A refutation of the refutation of 'an affair on Golgatha'

Like the warning I politely provided to you? And still no apology for your blasphemy. In your eyes it is fine to rip apart what you don't understand. But when someone rips apart what you cherish, you take offense?

And I'm certain you fail to see the hypocrisy.

A rational demolition of Islam is every bit as possible, if you like I can continue?
 
juantoo3 said:
..In your eyes it is fine to rip apart what you don't understand. But when someone rips apart what you cherish, you take offense?
Click to expand...

I am not taking it personally. It is clear you are just being rude, and not taking part in debate. That is not acceptable.
 
muhammad_isa said:
Is that what this is to you, a game?
Either give your evidence, independent from the Bible, that "God is a trinity" or I shall ignore you :)
Click to expand...
Sorry to step in here again. Are you asking for evidence independent from the Bible that God exists? Or independent of the Quran? We need to start with this independent evidence that God exists at all, before starting to get involved in the finer details, such as trinity or monotheism?

So do you have independent evidence of the fact that God exists?
 
RJM Corbet said:
Are you asking for evidence independent from the Bible that God exists?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. It can't be "proved" that God exists. We recently had a discussion about God being "within".
For example, a child finds it easy to understand the concept that our existence is not just a coincidence, and there must be something [ we call God ] responsible. It is debatable, but I would say that is why we have religions.

RJM Corbet said:
We need to start with this independent evidence that God exists at all, before starting to get involved in the finer details, such as trinity or monotheism?
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. In the OP, I suggested that one needs evidence APART from quoting literal Bible verses to sort out this issue.
That means that the Bible is [apparently] contradictory, as I can show you verses that LEAVE NO DOUBT that Jesus is not God, and you can quote me verses which imply that He is.

The only way that one can reconcile the contradictions is to claim that the trinity is a mystery, and does not have to be rational.
Claiming I don't understand the trinity, for example, does not address the issues of contradiction. It is not just a question of one or 2 verses .. there are many.
I therefore conclude that we need evidence, other than quoting the Bible, to support God being "3 in 1". Otherwise, we just get nowhere. You quote your verse .. I quote my verse .. I say God is rational .. you say He is not etc.

In other words, I'm asking why orthodox Christians claim that other creeds are heretical, based on unsound theology.
Even if one claims that the Bible is inerrant, it is STILL quite reasonable to believe that God is One, and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
You misunderstand
Click to expand...
Nope. Before arguing details, independent of scripture of triune or monotheistic deity, the requirement falls upon you to indicate that deity itself can be proved independent of scripture?

Which is the whole purpose of your OP.

Ducking and diving won't help. A response to the problem is required?
 
RJM Corbet said:
Nope. Before arguing details, independent of scripture of triune or monotheistic deity, the requirement falls upon you to indicate that deity itself can be proved independent of scripture?
Click to expand...

The deity? :)
You mean "my god" .. "your god" sort of stuff?

Well, I agree with Einstein .. I don't have a personal god.
I believe that the concept of "one god" makes a lot of sense. I'm not alone. Apparently there are many people in the world who agree, and who believe in the Bible & Qur'an.
It is a question of creed, not different deities.

I think what you are saying in effect, is that it can't be done. One can't prove that God exists without the Bible. One can't prove that God is a trinity without the Bible etc.
I would like to add that you can't prove that God exists .. full stop :D

However, mankind has a history, and we are able to use our intelligence.
People can conclude what they like for whatever reason, when it comes to religion.
Truth is distinct from falsehood. A court of law will not accept "mysteries" in evidence .. as far as I'm aware.
 
muhammad_isa said:
what you are saying in effect, is that it can't be done. One can't prove that God exists without the Bible. One can't prove that God is a trinity without the Bible etc.
I would like to add that you can't prove that God exists .. full stop
Click to expand...
The Quran?
muhammad_isa said:
However, mankind has a history, and we are able to use our intelligence.
People can conclude what they like for whatever reason, when it comes to religion.
Truth is distinct from falsehood. A court of law will not accept "mysteries" in evidence .. as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...
Why don't you read over what you've just written? What requires your reading and your definition correct? What requires even the fact that you believe in God to be correct? What requires your definition of what God requires from mankind correct? Where is the independent non-scriptural evidence to support it.

I'm basically waiting now for your next sidestep and avoiding the question ...
 
Last edited:
Before requiring of others to provide non scriptural evidence to justify what they believe, is it first necessary to provide non scriptural evidence for what you believe?
 
RJM Corbet said:
Why don't you read over what you've just written? What requires your reading and your definition correct? What requires even the fact that you believe in God to be correct? What requires your definition of what God requires from mankind correct? Where is the independent non-scriptural evidence to support it.

I'm basically waiting now for your next sidestep and avoiding the question ...
Click to expand...

That is many questions :)

I know .. it's the last bit that you find offensive "truth is distinct from falsehood".
I think that you would agree with me when it comes to the subject of whether God exists or not.
We both believe the Bible contains truth.

The problem arises when it comes to creed.
Well, one can follow whatever they like .. for whatever reason.

It is our own business why we follow a certain creed, but you know why I follow mine .. because I find it rational.
What I can't accept, is that God would expect anybody to believe in a creed which can't be rationally explained.

eg. Jesus was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days

Can God be tempted?
I know .. the Son is God, but he is not the Father etc. :(
 
And I don't find a creed that believes G-d is a liar to be rational. Point blank, it isn't rational.

The ONLY way it can be made rational is if G-d and Allah are not the same.
 
muhammad_isa said:
think that you would agree with me when it comes to the subject of whether God exists or not.
We both believe the Bible contains truth.
Click to expand...
it's no good putting your arm around my shoulder saying: look buddy we're both Abrahamics and so you know basically we do agree, nudge nudge, wink wink ...

I totally dispute your conclusions and do not support them at all.

muhammad_isa said:
Jesus was tempted in the wilderness
Click to expand...
Before going against other faiths you need to focus on providing non-scriptural evidence that your own faith is sound instead of continuing to flip up wiki quotes like cards, with no understanding of matrix and context.

Why do you have to focus on what somebody else believes? What's the problem why can't you just be what you are and get in with it?

Now where is your non scripture proof for your own belief?

No ducking and diving ...
 
Last edited:
If you cannot provide it for yourself, how can you require it from others?
 
RJM Corbet said:
I totally dispute your conclusions and do not support them at all.
Click to expand...

OK .. but why?

RJM Corbet said:
..Before going against other faiths you need to focus on providing non-scriptural evidence that your own faith is sound instead of continuing to flip up wiki quotes like cards..
Click to expand...

That's a contradiction .. wikipedia IS a non-scriptural source of knowledge.

RJM Corbet said:
Now where is your non scripture proof for your own belief?
Click to expand...

I have already said that it is not possible to prove whether God exists.
In the same way, one cannot categorically prove that a creed is correct.
One CAN start with "a blank slate" and look at all the evidence, scriptural and non-scriptural, and make unbiased conclusions based on their research.
..but it can't be proved.

That is why I object to Christians who insist on belief in the trinity. It can't be proved, and what's more it's irrational.
 
Last edited:
The other major irritant to Eastern Christendom was the Western use of the filioque clause—meaning "and the Son"—in the Nicene Creed . This too developed gradually and entered the Creed over time. The issue was the addition by the West of the Latin clause filioque to the Creed, as in "the Holy Spirit... who proceeds from the Father and the Son," where the original Creed, sanctioned by the councils and still used today, by the Eastern Orthodox simply states "the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father."
...
Theologically, the Latin interpolation was unacceptable since it implied that the Spirit now had two sources of origin and procession, the Father and the Son, rather than the Father alone.
Click to expand...
- wikipedia -

As I say, the trinity has always been a source of controversy.
Clearly, it still is.

There is plenty of controversy within Islam also. It is mankind. They are not pure.
Their intentions are often questionable.
I'll be glad when I die .. it'll all be over then :)
..but meanwhile, we are all entitled to our opinions.
 
Last edited:
The Corpus Juris (or Iuris) Civilis ("Body of Civil Law") is the modern name for a collection of fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued from 529 to 534 by order of Justinian I, Byzantine Emperor.
...
Legislation about religion
Numerous provisions served to secure the status of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, uniting Church and state, and making anyone who was not connected to the Christian church a non-citizen. The Christianity referred to is Chalcedonian Christianity as defined by the state church, which excluded a variety of other major Christian sects in existence at the time such as the Church of the East and Oriental Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
Laws against heresy
The very first law in the Codex requires all persons under the jurisdiction of the Empire to hold the Christian faith. This was primarily aimed at heresies such as Nestorianism. This text later became the springboard for discussions of international law, especially the question of just what persons are under the jurisdiction of a given state or legal system.
Click to expand...
- wikipedia -

This goes on and on..
Mankind and his love of power, eh?

It is a test from God being in a comfortable majority. The fact that a majority of people might share a religious creed does not make it true.
Mankind have been created weak .. we often love privilege, wealth & power more than we do God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top