Basic beliefs of Christians and Muslims side by side

[aamifi]

salamalaykom




Basic beliefs of Christians and Muslims side by side
http://www.islam101.com/religions/christianity/christ_islam.html

[tolpuddle]

salamalaykom




Basic beliefs of Christians and Muslims side by side
http://www.islam101.com/religions/christianity/christ_islam.html

The first part of the website you quote is largely correct. But its comments on St Paul are very mistaken.

Firstly, Paul worked with Simon Peter and the other Apostles who had known Jesus personally. They had no objection to Paul's beliefs - why should they ? More than once in the Gospels Jesus claims to be the Messiah, more than once He foretells His cruel death.

Regarding supposed persecution of the true followers of Jesus by the Early Church - there was none; the Early Church was powerless and often savagely persecuted itself by the Romans.

Sadly, the Church sometimes used cruel methods against heretics, the first to be burnt being the Spaniard Priscillian (in 384 CE, from memory).

But I can't think of any Christian heresies that were anti-Trinitarian (that is, which held the unitarian view of God held by Islam) until Servetus (burned in Calvinist Geneva) and the Socinians, after 1500 CE.

BTW, believing in the Blessed Trinity does NOT involve believing in 3 gods - but in 3 "persons" within the Absolute Oneness of God.

[STN]

Removed

[Abz2000]

STN is a human and STN is a donkey and STN is dog but STN is only 1 and STN is actually only a bacteria? But a manifestation of human, donkey, dog - same substance as those animals but STN is actually a bacteria.

Don't think i am mocking you, i am just trying to make sense of it. God(Allah) is nothing we can even imagine, His power is nothing we can imagine and Allah is only one. Jesus(PBUH) is a man exactly like us and only a Messenger. The Holy Spirit is Gabriel (Jibrīl ) which is an angel. And they are all completely different. This makes complete sense to even a 5 year old kid and is the truth.

Do you think Allah :swt: would be pleased with you for making such comparisons?
I mean, do the comparisons rationally fit the targets? The good is not equal to the bad, and Allah :swt: even forbids the Prophet :saws: from making comparisons to Allah somewhere down the line.
The master slave/servant is recurrent in the quran and can be easily used if respectfully and justly-fitted.

- - - Updated - - -

The first part of the website you quote is largely correct. But its comments on St Paul are very mistaken.

Firstly, Paul worked with Simon Peter and the other Apostles who had known Jesus personally. They had no objection to Paul's beliefs - why should they ? More than once in the Gospels Jesus claims to be the Messiah, more than once He foretells His cruel death.

Regarding supposed persecution of the true followers of Jesus by the Early Church - there was none; the Early Church was powerless and often savagely persecuted itself by the Romans.

Sadly, the Church sometimes used cruel methods against heretics, the first to be burnt being the Spaniard Priscillian (in 384 CE, from memory).

But I can't think of any Christian heresies that were anti-Trinitarian (that is, which held the unitarian view of God held by Islam) until Servetus (burned in Calvinist Geneva) and the Socinians, after 1500 CE.

BTW, believing in the Blessed Trinity does NOT involve believing in 3 gods - but in 3 "persons" within the Absolute Oneness of God.

What do you think of Arius? From what little I've read up on him, he came across as a true and rational believer of the era and was in submission to God.

Edit: I read up a little bit more on him, appears he was trying to use rational logic which God has given human beings to come to truth, but was restricted somewhat from fully stating his beliefs at the long drawn out council due to irrational accusations of blasphemy, and was even disrespected and struck on the face. He is reported to have argued using statements which were prevalent at the time such as "son", and stated that "son" can't be eternal if begotten, and Is a created being like other creatures, and therefore not divine in essence, they burned his writings and banned possession of them on pain of death, and appaerrently killed him too, so it is difficult to say whether he was using rhetorical argument based on logic, or whether he really accepted the term "son" literally, which he appears not to have done since he was adamant in stating that God is one, that all else is creation, and that the regularly used and transcribed term "son" shares no divinity.
The claim attributed to him that the Word of God could not be eternal falls flat if Will and Word are considered as one, since the the ability of God to Will is eternal.
However, if one separates Word from Will (spirit), then Word can fall to understood laws rather than intended spirit, but we also know that separating word from spirit when interpreting concepts and laws leads to perversion and foolish semantics, and that jesus was sent as a word and spirit from God because people had begun legal semantics on words and going far from spirit (this people please me with their mouth, but their hearts are removed far from me), and had also become very bold in changing the words to fit the perverted spirit. Therefore, sending a messenger whose word had the authority and ability to overcome written laws, and also who displayed a will to follow the spirit of the teachings was a lesson and cause for pause and thought for people based on the logic truth and not the illogic of falsehood.
The birth itself was a beginning and a warning not to try and use laws as an excuse fir falsehood and injustice, since interpreting the writing would say: God says stone her (though the lawyers, priests, citizens, and leaders knew all the wh0res and wh0rehouses well, though they were practicing doublethink) but they knew in truth that this was a powerful trial from God even though there was no tangible evidence to refrain from the execution other than testimony of those present when he spoke from the cradle, and people had likely been told to let him grow his own way and were forbidden from speaking of the incident. (Let's see which path he takes) though the corrupt leadership still somehow had the audacity to show their hypocrisy when they'd try to confuse and distract by asking "who is your father?".
The trial sifted the hearts and also made people begin to rationally think again for themselves based on truth as the puppet leadership of rome was trying to use their religious sentiments to get them to accept any irrationality.

So yes, word, and spirit made flesh in order to test and repair people as has been done many times, makes sense, when considering all the available information and what was being done in the presentation and heavy trial.
But Jesus being God in flesh and spirit, and also God's son and dad whist begotten and eternal makes no rational sense, such people only fail the test of truthful and sincere interpretation and fall into the category of sufahaa min an-naas (the weak minded from amongst the people), also the fact that Jesus was the last prophet sent to the tribe of banee israa-eel before the message was finally sent to an illiterate nation who could not argue with previous concepts but only with logic makes sense. They were like babies drinking milk rather than argumentative elders rejecting milk and drinking wine, whilst calling it milk by pulling out a dictionary and saying "look - it says beverage!"

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[STN]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtf8sIzDHqQ

[Abz2000]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtf8sIzDHqQ

I recall watching it about ten years back brother so I can't remember it all, which part?

Also bear in mind that brother deedat was human and therefore not immune from human mistakes. You would need to specify what it was that he said that explains and justifies the action.
If he made the same parable (I'm thinking I recall being surprised at it as I write this) then know that it would still not be ok
He was a debater, and being human, often forgot the steady facts in his rhetorical argument - although if he did it to make the opponent to take exception so he could then reply that the opponent's arguments are also wrong, it still wouldn't fit if he didn't explain that both were wrong.
Say for instance, you did something unjust, if I returned it in retaliation with the aim of not simply healing my heart, but deterring you from repeating the injustice, I might be justified (depending on the action or magnitude and all other known variables). However, if you swore at the boss and his clerks, and I swore at the boss and his clerks, and you didn't care, he might get angry with both of us - unless we made sincere repentance from our fault, and worked with much effort where necessary.

[Abz2000]

This title is more objective and less prone to ego walls and challenges.

[tolpuddle]

Do you think Allah :swt: would be pleased with you for making such comparisons?
I mean, do the comparisons rationally fit the targets? The good is not equal to the bad, and Allah :swt: even forbids the Prophet :saws: from making comparisons to Allah somewhere down the line.
The master slave/servant is recurrent in the quran and can be easily used if respectfully and justly-fitted.

- - - Updated - - -



What do you think of Arius? From what little I've read up on him, he came across as a true and rational believer of the era and was in submission to God.

Edit: I read up a little bit more on him, appears he was trying to use rational logic which God has given human beings to come to truth, but was restricted somewhat from fully stating his beliefs at the long drawn out council due to irrational accusations of blasphemy, and was even disrespected and struck on the face. He is reported to have argued using statements which were prevalent at the time such as "son", and stated that "son" can't be eternal if begotten, and Is a created being like other creatures, and therefore not divine in essence, they burned his writings and banned possession of them on pain of death, and appaerrently killed him too, so it is difficult to say whether he was using rhetorical argument based on logic, or whether he really accepted the term "son" literally, which he appears not to have done since he was adamant in stating that God is one, that all else is creation, and that the regularly used and transcribed term "son" shares no divinity.
The claim attributed to him that the Word of God could not be eternal falls flat if Will and Word are considered as one, since the the ability of God to Will is eternal.
However, if one separates Word from Will (spirit), then Word can fall to understood laws rather than intended spirit, but we also know that separating word from spirit when interpreting concepts and laws leads to perversion and foolish semantics, and that jesus was sent as a word and spirit from God because people had begun legal semantics on words and going far from spirit (this people please me with their mouth, but their hearts are removed far from me), and had also become very bold in changing the words to fit the perverted spirit. Therefore, sending a messenger whose word had the authority and ability to overcome written laws, and also who displayed a will to follow the spirit of the teachings was a lesson and cause for pause and thought for people based on the logic truth and not the illogic of falsehood.
The birth itself was a beginning and a warning not to try and use laws as an excuse fir falsehood and injustice, since interpreting the writing would say: God says stone her (though the lawyers, priests, citizens, and leaders knew all the wh0res and wh0rehouses well, though they were practicing doublethink) but they knew in truth that this was a powerful trial from God even though there was no tangible evidence to refrain from the execution other than testimony of those present when he spoke from the cradle, and people had likely been told to let him grow his own way and were forbidden from speaking of the incident. (Let's see which path he takes) though the corrupt leadership still somehow had the audacity to show their hypocrisy when they'd try to confuse and distract by asking "who is your father?".
The trial sifted the hearts and also made people begin to rationally think again for themselves based on truth as the puppet leadership of rome was trying to use their religious sentiments to get them to accept any irrationality.

So yes, word, and spirit made flesh in order to test and repair people as has been done many times, makes sense, when considering all the available information and what was being done in the presentation and heavy trial.
But Jesus being God in flesh and spirit, and also God's son and dad whist begotten and eternal makes no rational sense, such people only fail the test of truthful and sincere interpretation and fall into the category of sufahaa min an-naas (the weak minded from amongst the people), also the fact that Jesus was the last prophet sent to the tribe of banee israa-eel before the message was finally sent to an illiterate nation who could not argue with previous concepts but only with logic makes sense. They were like babies drinking milk rather than argumentative elders rejecting milk and drinking wine, whilst calling it milk by pulling out a dictionary and saying "look - it says beverage!"

I am not qualified to debate Arius' theology, but from the historical point of view, I can say the following:

1) Arianism derives from the ancient school of theological thought at Antioch (a city now lost beneath the grass near the Turkish-Syrian border). Arianism is effectively a half-way house between Christianity and Judaism - thus in accordance with the hopes and beliefs of liberal Christians and liberal Jews in a great, prosperous, tolerant trading-city like Antioch.

In our own times, the affluent West has again been plagued by liberal or synchretist ideas.

2) Although defeated theologically in the Roman world, Arius' ideas gained a second lease of life among the barbarians (notably the Goths and Vandals) who invaded and took over much of the Roman world. It was only when a Visigothic prince in Spain married a Roman Catholic and renounced his Arian theology, that the heresy finally died.

3) Arius' ideas have never been resuscitated, even in today's liberal climate of thought. Not only do all Christians accept the condemnation that the Early Church passed upon them; but Arius' idea of a Jesus who was a Divine Superman (halfway between God and humanity) is absurd.

The orthodox belief - that Jesus is true God AND true man - is simpler, wiser; and true.

4) I would observe that Christianity swiftly took root in the highly-educated and rational Graeco-Roman world. Rome's Catholic theologians have always been no less rational and intelligent than was Arius. It is a tenet of Roman Catholic belief that the Christian religion (and moreover, its Roman Catholic form) can be demonstrated by reason to be true, and is not merely a matter of Blind Faith.

[Abz2000]

^ @tolpuddle apparently Arius believed that Jesus was a Prophet, a human being, and not divine, but since most of his writings are not available it's difficult to say - other than form a holistic opinion based on all the most credible statements and the motives and positions of his critics. Forcefully quieting, exiling and killing a man is not defeat of the subject but rather of his opponents by the standards of Prophets and confirmers of truth, so i think he wasn't defeated at all.

Do you not ever wonder that since Jesus' life was filled with parables, and examples of different beings and states of being, and also a sign of the day of judgement, that he was an example and a trial for the people?

Do you not wonder how he could be God, and God's begotten son, and eternal at the same time without any evidence or rational explanation to back it up?

I'm not disliking the conversation with you since you don't come across as insincere, and would like you to think about those things yourself - taking into account the fact that books are information for people to process and ponder on, and are venerable on merit and truthfulness, and also taking into account the possibility that you could have been born into a family or community which showed you books stating that aristotle or einstein was God, and that you'd still need to bring it all down to a level based on rationality and evidence in order to choose and/or change your path.

[tolpuddle]

^ @tolpuddle apparently Arius believed that Jesus was a Prophet, a human being, and not divine, but since most of his writings are not available it's difficult to say - other than form a holistic opinion based on all the most credible statements and the motives and positions of his critics. Forcefully quieting, exiling and killing a man is not defeat of the subject but rather of his opponents by the standards of Prophets and confirmers of truth, so i think he wasn't defeated at all.

Do you not ever wonder that since Jesus' life was filled with parables, and examples of different beings and states of being, and also a sign of the day of judgement, that he was an example and a trial for the people?

Do you not wonder how he could be God, and God's begotten son, and eternal at the same time without any evidence or rational explanation to back it up?

I'm not disliking the conversation with you since you don't come across as insincere, and would like you to think about those things yourself - taking into account the fact that books are information for people to process and ponder on, and are venerable on merit and truthfulness, and also taking into account the possibility that you could have been born into a family or community which showed you books stating that aristotle or einstein was God, and that you'd still need to bring it all down to a level based on rationality and evidence in order to choose and/or change your path.

What Arius said is well-known, partly from the Catholic writers who attacked his theology.

It is clear that Arius was (however imperfectly) a trinitarian Christian and would have been bewildered and horrified by the idea that "Jesus was only a prophet."

Arius died suddenly of natural causes at the hour of his greatest triumph - his appointment as Bishop of Alexandria.

He had powerful backers; and it was normally the Arians who persecuted the Catholics, not the other way about. Arius' cause won over some of the Roman emperors and all the Gothic kings.

Jesus was an example and trial for the people - but also the Word of God, that is to say - God. God is Mind; that Mind generates (begets) thought - God's Word. That Word is co-equal and co-eternal with the Mind - "father" and "son" are valiant attempts to express in human language what cannot BE expressed or understood - the Nature of God. We are quite beyond and above human reason here. Evidence ? - the recorded words of Jesus in the Gospel (e.g. "I am in the Father and the Father is in me") and the teachings of the Universal Church.

If people won't believe those, what will they believe ? If they won't believe Truth itself, then what ?

I have of course, long thought about these things.

No one has ever claimed that Aristotle, Einstein or any other great thinker was God. No such religion exists and the comparison thus fails on that point alone.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtf8sIzDHqQ

The Christian scriptures make two things crystal-clear:

1) That Jesus is God, as well as a human being: Jesus is "true God and true man" to use a Church statement on this point (which is used by priests and people on a daily basis in the Catholic liturgy of Benediction).

2) That the Holy Spirit - when referred to by Christians - is God, not a messenger.

[greenhill]

I see a similar vein/theme appearing quite a lot in different forms and expressions. I suppose it is a bit like points of views where we can all be in one room but be describing different aspects of it depending on where that person is sat. Whether he gets a window view or one that faces a blank wall. If we could all gather round and all look at a particular spot, then we may not be describing such a variety of things. Or at least we all take a good look at the room we are in, all four corner and walls and understand how they go about giving your that room? (Bad analogy but you get the picture, I hope)..

We humans are learning creatures. We learn over time, collectively. Wisdom comes from acquiring of knowledge and timely execution. That is not something given. What Allah wanted to teach us was spiritual matters. He granted knowledge in all other matters too, but it was the Books that fewer used to reconnect us to Him via successive prophets.

So what did the Books teach us? If all the prophets (pbut) taught us the same things, they never differed in what they said, then what would have been their messages? The Books would have covered all of them.

But we were 'learning' creatures, we cannot absorb a lot at a time, it must be incremental, stage by stage. So the basic message for all prophets to spread would have been the tauheed. The Oneness of God. Allah. They would teach praises, glorification, chants(? for the lack of a better word) and prayer, etc. and to do good. This would fit the Psalms very much in terms of message conveyed. In terms of being good and kind to people and being made into 'law', where you should do unto others as you would expect others to do unto you and also on self restraint, meaning that it no longer became an 'advice' but actually penned down as a Commandment, humans (or at, least the tribe of people given those instructions) had to! That was exactly the Torah. It formalised human basic character (I can't think of a better way of putting this).

From my readings and understanding, it did not appear as though the tribe liked it very much. They always ran into trouble flouting the laws they asked for. Strange. The spirit went foul and 'Do unto others...' had a flip side, "an eye for an eye" and revenge became customary. Feuds lasting generations. It needed an infusion of a different 'way' forward for human growth. Learning of forgiveness by way of 'turning the other cheek', it was time for a new element in the age old message. The Gospels opened the doors for forgiveness. There is wisdom to that. It is a very hard concept to accept. It requires supreme effort even after you accept :D

Over time, human being grew to accept that spirit. With that, humans had 'matured' enough to accept the final message, which is about living in a community. The Quran lays the law for that. It encapsulates the Torah, the Gospels and adds to communal laws.

In a true islamic community, there would be very few widows and mostly no orphans. It would be a society that takes care of the weak. Naturally, we would not find any beggars. We can be quite sure that there will be no robberies, or rape.

That is how we ALL want to have it. There ARE no laws available in this world that would make that happen except the 'spirit' of the law as given by the Quran and examples of the holy prophet (pbuh). And for that, the muslims will gladly follow, can't say for the rest. Unfortunately, there is no 'true' muslim country...

My point is, if we were to classify the messages as what it brought, then there would be the primary level, Psalms, the secondary level, the Torah, the Tertiary level, the Gospels, and the application level, the Quran. Most important was the belief in tauheed. From there it was a natural progression to grow into a human that would please Allah. Unfortunately, every Book became its own way rather than to progress with each..

That is as I see it.


:peace:

[Abz2000]

What Arius said is well-known, partly from the Catholic writers who attacked his theology.

It is clear that Arius was (however imperfectly) a trinitarian Christian and would have been bewildered and horrified by the idea that "Jesus was only a prophet."

Arius it appears, was a logical thinker, and since there were limits to what he could say due to the fact that the new testament had been peppered with the term "son" - only used it for the sake of argument.
He does not appear to attribute any divinity or heirship to divinity in the sense that a father bequeaths to a literal son.

The following quotes are all available on wikipedia and the sources are usually mentioned:


-------


The Christian Church was divided over disagreements on Christology, or, the nature of the relationship between Jesus and God. Homoousian Christians, including Athanasius of Alexandria, used Arius and Arianism as epithets to describe those who disagreed with their doctrine of coequal Trinitarianism, a Homoousian Christology representing God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son as "of one essence" ("consubstantial") and coeternal.

Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the Father, meaning that the Father alone is infinite and eternal and almighty, and that therefore the Father's divinity must be greater than the Son's. Arius taught that the Son had a beginning, contrary to Origen, who taught that the Son was less than the Father only in power, but not in time. Arius maintained that the Son possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Logos was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's productions, before ages.

Arius died suddenly of natural causes at the hour of his greatest triumph - his appointment as Bishop of Alexandria.

It is clear that his opponents who had -after finding themselves unable to argue with him rationally and on a sincere, truthful, and logical plain - had him exiled after bullying and threatening the majority into accepting their opinion via sheer brute force and manipulation of authority - and wanted him dead, and Allah :swt: knows best what actually happened, although, from their behaviour before and after his death, and un-natural glee in their propagandistic descriptions of his death, the hypothesis that he was indeed poisoned does appear to carry more weight than other explanations.
His emperor approved upcoming speech containing rational explanations based on what was available would have made him celebrity number one, and his detractors may have feared that they faced what they had made him face - or at minimum - deposition from their high seats in councils, fine linen, and elaborate superficial special greetings full of undeserved praise.


Scroll to 40 (for background) or 45 minutes onwards to get an idea of the situation i am talking about.



----------

The Homoousian party's victory at Nicaea was short-lived, however. Despite Arius's exile and the alleged finality of the Council's decrees, the Arian controversy recommenced at once. When Bishop Alexander died in 327, Athanasius succeeded him, despite not meeting the age requirements for a hierarch. Still committed to pacifying the conflict between Arians and Trinitarians, Constantine gradually became more lenient toward those whom the Council of Nicaea had exiled.[16] Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. Athanasius was exiled following his condemnation by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 (though he was later recalled), and the Synod of Jerusalem the following year restored Arius to communion. The emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius, despite the bishop's objections; Bishop Alexander responded by earnestly praying that Arius might perish before this could happen.

Socrates Scholasticus (a bitter enemy to Arius) describes what he claims to be Arius's death as follows:

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.

— Socrates Scholasticus.


While many post-Nicene Christians asserted Arius's death as miraculous—a consequence of his heretical views—several recent writers mention that Arius may have simply been poisoned by his opponents.[36][37][38] Even with its namesake's demise, the Arian controversy was far from over, and would not be settled for decades—or centuries, in parts of the West.

He had powerful backers; and it was normally the Arians who persecuted the Catholics, not the other way about. Arius' cause won over some of the Roman emperors and all the Gothic kings.

Actually, i believe Arius' logical and sound minded teachings would have taken over the entire apparatus before long or he would have been martyred for sedition had he refused to compromise and come out of exile. His group would have become the ahl as-sunnah wa al jama'ah of the age after deposing the sub-pagans who had hijacked the authority and taken to pushing their irrational doctrines via bullying and ad-hominem slurs.



After Nicaea, the dominant orthodox worked to conceal the earlier disagreement, portraying "Arianism" as a radical disagreement to the "norm". The Nicaean formula was a rapidly concluded solution to the general Christological debate that did not have prior agreement.[13]

The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius sparked the controversy that bears his name when St. Alexander of Alexandria, who had succeeded Achillas as the Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon stating the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's speech as being a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and then argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing." This quote describes the essence of Arius' doctrine.

Socrates of Constantinople believed that Arius was influenced in his thinking by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr. In a letter to Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople Arius' bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, wrote that Arius derived his theology from Lucian. The express purpose of Alexander's letter was to complain of the doctrines that Arius was spreading but his charge of heresy against Arius is vague and unsupported by other authorities. Furthermore, Alexander's language, like that of most controversialists in those days, is quite bitter and abusive.

Moreover, even Alexander never accused Lucian of having taught Arianism; rather, he accused Lucian ad invidiam of heretical tendencies—which apparently, according to him, were transferred to his pupil, Arius.[16] The noted Russian historian Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as "the Arius before Arius".[17]


The Christological debate could no longer be contained within the Alexandrian diocese. By the time Bishop Alexander finally acted against Arius, Arius's doctrine had spread far beyond his own see; it had become a topic of discussion—and disturbance—for the entire Church.

At this First Council of Nicaea twenty-two bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of Arius's writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most participants.[16] Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father were led by the priest Alexander......

........According to some accounts in the hagiography of Nicholas of Myra, debate at the council became so heated that at one point, Nicholas struck Arius across the face. The majority of the bishops ultimately agreed upon a creed, known thereafter as the Nicene creed. It included the word homoousios, meaning "consubstantial", or "one in essence", which was incompatible with Arius' beliefs.
On June 19, 325, council and emperor issued a circular to the churches in and around Alexandria: Arius and two of his unyielding partisans (Theonas and Secundus)[32] were deposed and exiled to Illyricum, while three other supporters—Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Maris of Chalcedon—affixed their signatures solely out of deference to the emperor. The following is part of the ruling made by the emperor denouncing Arius's teachings with fervor.

"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[33]



.........Negative writings describe Arius' theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, when only God the Father existed. Despite concerted opposition, 'Arian' Christian churches persisted throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa and also in various Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.

Jesus was an example and trial for the people - but also the Word of God, that is to say - God. God is Mind; that Mind generates (begets) thought - God's Word. That Word is co-equal and co-eternal with the Mind - "father" and "son" are valiant attempts to express in human language what cannot BE expressed or understood - the Nature of God. We are quite beyond and above human reason here. Evidence ? - the recorded words of Jesus in the Gospel (e.g. "I am in the Father and the Father is in me") and the teachings of the Universal Church.

It has been amply demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that the gospels have been adulterated and modified substantially - to the extent that whole lengthy chapters have been denounced and rejected as apocrypha by bible scholars and compilers (i don't see this as a reason for glee and claiming some sort of tribal victory, rather, i commend them for their honesty on the matter and scholarly methodology).
It is essential therefore to remove the bible from the doubtless and pristine category and and to evaluate based on truthful and sincere reasoning.

If people won't believe those, what will they believe ?

The Quran, although missing parts, is the most solid and stable i've found so far.

If they won't believe Truth itself, then what ?

Nothing remains after pure truth but error mixed into truth,......or total falsehood.

I have of course, long thought about these things.

No one has ever claimed that Aristotle, Einstein or any other great thinker was God. No such religion exists and the comparison thus fails on that point alone.

I used aristotle and einstein as examples of revered and celebrated people, even pharaohs, kings, tribal leaders, golden calves, six armed female statues, and many other such lowly beings and items have been falsely taught as being divine - and if someone started such a religion now and taught that to their children, just as groups declare nations and constitutions, then declare the leader as being supreme - besides or above whom there is no other authority, the argument would still stand.

- - - Updated - - -



The Christian scriptures make two things crystal-clear:

1) That Jesus is God, as well as a human being: Jesus is "true God and true man" to use a Church statement on this point (which is used by priests and people on a daily basis in the Catholic liturgy of Benediction).

2) That the Holy Spirit - when referred to by Christians - is God, not a messenger.

The argument that Prophets are God do not stand up to scrutiny once it is clear that they are subject to God and are His slaves and willing servants, even though God is the light of the heavens and the earth, and Prophets are A light of the world and lamps spreading God's light whilst they are doing God's work in it.
The claim that angels are God do not stand up to sound and rational thought even though they are light - of God's light, and cannot disobey God in anything. They are ruled by different laws and cannot make laws which subject God whereas God makes laws which subject angels.

Regarding the essence of the Spirit, it is not for me to argue with certainty since that has been left purposefully obscured by God, i can ponder and discuss and learn what i can about the Spirit, but i as a human being have no right to draw a fixed conclusion, if i did so, i would be discrediting none but myself since no human can explain the complete nature of the Spirit. I can however say that the holy spirit works through people in activities such as when Prophets are inspired, or when poets or writers or thinkers or workers or even children do or say what God inspires them to do or say.

Please also bear in mind that "Word" and "Spirit" recur in the Quran and bring up many reasons for pondering, as they appear to be purposefully left unexplained, but it has been clarified without ambiguity that Jesus is neither God, nor His begotten son - and the narrations confirm that Jesus did not impregnate his own mother with his own spirit in order to bear himself and go on to DECEIVE people into thinking that he doesn't know when the hour will be. The slave, willing servant, and messenger explanation fit better in terms of rationality and truth since he is human and also capable of sin and repentance just as Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jonah and all other Prophets were.

Our task as humans is to use and evaluate the data before us to arrive at the truth - and to be able to arrive at the truth, one needs to be sincere, rational, and truthful, or face being tricked into following any false or mistaken custom of one's tribe (locality/nation/group).

[STN]

The Christian scriptures make two things crystal-clear:
..

Use your brain. Forget all the mumbo jumbo you have heard to this day, just think like you were born this day.

Does the statement you just made apparently to defend your point make any sense to you ? Seriously ? Does that make ANY sense to you?

The Holy Quran mentions again and again that disbelievers don't use their logic, they don't use their brain and i whole-hardheartedly agree. Do yourself a favor and use your brain, your thinking.

[Grandad]

But I can't think of any Christian heresies that were anti-Trinitarian (that is, which held the unitarian view of God held by Islam) until Servetus (burned in Calvinist Geneva) and the Socinians, after 1500 CE.

Really?

Biblical Unitarians have always denied the trinity, and they trace their ‘lineage’ back to the earliest days of the religion.

The following is drawn from the 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma', by Dr. Ludwig Ott:

First century Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ.

Second century Monarchianists taught that there was only one person in God.

First/Second century Adoptionists believed that Christ was a mere man; adopted by God at his baptism.

Noetus, a presbyter of Smyrna (circa CE230), was the principal representative of patripassianic or modalist monarchianism. Followers of this teaching accepted the divinity Christ, but admitted only one Person in God, by teaching that the ‘Father’ had become man in Christ, and had suffered.

Believers in subordinationism admitted three different persons in God, but denied the consubstantiality of the second and third persons with the ‘Father’, and therefore their true divinity.

Arius taught that the ‘Logos’ did not exist from all eternity; and that he is not generated from the ‘Father’, but is a creature of the ‘Father’, produced by him from nothing before all other creatures.

According Arius, the ‘Logos’ is unlike the ‘Father’ as to his essence. He is mutable and capable of development. He is not, in the proper and true sense, God, but only in the improper sense, insofar as he, in anticipation of his merits, was adopted by the ‘Father’ as a ‘Son’.

The Pneumatomachi (semi-Arians) declared that the third person of the trinity - the ‘Holy Spirit’ - was a mere creature; a ministering spirit like the angels.

As you can see, all of these ‘Christian heresies’ (to which we can add the Gnostics and the Marcionites) existed well before Servetus. Indeed, their roots are as ancient as those of ‘orthodox’ Christianity.

[tolpuddle]

Arius it appears, was a logical thinker, and since there were limits to what he could say due to the fact that the new testament had been peppered with the term "son" - only used it for the sake of argument.
He does not appear to attribute any divinity or heirship to divinity in the sense that a father bequeaths to a literal son.

The following quotes are all available on wikipedia and the sources are usually mentioned:


-------


The Christian Church was divided over disagreements on Christology, or, the nature of the relationship between Jesus and God. Homoousian Christians, including Athanasius of Alexandria, used Arius and Arianism as epithets to describe those who disagreed with their doctrine of coequal Trinitarianism, a Homoousian Christology representing God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son as "of one essence" ("consubstantial") and coeternal.

Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the Father, meaning that the Father alone is infinite and eternal and almighty, and that therefore the Father's divinity must be greater than the Son's. Arius taught that the Son had a beginning, contrary to Origen, who taught that the Son was less than the Father only in power, but not in time. Arius maintained that the Son possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Logos was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's productions, before ages.



It is clear that his opponents who had -after finding themselves unable to argue with him rationally and on a sincere, truthful, and logical plain - had him exiled after bullying and threatening the majority into accepting their opinion via sheer brute force and manipulation of authority - and wanted him dead, and Allah :swt: knows best what actually happened, although, from their behaviour before and after his death, and un-natural glee in their propagandistic descriptions of his death, the hypothesis that he was indeed poisoned does appear to carry more weight than other explanations.
His emperor approved upcoming speech containing rational explanations based on what was available would have made him celebrity number one, and his detractors may have feared that they faced what they had made him face - or at minimum - deposition from their high seats in councils, fine linen, and elaborate superficial special greetings full of undeserved praise.


Scroll to 40 (for background) or 45 minutes onwards to get an idea of the situation i am talking about.



----------

The Homoousian party's victory at Nicaea was short-lived, however. Despite Arius's exile and the alleged finality of the Council's decrees, the Arian controversy recommenced at once. When Bishop Alexander died in 327, Athanasius succeeded him, despite not meeting the age requirements for a hierarch. Still committed to pacifying the conflict between Arians and Trinitarians, Constantine gradually became more lenient toward those whom the Council of Nicaea had exiled.[16] Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. Athanasius was exiled following his condemnation by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 (though he was later recalled), and the Synod of Jerusalem the following year restored Arius to communion. The emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius, despite the bishop's objections; Bishop Alexander responded by earnestly praying that Arius might perish before this could happen.

Socrates Scholasticus (a bitter enemy to Arius) describes what he claims to be Arius's death as follows:

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.

— Socrates Scholasticus.


While many post-Nicene Christians asserted Arius's death as miraculous—a consequence of his heretical views—several recent writers mention that Arius may have simply been poisoned by his opponents.[36][37][38] Even with its namesake's demise, the Arian controversy was far from over, and would not be settled for decades—or centuries, in parts of the West.



Actually, i believe Arius' logical and sound minded teachings would have taken over the entire apparatus before long or he would have been martyred for sedition had he refused to compromise and come out of exile. His group would have become the ahl as-sunnah wa al jama'ah of the age after deposing the sub-pagans who had hijacked the authority and taken to pushing their irrational doctrines via bullying and ad-hominem slurs.



After Nicaea, the dominant orthodox worked to conceal the earlier disagreement, portraying "Arianism" as a radical disagreement to the "norm". The Nicaean formula was a rapidly concluded solution to the general Christological debate that did not have prior agreement.[13]

The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius sparked the controversy that bears his name when St. Alexander of Alexandria, who had succeeded Achillas as the Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon stating the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's speech as being a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and then argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing." This quote describes the essence of Arius' doctrine.

Socrates of Constantinople believed that Arius was influenced in his thinking by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr. In a letter to Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople Arius' bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, wrote that Arius derived his theology from Lucian. The express purpose of Alexander's letter was to complain of the doctrines that Arius was spreading but his charge of heresy against Arius is vague and unsupported by other authorities. Furthermore, Alexander's language, like that of most controversialists in those days, is quite bitter and abusive.

Moreover, even Alexander never accused Lucian of having taught Arianism; rather, he accused Lucian ad invidiam of heretical tendencies—which apparently, according to him, were transferred to his pupil, Arius.[16] The noted Russian historian Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as "the Arius before Arius".[17]


The Christological debate could no longer be contained within the Alexandrian diocese. By the time Bishop Alexander finally acted against Arius, Arius's doctrine had spread far beyond his own see; it had become a topic of discussion—and disturbance—for the entire Church.

At this First Council of Nicaea twenty-two bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of Arius's writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most participants.[16] Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father were led by the priest Alexander......

........According to some accounts in the hagiography of Nicholas of Myra, debate at the council became so heated that at one point, Nicholas struck Arius across the face. The majority of the bishops ultimately agreed upon a creed, known thereafter as the Nicene creed. It included the word homoousios, meaning "consubstantial", or "one in essence", which was incompatible with Arius' beliefs.
On June 19, 325, council and emperor issued a circular to the churches in and around Alexandria: Arius and two of his unyielding partisans (Theonas and Secundus)[32] were deposed and exiled to Illyricum, while three other supporters—Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Maris of Chalcedon—affixed their signatures solely out of deference to the emperor. The following is part of the ruling made by the emperor denouncing Arius's teachings with fervor.

"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[33]



.........Negative writings describe Arius' theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, when only God the Father existed. Despite concerted opposition, 'Arian' Christian churches persisted throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa and also in various Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.



It has been amply demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that the gospels have been adulterated and modified substantially - to the extent that whole lengthy chapters have been denounced and rejected as apocrypha by bible scholars and compilers (i don't see this as a reason for glee and claiming some sort of tribal victory, rather, i commend them for their honesty on the matter and scholarly methodology).
It is essential therefore to remove the bible from the doubtless and pristine category and and to evaluate based on truthful and sincere reasoning.




The Quran, although missing parts, is the most solid and stable i've found so far.



Nothing remains after pure truth but error mixed into truth,......or total falsehood.



I used aristotle and einstein as examples of revered and celebrated people, even pharaohs, kings, tribal leaders, golden calves, six armed female statues, and many other such lowly beings and items have been falsely taught as being divine - and if someone started such a religion now and taught that to their children, just as groups declare nations and constitutions, then declare the leader as being supreme - besides or above whom there is no other authority, the argument would still stand.



The argument that Prophets are God do not stand up to scrutiny once it is clear that they are subject to God and are His slaves and willing servants, even though God is the light of the heavens and the earth, and Prophets are A light of the world and lamps spreading God's light whilst they are doing God's work in it.
The claim that angels are God do not stand up to sound and rational thought even though they are light - of God's light, and cannot disobey God in anything. They are ruled by different laws and cannot make laws which subject God whereas God makes laws which subject angels.

Regarding the essence of the Spirit, it is not for me to argue with certainty since that has been left purposefully obscured by God, i can ponder and discuss and learn what i can about the Spirit, but i as a human being have no right to draw a fixed conclusion, if i did so, i would be discrediting none but myself since no human can explain the complete nature of the Spirit. I can however say that the holy spirit works through people in activities such as when Prophets are inspired, or when poets or writers or thinkers or workers or even children do or say what God inspires them to do or say.

Please also bear in mind that "Word" and "Spirit" recur in the Quran and bring up many reasons for pondering, as they appear to be purposefully left unexplained, but it has been clarified without ambiguity that Jesus is neither God, nor His begotten son - and the narrations confirm that Jesus did not impregnate his own mother with his own spirit in order to bear himself and go on to DECEIVE people into thinking that he doesn't know when the hour will be. The slave, willing servant, and messenger explanation fit better in terms of rationality and truth since he is human and also capable of sin and repentance just as Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jonah and all other Prophets were.

Our task as humans is to use and evaluate the data before us to arrive at the truth - and to be able to arrive at the truth, one needs to be sincere, rational, and truthful, or face being tricked into following any false or mistaken custom of one's tribe (locality/nation/group).

There has been every opportunity in recent centuries to resuscitate Arius' teachings, but none has even been attempted.

Why ? - because those teachings are dead, being falsehood.

Christianity - which is by its nature trinitarian - has survived, however. Being living and true.

Jesus is sinless, being God.

The Koran disagrees with the Bible - it does not "clarify" (!) it.

- - - Updated - - -

Really?

Biblical Unitarians have always denied the trinity, and they trace their ‘lineage’ back to the earliest days of the religion.

The following is drawn from the 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma', by Dr. Ludwig Ott:

First century Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ.

Second century Monarchianists taught that there was only one person in God.

First/Second century Adoptionists believed that Christ was a mere man; adopted by God at his baptism.

Noetus, a presbyter of Smyrna (circa CE230), was the principal representative of patripassianic or modalist monarchianism. Followers of this teaching accepted the divinity Christ, but admitted only one Person in God, by teaching that the ‘Father’ had become man in Christ, and had suffered.

Believers in subordinationism admitted three different persons in God, but denied the consubstantiality of the second and third persons with the ‘Father’, and therefore their true divinity.

Arius taught that the ‘Logos’ did not exist from all eternity; and that he is not generated from the ‘Father’, but is a creature of the ‘Father’, produced by him from nothing before all other creatures.

According Arius, the ‘Logos’ is unlike the ‘Father’ as to his essence. He is mutable and capable of development. He is not, in the proper and true sense, God, but only in the improper sense, insofar as he, in anticipation of his merits, was adopted by the ‘Father’ as a ‘Son’.

The Pneumatomachi (semi-Arians) declared that the third person of the trinity - the ‘Holy Spirit’ - was a mere creature; a ministering spirit like the angels.

As you can see, all of these ‘Christian heresies’ (to which we can add the Gnostics and the Marcionites) existed well before Servetus. Indeed, their roots are as ancient as those of ‘orthodox’ Christianity.

The obscure heresies you quote rather make my point.

As for Arianism, it was a faulty version of trinitarian belief, not unitarian. And is as dead as the dodo.

Heresies are parasitic growths - more recent therefore, than orthodox, trinitarian Christianity.

[Grandad]

The obscure heresies you quote rather make my point.

As for Arianism, it was a faulty version of trinitarian belief, not unitarian. And is as dead as the dodo.

Heresies are parasitic growths - more recent therefore, than orthodox, trinitarian Christianity.

Your 'point' was that there were no anti-trinitarian beliefs before Servetus. My point is that there were (Arianism being just one).

These so-called 'parasitic growths' existed from the very dawn of Christianity, cheek-by-jowl with what grew to become the 'orthodox' community. The emerging church fought very hard to eliminate them. This is a fact of church history. Why do you find this so hard to accept?

By the way, the fact that a belief system is current - and widely accepted - does not, of itself, make that system true. If mere existence - coupled with widespread acceptance - is the mark of true doctrine, then atheism is true.

[Abz2000]

Your 'point' was that there were no anti-trinitarian beliefs before Servetus. My point is that there were (Arianism being just one).

These so-called 'parasitic growths' existed from the very dawn of Christianity, cheek-by-jowl with what grew to become the 'orthodox' community. The emerging church fought very hard to eliminate them. This is a fact of church history. Why do you find this so hard to accept?

By the way, the fact that a belief system is current - and widely accepted - does not, of itself, make that system true. If mere existence - coupled with widespread acceptance - is the mark of true doctrine, then atheism is true.

Satan existed before adam and his (satan's) crew is still alive and kicking, actually, some people drop good qualities and adopt evil qualities every day and satan's market share grows, now he even has the potus as his top celebrity dog and others like that burmese buddist sl#g as cheerleaders. Gonna join da bandwagon simply based on that tolpuddle? ....coz they're beating christianity in terms of adherent numbers and political clout....and they absolutely hate Islam which is growing even faster in terms of adherents and strength of practice. So logically you should be looking to islam anyway if you're gonna follow that argument.
It's a very very low life to live when one gets a chance to think clearly - even from withinit.

[tolpuddle]

Your 'point' was that there were no anti-trinitarian beliefs before Servetus. My point is that there were (Arianism being just one).

These so-called 'parasitic growths' existed from the very dawn of Christianity, cheek-by-jowl with what grew to become the 'orthodox' community. The emerging church fought very hard to eliminate them. This is a fact of church history. Why do you find this so hard to accept?

By the way, the fact that a belief system is current - and widely accepted - does not, of itself, make that system true. If mere existence - coupled with widespread acceptance - is the mark of true doctrine, then atheism is true.

What you say of Atheism is true also of Islam, as it is of trinitarian Christianity. Popularity, as you rightly say, doesn't equal truth.

But the fact that a heresy has died out, proves its falsehood - for (if it were God's truth) it could not have died.

Heretical forms of Christianity existed from the earliest Christian times. But not from the outset - since heresies are not only parasitic and untrue, but derivative.

I suppose Sunni Muslims would say the say of Shi'a Islam, which many Sunnis are fighting very hard to eliminate.

- - - Updated - - -

Use your brain. Forget all the mumbo jumbo you have heard to this day, just think like you were born this day.

Does the statement you just made apparently to defend your point make any sense to you ? Seriously ? Does that make ANY sense to you?

The Holy Quran mentions again and again that disbelievers don't use their logic, they don't use their brain and i whole-hardheartedly agree. Do yourself a favor and use your brain, your thinking.

It's because I use my brain (that is to say, use reason and logic), that I am a Christian.

[crimsontide06]

I thought everyone (Muslims, Christians, Jews) believe that the holy spirit is Gabriel, who brought the words of God, to the prophets.

Also, Muslims believe that the scriptures were changed/altered and that the original Bible, is gone.

The Christian scriptures make two things crystal-clear:

1) That Jesus is God, as well as a human being: Jesus is "true God and true man" to use a Church statement on this point (which is used by priests and people on a daily basis in the Catholic liturgy of Benediction).

2) That the Holy Spirit - when referred to by Christians - is God, not a messenger.

[Scimitar]

Also, Muslims believe that the scriptures were changed/altered and that the original Bible, is gone.

of course!

Some will enjoy this, others will hate it (Christians) while others will find it interesting.... very very interesting!


Scimi

[tolpuddle]

I thought everyone (Muslims, Christians, Jews) believe that the holy spirit is Gabriel, who brought the words of God, to the prophets.

Also, Muslims believe that the scriptures were changed/altered and that the original Bible, is gone.

Christians have always believed that the Holy Spirit is God, who inspired all the prophets, ending with the Divine Prophet, Jesus.

Christians also believe that the Bible we have is correct and authoritative.

- - - Updated - - -

of course!

Some will enjoy this, others will hate it (Christians) while others will find it interesting.... very very interesting!


Scimi

The material you quote - being an obvious forgery - isn't worth hating, to be honest.

[Grandad]

Heretical forms of Christianity existed from the earliest Christian times. But not from the outset - since heresies are not only parasitic and untrue, but derivative.

Well it took a while, but we got there in the end: ‘Heretical forms of Christianity existed from the earliest Christian times.’

Bart Ehrman was correct when he wrote:

‘There are three persons in the Godhead. They are distinct from each other. But each one is equally God. All three are eternal beings. And they all are of the same substance. This, then, is the doctrine of the Trinity.

‘It is quite a development from anything found in the New Testament, where there is no explicit statement of anything of the sort. Not even in a document like the Gospel of John, where Jesus is thought of as divine, is there any discussion of three being one in substance. As you might expect, later scribes of the New Testament found this lack disturbing, and so in one place at least they inserted an explicit reference to the Trinity (1 John 5:7–8). The Trinity is a later Christian invention, which was based, in the arguments of Athanasius and others, on passages of Scripture but which does not actually appear in any of the books of the New Testament.

‘Within three hundred years Jesus went from being a Jewish apocalyptic prophet to being God himself, a member of the Trinity. Early Christianity is nothing if not remarkable.

‘What we might think of as traditional Christianity did not simply drop from the sky, full grown and fully developed, soon after the ministry of Jesus. Nor did it emerge directly and simply from his teachings. In many ways, what became Christianity represents a series of rather important departures from the teachings of Jesus. Christianity, as has long been recognized by critical historians, is the religion about Jesus, not the religion of Jesus.

‘Whether one stresses the continuities or the discontinuities in the development of early Christianity, it is clear that the beliefs and perspectives that emerged among Jesus’ later followers were different from the religion of Jesus himself. Paul was not the only one responsible for this set of theological innovations, this invention of what we think of as Christianity. He may not even bear the greatest responsibility among those who transformed the religion of Jesus into the religion about Jesus. There were numerous Christians involved in these transformations, the vast majority of them lost in the mists of antiquity, unnamed Christians thinkers and preachers who reinterpreted the traditions of Jesus for their own time, whose reinterpretations were guided and moulded by historical and cultural forces that we, living later, can sometimes only surmise and ponder.

‘Christianity as we have come to know it did not, in any event, spring into being overnight. It emerged over a long period of time, through a period of struggles, debates, and conflicts over competing views, doctrines, perspectives, canons, and rules. The ultimate emergence of the Christian religion represents a human invention - in terms of its historical and cultural significance, arguably the greatest invention in the history of Western civilization.’ (‘Jesus Interrupted’: pages 260; 267-268).

In a comment to crimsontide06 (Post 21) you write: Christians also believe that the Bible we have is correct and authoritative.

Note Ehrman’s reference to 1 John 5:7–8. This is one of two passages citied as being particularly ‘supportive’ of the Trinity (the second is Matthew 28:19. More of this later, in šāʾ Allāh).

1 John 5:7–8 contains what is known as the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. It is shown below in capitals:

‘For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.’

Anthony and Richard Hanson write:

‘It (the ‘Comma Ioanneum’) was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament’. (‘Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith’; page 171).

The ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is absent from the Aramaic, Syraic, Arabic, Ethiopiac, Slavic, Armenian and Georgian translations of the Greek New Testament; and is a Latin corruption. It is spurious, and yet for centuries the Catholic Church insisted it be included in 1 John 5:7-8; on the grounds that it had become official Church teaching.

In 1927, the Holy Office (Guardian of Catholic orthodoxy; and once named the ‘Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition’) declared: ‘After careful examination of the whole circumstances that its genuineness could be denied’ (Ludwig Ott: ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, page 56).

This is why my Bible (the Jerusalem Bible - a Catholic version) reads: ‘So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.’

Strangely enough, another Bible approved by the Church - the Douay Rheims - still includes the spurious Comma Ioanneum. Left Hand….Right Hand!

Concerning Matthew 28:19: ‘Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’

Eusebius (c260-c341), Bishop of Caesarea and ‘Father of Church History’ makes no mention of this ‘Trinitarian’ formula in his ‘Ecclesiastical History’, but instead writes: ‘But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME’ (Chapter 5, Section 2)…. my emphasis.

Nor does he mention the formula in his ‘Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine’, writing: ‘What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations IN MY NAME.’ (Chapter 16, Section 8)….again, my emphasis.

Biblical Unitarians proffer these texts as proof that the formula ‘In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ did not exist in Eusebius’ day. However, other evidence suggests that it did; coming into use in the second century.

It is agreed that the early Christians baptised only in the name of Christ. This suggests that the command to baptise people ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ did not exist in the early Church. Not in writing, and not in the collective memory of the believers.

In a footnote in the New Jerusalem Bible we read: ‘This formula is probably a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Ac. speaks of baptising ‘in the name of Jesus.’

In short, these are probably not the words of Christ. The only reason for claiming they are is to lend credence to the notion that the Trinity is real.

By the way, other Gospel stories not found in any of the oldest and best manuscripts of the Greek New Testament are the woman taken in adultery, and the last twelve verses of Mark:

‘Having risen in the morning on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary of Magdala from whom he had cast out seven devils. She then went to those who had been his companions, and who were mourning and in tears, and told them. But they did not believe her when they heard her say that he was alive and that she had seen him. After this, he showed himself under another form to two of them as they were on their way into the country. These went back and told the others, who did not believe them either. Lastly, he showed himself to the Eleven themselves while they were at table. He reproached them for their incredulity and obstinacy, because they had refused to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

‘And he said to them: “Go out to the whole world; proclaim the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. These are the signs that will be associated with believers: in my name they will cast out devils; they will have the gift of tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands and be unharmed should they drink deadly poison; they will lay their hands on the sick, who will recover.”

‘And so the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven; there at the right hand of God he took his place, while they, going out, preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that accompanied it.’ (16: 9-20).

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart Ehrman write: ‘

‘How did Mark end his Gospel? Unfortunately, we do not know; the most that can be said is that four different endings are current among the manuscripts but probably none of them represents what Mark originally intended. These four endings may be called the short ending, the intermediate ending, the long ending, and the long ending expanded.

‘The last 12 verses of Mark (16.9-20) are lacking in the two earliest parchment codices; in the Old Latin manuscript; the Sinaitic Syriac; many manuscripts of the Old Armenian version; the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version; and a number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version.

‘Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ammonius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; other Church fathers state that the section is absent from Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional sigla used by scribes to indicate a spurious addition to a literary document.’ (‘The Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration; Forth Edition; pages 322-323).

Ehrman writes:

‘The reasons for thinking that Mark himself did not write the last twelve verses are so compelling that most modern Bible translations include them in brackets with a footnote indicating that they are not the original ending. For one thing, they are not found in our oldest and best manuscripts. Also, these verses are in a writing style and use vocabulary not found elsewhere in Mark. Furthermore, the transition from verse 8 to verse 9 does not make sense when read in the Greek. For a fuller discussion, see my Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why’; pp. 65–68.’ (from ‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible - And Why We Don't Know About Them’).

So much for the New Testament being preserved wholly, faithfully and accurately down the centuries. Someone ought to tell the Snake Handlers.

Dr. Jonah David Conner is a former Christian fundamentalist who devoted many years to studying the Bible and related disciplines, such as biblical languages, textual criticism, theology and church history. He writes:

‘One might reasonably ask how it’s possible for so many contradictions and irrationalities to go unnoticed in a book that has been read by so many followers for centuries. The main reason, in my opinion based on years in the church, is simply that most Christians don’t actually study the Bible to any significant degree. These inconsistencies and flaws only appear through strenuous examination of the details, and by painstakingly comparing one passage with another, often times in the original languages. Needless to say, most believers aren’t interesting in that. They are content to peruse their favorite passages in their favorite translation and never do anything more. There is really no nice way to put it – the average Christian is intellectually lazy and embarrassingly ignorant. The vast majority have never read a single book on Church History, Textual Criticism, Theology, biblical languages, or other religions. Their beliefs are a nice little get-out-of-hell-free card that makes them feel good about death and suffering in this life, and they simple don’t care to examine it at any greater depth. They go to church to sing songs, hear an inspiring message, and talk to their friends. That’s about it.’ (from ‘All That's Wrong with the Bible: Contradictions, Absurdities, and More’).

Here’s your chance to poke a finger in Connor’s eye. Please come back with comprehensive answers to the following questions, quoting your sources in every case:

1. When Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) entered Jerusalem during the Triumphal Entry, how many animals did he ride?

2. What did Yeshua tell the high priest when questioned at his trial?

3. Why does Matthew quote the wrong prophet when speaking of Judas and his betrayal of Yeshua?

4. When was the curtain in the Temple ripped?

5. What did the centurion say when Yeshua died?

6. After his conversion, did Paul go directly to Jerusalem in order to confer with those who were apostles before him?

7. Did the churches in Judea know who Paul was?

8. Did Paul go to Athens alone?

9. How many trips did Paul make to Jerusalem?

10. Were the congregations that Paul established made up of both Jews and gentiles?

11. Are there forgeries in the New Testament?

Happy reading!

[tolpuddle]

Well it took a while, but we got there in the end: ‘Heretical forms of Christianity existed from the earliest Christian times.’

Bart Ehrman was correct when he wrote:

‘There are three persons in the Godhead. They are distinct from each other. But each one is equally God. All three are eternal beings. And they all are of the same substance. This, then, is the doctrine of the Trinity.

‘It is quite a development from anything found in the New Testament, where there is no explicit statement of anything of the sort. Not even in a document like the Gospel of John, where Jesus is thought of as divine, is there any discussion of three being one in substance. As you might expect, later scribes of the New Testament found this lack disturbing, and so in one place at least they inserted an explicit reference to the Trinity (1 John 5:7–8). The Trinity is a later Christian invention, which was based, in the arguments of Athanasius and others, on passages of Scripture but which does not actually appear in any of the books of the New Testament.

‘Within three hundred years Jesus went from being a Jewish apocalyptic prophet to being God himself, a member of the Trinity. Early Christianity is nothing if not remarkable.

‘What we might think of as traditional Christianity did not simply drop from the sky, full grown and fully developed, soon after the ministry of Jesus. Nor did it emerge directly and simply from his teachings. In many ways, what became Christianity represents a series of rather important departures from the teachings of Jesus. Christianity, as has long been recognized by critical historians, is the religion about Jesus, not the religion of Jesus.

‘Whether one stresses the continuities or the discontinuities in the development of early Christianity, it is clear that the beliefs and perspectives that emerged among Jesus’ later followers were different from the religion of Jesus himself. Paul was not the only one responsible for this set of theological innovations, this invention of what we think of as Christianity. He may not even bear the greatest responsibility among those who transformed the religion of Jesus into the religion about Jesus. There were numerous Christians involved in these transformations, the vast majority of them lost in the mists of antiquity, unnamed Christians thinkers and preachers who reinterpreted the traditions of Jesus for their own time, whose reinterpretations were guided and moulded by historical and cultural forces that we, living later, can sometimes only surmise and ponder.

‘Christianity as we have come to know it did not, in any event, spring into being overnight. It emerged over a long period of time, through a period of struggles, debates, and conflicts over competing views, doctrines, perspectives, canons, and rules. The ultimate emergence of the Christian religion represents a human invention - in terms of its historical and cultural significance, arguably the greatest invention in the history of Western civilization.’ (‘Jesus Interrupted’: pages 260; 267-268).

In a comment to crimsontide06 (Post 21) you write: Christians also believe that the Bible we have is correct and authoritative.

Note Ehrman’s reference to 1 John 5:7–8. This is one of two passages citied as being particularly ‘supportive’ of the Trinity (the second is Matthew 28:19. More of this later, in šāʾ Allāh).

1 John 5:7–8 contains what is known as the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. It is shown below in capitals:

‘For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.’

Anthony and Richard Hanson write:

‘It (the ‘Comma Ioanneum’) was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament’. (‘Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith’; page 171).

The ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is absent from the Aramaic, Syraic, Arabic, Ethiopiac, Slavic, Armenian and Georgian translations of the Greek New Testament; and is a Latin corruption. It is spurious, and yet for centuries the Catholic Church insisted it be included in 1 John 5:7-8; on the grounds that it had become official Church teaching.

In 1927, the Holy Office (Guardian of Catholic orthodoxy; and once named the ‘Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition’) declared: ‘After careful examination of the whole circumstances that its genuineness could be denied’ (Ludwig Ott: ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, page 56).

This is why my Bible (the Jerusalem Bible - a Catholic version) reads: ‘So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.’

Strangely enough, another Bible approved by the Church - the Douay Rheims - still includes the spurious Comma Ioanneum. Left Hand….Right Hand!

Concerning Matthew 28:19: ‘Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’

Eusebius (c260-c341), Bishop of Caesarea and ‘Father of Church History’ makes no mention of this ‘Trinitarian’ formula in his ‘Ecclesiastical History’, but instead writes: ‘But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME’ (Chapter 5, Section 2)…. my emphasis.

Nor does he mention the formula in his ‘Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine’, writing: ‘What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations IN MY NAME.’ (Chapter 16, Section 8)….again, my emphasis.

Biblical Unitarians proffer these texts as proof that the formula ‘In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ did not exist in Eusebius’ day. However, other evidence suggests that it did; coming into use in the second century.

It is agreed that the early Christians baptised only in the name of Christ. This suggests that the command to baptise people ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ did not exist in the early Church. Not in writing, and not in the collective memory of the believers.

In a footnote in the New Jerusalem Bible we read: ‘This formula is probably a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Ac. speaks of baptising ‘in the name of Jesus.’

In short, these are probably not the words of Christ. The only reason for claiming they are is to lend credence to the notion that the Trinity is real.

By the way, other Gospel stories not found in any of the oldest and best manuscripts of the Greek New Testament are the woman taken in adultery, and the last twelve verses of Mark:

‘Having risen in the morning on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary of Magdala from whom he had cast out seven devils. She then went to those who had been his companions, and who were mourning and in tears, and told them. But they did not believe her when they heard her say that he was alive and that she had seen him. After this, he showed himself under another form to two of them as they were on their way into the country. These went back and told the others, who did not believe them either. Lastly, he showed himself to the Eleven themselves while they were at table. He reproached them for their incredulity and obstinacy, because they had refused to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

‘And he said to them: “Go out to the whole world; proclaim the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. These are the signs that will be associated with believers: in my name they will cast out devils; they will have the gift of tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands and be unharmed should they drink deadly poison; they will lay their hands on the sick, who will recover.”

‘And so the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven; there at the right hand of God he took his place, while they, going out, preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that accompanied it.’ (16: 9-20).

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart Ehrman write: ‘

‘How did Mark end his Gospel? Unfortunately, we do not know; the most that can be said is that four different endings are current among the manuscripts but probably none of them represents what Mark originally intended. These four endings may be called the short ending, the intermediate ending, the long ending, and the long ending expanded.

‘The last 12 verses of Mark (16.9-20) are lacking in the two earliest parchment codices; in the Old Latin manuscript; the Sinaitic Syriac; many manuscripts of the Old Armenian version; the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version; and a number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version.

‘Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ammonius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; other Church fathers state that the section is absent from Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional sigla used by scribes to indicate a spurious addition to a literary document.’ (‘The Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration; Forth Edition; pages 322-323).

Ehrman writes:

‘The reasons for thinking that Mark himself did not write the last twelve verses are so compelling that most modern Bible translations include them in brackets with a footnote indicating that they are not the original ending. For one thing, they are not found in our oldest and best manuscripts. Also, these verses are in a writing style and use vocabulary not found elsewhere in Mark. Furthermore, the transition from verse 8 to verse 9 does not make sense when read in the Greek. For a fuller discussion, see my Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why’; pp. 65–68.’ (from ‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible - And Why We Don't Know About Them’).

So much for the New Testament being preserved wholly, faithfully and accurately down the centuries. Someone ought to tell the Snake Handlers.

Dr. Jonah David Conner is a former Christian fundamentalist who devoted many years to studying the Bible and related disciplines, such as biblical languages, textual criticism, theology and church history. He writes:

‘One might reasonably ask how it’s possible for so many contradictions and irrationalities to go unnoticed in a book that has been read by so many followers for centuries. The main reason, in my opinion based on years in the church, is simply that most Christians don’t actually study the Bible to any significant degree. These inconsistencies and flaws only appear through strenuous examination of the details, and by painstakingly comparing one passage with another, often times in the original languages. Needless to say, most believers aren’t interesting in that. They are content to peruse their favorite passages in their favorite translation and never do anything more. There is really no nice way to put it – the average Christian is intellectually lazy and embarrassingly ignorant. The vast majority have never read a single book on Church History, Textual Criticism, Theology, biblical languages, or other religions. Their beliefs are a nice little get-out-of-hell-free card that makes them feel good about death and suffering in this life, and they simple don’t care to examine it at any greater depth. They go to church to sing songs, hear an inspiring message, and talk to their friends. That’s about it.’ (from ‘All That's Wrong with the Bible: Contradictions, Absurdities, and More’).

Here’s your chance to poke a finger in Connor’s eye. Please come back with comprehensive answers to the following questions, quoting your sources in every case:

1. When Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) entered Jerusalem during the Triumphal Entry, how many animals did he ride?

2. What did Yeshua tell the high priest when questioned at his trial?

3. Why does Matthew quote the wrong prophet when speaking of Judas and his betrayal of Yeshua?

4. When was the curtain in the Temple ripped?

5. What did the centurion say when Yeshua died?

6. After his conversion, did Paul go directly to Jerusalem in order to confer with those who were apostles before him?

7. Did the churches in Judea know who Paul was?

8. Did Paul go to Athens alone?

9. How many trips did Paul make to Jerusalem?

10. Were the congregations that Paul established made up of both Jews and gentiles?

11. Are there forgeries in the New Testament?

Happy reading!

Your views (and Bart Ehrman's) on Gospel and other NT texts are wholly irrelevant - since you and he have no Authority. But to correct an obvious error you've made - the woman caught in adultery (John 8) is a passage of another of the three gospels that became embedded in John's.

There are many apparent contradictions in the Quran. There would be far more if all but one text of the Quran hadn't been destroyed in early Islamic history.

Everything said by Dr Jonah David Conner against Christians could be said with equal truth - only far more strongly - against Muslims.

That the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is not explicit in the New Testament is wholly irrelevant - since it is so clearly implicit ! And because the Christian Church - which has always taught the Blessed Trinity - has equal Divine Authority with the New Testament.

There are no "departures" from the teachings of Jesus in historical Christianity. Ehrman's (unsubstantiated) claim that there are, is as dishonest as the man himself. Like JD Conner, he is an ex-fundamentalist - the most fanatical and embittered type of renegade Christians.

You quote the well-known Arian heretic, Eusebius of Caesarea to support your points - which (his writings being heretical) they don't, but the reverse.

You suffer from the illusion that learning and cleverness carry religious authority. They don't.

Your fellow-Muslims would disagree entirely with you about this. As did Jesus: "I praise you, Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children" (Matthew 11:25).

Or is that (yawn) yet another disputed passage ?

[Grandad]

Your views (and Bart Ehrman's) on Gospel and other NT texts are wholly irrelevant - since you and he have no Authority. But to correct an obvious error you've made - the woman caught in adultery (John 8) is a passage of another of the three gospels that became embedded in John's.

I repeat, the story of the woman taken in adultery is not found in any of the oldest and best manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. It is a later interpolation.

Since my views of the NT are 'wholly irrelevant' then perhaps you would enlighten me (and indeed, all of us) by answering my questions. Here they are again:

1. When Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) entered Jerusalem during the Triumphal Entry, how many animals did he ride?

2. What did Yeshua tell the high priest when questioned at his trial?

3. Why does Matthew quote the wrong prophet when speaking of Judas and his betrayal of Yeshua?

4. When was the curtain in the Temple ripped?

5. What did the centurion say when Yeshua died?

6. After his conversion, did Paul go directly to Jerusalem in order to confer with those who were apostles before him?

7. Did the churches in Judea know who Paul was?

8. Did Paul go to Athens alone?

9. How many trips did Paul make to Jerusalem?

10. Were the congregations that Paul established made up of both Jews and gentiles?

11. Are there forgeries in the New Testament?

[Silas]

I think this is pretty accurate, although I would add some qualifiers

For many Christians, especially modern Catholics, Muhammad is respected, and considered a somewhat mysterious, or mystical figure.

Growing up as a Catholic I never once heard anyone within the faith condemn the Prophet, or attempt to blacken his name. I'm sure there were some that did behind closed-doors, or unofficially, but this was rare. During my religious education, we were taught the basic tenants and history of Islam.

Obviously, in the middle-ages, and later with the protestant "reformation", there were those like Luther who condemned Islam. That was long ago. There are some fringe groups like southern Baptists, etc. who still hold animosity toward the religion, but in the grand scheme of things, they represent a minority within Christianity.

There are Catholics like philosopher Peter Kreeft, E Michael Jones, and Cardinal Timothy Dolan who emphasize the common moral ground between Muslims and Christians. Some even assert that Muslims and Catholics are natural political allies within countries like the US. Catholics and Muslims are against things like adultery, pornography, usury, homosexuality, and materialism. They both believe in tradition, hierarchy, and transcendental values. Christians and Muslims assert the fundamental value of the human being/soul.

Even as a non-Muslim, I am far more comfortable within a society of pious Muslims than within a society of lawless hedonists (within reason of course --I wouldn't want to live under the Taliban!)

Remember that in some Muslim nations, there is an effort to convince Muslims that westerners and Christians are "out to get them", and "hate the religion". Aside from a small minority of people, that is not the case.

Even the Shia feel that the US is about to bomb Iran and put their people into camps. I don't see that happening (I certainly hope not!), as virtually no one in the US wants that save for Zionists.

[Grandad]

I think this is pretty accurate, although I would add some qualifiers

For many Christians, especially modern Catholics, Muhammad is respected, and considered a somewhat mysterious, or mystical figure.

Growing up as a Catholic I never once heard anyone within the faith condemn the Prophet, or attempt to blacken his name. I'm sure there were some that did behind closed-doors, or unofficially, but this was rare. During my religious education, we were taught the basic tenants and history of Islam.

Obviously, in the middle-ages, and later with the protestant "reformation", there were those like Luther who condemned Islam. That was long ago. There are some fringe groups like southern Baptists, etc. who still hold animosity toward the religion, but in the grand scheme of things, they represent a minority within Christianity.

There are Catholics like philosopher Peter Kreeft, E Michael Jones, and Cardinal Timothy Dolan who emphasize the common moral ground between Muslims and Christians. Some even assert that Muslims and Catholics are natural political allies within countries like the US. Catholics and Muslims are against things like adultery, pornography, usury, homosexuality, and materialism. They both believe in tradition, hierarchy, and transcendental values. Christians and Muslims assert the fundamental value of the human being/soul.

Even as a non-Muslim, I am far more comfortable within a society of pious Muslims than within a society of lawless hedonists (within reason of course --I wouldn't want to live under the Taliban!)

Remember that in some Muslim nations, there is an effort to convince Muslims that westerners and Christians are "out to get them", and "hate the religion". Aside from a small minority of people, that is not the case.

Even the Shia feel that the US is about to bomb Iran and put their people into camps. I don't see that happening (I certainly hope not!), as virtually no one in the US wants that save for Zionists.

I was raised a Baptist, and became a Catholic in 1974. I remained a Catholic for around forty years. None of the Christians I knew (was privileged to know in many cases) ever attacked Islam, or maligned the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

Hatred (there is no other word for it) was the preserve of hard-core evangelicals; with Catholics being (at least in my time as one) the primary target. Muslims are possibly number one on their hit-list nowadays, with Catholics a very close second!

[aamifi]

Top 10 Reasons Why Jesus is not God - Joshua Evans - TheDeenShow

https://safeshare.tv/my/safeviews/YW99U4JWNEc/play

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you aamifi;

I watched the Mufti Menk video you posted about forgiveness, I would say that fits very well with christian teachings on forgiveness.

Blessings,
Eric

[aamifi]

ASSALAM ALAYKOM



Why should you be a Muslim ?

Dawud Adib

https://goo.gl/HJa59A

- - - Updated - - -

ASSALAM ALAYKOM

THE TRUTH ABOUT
JESUS

https://goo.gl/nAdXZ3