Salam/Peace,
Can unitarian Christians who reject the trinity and believe in the oneness of God, like Muslims, be considered "Muslim"?
Array
Salam/Peace,
Can unitarian Christians who reject the trinity and believe in the oneness of God, like Muslims, be considered "Muslim"?
Do you mean Ahmadi as in Qadiani? The person who introduced this teaching is called as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from a village called Qadian borned in 1839.
He is actually from a Muslim family, and he had learned a little bit of religious study. Also he possess many diseases and curing himself with wine and opium during his life time. British Raj of India had influenced him to sell his faith for their colonial purpose and as the pay he can get worldly benefits. His teaching is not Islam anymore because he claimed himself as Jesus Christ, the Mahdi, and he claimed himself as prophet Muhammad in the same time. There is no more prophet after prophet Muhammad (pbuh), prophet Muhammad is the seal of prophets and prophet Muhammad is not the incarnation (the avatar) of prophet Jesus, Imam Mahdi, or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I guess this Mirza is a lunatic with mental disorder. He also claimed had been revealed with scripture wrote by himself called Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya.
Ahmadiyya school had been established in 1889. The basis of their faith is "loyalty toward British Raj." He had put tag "Son of the *****" on those who do not follow his teaching. They had abused the term Muslim while they are not really Muslim. They suppose to be known only as Ahmadis or Qadianis from their prophet name Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or from the place of its origin, Qadian. He died in 1908. His teaching was supported by British at the beginning and then supported by the US and other countries who treat Islam as their enemy, I am so sorry, this can't be denied, I hate to say that US or Britain treat Islam as enemy because most Muslims are taught not to hate other even non-Muslims but unfortunately history says so through colonial acts of Europeans on others. When European explorers and invaders came, we have to defend ourselves as we will not survive if we just stood still while people attacking us beside God had ordered every human-being preserving the land granted by God to them.
The teaching of Ahmadiah is fake, and not even in the fold of Islam after he had claimed himself as a prophet, and writing his own scripture. He had insulted all Muslim prophets including prophet Jesus (pbuh) and prophet Muhammad (pbuh). In Islam, prophets are human-being but they are freed from any sinful acts (Ma3soum). He claimed that prophets and God messengers too committing sins.
This is the brief history of Ahmadiah teaching establishment.
Ar-Rahman Leadership translation in English isn't yet circulated widely, we have to apply it from Religious Department. I only have Malay translation of Ar-Rahman Leadership translation for this time being because Malay is my native language.format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
That one that I had provided is authorized translation quoted from an Islamic website. Oh, that is not me who recognize the Quranic translation but our Government, because they have standardization system. For me, I am also reading Marmaduke Pickthall and Yusuf Ali translation in English. For Malay, I read Ar-Rahman Malay version translation and also Indonesian translation provided by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Usually I don't use translations anymore after I had memorized the Suras because I had also memorized the Quranic terms in Arabic. This sometimes had dragged me to translate the verses literally and it is not appropriate for us if our target language skill is not good. Good idea and thanks, I will try to use brackets next time for commentaries.
Would you consider Origen a Christian?format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
There are actually two movements of Ahmadiah. The other one was headed by Maulana Muhammad Ali who did not accecpt the Prophethood of the founder.format_quote Originally Posted by malayloveislam
I found his book "The Religion of Islam" really helpfull when I first started studying Islam. I think the text itself is orthodox (like Al Azhar approved it, I think Ali kept the contraversal points out) and it really helped my understand how rich and amazing Islam is. I think the Ahmadiah movement is wrong about important things and now read more traditional writters, but I guess I have a soft spot for them because of how much he helped me, even if I think he is wrong about important things.
wow. Are you sudying Arabic?format_quote Originally Posted by malayloveislam
Oh yeah, I had heard about the second group of Ahmadiah movement, they are considered as Muslim for me. I heard that Maulana Muhamamad Ali had provided a translation and commentary of Quran. Maulana Muhammad Ali had split out from the first movement. For me Qadiani of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is another religion and it is not Islam, he had established his own religion. We accept only prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the seal and automatically it is also accepting other previous prophets of God. Other people who claims to be a prophet after prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is a fake.format_quote Originally Posted by wth1257
Yeah, basically we study Quranic and Communication Arabic here in religious schools like Roman Catholics studying Latin in their seminary or religious schools. All of Muslims around the world had actually agreed that Arabic is our International communicating language but since Muslim countries never co-operate with each other, this is impossible to be imposed. We have to recite prayers in Arabic loudly but it is permissible in our native language in silent (in heart).
As for me, I actually had the same opinion with orthodox opinions, we can't translate Quran but since Muslims are of many different ethnicities, it can't be avoided. Thus, I make efforts to memorize the Arabic Quranic verses with tight supervision of teacher. Translation comes from heart, means that I do not depend on translation because they can't fully represent the source language, confusions may arise if we are too dependant on translation instead of the original text.
Back to the topic, are those Ebionites considered as Christians? They also had testified prophet Jesus (pbuh) as their prophet differently from other Jews. Are they too classified Unitarian Christians? Are they still exist today?
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace-seeker
Actually, Christains not submitting themselves fully to God but submitting God fully to themselves and that is why they can't be followers of Islam in any kind of sense
instead of serving God, they fancy themselves that it is God who should serve them !!
the conflict between Islam and christianity not only over the nature of God, but also over the issue of salvation .....and that makes them go the opposite direction
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace-seeker
That is true ...
take a look Bro malayloveislam at the proofs here
Jesus(as) in Islam
your question is?format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
format_quote Originally Posted by follower
Surah 5 :76-79. They indeed have disbelieved who say: God is the Messiah, son of Mary.
As christians were called disbelievers in the Quran and God promised that the true followers of true the message of Jesus (true monotheism&keeping the commandments)will be above in religious statue than those who disbelieve ,then it doesn't need a scientific discovery to realize that the true followers of Jesus (and the other prophets as well eg,Abraham,Moses etc...) which the Quran refers to are
those who kept the true message of Jesus from the day his mission was terminated on earth till the arrival of the prophet who came and refreshed the message of Jesus and exposed the corruption that touched the message of Jesus......
format_quote Originally Posted by FishmanUnitarian Christian=/=Unitarian Universalist. UU is a modern religion (though it was probably practiced by some ancient thinkers) that is mainly about spirituality and 'being a good person'. Unitarian Christians are Christians who don't believe in the trinity.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seekerformat_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
I just called them Christian on the grounds that they claim to be Christian, not because they technically are. It helped to distinguish them from the Unitarian Universalists, who are openly non-Christian.
And I understand that motive. It is the same one that leads me to call Ahmadi Muslims --on the grounds that they claim to be Muslim.
What you are saying is that no matter what the Ahmadi call themselves, the reality is that they are Muslim in their own mind only. I can understand how you a Muslim who has remained faithful to the historic teachings of Islam would say that the Ahmadi have gone astray and thus do not truly represent Islamic teaching and hence are not genuine Muslims, even if they should call themselves by that name.format_quote Originally Posted by malayloveislam
I feel similiarly toward Unitarians. Even if they should call themselves Christians, the reality is that they are Christian in their own mind only. As one who has remained faithful to the teachings of the historic teachings of Christianity, I would say that the Unitarians have gone and thus do not truly represent Christian teaching and hence are not genuine Christians, even if they should call themselves by that name.
Thus, my offer, that I will not refer to the Ahmadi as Muslims if you will not refer to Unitarians as Christians.
Origen, like most humans, is a mixed bag. He held a subordination view that was dangerously close to Arianism. Of course, even Arius was a Christian, at least at one point in his life. The point that Arius was trying to make -- a defence of God's incorruptibilty -- was not in itself non-Christian. The problem with Arius came when he subordinated the Son to such a degree that the Son became a creature, created by the Father and not co-eternal with him. Such a view actually resulted in a polytheism of a greater and lesser god. Christianity can have none of that, for we are not polytheistic, but believe in only one God. Now, Origen also sought to subordinate the Son to the Father, but does not appear to have done so by making two different Gods in his theology, for Origen does not claim that the Son was a created being, but that he was indeed co-eternal with the Father. Thus, it is not heretical in the same way that Arius' views were. What Origen does is differentiate within the Godhead in a way that presupposes some type subordination of the Son to the Father. There are biblical grounds for this during Jesus' earthly life and ministry, during which time Jesus did indeed submit himself as a human to the Father. But I think Origen erred in also transferring that idea to all time and eternity.format_quote Originally Posted by wth1257
As to whether or not Origen was a Christian throughout his life, I will make use of a oft repeated phrase on this forum... God knows best.
Your understanding about polytheism is different from Muslim, well I can understand that most Christians today consider that prophet Jesus (pbuh) as Divine. This might have something to do with Trinity concept introduced by Paulus. I am not certain about St. Barnabas (Maar Tooma), whether he too agree with the concept of Trinity.
The basis of Muslim Monotheism is only Allah as the Lord. Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is a creature, almost the same like what had been emphasized by Arius. I had read something about Arius Viz Lucian, he never claim himself as a prophet or the avatar of prophet Jesus (pbuh), other prophets, nor a Messiah like what had been done by Mirza Ghulam.
For Polytheism understanding in Islam, it is associating or attributing God with others or creatures including with prophets, angels, genies, and etc. We believe in prophet Jesus (pbuh) as a human-being, entitled by God as His prophet and a God messenger toward the Children of Israel, he is not Divine but since he is a God messenger, he is free from any sin (Ma3soom), this too applies to other prophets including our final prophet who is prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Prophet Jesus (pbuh) also may be had spread the message of Tauheed (Monotheism) to other tribes like the Samaritans like in the story of prophet Jesus (pbuh) with a Samaritan woman, sorry I can't recall the verse in New Testament but I am certain that I had read it.
I am not sure if Arius Viz Lucian assume prophet Jesus (pbuh) as a God or a Divinity. Muslims view is that prophet Jesus (pbuh) is a creature created by God the same as us today or other prophets. We view prophet Jesus as a different entity from God, he is no different from prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or prophet Moses (pbuh), he only was born without a father, and in Islam, that is among the sign of God Will and Power, He is able over things that is impossible for Human-being because He is God, of course His knowledge is beyond His creatures who are us. Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is not a god nor God for Muslims.
Here is what I've got from Arian Catholics Homepage:
Nowhere in the Bible is there any reference to the trinity and Jesus never taught trinitarianism to his disciples! Tertullian of Carthage ((140-230 A.D.) a Roman Montanist heretic and the son of a Roman Centurion) first wrote about the Trinity at the end of the second century where he copied elements of Hindu and Greek ideologies, it was not formally introduced into Christianity until the first Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which was overseen by Emperor Constantine I*. Its justification is loosely linked to different passages scattered between the Old and New Testaments, which only serve to play on ambiguities between different contextual styles, and then concluding that only God is capable of salvation. The concept of the Holy Spirit to be the part of a Trinity was completely unknown to Jesus and was never advocated by him. When Emperor Constantine supposedly embraced Christianity he insisted that the Christian Church adopted many changes so that the church would be familiar to the superstitious Romans, including the deification of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the polytheising of God through the Trinity. Therefore the concept of the Holy Trinity was forced upon Christianity by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and was wrong!
*Emperor Constantine I was considered to be a convert to Christianity, yet he retained his Pagan Chief Priest title of “Pontifex Maximus” and was not Baptised Christian until on his deathbed in 337 A.D.; ironically Constantine I had in fact converted to Arian Christianity and it was Eusebius the Arian Bishop of Nicomedia who baptised him. After Constantine’s death his son Constantius II, also an Arian, become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire and actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed. His advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had already at the Council of Nicaea been the head of the Arian party, who also was made bishop of Constantinople. Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed, especially Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius II became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed, even exiling Liberius and installing Felix II in his place as the new Patriarch of Rome.
By 364 the West had a Roman Catholic emperor in Valentinian I, and when the Catholic Theodosius I became emperor of the East (379), the second ecumenical council was convoked to reaffirm the Nicene formula, and Arianism within the empire was outlawed and driven underground. However, Ulfilas the Bishop of Dacia also known as the “Apostle of the Goths” (c. 311 - c. 382) had carried (c.340) Homoean Arianism to the Goths living in what is now Hungary and the north west Balkan Peninsula with such success that the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes became staunch Arians. Arianism was thus carried over Western Europe and into Africa. The Vandals remained Arians until their defeat by Belisarius (c.534). Among the Lombards the efforts of Gregory I (Patriarch of Rome) and the Lombard queen were successful, and Arianism disappeared there (c.650). In Burgundy the Catholic Franks broke up Arianism by conquest in the 6th century. In Spain, where the conquering Visigoths were Arians, Roman Catholicism was not established until the mid-6th century (by Recared), and Arian ideas survived openly until the eighth century.
http://www.holy-catholic.org/arian/a...ml#trinitarian
That seem like Islamic view on Trinitarianism because we Muslim consider Trinity as Polytheism. We are familiar with Dharmic faith like Hinduism in SEA. Trinity is commonly a Godhead with three different personalities. Only is that Trinity in Hinduism are represented by Shiva (Destroyer and Creating New Cosmic), Vishnu (Preserver and Loving God), and Brahma (Creator). They are One but Three, can't be substituted but three different personality, incarnating as each other. Vishnu incarnating as Rama in Ramayana. Krishna in Mahabharata. Shiva incarnating as Bhajrangi (Hanuman the Monkey) in Ramayana. Vishnu have female aspect which is Lakshmi, Shiva with female aspect Uma and Parvathi, Brahma with his female aspect Sarasvati. It is still head-cracking when we try to understand it further. Monotheism in Islam only about Allah. He is always Allah (God), not anyone else and He never incarnate himself in His slaves or creatures.
Trinity concept in Christianity is represented by Father, Jesus the Son, and Holy Spirit or maybe Theotokos for Orthodox Christians. I tried to understand them but it is also head-cracking.
Here is what I've got from Arian Catholics Homepage:
Nowhere in the Bible is there any reference to the trinity and Jesus never taught trinitarianism to his disciples! Tertullian of Carthage ((140-230 A.D.) a Roman Montanist heretic and the son of a Roman Centurion) first wrote about the Trinity at the end of the second century where he copied elements of Hindu and Greek ideologies, it was not formally introduced into Christianity until the first Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which was overseen by Emperor Constantine I*. Its justification is loosely linked to different passages scattered between the Old and New Testaments, which only serve to play on ambiguities between different contextual styles, and then concluding that only God is capable of salvation. The concept of the Holy Spirit to be the part of a Trinity was completely unknown to Jesus and was never advocated by him. When Emperor Constantine supposedly embraced Christianity he insisted that the Christian Church adopted many changes so that the church would be familiar to the superstitious Romans, including the deification of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the polytheising of God through the Trinity. Therefore the concept of the Holy Trinity was forced upon Christianity by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and was wrong!
*Emperor Constantine I was considered to be a convert to Christianity, yet he retained his Pagan Chief Priest title of “Pontifex Maximus” and was not Baptised Christian until on his deathbed in 337 A.D.; ironically Constantine I had in fact converted to Arian Christianity and it was Eusebius the Arian Bishop of Nicomedia who baptised him. After Constantine’s death his son Constantius II, also an Arian, become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire and actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed. His advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had already at the Council of Nicaea been the head of the Arian party, who also was made bishop of Constantinople. Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed, especially Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius II became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed, even exiling Liberius and installing Felix II in his place as the new Patriarch of Rome.
By 364 the West had a Roman Catholic emperor in Valentinian I, and when the Catholic Theodosius I became emperor of the East (379), the second ecumenical council was convoked to reaffirm the Nicene formula, and Arianism within the empire was outlawed and driven underground. However, Ulfilas the Bishop of Dacia also known as the “Apostle of the Goths” (c. 311 - c. 382) had carried (c.340) Homoean Arianism to the Goths living in what is now Hungary and the north west Balkan Peninsula with such success that the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes became staunch Arians. Arianism was thus carried over Western Europe and into Africa. The Vandals remained Arians until their defeat by Belisarius (c.534). Among the Lombards the efforts of Gregory I (Patriarch of Rome) and the Lombard queen were successful, and Arianism disappeared there (c.650). In Burgundy the Catholic Franks broke up Arianism by conquest in the 6th century. In Spain, where the conquering Visigoths were Arians, Roman Catholicism was not established until the mid-6th century (by Recared), and Arian ideas survived openly until the eighth century.
http://www.holy-catholic.org/arian/a...ml#trinitarian
That seem like Islamic view on Trinitarianism because we Muslim consider Trinity as Polytheism. We are familiar with Dharmic faith like Hinduism in SEA. Trinity is commonly a Godhead with three different personalities. Only is that Trinity in Hinduism are represented by Shiva (Destroyer and Creating New Cosmic), Vishnu (Preserver and Loving God), and Brahma (Creator). They are One but Three, can't be substituted but three different personality, incarnating as each other. Vishnu incarnating as Rama in Ramayana. Krishna in Mahabharata. Shiva incarnating as Bhajrangi (Hanuman the Monkey god) in Ramayana. Vishnu have female aspect which is Lakshmi, Shiva with female aspect Uma and Parvathi, Brahma with his female aspect Sarasvati. It is still head-cracking when we try to understand it further. Monotheism in Islam only about Allah. He is always Allah (God), not anyone else and He never incarnate Himself in His slaves or creatures.
Trinity concept in Christianity is represented by Father, Jesus the Son, and Holy Spirit or maybe Theotokos for Orthodox Christians. I tried to understand them but it is also head-cracking.
Who was Arius?
Arius (256 - 336 AD) was a Libyan theologian and of Berber descent. His father’s name is given as Ammonius. He was educated in the theological school of Antioch (now Antakya) under the distinguished Greek scholar, Presbyter and non-trinitarian Lucian of Antioch. He was regarded as the founder of Arianism, although its concept was by no means new, which some Christian sects regard as a heresy and was a key issue in the early Church, leading to the formation of the heretical Nicene Creed.
At the turn of the fourth century Arius was already known to hold strong views on theology and was a close associate of Lucian and Meletius (an Egyptian schismatic against Peter I), however following reconciliation in AD 306 Arius was ordained as a Deacon by Peter I (Patriarch of Alexandria: AD 300 - 311). Further disputes led the Bishop (Peter I) to excommunicate Arius, who, however, gained the friendship of Achillas, Peter’s successor. Arius was re-instated and then ordained by Achillas (Patriarch of Alexandria 312 - 313) as the Presbyter of the district of Baucalis in Alexandria in AD 313, but when Achillas died that same year Arius was denied the Patriarchate of Alexandria (to which he aspired) by Alexander I of Alexandria (a Sebellianist heretic).
Arius’s most important work was “Thalia” (The Banquet, 323), a work comprising both prose and poetry, in which he defended his beliefs. The document was destroyed by the trinitarians and is no longer extant, and knowledge of most of Arius’s writings comes only from the works of his critics, who, in condemning him, revealed much information.
Arius continued to campaign against trinitarianism. He was excommunicated locally in 321 AD. He was declared orthodox in Asia Minor, where he had fled (323), but he was anathematised by the Council of Nicaea (324) and banished by the Roman Emperor Constantine I (325). But in the reaction after Nicaea, where Arius gained support from Clergy across all Europe especially in the east and at one point Arians outnumbered the trinitarians, he came into imperial favour. The emperor had ordered the Athanasians at Alexandria to receive him at communion when he suddenly died under suspicious circumstances immediately after having an audience with the Emperor at the imperial palace. Arians believed that Arius had been poisoned.
Arius’s legacy however has lived on in spite of its condemnation by the Council of Constantinople (381). Arianism was reinstated by Constantine I who was Baptised as an Arian Christian on his deathbed, and was supported by his son Constantius II who even raised St Felix II as the Arian bishop of Rome. The Arian controversy itself lasted for over 250 years until it was driven underground. Throughout the dark and middle ages trinitarians have brutally attempted to stamp-out Arianism, even the Spanish Inquisition could not quell Arius’s beliefs. As Roman Catholicism began to decline in central Europe, Arianism rose again, even in the Church of England! Today Arianism has returned to the fore with the Arian-Catholic Church lead by the Primus Inter Pares (First Among Equals): Rev Dr Brian B. Michael-John Mackenzie-Hanson.
Arius was recognised as a Saint and Martyr by the Arian Catholic Church on 16th June 2006, which has become his memorial day.*Berber descent: A member of the indigenous Caucasian peoples of North Africa such as Libya, Morocco and Algeria, speaking related languages.Arius Officially NOT a Heretic! An interesting point to note is that because Arius was officially re-instated into the Full Communion of the church before he died in 336 AD, by the Emperor of Rome, Constantine I, he officially is NOT excommunicated and therefore NOT a heretic according to the Roman Catholic church!
Arianism remained strong in Europe in spite of Roman aggression for a further 250 years and has continued to survive in the sidelines waiting for the time when Arianism can become strong again.
Thanks for the link to this modern-day Arian group. The first I had ever heard of them. Let me just say that I find them every bit as heretical as Arius was -- actually a tad more, if that is possible. But I am sure that as a Muslim you would love many (not all) of the things they stand for. Just as with Unitarians (in all forms) I reject that they are truly representative of Christianity. It seems like the saying: "everything old is new again," but it was false the first time and still is.
the arians should have a right to be back, they were silenced thanks to the council of nicea.
miss grace seeker, you are comitting a major fallacy, for starters Muslims are not making councils to have a set of fixed doctrines due to ahmadis, why? because their a tiny minority, arians were a very large group, there was trinitarianism, and arianism, two major schools, and then they made nicea, decided that trinity is orthodox and the way, the other is heresy and must be outlawed and banned and eventually it faded.
people, arians were not some fringe heretical group, these people were a major force in early Christianity, dont make any mistake about that!
and then lets not forget the lovely marcionites, muahahahahah
Well, the Arians were enough of a minority that they got outvoted at Nicea. (I used to have the actual count, but unfortunately don't have it at my fingertips at the moment. It was overwhelmingly against Arius.) And don't blame it on the power of Rome. Nearly all of the delegates from the eastern half of the empire were present, but from the western Roman half only three minor priests were sent to attend.format_quote Originally Posted by The_Princepeople, arians were not some fringe heretical group, these people were a major force in early Christianity, dont make any mistake about that!
Curiously, Arianism was not as popular in Arius' lifetime, as it was later and that after the Council of Nicea, not before. But it was popular as a belief of the laity in certain parts of the eastern empire. It was never commonly held by the clergy. Those who say otherwise, need to do a little more reading in church history.
I hear this a lot. Muslims writing that Paul introduced, even invented, the concept of Trinity. And then in the next post I will read where someone likes to point out that the word Trinity can't even be found in the Bible. These seem like contrasting views that can't both be relevant. (Notice I didn't say that they can't both be true.)format_quote Originally Posted by malayloveislam
Anyway, since you assert that Paul introduce the Trinity concept, can you please identify for me where you see that he did this?
Assalamualaikum warahmatullah and peace be upon everyone,
Well, Paulus is technically a Jew but he had Roman citizenship. He maybe had learned Greek Hellenism philosophy and the culture of the Greeks. He is not a direct disciple of prophet Jesus (pbuh), before that he had a very fierce enmity toward the honorable prophet and his teaching. He never heard the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) delivered directly from the mouth of prophet Jesus (pbuh) or meeting prophet Jesus (pbuh) face to face.
Yet, he was suddenly illuminated by revelation to embrace the teaching and he repents after he met the direct disciples of prophet Jesus (pbuh) (The Act of Apostles : 9-13). He then declares that he is among the disciples (apostles) (I Corinthian : 1, and II Corinthian : 5).
The disciples actually do not believe his repentance and the Jew community too never pay attention toward it. In the Christian scriptures, it had been stated about those disciples who spread the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) are Maar Barnaba, and Maar Petrus before Paulus.
The biography of Maar Barnaba:
The Act of Apostles (4) : 36 – 37 / (9) : 26 – 27 / (11) : 22 – 26
The biography of Maar Petrus:
2 Peter (3): 14-16 / The Act of Apostles (1): 12 – 14 / Matthew (10): 2- 4
/ Mark (3): 16 – 19 / Lucas (6): 14 – 16 / John (21): 1 – 2
Many of his teaching are contradictory to what had been preached by prophet Jesus (pbuh) himself. Gospel wasn't recorded very well but it is scattered in the form of incomplete notes and through some memories of his disciples. Although the words of God are scattered and did not compiled well, but we still can trace them because Human-being can't entirely hide His words and messages. We just have to reflect to the history-line with the help of the verses from the books that had been used by Christians in comparison with the history-line and through the help of Glorious Quran for Muslims like us.
Foreign race community around the time where Paulus and Saint Barnabas preaching the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) adore Greek gods or ancient Rome gods such as Zeus, Jupiter, Apollo, Artemis, and etc. In the epistles in NT, Paulus had admitted that he have to renovate the teaching to suit the heathen Romans and Greeks faith and culture as to make it easy for them.
He had modified the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) inherited from previous prophets who are Moses (pbuh) and prophet Abraham (pbuh) including in the term of Creed.
The Creed toward only One Allah had been modified to the Creed of Father the God, Jesus the Son, and Holy Spirit (Gabriel). They are Allah who are three and three that are actually One. The function of Jesus the Son is to salvate mankind from original sin of Adam. Lord Allah who is the Father who had begat the Son incarnate into His Son, suffering torments, descended down the purgatory and resurrected by Himself?? And He incarnates as the Archangel Gabriel to reveal, to teach, to comfort, to testify Jesus, to testify Christians/Jews are the Children or God, to inspire prophecy, to empower the believer to have victory over the flesh, and etc.
The heathen Greeks and Romans in the same time believing that their gods die because of their sins and later alive again. Paulus expressed that Jesus (pbuh) was the Son of God and in the form of the Son, He died to eliminate the sins of man-kind with the sacrifice of His blood. Non-Jew groups started to see consanguinity and large similarities between the modified version of the teaching of Jesus (pbuh) with their previous faith. They only have to exchange several denominations in their previous religion but the concept is still the same. By this way, Paulus succeed in convincing the Greeks and Romans but he can't convince the majority of Jew community to accept the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh).
It had been reported that when they arrived at Lucaonia and heal a person who suffered lame, they were rumoured as gods who had incarnated to them in the form of human. The Greeks called Maar Barnaba as Jupiter and Paulus as Mercury. And then the Greek priests who served Jupiter brought poultry and garlands to the arch doors of the town. They wanted to perform sacrifice with the civilians to their mis-assumed gods Maar Barnaba and Paulus. When those two Maar Barnaba and Paulus heard about the rumor, they immediately tear down their robes and rushing to the place of sacrifice to stop them (Acts of Apostles 14 : 15).
The reaction of the Greeks such as assuming Maar Barnaba and Paulus as their mythological gods had indicated that they were facing problems in spreading the new teaching which is weird in the eyes of the polytheist Greeks. A person who knows prophet Jesus (pbuh) will easily recognize the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) as the continuation of the teaching of prophet Moses (pbuh), they are basically the same. But for the majority of Greek idolaters, this teaching is seen as weird and new to them. Generally idolaters recognize Gods as incarnating in various forms and those forms are known as the gods.
The depiction of Jesus (pbuh) as God the Son is suitable with one of their god or maybe through this way, it is easy for them to accept the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh). Through the Trinity understanding, it is easy for them to comprehend the nature of God in their own understanding. The teaching of Jesus (pbuh), prophet Moses (pbuh), and prophet Abraham (pbuh) is actually the teaching of pure Monotheism where those various gods being eliminated, God is only God, can't be represented by anything. The heathen Greeks or Romans can't accept this basis of Creed. For a person who are as strict as Maar Barnaba and as sincere as Paulus, the task of teaching what had been taught by prophet Jesus (pbuh) in Greece will be a burden if they did not suit or bend it according to their environment.
As for Paulus, he displays the tendency to alter the teaching that he knows, as he can see the opportunity for missionary activity in Greece by first to assimilate the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) through the deification of prophet Jesus (pbuh), Jesus (pbuh) had been converted into Greek a god nature. At that time, Greece had been a part of Roman empire. Roman gods display similarities with Greek gods and Paulus had seized this opportunity to spread the teaching through the alteration way. He knows that it is not easy to convert those Roman-Greek idolaters into the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh), instead he had bending the teaching to suit the way of the Romans and Greeks.
Paulus had innovated and invent a new teaching that is suitable with the Greeks and other non-Jews creed and their way of life. Paulus too had learned about Greek culture and philosophy (Hellenism). He also aware about the Stoa school of thinking where the Universe or Nature is God for them. His persistence in harmonizing the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) with the previous creed of the heathens had made it easier for him to convert the Greco-Romans into the new religion that he had brought. Those creed of the Greco-Roman later become the basic doctrines of Christianity.
Conclusions of the teaching taught by Paulus:
1. Paulus taught that God is not One but Two, namely God the Father and God the Son represented by prophet Jesus (pbuh) (I Corinthian 1 : 3).
2. Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is equal and in fact the same entity with Him, on the other hand He is actually Allah. Although it is accepted that Paulus is not the one who concluded the doctrine of Trinity, he is actually the founder of this heresy for the doctrine to be established in the period after.
3. Prophet Jesus (pbuh) died on the crucifixion, died, and being kept in the sepulcher, resurrected in the third day of his death, ascended to the Heaven and remain at the right hand of Allah. He was crucified to eliminate the Sins of the whole man-kind, nobody spared from the Original Sin as it is inherited from Adam (pbuh).
4. Paulus are the one who taught that the Law of Torah is not valid anymore after the crucifixion event of Jesus in Golgotha. He claims that the Law of Torah is actually the source of Sins and unbearable curse (Na3uzubillah). He had stated his arrogance speech in Galatia 5 : 4.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks