hola
since you really just want to have another conversation about how warped Christianity is perhaps it's time for you to qualify some of the statements you are regurgitating from muslim 'scholars' like ahmed deedat or zakir naik. for example - maybe muslims could make up their minds about who the evil cabal of sinister people was that 'promoted' jesus to God?
sometimes it's the apostle st. paul, a jewish convert of absolutely no significance to the empire, other times it's a roman emperor, one of the most powerful men in history. i've even heard the assertion it was a secret group of jews trying to discredit jesus.
the only thing consistent about these theories is that they lack consistency... there is no connection by time (300 years from Paul to Constantine), nor by place (726 miles from byzantium to jerusalem), nor by motivation (Paul = agent of evil, Constantine = enterprising pagan). in fact very often they are mutually exclusive, like arguing Paul and then Constantine - it puts the so called 'creation' of Jesus' divinity 300 years apart.
not that most muslims who talk about Paul or Nicea actually know what the Trinity is or how that relates to (and is different from) Jesus' divinity.
i guess the only other thing they have in common is that they lack historical foundation. Constantine was an arian (the ones who lost), not a trinitarian. as was his spiritual advisor eusebius. in the end the alexandrian trinitarians were persecuted by the empire for the next 100 years until the last arian emperor died.
meanwhile, the only actual evidence we have that a saul of tarsus even existed comes from scripture and sacred tradition alone. there are no outside sources, at all. tellingly, the only sources that reference him demonstrate his piety and worthiness to be called an apostle of God, the disciples and other apostles respected him. character assasins rely on their own interpretation of specific selections of scripture then fill in the blanks with active imaginations.
it's difficult to take you seriously when you can't even choose which conspiracy theory is the 'right one,' especially when you insult everyone from our apostles and disciples to our Holy Fathers in the process. not that it matters to you how many of our extremely important religious figures are unjustly defamed and insulted while you grope for an excuse in the night.
and is there a reason we should listen to muslim self appointed scholars on christianity? they don't listen to us when we explain or try to talk to them instead of listening like good children in class. they usually lack any serious academic merit to add weight to their opinions, so why be so pushy with their blasphemous and insulting words?
que Dios te bendiga
since you really just want to have another conversation about how warped Christianity is perhaps it's time for you to qualify some of the statements you are regurgitating from muslim 'scholars' like ahmed deedat or zakir naik. for example - maybe muslims could make up their minds about who the evil cabal of sinister people was that 'promoted' jesus to God?
sometimes it's the apostle st. paul, a jewish convert of absolutely no significance to the empire, other times it's a roman emperor, one of the most powerful men in history. i've even heard the assertion it was a secret group of jews trying to discredit jesus.
the only thing consistent about these theories is that they lack consistency... there is no connection by time (300 years from Paul to Constantine), nor by place (726 miles from byzantium to jerusalem), nor by motivation (Paul = agent of evil, Constantine = enterprising pagan). in fact very often they are mutually exclusive, like arguing Paul and then Constantine - it puts the so called 'creation' of Jesus' divinity 300 years apart.
not that most muslims who talk about Paul or Nicea actually know what the Trinity is or how that relates to (and is different from) Jesus' divinity.
i guess the only other thing they have in common is that they lack historical foundation. Constantine was an arian (the ones who lost), not a trinitarian. as was his spiritual advisor eusebius. in the end the alexandrian trinitarians were persecuted by the empire for the next 100 years until the last arian emperor died.
meanwhile, the only actual evidence we have that a saul of tarsus even existed comes from scripture and sacred tradition alone. there are no outside sources, at all. tellingly, the only sources that reference him demonstrate his piety and worthiness to be called an apostle of God, the disciples and other apostles respected him. character assasins rely on their own interpretation of specific selections of scripture then fill in the blanks with active imaginations.
it's difficult to take you seriously when you can't even choose which conspiracy theory is the 'right one,' especially when you insult everyone from our apostles and disciples to our Holy Fathers in the process. not that it matters to you how many of our extremely important religious figures are unjustly defamed and insulted while you grope for an excuse in the night.
and is there a reason we should listen to muslim self appointed scholars on christianity? they don't listen to us when we explain or try to talk to them instead of listening like good children in class. they usually lack any serious academic merit to add weight to their opinions, so why be so pushy with their blasphemous and insulting words?
que Dios te bendiga
Last edited:
