write? i note you never actually argue against anything that is said, just spue your bile against it. why is that? are you not able to speak reasonably? are you not able to discuss things normally? has the shariah rot so seeped into your soul, that you think everyone else should share your dhimmitude?
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 18 March 2006 at 10:39am
Do I hear the promoter is spreading irrationally or rationally? A resplendent rhetoric. Turning the molehill into the mountain.
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 18 March 2006 at 10:48am
its certainly turning into a mountain in your mind, why is that?
|
Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 18 March 2006 at 11:02am
My eyes didn't fool me of the inflated ego persistently spreading its rhetoric. When the inflated ego is about to be deflated, it gets black out of ideas in its preaching of uncivilisation.
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 18 March 2006 at 11:19am
pauline - your hatred is again getting the better of you. kindly do not address me again unless you wish to debate something ive actually said. im tired of your silly nonsense and abusive remarks. we may disagree and still respect each other. you however have shown yourself incapable of this - what a shame!
|
Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 19 March 2006 at 3:44pm
Did I just hear someone's from the uncivilised world acknowledging me? Did I not understand they are responding with dismay and judging me irrationally?
Did I just realise that the comeback of two peas in the pod? Hmmm...strangely, they come and go and usually are in couple. Oh! Why is that?
This message is for the two peas in the pod : Sanity will not receive the baptism by their wrath against Islam.
|
Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 27 March 2006 at 12:38pm
�yes, satan tempted Christ, but Christ could not be tempted with evil�
On this point, I am a bit confused, to put it mildly. I have tried to follow the logic (and verses) here, Fredi, and did read the thread in its entirety, but could you please clarify if, to your view, Jesus was tempted. By the sounds of things here, you are saying, in summary, that, because Christ could not be tempted with evil, he therefore was not tempted. If this is the case, if this is close to what you are saying, then, one wonders, what is the point of the Gospels� various temptation narratives?
Thank you.
Servetus
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 28 March 2006 at 2:14am
yes, that is what im saying, and the sentence you quoted was what i was attempting to explain by my admittedly slightly daft roast pork dinner story
i would think that the purpose of the gospel temptation narratives is at least twofold - firstly to demonstrate who and what Christ is, namely God, perfect in every respect, in that he could not sin. the actual word "tempt" here is interesting. w e vine gives two sets of meanings in his "expository dictionary of new testament words" - the word is peirazo, meaning 1. to try, attempt, assay -2. to test, try, prove. clearly the second meaning applies here, how can purity and perfection be demonstrated unless it is tested and proved. ekpeirazo, the intensive form, is also used in matthew 4: 7, luke 4: 12 and in luke 10: 25, when the lawyer "tempted" Christ. this last reference indicates that the testing and proving did not stop when the devil left him in the wilderness, but that indeed his whole time of his public ministry at least, was a testing and proving for the reason i have indicated
this also relates to Christ as the sacrificial lamb of God. one of the clearest types of Christ in the old testament is the passover lamb exodus 12. the lamb was to be selected on the 10th day of the month and kept until the 14th day. the experts tell us this was to prove the validity of the sacrifice, in that it had to have no blemish or flaw. they would watch it and check it out during these days, to prove it. leviticus 22: 17-25 also speaks of this. now Christ was continually watched, to see what he would do or say, by his enemies seeking to pick faults in him. even when he hung on the cross, they "sat down, and watched him there" matthew 27: 36. they did not take any pleasure in what they saw, being evil, and could find no fault in him, but God took complete pleasure from it, hence the total success of Christs sacrificial self-offering
secondly i would say the narratives are an example to us, bearing in mind that although Christ could not succumb to the temptation of satan, we can, all too easily. the key is knowledge of, love for, and application of the holy scriptures. each time satan approaches Christ, he is rebuffed by a quotation from the word of God -"thy words have i hid within my heart: that i should not sin against thee" -psalm 119: 11 - a clear example for us to follow
also of great note in the gospel narratives, is Christs assertion of his deity. yes indeed. when the devil tempts him in matthew 4: 6, Christ replies in v.7 - "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God"
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 28 March 2006 at 2:15pm
Thank you for your response, Fredi. If I am at times reluctant to participate in discussions about Jesus (see above), I will say, in any case, that, thus far, I do appreciate your comprehension (and reading) of the scriptures.
(You) �� yes, satan tempted Christ, but Christ could not be tempted with evil ��
(Me) �� By the sounds of things here, you are saying, in summary, that, because Christ could not be tempted with evil, he therefore was not tempted.�
(You) �� yes, that is what im saying, ��
Please continue to explain. In that case, how do you reconcile your statement that Christ was not tempted with that which follows, from Hebrews 4:15?
�For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.� (KJV)
(You) �� and the sentence you quoted was what i was attempting to explain by my admittedly slightly daft roast pork dinner story ��
I did not think that the story was at all daft. On the contrary, it was effective and I enjoyed it. That said, it also seems to me that one should recall that Jesus is said to have fasted forty days and nights prior to his temptation (or lack of it, as the case may be) and that the smell of bread, unlike roast pork to a Muslim, would therefore probably have been neither particularly abhorrent nor offensive. This is something, at any rate, to consider.
Servetus
|
Posted By: runner
Date Posted: 30 March 2006 at 3:37am
pauline35 wrote:
Do I hear the promoter is spreading irrationally or rationally? A resplendent rhetoric. Turning the molehill into the mountain. |
Ameen!!!!
|
Posted By: runner
Date Posted: 30 March 2006 at 5:14am
To proclaim that Constantine was an Arian, and a heretic grossly overstates that his deathbed baptism by someone labeled as an Arian necessarily means that he held to that doctrine.
For a more complete description of Arianism and the controversies surrounding them see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
For the record, the article notes that similar non or anti-trinitarian doctrinal views are held by Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Latter-Day-Saints (bowing to you, Angela), and Muslims.
While I appreciate that many of us hold different views about this & that, and explaining them is helpful to understanding the other, I think that some of us have taken the polemics way over the top.
Declaring someone a heretic & continuing the contention strikes me as far too similar to takfir and too often leads to, if not violence, then a permanent and irritated division. And this is, in my view contrary to the desires of God (one whom by your declarations I believe we share, whichever name we use); largely because it is unnecessary.
Interfaith dialogue, even about things we disagree about is an important part of our humanity, and ought not be denied. But endless nitpicking and using of loaded language changes that virtue into a sin, and can easily create much more.
Avoiding that danger is what I mean, and what I think sr. pauline means about turning a molehill into a mountain.
For my Muslim bros. & sisters, the article briefly defines Arianism as:
"Arianism was a Christological view held by followers of Arius, a Christian priest who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. Arius taught that God the Father and the Son were not co-eternal, seeing the pre-incarnate Jesus as a divine being but nonetheless created by (and consequently inferior to) the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist. In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a "creature;" in this context, the word is being used in its original sense of "created being."
The conflict between Arianism and the Trinitarian beliefs was the first major doctrinal confrontation in the Church after the legalization of Christianity by Emperor Constantine I. Controversy over Arianism extended over the greater part of the fourth century and involved most church members, simple believers and monks as well as bishops and emperors. While Arianism did dominate for several decades in the family of the Emperor, the Imperial nobility and higher ranking clergy, in the end it was Trinitarianism which prevailed theologically and politically at the end of the fourth century, and which has since been a virtually uncontested doctrine in all major branches of the Eastern and Western Church. Arianism, which had been taught by the Arian missionary Ulfilas to the Germanic tribes, did linger for some centuries among several Germanic tribes in western Europe, especially Goths and Longobards but did not play any significant theological role thereafter."
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 30 March 2006 at 3:00pm
servetus - when i say Christ was not tempted, i mean this in the sense of james 1: 14, which refers to the temptation to sin, and which clearly tells us how this comes about. while there may be an external agent doing the tempting, it basically comes from us ourselves. it is in us to sin, but not in Christ. and yet the devil was tempting him in the wilderness, which incidentally was the whole purpose of the excursion to the wilderness matthew 4: 1 - he was led by the spirit to be tempted of the devil, submitting to this trial was the will of God, for the reasons i have outlined.
well there is certainly nothing wrong with eating bread, or enjoying the smell of it, as far as i know. but there was no bread to smell, only stones. the sin would have been in fulfilling the wishes of satan, whereas the will of God would have been to resist those wishes, what ever they were, as their purpose could only be evil - "resist the devil and he will flee from you" james 4: 7
you have brought up another reason for the temptation (trial, proving) of Christ - it "qualifies" him to be the "sympathetic" high priest he is described to be in hebrews. note that it says he can sympathize with our infirmities, not with our sins. this refers to the trials we suffer in the way of persecution, bodily weakness, etc. God has no sympathy for sin. the verse you quote says he was tempted (tried) in all points in like manner as we are, yet without sin (sin apart). the verse is telling us that we suffer nothing he did not suffer, but then quite categorically adds "sin apart". the verse in hebrews does not specifically refer to the temptation in the wilderness, but to the sufferings and trials of Christ throughout his life on earth
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 01 April 2006 at 6:36am
I thought DEVIL cannot tempt the GOD. Even one thinks that "Christ cannot be tempted", that simply does not conclude that Jesus is the GOD. If Jesus is GOD, than the DEVIL have no power to tempt him at all because DEVIL is unable to tempt GOD. Unless the DEVIL is luring the GOD's servant into darkness.
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 01 April 2006 at 9:22am
pauline, the devil had no power to tempt him, but it didnt stop him trying. you have clearly understood nothing of what ive written, sadly, and you continue to make jokes about God, which is even sadder - "fools who laugh on earth shall weep in hell" - christopher marlowe (i think)
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 06 April 2006 at 4:26am
In this case, shame on the promoter for being unable to write/sell properly. Even stupid is that the fool laughs and lands himself on the wrong planet. How is the promoter coping with his sales bible? Foolish is he promoting the wrong product on this planet?
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 06 April 2006 at 10:36am
pauline - youre not even on this planet, so why should it concern you?
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 12 April 2006 at 10:48am
Not meaning to sound facetious here, Fredi, but is it safe to conclude that you are saying, in essence, that:
�Jesus was but was not tempted�
Servetus
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 12 April 2006 at 11:28am
no servetus it does not sound facetious, it fact id say it was right, bearing in mind all the details spoken of
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 12 April 2006 at 11:37am
Thank you, Fredi, for not thinking me facetious and for the gentle reminder of why it is that I never seemed to fare too well with my understanding of the finer (doctrinal) points in catechism.
Serv
|
Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 3:16am
Not only the bible promoter eats the bible 3 times a day, he also married to it. Like monkey clinging on the branches of the tree. It's only a matter of time that he will fall.
|
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 11:05am
Guys, my two biblical cents.
It was not that Satan tempted or tried Jesus, on his own. According to the Good Book, the Spirit led Jesus into the desert to be tempted by the devil.
Luke describes this best: "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil."
During the testing over forty days, Jesus answered the devil only three times.
|
Posted By: Mishmish
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 12:01pm
So, God allowed himself to lead himself into the desert to be tempted by Satan, who has no power over God?
------------- It is only with the heart that one can see clearly, what is essential is invisible to the eye. (The Little Prince)
|
Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 12:18pm
Mishmish wrote:
So, God allowed himself to lead himself into the desert to be tempted by Satan, who has no power over God?
� |
so thats why some ppl worship satan?
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 12:59pm
akmf - i have already gone into the reasons for the temptation of Christ on this thread - please read them - btw i havent seen much of you on that other thread you started
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: Mishmish
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 1:06pm
Logically speaking, if Jesus is God then it wasn't much of a temptation. What can you tempt God with when He is the Creator of and Master of everything? And being Omnipotent, wouldn't God already know the outcome of the temptation, because He allowed it to happen to Himself to begin with?
------------- It is only with the heart that one can see clearly, what is essential is invisible to the eye. (The Little Prince)
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 2:15pm
exactly mish - there was only ever going to be one outcome. but dont forget it was not just a question of temptation to sin, it was a very serious physical trial for the Lord Jesus
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: Mishmish
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 3:10pm
In summary: you believe that God, the Almighty and Creator of everything, full of Himself (the Holy Spirit), led Himself ( the Holy Spirit leading Jesus) to the desert to be tempted by one of His creations (Satan), over which He(GOD) has complete dominion and can destroy at will. And the purpose of this was to prove that He was immune to this temptation and He was perfect?
Wouldn't the fact that He is God be sufficient in itself in proving His perfection? And since you believe Jesus is God, how could anything of this world tempt him, even after fasting for 40 days? God is God and He is Self-Sufficient and in need of nothing that Satan can offer Him.
------------- It is only with the heart that one can see clearly, what is essential is invisible to the eye. (The Little Prince)
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 3:23pm
that is mostly correct, but you have failed to distinguish between the Persons of the Godhead, and have failed to appreciate that the God of the bible is a demonstrative God. in Christ, God is showing us what he is. but allah is incapable of showing anything
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: Mishmish
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 4:11pm
I appreciate that the God of the bible is a demonstrative God, and being such, why not just have Jesus state unequivocally that He was God, and then demonstrate this in a manner that would leave no doubt?
When God sent His Messengers and Prophets they stated that they were the Messengers and Prophets of God quite clearly. Because that was the sole purpose of sending the Messengers and Prophets. To correct and spread the Word of God. To make it clear to the believers which path they should follow. Therefore, in the face of derision and great personal danger they stated quite clearly that they were the Prophets and Messengers of God.
Yet, God comes to earth in human form, to offer salvation to all of mankind by taking their sins upon Himself, and never just stands up and states without a doubt: "I am God" and demonstrates it.
Instead, He goes alone into the desert, and allows Himself to be tempted by Satan, whom He knows has absolutely no power over Him, because God is Omnipotent so no creature can hold power over Him. And this is supposed to prove that Jesus is God incarnate?
------------- It is only with the heart that one can see clearly, what is essential is invisible to the eye. (The Little Prince)
|
Posted By: Mishmish
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 6:09pm
fredifreeloader wrote:
that is mostly correct, but you have failed to distinguish between the Persons of the Godhead, and have failed to appreciate that the God of the bible is a demonstrative God. in Christ, God is showing us what he is. but allah is incapable of showing anything |
By distinguishing between the Persons of the Godhead, do you mean that each is individual and unaware of what the other is doing, thinking.... If all are God, wouldn't they share the same consciousness? If not, then they would be three distinctly conscious entities. If so, they they are one entity and would not need to be distinguished as separate.
------------- It is only with the heart that one can see clearly, what is essential is invisible to the eye. (The Little Prince)
|
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 16 April 2006 at 7:47pm
Hey Fredi: Your noise indicates the anger and frustration in your makeup. Were you born without a father figure in the household. You don't need to be so darn belligerent with Khadija in selling your point. OK read the following and state your stand----
Mithraic Cult or Christianity
Mithra was a Persian savior, whose cult was the leading
rival of Christianity in Rome, and
more successful than Christianity for the first four centuries of the
�Christian� era. In 307 A.D., the
emperor officially designated Mithra �Protector of the Empire.� (See, Francis Legge, Forerunners and the
Rivals of Christianity at 2, 271; S. Angus, The Mystery-Religions at 168) Christians copied many details of the
Mithraic mystery-religion, explaining the resemblance later with their favorite
argument, that the devil had anticipated the true faith by imitating it before
Christ�s birth. Some resemblances
between the two are so close that even St. Augustine
declared the priests of Mithra worshipped the same deity as he did. (See, Salomon Reinach, Orpheus at 73)
Mithra was born on December 25, called �Birthday of the
Unconquered Sun,� which was finally taken over by Christians in the 4th century
A.D. as the birthday of Christ. (See,
John Holland Smith, The Death of Classical Paganism at 146; John Campbell, The
Mythic Image at 33) Some said Mithra
sprang from an incestuous union between the sun god and his own mother, just as
Jesus, who was God, was born of the Mother of God. Some claimed Mithra�s mother was a mortal
virgin. Others said Mithra had no
mother, but was miraculously born of a female Rock, fertilized by the Heavenly
Father�s phallic lightning. (See, Amaury
de Riencourt, Sex and Power in History at 135)
Mithra�s birth was witnessed by shepherds and by Magi (wisemen)
who brought gifts to his sacred birth-cave of the Rock. (See, Homer Smith, Man and His Gods at 129;
S.H. Hooke, The Siege Perilous at 85; Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra at
131) Mithra performed the usual
assortment of miracles: raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind
see and the lame walk, casting out devils.
As a Peter (son of Petra) he
carried keys to the kingdom of heaven.
(See, Homer Smith, Man and His Gods at 129) His triumph and ascension to heaven were
celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter), when the sun rises toward its
apogee.
Before returning to heaven, Mithra celebrated a Last Supper
with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory of this, his worshippers partook of
a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross. (See, S.H. Hooke, The Siege Perilous at 89;
Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra at 160)
This was one of the seven Mithraic sacraments, the models for the
Christians� seven sacraments. (See, E.O.
James, The Ancient Gods at 250) It was
called mizd, latin missa, English mass.
Mithra�s image was buried in a rock tomb, the same scared cave that
represented his mother�s womb. He was
withdrawn from it and said to live again.
(See, Homer Smith, Man and His Gods at 130, 201)
Like early Christianity, Mithraism was an ascetic,
anti-female religion. Its priesthood
consisted of celibate men only. (See,
Francis Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity at 2, 261). Women were forbidden to enter Mithraic temples. (See, Wolfgang Lederer, The Fear of Women at
36). The women of Mithraic families had
nothing to do with the men�s cult, but attended services of the Great Mother in
their own temples of Isis, Diana or Juno.
(See, S. Angus, The Mystery-Religions at 205) Anahita was the Mother of Waters, traditional
spouse of the solar god whom she bore, loved and swallowed up. She was identified with the Anatolian Great
Goddess Ma. Mithra was naturally coupled
with her, as her opposite, a spirit of fire, light and the sun. (See, Franz Cumont, Oriental Religions in
Roman Paganism at 54, 65). Her �element,� water, overwhelmed the world in the
primordial flood, when one man built an ark and saved himself, together with
his cattle, according to Mithraic myth.
(See, Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra at 138).
What began in water would end in fire, according to the
Mithraic eschatology. The great battle
between the forces of light and darkness in the Last Days would destroy the
earth with its upheavals and burnings.
Virtuous ones who followed the teachings of the Mithraic priesthood
would join the spirits of light and be saved.
Sinful ones who followed other teachings would be cast into hell with
Ahriman and the fallen angels. The
Christian notion of salvation was almost wholly a product of this Persian
eschatology, adopted by Semitic eremites and sun-cultists like the Essenes, and
by Roman military men who thought the rigid discipline and vivid battle-imagery
of Mithraism appropriate for warriors.
Under emperors like Julian and Commodus, Mithra became the supreme
patron of Roman armies. (See, Franz
Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra at 87-89)
After extensive contact with Mithraism, Christians also
began to describe themselves as soldiers for Christ; to call their savior Light
of the World, Helios the Rising Sun and the Sun of Righteousness; to celebrate
their feasts on Sun-day rather than the Jewish Sabbath; to claim their savior�s
death was marked by an eclipse of the sun; and to adopt the seven Mithraic sacraments. Like Mithraists, Christians practiced baptism
to ascend after death through the planetary spheres to the highest heaven,
while the wicked (unbaptized) would be dragged down into darkness. (See, Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra
at 144-45)
Mithra�s cave-temple on the Vatican Hill was seized by
Christians in 376 A.D. (See, John
Holland Smith, The Death of Classical Paganism at 146). Christian bishops of Rome
pre-empted even the Mithraic high priest�s title of Pater Patrum, which became
Papa, or Pope. (See, Homer Smith, Man
and His Gods at 252). Mithraism entered
into many doctrines of Manichean Christianity and continued to influence its
old rival for over a thousand years.
(See, Franz Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism at 154) The Mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking
the arrival of sun-priests or Magi at the Savior�s birthplace, was adopted by
the Christian church only as late as 813 A.D.
(See, H. Pomeroy Brewster, Saints and Festivals of the Christian Church
at 55).
------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 17 April 2006 at 5:45am
Mishmish wrote:
I appreciate that the God of the bible is a demonstrative God, and being such, why not just have Jesus state unequivocally that He was God, and then demonstrate this in a manner that would leave no doubt?
When God sent His Messengers and Prophets they stated that they were the Messengers and Prophets of God quite clearly. Because that was the sole purpose of sending the Messengers and Prophets. To correct and spread the Word of God. To make it clear to the believers which path they should follow. Therefore, in the face of derision and great personal danger they stated quite clearly that they were the Prophets and Messengers of God.
Yet, God comes to earth in human form, to offer salvation to all of mankind by taking their sins upon Himself, and never just stands up and states without a doubt: "I am God" and demonstrates it.
Instead, He goes alone into the desert, and allows Himself to be tempted by Satan, whom He knows has absolutely no power over Him, because God is Omnipotent so no creature can hold power over Him. And this is supposed to prove that Jesus is God incarnate?
|
certainly it proves he is God incarnate. you are missing one of the most important aspects of the temptation in the wilderness, which i spoke of earlier in this thread - matthew 4: 6,7 - when satan tells Christ to prove he is the Son of God by throwing himself off the pinnacle of the temple, Christ replies "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" - thus stating exactly who he is
now he did not come to walk about saying "i am God i am God i am God", although his words clearly indicate this fact, and the jews clearly understood what he meant, which is why they killed him,since for them what he said was clearly blasphemous. and he certainly demonstrated the fact that he is God
here are some scriptures which clearly indicate who he is, in his own words
1. he is eternal -john 5: 58
2. he gives eternal life - john 10: 28
3. he sends angels - matthew 13: 41 and 24: 30,31
4. he should get our highest love - matthew 10: 37,38
5. he sets free from sin - john 8: 34,36
6. he forgives sin - matthew 9: 6
7. he searches hearts and minds - revelation 2: 23
8. he will repay each according to his deeds - revelation 2: 23
9. he will raise people on the last day - john 6: 40-44
10. he will judge the nations - matthew 35: 31,32-luke21: 36 - john 5: 22,23
this is a selection. note that all the characteristics can apply to God alone, yet the Lord Jesus claimed them for himself
- john 5: 23 is crucial - "all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which sent him" - note that the Son is to be honoured even as (in the same way) as the Father. those who will not do so do not honour the Father - here the Lord is saying clearly he is equal to the Father. he was not the shrinking violet in the matter of making claims that some have suggested
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 17 April 2006 at 11:57pm
Fredi, you really loaded free! I enjoyed that but here are some comments:
From you:"certainly it proves he is God incarnate. you are missing one of the most important aspects of the temptation in the wilderness, which i spoke of earlier in this thread - matthew 4: 6,7 - when satan tells Christ to prove he is the Son of God by throwing himself off the pinnacle of the temple, Christ replies "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" - thus stating exactly who he is."
Before quoting "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God", there is a bold and clear statement written and that is:Matthew 4:5 "If you are the Son of God", he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
"He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."
7Jesus answered,, "It is also written:Do not put the Lord your God to test."
The above should be read and understood in continuity and it is clear from the passage that Satan knew exactly who he was trying to tempt. Satan, from the very statement confirms that Jesus was not God. Even Satan was not addressing Jesus in the above verse as "Son of God". That is why Satan said, "If you are the Son of God..."
The verse which you quoted partially does not prove that he was God or the Son of God, even under Satan's view.
Here is the same scriptural reference that you wrote and I have changed 'he' to God and removed the names of John and Matthew. See how nice and more factual that looks:
1. God is eternal
2. God gives eternal life
3. God sends angels
4. God should get our highest love (This was also said by Jesus )
5. God sets us free from sin
6. God forgives sin
7. God searches hearts and minds and knows what is in them.
8. God will repay each according to his deeds. (This confirms that deeds play an important part besides faith or Belief)
9. God will raise people on the last day.
10. God will judge the nations.
From you: "this is a selection. note that all the characteristics can apply to God alone, yet the Lord Jesus claimed them for himself."
I don't think it is correct to say that Jesus claimed the above for himself.
From you:"john 5: 23 is crucial - "all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which sent him" - note that the Son is to be honoured even as (in the same way) as the Father. those who will not do so do not honour the Father - here the Lord is saying clearly he is equal to the Father. he was not the shrinking violet in the matter of making claims that some have suggested."
This is the personal opinion of the writer John himself and these are not the words, direct from the mouth of Jesus.
Best Regards
BMZ
|
Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 18 April 2006 at 2:54am
Sometimes I ponder if inside an airplane transporting from point A to point B, two pilots(the god is Captain and the son is co-pilot) are flying the aircraft, when the Captain needs to go to the gents, the co-pilot will stay inside the cockpit and vice versa. If there is only one pilot inside the airplane whilst cruising and he needs a break to the lavatory, when he comes out from the cockpit and left no one flying inside the cockpit, guess who is flying the aircraft?
|
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 18 April 2006 at 4:08am
The Auto-Pilot or the Computer.
|
Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 18 April 2006 at 4:13am
Is that mean whilst Jesus was in human form, the Auto-God is managing up there in heavan? How will auto god be able to justify which soul rest in heavan and which soul to be sent to hell whilst Lord Jesus was busy being tempted by the Satan during his course of meditation?
Gee! I just learned we are being computerised.
|
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 18 April 2006 at 5:34am
Good to know you are my neighbour just across the Caueway, pauline35.
Got good sense of humour!
BR
BMZ
|
Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 18 April 2006 at 9:39am
bmz - i did not get all you were trying to say in your post re the temptation of Christ, it was rather confused. bear in mind satan was trying to put Christ to the test - he said basically - "if you are the Son of God then prove it my way by jumping off the tower" - he even had the audacity to quote the holy scriptures to the Lord (yes although satan is not omniscient, he does know the holy scriptures, and will even use them in a corrupt way to try to deceive). now the Lord had no need or desire to do anything satans way. instead he said "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" - bear also in mind who was being tempted - Christ was being tempted. this means that Christ was claiming to be God
did you actually check all the 10 references i gave? well you couldnt have because i mistyped a couple of them, unless you found them for yourself. your 10 response points were indeed most factual, but then you did not really change anything, did you? - Jesus is God. lets go through them more carefully and see exactly whats being said
1. he is eternal -john 5: 58 - should be john 8: 58 - the jews challenged him as to whether he had seen abraham, he said,"before abraham was, i am" - his words. consider also john 17: 5 - "o father, glorify thou me....with the glory that i had with thee before the world was"
2. he gives eternal life - john 10: 28 - his answer starts in v. 25 - Jesus answered them ".........and i give unto them eternal life...." - his words, talking about himself
3. he sends angels - matthew 13: 41 and 24: 30,31 - note that in these verses, not only will he send the angels, but says they are his angels to send
4. he should get our highest love - matthew 10: 37,38 - jesus is speaking continually from v. 5 - in v. 37 he says "he that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me"
5. he sets free from sin - john 8: 34,36 - he says "if the Son (ie himself) shall make you free (context is "free from sin" see v.34) ye shall be free indeed" -incidentally you are saying God sets free from sin, and that is true, but where in the quran does it say that allah sets free from sin?
6. he forgives sin - matthew 9: 6 - "that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins...." - Son of man being how the Lord probably most often referred to himself - he had the power
7. he searches hearts and minds - revelation 2: 23 - who is speaking these words - you have to look back to v.18 - the words are being addressed to the church at thyatira - "these things saith the Son of God..." - it is a section of messages to 7 churches, given by Christ to John to convey to the churches. look back at chapter 1, v. 18, where the Person giving the revelation introduces himself so to speak - "i am he that liveth and was dead, and behold i am alive for evermore amen and have the keys of hell and of death" - he lives and was dead? it is Christ.
8. he will repay each according to his deeds - revelation 2: 23 - same thing, but as to your point about deeds, remember these messages are addressed to christians, and the deeds will be repaid according to reward in heaven, not with regard to judgement in hell
9. he will raise people on the last day - john 6: 40-44 - the words of jesus - "i will raise him up at the last day.."
10. he will judge the nations - matthew 35: 31,32-luke21: 36 - john 5: 22,23 - matthew 35 should read matthew 25 - my mistake! v. 31 starts "when the Son of man shall come in his glory...." again Christ!
so these are all the words of the Lord Jesus as found in the holy scriptures, of course you may choose not to believe them, but dont call me illogical or anything for pointing out that Jesus claimed to be God, or for the fact that i believe he is, because i believe the bible
- john 5: 23 is crucial - "all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which sent him" - note that the Son is to be honoured even as (in the same way) as the Father. those who will not do so do not honour the Father - no this is not the "opinion" of john, as you suggest, (he doesnt give it as his opinion - read it) - it is the record of john, reporting the very words of our blessed Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ
now bmz - it must be nearly your bedtime - have a peaceful sleep!
------------- for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
|
|