And how does this become my problem?
The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
Me: They were not denying the divinity of Jesus .. this is the whole point .. they were saying that his divinity was not as great as the Father.
Thomas: Well we agree on that!
Fair enough, we are allowed to change our minds..
You could read the following medium length thesis..
https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=honorsprojects
I believe the book Early Christian Doctrines by J. N. D. Kelly is mentioned in both wiki and that thesis.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Early_Christian_Doctrines.html?id=UivDgM0WywoC&redir_esc=y
What do you think?
I haven't cherry-picked that thesis .. it has nothing to do with Muslims, and I don't necessarily agree with it all.
However, it does seem to suggest that the issue about the divinity of Jesus being less than the Father is correct.
It also informs us that Arius was a scholar, while Alexander was not.
Last edited:
One might also ask the question why on the one hand, the Qur'an says that Christians and Jews will not grieve, and on the other hand, that those who say that Jesus is God will be in the fire?
If the warring factions at the time (Niceans and Arians), both believed that Jesus is God, then what Christians could it be referring to?
If the Qur'an is just "plagiarism" then it's pretty senseless plagiarism.
If the warring factions at the time (Niceans and Arians), both believed that Jesus is God, then what Christians could it be referring to?
If the Qur'an is just "plagiarism" then it's pretty senseless plagiarism.
Last edited:
No-one said that. What was said is that the Quran speaks of some events which were also mentioned earlier in New Testament apocrypha. The evidence is there. Make of it what you will. You should not stir up such things on the internet, which can put the safety of members at risk.
As for why some things are said in the Quran -- that is for those who study the Quran. Most people are more concerned with the scriptures of their own faith than with those of another.
Last edited:
Arianism has been called the "archetypal Christian heresy" because it denies the divinity of Christ. In his masterly examination of Arianism, Professor Rowan Williams (University of Cambridge, Dr.Div, 2006) argues that Arius himself was actually a dedicated theological conservative whose concern was to defend the free and personal character of the Christian God. His "heresy" grew out of an attempt to unite traditional biblical language with radical philosophical ideas and techniques and was, from the start, involved with issues of authority in the church. Thus, the crisis of the early fourth century was not only about the doctrine of God but also about the relations between emperors, bishops, and "charismatic" teachers in the church's decision-making.
Williams speaks or reads eleven languages: English, Welsh, Spanish, French, German, Russian, Biblical Hebrew, Syriac, Latin, and both Ancient (koine) and Modern Greek
Last edited:
reverence - deep respect for someone or something.
eg. "the traditional veneration of saints"
..so, both the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury are Reverends.
They deserve our respect.
eg. "the traditional veneration of saints"
..so, both the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury are Reverends.
They deserve our respect.
+ + +
May I go back to the very beginning of this controversy?
Me: ..so .. a finite being .. NOT God!
Thomas: No, not at all. For the Arians, Jesus was God, but a created God.
- Jan 27 -
Am I missing something here?
I 've always thought that God is Eternal
May I go back to the very beginning of this controversy?
Me: ..so .. a finite being .. NOT God!
Thomas: No, not at all. For the Arians, Jesus was God, but a created God.
- Jan 27 -
Am I missing something here?
I 've always thought that God is Eternal
Reminder: all the historical passages on the subject, including Arius's letters:
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19662/page-8 #150
That's just mumbo-jumbo
If the Father created the Son "before time", then "when" did the Father create him?
..or are you claiming that Arius believed that "the created Son" is also eternal?
If the Son is eternal, then he couldn't have been created.
..sorry..
If the Father created the Son "before time", then "when" did the Father create him?
..or are you claiming that Arius believed that "the created Son" is also eternal?
If the Son is eternal, then he couldn't have been created.
..sorry..
But you're content in your belief to have consigned my wonderful deceased mother and father to eternal flame -- and their loving churchgoing parents too, along with my Christian ancestors?
What are you trying to prove?
I'm not God
What about ..
Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me. ...whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.
— Matthew 25:41–43 (NIV)
Who is being cursed there, do you think?
The bottom line is that the Qur'an says that Jesus is not God.
If you think that he is, that is between you and God. Nothing to do with me.
I HAVE NOT CLAIMED THAT THE BIBLE IS MUMBO-JUMBO
I'm saying that those letters from Alexander are mumbo-jumbo.
Last edited:
No. You are the logical one. By your logic all previous generations of Christians are now roasting, including your own mother and father?
Who said you did? And it would be your privilege to do so if you wanted to. No-one would murder you for insulting, disrespecting their holy book.
Last edited:
..so we have this from The Thalia..
Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father's will,
He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others
- extract from the Thalia -
..so because we see the words "He is the Only-begotten God" and claim that the Thalia is most likely authentic/true,
then that is what Arians believed?
It makes no sense as I have already demonstrated.
God is eternal, and the Son is not. Therefore, the Son is not "God".
It's just "an illusion" playing on the word "God" .. word salad .. it is not serious theology.
Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father's will,
He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others
- extract from the Thalia -
..so because we see the words "He is the Only-begotten God" and claim that the Thalia is most likely authentic/true,
then that is what Arians believed?
It makes no sense as I have already demonstrated.
God is eternal, and the Son is not. Therefore, the Son is not "God".
It's just "an illusion" playing on the word "God" .. word salad .. it is not serious theology.
Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the topic.
Defaming Muslims is no defence of the reality of what happened before Muhammad was even born.
You are not forced to believe in the Qur'an.
You are not forced to believe in the Bible.
You are not forced to be a Catholic.
You are not forced to be a JW.
You are not forced to be an atheist.
What Muslims believe is irrelevant.
What Muslims might do or not do is irrelevant.
Please stay on topic!
You are not forced to believe in the Bible.
You are not forced to be a Catholic.
You are not forced to be a JW.
You are not forced to be an atheist.
What Muslims believe is irrelevant.
What Muslims might do or not do is irrelevant.
Please stay on topic!
Now, so predictably, out comes the victim card. Despicable. No-one is defaming Muslims. Face the question. Explain why my mother and father and all my ancestors are busy roasting in hell. You are trying to carry out a logical credible discussion are you not?
Reminder:
Victim card again. Despicable. Answer the question