Oral Torah, Sacred Tradition, Ahadith

[muhammad_isa]

I think you have missed the point. The "contradiction", double mindedness, hypocrisy of "Christianity", is based on the leaven of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:11), or more to the point, the leaven/hypocrisy of the Pharisee of Pharisees, Paul.

It might seem that Paul is a hypocrite, but I'm not so sure. The Bible canon has been chosen with an agenda.
An agenda that makes the gospels be interpreted in a certain fashion.
..and then of course we have the gospel of John which includes its own theological ramblings.

The Law/commandments, such as you shall have no other gods before me, is made "obsolete" per some unknown author of Hebrews, whom is often identified as Paul. As for there being many gods, of course there are gods, or why would you need the 1st commandment. The point is that they are not "before"/equal to God..

Yes, indeed. That is the accusation of the Nicene church. That Arians effectively believed in more than One God.
I don't believe it for one minute.
I don't think that Arians were stupid people. I think that they realised that the first commandment was important, and they
did not believe in a "literal son", despite the accusations of their adversaries.

i.e. The Father [ God ], the Son [ Jesus ], and the Holy Spirit [ God's presence ]

They are terms which are being manipulated.

Though Arius was also accused by his opponents of being too liberal, and too loose in his theology, engaging in heresy (as defined by his opponents), some historians argue that Arius was actually quite conservative, and that he deplored how, in his view, Christian theology was being too freely mixed with Greek paganism
- wikipedia -

 

[Thomas]

So what if he did? I ask again what all the fuss was about then? Irrelevant details

The fuss was about a hugely significant aspect of doctrine, with far-reaching consequences, the details of which were far from irrelevant.

As you're not interested in the details, it's hardly surprising you don't see the importance.

I'm not saying that the word "trinity" [ "Τριάς" (Trias) ] was not mentioned by anybody.

You said: "It cannot be shown that the word "trinity" was in use before Arius' time."
I showed you it was.

Now you're backtracking ...

 

[Thomas]

I guess what Thomas and I are talking about is the "Sacred tradition of the Catholic church".

I think the Orthodox Church would take issue with you there. It's the tradition of the Christian Church generally. In terms of numbers, non-trinitarian denominations are a small minority.

I don't think it can be proved through historical documents that the majority of early Christians were trinitarians or not.

It's generally accepted by scholars that the Early Church professed a belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Baptaism was in the name of the three before the close of the first century.

Thomas: "No, not at all. For the Arians, Jesus was God, but a created God."
Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Was God created, or is He eternal?

Well take it up with him! For Arius, God the Father is eternal, God the Son had an origin, although before all ages ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

The fuss was about a hugely significant aspect of doctrine, with far-reaching consequences, the details of which were far from irrelevant.

Exactly!

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's generally accepted by scholars that the Early Church professed a belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Baptaism was in the name of the three before the close of the first century..

I don't have any problem with believing that.

Well take it up with him! For Arius, God the Father is eternal, God the Son had an origin, although before all ages ...

You stating what the belief of Arius was [ in detail ] is what I can't believe.
I can agree with Arians believing "the son" had an origin .. but not "God the son" .. that makes no sense.
I don't think historical sources are reliable on this one .. sorry

 

[muhammad_isa]

Principally, the dispute between Trinitarianism and Arianism was about:

• has the Son always existed eternally with the Father or was the Son begotten at a certain time in the past?
• is the Son equal to the Father or subordinated to the Father?
• for Constantine, it was minor theological claptrap that stood in the way of uniting the Empire, but for the theologians, it was of huge importance; for them, it was a matter of salvation.

. . .

The focus of the Council of Nicaea was the nature of the Son of God and his precise relationship to God the Father (see Paul of Samosata and the Synods of Antioch). Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine/holy and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to God the Father (infinite, primordial origin) in rank and that God the Father and the Son of God were not equal to the Holy Spirit.

..nothing to do with "God the Son"

 

[RJM]

the Son of God ...

nothing to do with "God the Son"

Really?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Really!
Many Muslims believe that Muhammad is "special/Holy", but not God.

"Our Father whom art in heaven" denotes our Maker.
Sons of God refer to "Holy human beings".

Whatever the Arians actually believed, they did NOT believe that Jesus was "the Father" i.e. God

 

[muhammad_isa]

And so everyone else is required to believe the same?

No .. people do not to have to believe anything at all.
You asked a question and I answered it.

I said "Whatever the Arians actually believed, they did NOT believe that Jesus was 'the Father' i.e. God"
I assume you disagree .. you're not an Arian .. that's fine

 

[RJM]

So what other sources DO you believe 'are reliable on this one'?

Still waiting ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

So what other sources DO you believe 'are reliable on this one'?

Impartial ones
That's why I use wikipedia .. it is the best we have for impartial refs, imo.

Isn't the issue here about what is meant by "divine/Holy"?
If the Arians believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father, does that mean they believed in 2 separate gods?
I wouldn't have thought so.

 

[RJM]

Impartial ones
That's why I use wikipedia .. it is the best we have for impartial refs, imo.

Isn't the issue here about what is meant by "divine/Holy"?
If the Arians believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father, does that mean they believed in 2 separate gods?
I wouldn't have thought so.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
John 15:5

 

[RJM]

Roots, leaves, branches -- all one vine.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Roots, leaves, branches -- all one vine.

I don't see what that has to do with what Arians believed

 

[RJM]

I don't see what that has to do with what Arians believed

Why am I not surprised? You don't see anything but what you want to see, or hear anything but what you want to hear.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You can't see anything but what you want to see, or hear anything but what you want to hear.

Well, I suppose that can be said about most people.

I presume what you are suggesting is that Arians believed that
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were all from the "same vine", but not equal.

Doesn't really mean much to me .. I can understand what it means to believe that the Son was subordinate to the Father.
..now that is VERY clear!

 

[muhammad_isa]

Regards Islam and the "tradition of hadith", that too becomes political.
Sunni and Shia, for example, differ in what they consider as authentic.

That would be because of the schism that arose over leadership of the Islamic state.
This occurred during the first century after Muhammad died.

Hadith is not considered as having equal authority to the Qur'an.
It is divided into categories, and designated weak or reliable depending on known chains of transmission.
Many people consider "Sahih hadith" as having very high authority. Nevertheless, they are NOT "God's word"
and are still open to interpretation and error.

Some Hadiths are known as "Hadith Qudsi", meaning "pure or Holy".

Example
------------
Abu Hurayrah, who said that the Messenger of Allah said:
"When God decreed the Creation He pledged Himself by writing in His book which is laid down with Him: My mercy prevails over my wrath."

Abu Hurayrah reported that Allah’s messenger said:
God, Mighty and Exalted is He, said: "If My servant likes to meet me, I like to meet him, and if he dislikes to meet Me, I dislike to meet him.

Shia Muslims do not take as authentic anything narrated by Abu Hurayrah.

 

[Thomas]

You stating what the belief of Arius was [ in detail ] is what I can't believe.
I can agree with Arians believing "the son" had an origin .. but not "God the son" .. that makes no sense.
I don't think historical sources are reliable on this one .. sorry

OK. You can choose to ignore the evidence, but then your whole Arian thesis, and your insistence that the Early Church did not teach the Trinity, does rather fall apart. You argue a point, but then undermine that point by insisting that any evidence we might have is unreliable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK. You can choose to ignore the evidence, but then your whole Arian thesis, and your insistence that the Early Church did not teach the Trinity, does rather fall apart. You argue a point, but then undermine that point by insisting that any evidence we might have is unreliable.

That's unfair..
You are suggesting that we have reliable, impartial evidence about the exact creed of Arius.
I personally doubt that, with good reason.

In any case, what you are suggesting effectively means that the Arians believed in more than one God.
i.e. God the Son being subordinate to God the Father etc.

Do you really think that Arians were that foolish?

The trinity, as you understand it, is different.
It maintains that God is one in its conception.

 

[RJM]

That's unfair..
You are suggesting that we have reliable, impartial evidence about the exact creed of Arius.
I personally doubt that, with good reason.

But what's unfair?
If you are suggesting we don't have reliable, impartial evidence, what good reason do you have to form any opinion?

Wikipedia?
But where else does Wikipedia obtain its reliable, impartial evidence about the exact creed of Arius except from early historical sources?
Like you keep saying, it doesn't make sense.

I think you are trying to avoid having to say that the reliable, impartial evidence you have is Islamic scripture? It's not an accusation, just a question?

Roots, leaves, branches -- all one vine.
Doesn't that make sense?