'An Affair On Golgotha' -- a refutation

[muhammad_isa]

You ignored the rest of my post. 'The Lord' ate with Abraham. Actually I think you're just deliberately misunderstanding. And it's impossible to have a proper conversation with somebody who keeps doing that. This is a waste of time ...

I see .. I agree with you that God can do what He wills .. including making angels appear as men.
The question still remains, "why did God cause Moses to fall down senseless when He asked God to reveal Himself"?
Why didn't he see Jesus etc?

In any case .. that is a different subject.
Can you please comment on the verse in Luke which implies Jesus is a material man and not a ghost after his
crucifixion? Furthermore, it is the majority belief in Christianity, so your keep bringing up the Qur'an is just you whining.

I don't see how discussing this is a waste of time .. unless of course you wish to make no spiritual progress
and stick to your preconceived ideas until you die, as if you have nothing to learn.

I am willing to learn from anybody, but I'm afraid "it's a mystery" does not explain anything .. it looks like a "cop out" to me.

 

[RJM]

Can you please comment on the verse in Luke which implies Jesus is a material man and not a ghost after his
crucifixion? Furthermore, it is the majority belief in Christianity, so your keep bringing up the Qur'an is just you whining.

Read the verse in context. Read what Thomas said. Read my Babaji Boddisatvva post, go back and read the other posts about it. Jesus Christ is not limited to what you want him to be. You are still my friend, but you're not my teacher. So just knock it off trying to educate Christians, won't you. Last word from me here ...

 

[Thomas]

I am willing to learn from anybody, but I'm afraid "it's a mystery" does not explain anything .. it looks like a "cop out" to me.

The Resurrection is no more a 'cop out' than Virgin Birth, or miracles recorded in the Scriptures ... yet I assume you accept that?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Last word from me here ...

As you wish

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Resurrection is no more a 'cop out' than Virgin Birth, or miracles recorded in the Scriptures ... yet I assume you accept that?

I didn't say that the Resurrection was a cop out.
If I said that God has two parts or God has ninety nine parts .. but I can't rationally explain it .. it's a mystery .. what would YOU conclude?
There is no need answer .. I realise that you have already chosen the magic number of 3

 

[Thomas]

If I said that God has two parts or God has ninety nine parts .. but I can't rationally explain it .. it's a mystery .. what would YOU conclude?
There is no need answer .. I realise that you have already chosen the magic number of 3

The problem here is that you regard what you think we believe as illogical or irrational, or even 'heretical', whereas that's not what we believe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The problem here is that you regard what you think we believe as illogical or irrational, or even 'heretical', whereas that's not what we believe.

I see .. you accuse me of ignorance..

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold") holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios). In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.

The subset of Christianity that accepts this doctrine is collectively known as Trinitarianism, while the subset that does not is referred to as Nontrinitarianism (see also Arianism)

- wikipedia -

Constantine died as a nontrinitarian. Good man!

 

[Thomas]

I see .. you accuse me of ignorance..

Not really, its a common enough misunderstanding.

Paragraphs 253-255 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (abbreviated):
The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire.

"Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being ... They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."

Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another... While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes .. you explain the wiki summary in more detail.
i.e. a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.

..so 3 persons .. but made of the same substance.
Sorry .. the Arians have it

The trinity is dogma that is derived from GUESSING .. not what Jesus actually said.
The safest approach to God is honoring the first commandment, and ignoring any contradictory dogma.
It IS contradictory .. however you wish to explain it .. effectively "splitting hairs" about persons.
God is not a person as we understand the word. He is of an infinite nature .. eternal.
Why should God have 3 "roles" .. why not 2 or an infinite amount?
No .. sorry

Isaac Newton became a professor in the university of Cambridge. Prior to his appointment, it
was necessary to profess a belief in the trinity. They made an exception for him, and
one doesn't even have to be a Christian these days

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

This is an oft-asked question when discussing physical resurrection, and of course we cannot know with absolute certainty the state of affairs until they unfold, but Scripture itself offers a path to answers if one contemplates the text

Thomas, I will start from the beginning and reply to the original OP post, as that will reset what I have offered so far.

All the complexities of looking at scripture in context, as you have noted in your posts, have to me, even wider frames of references that can be discussed, only by offering the new frames of reference.

When the new frames of reference are considered, the same context of any given word, or passage or chapter, or entire scripture, can take on new context and vast new meaning.

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

Sorry .. the Arians have it

If that's derived from the prior comment, then you've misunderstood Arianism!

The trinity is dogma that is derived from GUESSING .. not what Jesus actually said.

No, it's really not. It's actually quite logical.

The safest approach to God is honoring the first commandment, and ignoring any contradictory dogma.

The commandment is against 'other' gods. The Trinity does not contradict that.

It IS contradictory ... however you wish to explain it ...

You mean is TO YOU it's contradictory.

All I can say is, yes, I can understand that, because you're arguing from a flawed understanding of the doctrine.

God is not a person as we understand the word. He is of an infinite nature .. eternal.

Quite right.

Why should God have 3 "roles" .. why not 2 or an infinite amount?

Three is adequate to reveal something of the interiority of God (as much as can be comprehended) and the vocation of humanity.

Three can be derived from the Hadith Qudsi:
کنت کنزاً مخفیاً فأحببت أن أعرف فخلقت الخلق لکی أعرف

It has different translations in English:
I was a hidden treasure; I loved to be known. Hence I created the world so that I would be known
I was a hidden treasure, and I wished to be known, so I created a creation (mankind), then made Myself known to them, and they recognised Me
I was a Treasure unknown then I desired to be known so I created a creation to which I made Myself known; then they knew Me

The Principle of the Revealer, the Knower and the Knowledge must exist within God as the blueprint or image of its actualisation. In the Principle it is three and it is one, the same in essence and substance.

No .. sorry

OK.

 

[Thomas]

All the complexities of looking at scripture in context, as you have noted in your posts, have to me, even wider frames of references that can be discussed, only by offering the new frames of reference.

One has to be sure of whether that new frame of reference has any relevance or indeed insight in what it's being applied to, or indeed are they actually new. When the new frame interprets pre-existent in light of itself, to the detriment of the original frame, then we need proceed with great care.

And the new frame itself has to be viewed in context of its arising.

When the new frames of reference are considered, the same context of any given word, or passage or chapter, or entire scripture, can take on new context and vast new meaning.

If the new frame is indeed new, or applicable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If that's derived from the prior comment, then you've misunderstood Arianism!

I shan't bother to quote wikipedia about Arianism again.
Do you think Arians believed in the trinity or not? Yes or no? No but's please.

Three is adequate to reveal something of the interiority of God (as much as can be comprehended) and the vocation of humanity.

3 really is a magic number for you it seems

Triads of three closely associated deities were commonly found throughout the ancient world, and in particular in the religious traditions of Ancient Greece and Egypt

- wikipedia -

You seem to think that by claiming that the 3 deities are just "different aspects" of the One deity,
then the first commandment is not nullified.
To base one's creed on such thoughts is not my idea of sanity.
..particularly as much of the NT is Greek!

 

[muhammad_isa]

One has to be sure of whether that new frame of reference has any relevance or indeed insight in what it's being applied to..

I agree with you there..
The main problem is that people won't consider anything other than what fits in with their own preconceived ideas.
There could be many reasons for this..

eg. feelings of insecurity .. frightened of change .. happy with the status quo .. dislike of the new frame etc.

Of course, it is a lot more complicated than that .. our minds do not just operate on the surface.

 

[RJM]

The main problem is that people won't consider anything other than what fits in with their own preconceived ideas.

Or perhaps they just think you are wrong? Oops ... sorry

 

[muhammad_isa]

Or perhaps they just think you are wrong?

Yes "bishop" .. I'm just a pawn .. I'm expendable

 

[Thomas]

Do you think Arians believed in the trinity or not? Yes or no? No but's please.

Short answer: Yes, they believed in a qualified trinity – they believed in God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit.

3 really is a magic number for you it seems

Yep, of course, because the Cosmos is Trinity-shaped!

As the Sufis say:
The authority of this number is to be the name for appearing of the possible things in the realm. Because the creation of God is done by the word “Be”. “When We will something to happen, all what We say is “Be! And it is.” (Al-Nahl, 16/40).The arabic word for “Be” is “كون “, which is made of three letters. These letters are ( ك ), ( و ), ( ن ). Therefore the number 3 is the number of the divine creations.

According to Ibn Arabi, the world came into being with a triple structure.
scienceandsufism.com

You seem to think that by claiming that the 3 deities are just "different aspects" of the One deity, then the first commandment is not nullified.

That's right, it's not.

To base one's creed on such thoughts is not my idea of sanity.

Evidently.

 

[Thomas]

I agree with you there..
The main problem is that people won't consider anything other than what fits in with their own preconceived ideas. There could be many reasons for this..

True, that's why one should examine the basis on which the 'frame' in question is rejected.

Usually one can spot the poor argument of one who simply insists the other is wrong, without actually offering a rational critique, often accompanied by straw man, ad hominem, appeal to ignorance and other illogical fallacies.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Short answer: Yes, they believed in a qualified trinity – they believed in God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit..

God knows the truth of what you allege .. i.e. they were trinitarians
Yeah, you would say that .. their persecution has been going on for 100's of years.

Reconstructing what Arius actually taught, and why, is a formidable task, both because little of his own work survives except in quotations selected for polemical purposes by his opponents, and also because there is no certainty about what theological and philosophical traditions formed his thought.

Arians do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity

- wikipedia -

 

[juantoo3]

Isaac Newton became a professor in the university of Cambridge. Prior to his appointment, it
was necessary to profess a belief in the trinity. They made an exception for him, and one doesn't even have to be a Christian these days

Indeed:

Newton was a fellow of Trinity College and the second Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian who privately rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. Unusually for a member of the Cambridge faculty of the day, he refused to take holy orders in the Church of England.

By refusing to take Holy Orders from the COE, he was never allowed to take the pulpit, quite unusual for his day, allowance was made for his sheer mathematical brilliance. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson came to similar conclusions and composed the Jefferson Bible, essentially a collection of Jesus sayings and little more. The difference being Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian. Newton kept his views primarily to himself, a good bit of the reason he was allowed to continue. Jefferson on the other hand, as a Freemason, was a bit more outspoken at least among his fellow brethren.

Back to Newton:

During the Middle Ages, people would often answer questions by an appeal to authority. They would use the Latin term ipse dixit, “he himself said it,” meaning that some recognized authority—Aristotle, Ptolemy, or one of the church fathers such as Augustine or Thomas Aquinas—had said it. This appeal to authority was the end of the discussion for many. Newton, however, rejected this appeal to authority and instead advocated the use of experiments and careful observations to find out what is true, which is the basis of the modern scientific method.

A true scientist requires analysis based on experiments and observational evidence—it is not a matter of popular opinion or what some authority figure states.

Newton was both a scientist and a believer in God.

In his famous Principia, Newton wrote: “This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all. . . . The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect . . . and from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being. . . . He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present.”

Newton answers: “The first Principles of the Christian religion are founded, not on disputable conclusions, opinions, or conjectures, or on human sanctions, but on the express words of Christ and his Apostles; and we are to hold fast the form of sound words. 2 Tim. 1:13. And further, it is not enough that a proposition be true or in the express words of scripture: it must also appear to have been taught in the days of the Apostles.” [11] And again: “The first Principles of the Christian religion depend not on disputable conclusions. . . . Every truth, every sentence in scripture is not a fundamental article. It must be delivered in the express words of the first teachers, and appear to have been an article taught from the beginning.” [12] So here is Newton’s approach for understanding the Bible—read the “express words of scripture” and what was “taught in the days of the Apostles.”

A Brief Survey of Sir Isaac Newton's Views on Religion | Religious Studies Center (byu.edu)

I find it odd Newton would reference 2 Timothy if, as a book attributed to Paul, the same who is discredited by the likes of Mr Garaffa who would no doubt agree with Newton's conclusions, he nevertheless dismisses the verse pointed to. Curiouser and curiouser.

Surely Newton, leaps and bounds smarter than I, would have realized the glaring hypocrisy. So either Newton had no issue with Paul, or the scripture insertion was by the author of the article, a doctoral student at Brigham Young University and so a lean towards the Mormon variant of faith would be expected. Since I am unfamiliar with the details of Mormon teachings I will let further comment here pass, but it does point out a glaring discrepancy.

And to Jefferson:

in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa ... were using the ports of today’s Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson’s friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen.” This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not.

What Jefferson really thought about Islam. (slate.com)

emphasis mine, -jt3

Of note, this police action was the birth of the United States Marine Corps.