Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I am sure Bahaollah also studied 'Injil and Qur'an. So what is new? Jesus was a jew and had studied Tanakh.
Arian Christology
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
One can add lots of things to creeds..
Most Muslims consider the shahada to be the foundation of faith as is the shema in Judaism [ first commandment ]
Mohammad was not the father of any one of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of God and the seal (the last) of the Prophets, and Allah has the knowledge of all things
- Qur’an 33: 40 -
Can the above verse be interpreted any other way? I don't think so.
..so therefore, yes .. Muhammad is the last of a succession of prophets.
Orthodox Christians claim that Jesus is God, and so there is no more need of any more prophets.
In Islam, it is the Qur'an that holds prominence. It is remembered word-for-word by 1000's of people since its conception.
..so what would be the role of a new prophet? Does God REALLY keep changing his mind
on what mankind should believe and follow?
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be "the mahdi" .. which then becomes "messiah" .. and then "prophet" etc.
..much like anybody who claims to be someone special, we need to be skeptical while also considering what they have to say.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
The words in brackets (the last) are an interpretation, the Quran does not say the last, but a Seal.
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men but (he is) the Apostle of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
A seal means has a lot more meaning.
Regards Tony
OK خاتم النبيين [ khatam an-nabiyyin ]
I was replying to @Aupmanyav
Believing that Muhammad is the last prophet is not part of the shahada.
It is a belief that comes from Qur'an and hadith.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
You do know that the Christian would say the Trinity is also part of the Bible and tradition.
History repeats.
Regards Tony
That doesn't really teach us anything specific..
Are you an expert in classical Arabic? I'm not.
Can you tell us what خاتم النبيين means, please?
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
No, but I know someone that was more than an expert.
There is a lot of information now given on this topic, but I know the result of this conversation, so peace be with you.
Regards Tony
I can't say that I know the result. I haven't talked to Bahai's before.
..and peace be with you
I'm just looking it up..
- The Kitáb-i-Íqán -
Yes, I think I get it. He is saying that ALL of the prophets were "the seal".
That's no problem for me..
I don't derive my creed from one or two verses of the Qur'an.
I also don't believe in "royal blood" .. that is, people being special due to their lineage
eg. sayyids
Last edited:
True .. they were regional..
It comes as no surprise to me, that Christians in the East suffered the most. This would reflect the fact that they were much closer to the epicenter. Areas further away were more likely less "extreme" in their approach.
--------------------------------------
summer of 303: the arrest and imprisonment of all bishops and priests
Nov 303: Any imprisoned clergyman could now be freed, so long as he agreed to make a sacrifice to the gods
304: The fourth edict ordered all persons, men, women, and children, to gather in a public space and offer a collective sacrifice. If they refused, they were to be executed.
..and so on goes the persecution until 311 -313
That was BOUND to have an effect on the demographics of the church. The claim that the majority of Christians had always believed in Nicene Christianity has no firm foundation.
My intention in this thread is not to belittle anybody. I actually think quite highly of the Catholic church.
Nevertheless, I think it would be dishonest of me to ignore such important theological issues.
Nevertheless, I think it would be dishonest of me to ignore such important theological issues.
The comment was light-hearted, I should have made that clear.
Hi Tony –
Maximus the Confessor speaks of the creation as:
Mineral
Vegetable
Animal
Human
Angelic
The first three belong to the material realm; the Angelic belongs to the spirit/intellect realm, and man has a foot in both, standing at the apex. The first three have 'spirit', but not consciousness of the spirit, there is no 'seat of the intellect' or reflective capacity.
The Holy Spirit is Uncreate, and thus transcends all created categories.
Regarding the talk you cite, It seems there's an intermediary between the Human Spirit and the Holy Spirit? In Christianity, there is no such 'intercessor', the 'dialogue' between human and divine is direct.
Interesting.
Maximus the Confessor speaks of the creation as:
Mineral
Vegetable
Animal
Human
Angelic
The first three belong to the material realm; the Angelic belongs to the spirit/intellect realm, and man has a foot in both, standing at the apex. The first three have 'spirit', but not consciousness of the spirit, there is no 'seat of the intellect' or reflective capacity.
The Holy Spirit is Uncreate, and thus transcends all created categories.
Regarding the talk you cite, It seems there's an intermediary between the Human Spirit and the Holy Spirit? In Christianity, there is no such 'intercessor', the 'dialogue' between human and divine is direct.
Best wishes, Muhammad. Hopefully we have all gained a bit from one another. For me, the subject of the trinity is now exhausted. Though still around, interested in what others have to say. I apologise if I have sounded rude or short-tempered.
Last edited:
In one of Kaballah lectures by Tony Kosinec he says that the simplest, most basic living inhabitant of the vegetable realm, contains within it all the ‘nature’ of the mineral kingdom combined.
The simplest, most basic creature of the animal realm, contains within it all the nature of the entire vegetable kingdom combined. A human being contains all the nature of the animal kingdom.
Lecture starts at 1.30 min
Last edited:
You're welcome to try
D'you think? It was specific about the Son and Father, but the Trinity? Can you show me where?
No he wasn't, he was arguing against the eternity of the Son. The whole dispute rides on "the was a time when he (the Son) was not". You really should try and put yourself in Arius' place, not put Arius where you are ...OF COURSE Arius didn't mention "the trinity" .. he was arguing against it
Yep, that's Maximus, too. All created nature reaches its fulfilment and apex in the human.
I am not disputing that. That negates "the trinity" that is part of the Nicene creed.
i.e. the Son is "very God of very God"
I'm not saying that Arius did not believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or baptise in their name etc.
As an aside, something that crops up more than once is that:
1) A declaration that Christ cannot be the Incarnate of God;
2) That the Trinity is a man-made doctrine;
3) That Trinitarian Christians are confined and limited by their doctrine.
And yet, as a Trinitarian Christian, when people offer an alternative, they present 'old models' as 'revelation', when it's just 'the same old, same old'.
In line with the great mystics of the Tradition, the Incarnation and the Trinity are keystones of Christian Revelation, to begin to comprehend them requires thinking outside the box, as it were, or beyond the veil. It is my experience that those who point out the error of our ways seek to bring down a veil and curtail the horizon.
1) A declaration that Christ cannot be the Incarnate of God;
2) That the Trinity is a man-made doctrine;
3) That Trinitarian Christians are confined and limited by their doctrine.
And yet, as a Trinitarian Christian, when people offer an alternative, they present 'old models' as 'revelation', when it's just 'the same old, same old'.
In line with the great mystics of the Tradition, the Incarnation and the Trinity are keystones of Christian Revelation, to begin to comprehend them requires thinking outside the box, as it were, or beyond the veil. It is my experience that those who point out the error of our ways seek to bring down a veil and curtail the horizon.
Not necessarily.
. In his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius says:
"... the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, fully God" (πλήρης θεός pleres theos, fully God) And the letter is quoted by both Athanasius and Theodoret – and it seems reasonable if they, as 'victors' were casting Arius in a poor light, they would not have included that phrase.
All the Creed says is "And the Holy Spirit" ... hardly the Romans handing down a definition of the Trinity!