PDA

View Full Version : Islam and Christianity: Is it the same God?



resolve
15th February 15, 03:32 PM
soUsoSPa9D4

resolve
15th February 15, 03:34 PM
It's the same reason that the space-Jesus from Mormonism is not considered the same deity as Jesus from christianity.

Same titles, or even same name as in Mormonism, but completely and utterly different and irreconcilable natures.


*goes back to reading about Souls and christian history*

resolve
15th February 15, 04:56 PM
For more in-depth and both sides presented:

EXN7PSVr2-U

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th February 15, 05:20 PM
LOL! blind people arguing about the colour of an orange!

nihilist
15th February 15, 10:15 PM
New Testament is to Old Testament as Mormonism is to garden variety Xtianity.

Üser Friendly
16th February 15, 03:18 AM
Is Catholic god same as Proddy god?

God is meerly a reflection of one's psyche

nihilist
16th February 15, 03:49 AM
Why do you think there are thirty-three thousand denominations of Christianity?

The only way Christianity works is if a person reinterprets it till it's palatable or treats it like a buffet.

resolve
16th February 15, 08:32 PM
Oranges taste like lemons!

Spade: The Real Snake
16th February 15, 08:36 PM
Muhammad won't let you receive PMs, Resolve.

Try Buddha.

resolve
16th February 15, 09:05 PM
Why do you think there are thirty-three thousand denominations of Christianity?

The only way Christianity works is if a person reinterprets it till it's palatable or treats it like a buffet.

Wrong.

There are 3 extant modes of Christianity from which denominations branch: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.

Most of the splits occurred because of three reasons:

1) Organizational: This is the biggest reason. This person didn't like that bishop or pastor so went on to form his/her own congregation but the bigwigs running the denomination didn't agree so they pulled funding so that new congregation just forms their own denomination. Or a congregation couldn't decide on how they wanted to structure themselves (do we have lay elders or deacons? does it matter?) so they split and formed identical denominations (see Church of God/Assemblies of God) just with different structure. This can also be from political meddling (for famous example see Anglicanism vs Roman Catholicism) after the mixture of church and state. This is -THE- number one reason for so many different denominations which is truly a modern phenomenon in the history of the Christian church. Many churches in history who would be considered a different denomination to modern eyes in this way would be dumbfounded because they considered themselves in full communion, if not always full agreement, with their fellow churches in their See.

2) Traditional: This occurs when separate congregations have been apart for a long time and develop different traditions (do we sing? do we read publicly? are we stoic? are we joyful? etc) after the separation. This occurred historically from events like Rome getting beat up by barbarians, Islam splitting the Christian world into 3, Celtic christians being separated from their See for a long time (although eventually they rejoined in communion with Rome), a missionary leads some people to Christ and gave them some Scripture but then does not have contact with them again so they form their own group, et cetera.

3) Theological: This is what most people think of as being the reason there are so many denominations when it is honestly the first two that account for most of the different denominations and historically it has been over some really petty things (is Christ -in- two natures or -of- two natures? is the trinity the best way to explain Father/Son/Holy Spirit dynamic? is this version of a gospel which was written much later but we feel has some great inspiration or is the original version older version canon? do we include those few apocryphal writings which were part of the old Jewish canon that tell the story between the Old Testament and the New or only the canonical books which made it into the Jews' Hebrew bible? if not, are they spurious or deuterocanon?). Of course there were some pretty famous splits like the Protestants from the Catholics (Lutheranism over indulgences and other warped teachings, Baptists over baptizing infants when they have no choice, et cetera) and the Calvinists vs Arminians' famous battle over free will and depravity.

I also did not include the many cults of personality (which is huge in Africa) which usually only preach partial scripture or scripture combined with pagan/spiritist faiths or the cults of new/rewritten scripture (LDS/JW's) which are often included in those lists.

nihilist
17th February 15, 02:18 AM
All denominations teach partial scripture.

nihilist
17th February 15, 02:30 AM
Jesus Prays for All Believers20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[e (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-26780e)] believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

Srry Jebus, prayer doesn't work.

Instead, you have this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Cullion
17th February 15, 03:48 PM
All three religions say they worship the same God that spoke to Abraham, and Muslims think of Christ as a prophet.

The Islamic concept of God is not the same as the trinitarian Christian concept, but then neither is the Jewish concept of God.

Islam and Judaism are both much more straightforwardly monotheistic.

Islam is much closer to Arian (non-trinitarian) Christianity which saw Jesus as a human messenger rather than God himself.

nihilist
18th February 15, 12:03 AM
All three religions say they worship the same God that spoke to Abraham, and Muslims think of Christ as a prophet.

The Islamic concept of God is not the same as the trinitarian Christian concept, but then neither is the Jewish concept of God.

Islam and Judaism are both much more straightforwardly monotheistic.

Islam is much closer to Arian (non-trinitarian) Christianity which saw Jesus as a human messenger rather than God himself.

Jesus is not the same god the Jews worship. Not even close.
No one really knows what god they worship. Just a bunch of people buying into memes with no inkling how to determine if it's valid or not.

nihilist
18th February 15, 12:07 AM
Oh, and Matthew 15:14

Cullion
18th February 15, 02:48 AM
Jesus is not the same god the Jews worship. Not even close.

They obviously don't believe in the trinity, nor do they think Christ was the messiah (Muslims do). The Christian concept of 'The Father' is supposed to be the Yahweh that Abraham worshipped. But he's obviously much softer and more forgiving in the New Testament than the Old.

nihilist
18th February 15, 03:03 AM
God was like Archie Bunker and Jesus was like Meathead, the hippie son-in law.
Christianity seems like pounding a round peg in a square hole.

Cullion
18th February 15, 03:13 AM
That's because it's a mix of ideas from two very different cultures/ways of thinking; European paganism and semitic monotheism.

From the outside, the whole thing looks like somebody was trying to persuade hellenistic pagans to become 'righteous gentiles', and decided to be relaxed about ideas like 'God visiting earth disguised as a person' and decorated trees as long as they all pledged allegiance to Yahweh.

Much of protestantism consists of northern Europeans reading the original source materials and going 'hang on.. we aren't following the rules here.. lets get rid of all these statues'

nihilist
18th February 15, 03:57 AM
I read somewhere that there is no Lucifer and fall of angels in the original masoretic texts, but was the result of mistranslation.

Is that correct?

Adouglasmhor
18th February 15, 04:05 AM
Wrong.

There are 3 extant modes of Christianity from which denominations branch: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.

Most of the splits occurred because of three reasons:

1) Organizational: This is the biggest reason. This person didn't like that bishop or pastor so went on to form his/her own congregation but the bigwigs running the denomination didn't agree so they pulled funding so that new congregation just forms their own denomination. Or a congregation couldn't decide on how they wanted to structure themselves (do we have lay elders or deacons? does it matter?) so they split and formed identical denominations (see Church of God/Assemblies of God) just with different structure. This can also be from political meddling (for famous example see Anglicanism vs Roman Catholicism) after the mixture of church and state. This is -THE- number one reason for so many different denominations which is truly a modern phenomenon in the history of the Christian church. Many churches in history who would be considered a different denomination to modern eyes in this way would be dumbfounded because they considered themselves in full communion, if not always full agreement, with their fellow churches in their See.

2) Traditional: This occurs when separate congregations have been apart for a long time and develop different traditions (do we sing? do we read publicly? are we stoic? are we joyful? etc) after the separation. This occurred historically from events like Rome getting beat up by barbarians, Islam splitting the Christian world into 3, Celtic christians being separated from their See for a long time (although eventually they rejoined in communion with Rome), a missionary leads some people to Christ and gave them some Scripture but then does not have contact with them again so they form their own group, et cetera.

3) Theological: This is what most people think of as being the reason there are so many denominations when it is honestly the first two that account for most of the different denominations and historically it has been over some really petty things (is Christ -in- two natures or -of- two natures? is the trinity the best way to explain Father/Son/Holy Spirit dynamic? is this version of a gospel which was written much later but we feel has some great inspiration or is the original version older version canon? do we include those few apocryphal writings which were part of the old Jewish canon that tell the story between the Old Testament and the New or only the canonical books which made it into the Jews' Hebrew bible? if not, are they spurious or deuterocanon?). Of course there were some pretty famous splits like the Protestants from the Catholics (Lutheranism over indulgences and other warped teachings, Baptists over baptizing infants when they have no choice, et cetera) and the Calvinists vs Arminians' famous battle over free will and depravity.

I also did not include the many cults of personality (which is huge in Africa) which usually only preach partial scripture or scripture combined with pagan/spiritist faiths or the cults of new/rewritten scripture (LDS/JW's) which are often included in those lists.
So have ISIL killed all the Copts then some are not cat or orthodox and what about messianic Jews??

Cullion
18th February 15, 08:05 AM
I read somewhere that there is no Lucifer and fall of angels in the original masoretic texts, but was the result of mistranslation.

Is that correct?

I don't know about provenance of the Lucifer story. There are references to Angels kind of rebelling against God's rules and mating with human women to produce The Nephilim, in the old testament (Gensis and Numbers, expanding on more in the apocryphal Book of Enoch). Judaism as I understand it has the concept of Satan/the adversary, but AIUI they also see him as working for God to vex and test mankind's moral character. A Satan character also seems to pop up several times in the Hebrew old testament

e.g.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2701.htm

But I don't know if this is the same character as 'Lucifer the rebel angel' that the Christian church often teaches about.

Purgatory is definitely a roman catholic invention to try and resolve the injustice of eternal punishment for finite sin (she's going to fry in lava forever because she slept with her sister's husband once ?).

resolve
18th February 15, 07:11 PM
Islam is much closer to Arian (non-trinitarian) Christianity which saw Jesus as a human messenger rather than God himself.

Cullion that is not what Arians believed or what Arius taught...

Arius taught that Jesus was lesser than the Father rather than co-equal which is what riled up the people in the councils to call him a heretic.

The people who eventually followed his teachings ended up becoming firmly entrenched in the Visigoths and Vandals that sacked Rome. They believed that Jesus received His divinity at a certain time and was also a created being therefore not co-equal with God the Father or the Holy Spirit sent after. They were trinitarian, just not the same at all as Orthodoxy.

Cullion
19th February 15, 03:28 AM
Cullion that is not what Arians believed or what Arius taught...

Arius taught that Jesus was lesser than the Father rather than co-equal which is what riled up the people in the councils to call him a heretic.

The people who eventually followed his teachings ended up becoming firmly entrenched in the Visigoths and Vandals that sacked Rome. They believed that Jesus received His divinity at a certain time and was also a created being therefore not co-equal with God the Father or the Holy Spirit sent after. They were trinitarian, just not the same at all as Orthodoxy.

If they believed that Jesus was created and not equal to the father, they weren't trinitarians. Arians did not believe that Jesus was God.

Muslims also believe that Jesus was a created being (born of a virgin) who performed miracles, who wasn't co-equal with God the Father.

resolve
19th February 15, 07:42 PM
If they believed that Jesus was created and not equal to the father, they weren't trinitarians. Arians did not believe that Jesus was God.

Wrong. They were trinitarian in that they believed that Jesus participated in Divinity, but to a lesser extent. This is what ticked off the orthodox so much so that they declared it heretical as in polytheistic.

What Arius actually taught was that the Logos was a divine being created by and thus separate from God the Father before the beginning of time but (hint) still divine.

Trinitarian in the belief of a triune godhead but not in an equal trinity. There is a difference and it is significant. Don't let wiki be your guide on this.

What later on became Orthodox groups declared this heresy, nontrinitarian, and smacking of polytheism after a significant warping of his teachings to help vilify him further.

Even that isn't the same as Islam as you are suggesting.

Cullion
20th February 15, 03:11 AM
Arianism is the nontrinitarian, heterodoxical teaching, first attributed to Arius (c. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God the Father to the Son of God, Jesus Christ. All mainstream branches of Christianity consider the teaching to be heretical. Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father.

That's what Muslims think, too. A 'divine being' that isn't God, isn't part of the Christian trinity. Unless you are a polytheist?

Muslims attribute additional miracles to Christ, like being able to breath life into a bird made of clay so it flew out of his hand. They believe he was created by direct act of God with who brought him into being by just saying 'Be!'. These are the attributes of a divine being.. but as a created being Christ cannot be God.

resolve
20th February 15, 07:08 PM
That's what Muslims think, too. A 'divine being' that isn't God, isn't part of the Christian trinity.

No Cullion. They believe he was simply a man, period. A man born of a virgin, which was the miracle to signal that he was a prophet, but a prophet no greater than any other prophet and no claims to divinity. At all.



Unless you are a polytheist?

What the hell does discussing Arianism, Islam, or historical understandings of the trinity have to do with my personal beliefs?

Cullion
20th February 15, 07:20 PM
No Cullion. They believe he was simply a man, period. A man born of a virgin, which was the miracle to signal that he was a prophet, but a prophet no greater than any other prophet and no claims to divinity. At all.

No, Muslims believe that Jesus was the Messiah, able to perform almost all of the miracles in the New Testament plus some new ones, and that he didn't have two human parents, but was just created directly by God, like Adam.

They didn't think he was God. Neither did the Arians. They were non-trinitarians who thought Christ was a created being. Just like Muslims do. Both groups can actually cite New Testament verses in support of that belief.



What the hell does discussing Arianism, Islam, or historical understandings of the trinity have to do with my personal beliefs?

Well, I assume you don't believe that there's more than one God. So if Jesus and God the Father aren't the same being, then Jesus isn't a God.

resolve
20th February 15, 07:24 PM
Please ask your Muslim friends if they believe Jesus was divine and see what they say. I have only heard the opposite from Muslims. If you can find some Muslims that do, then you can say there are Muslims who do and do not believe this. But it certainly isn't supported by the Koran that Jesus was divine any more than Adam was.

Of note: they don't even believe Mohammad was divine, but they believe the Koran was. It may be helpful for you to apply the same thinking to Jesus. Prophet = not divine. Prophecy = divine.

Arius definitely taught that Jesus was divine, but a lesser part of the Godhead than the Father, which he got from the book of John where Jesus says the Father is Greater since. What really got him into trouble was his teaching that Jesus was similar in sharing the same essence but not the same, homoiousios (the Athanasians, another group called out for heresy, taught almost the exact same thing as Arius but believed that they were exactly the same being, homoousios [note the 1 letter difference]). Since Orthodoxy beliefs at the time taught that Jesus and the Father are co-equal and of the same being as the Father, they condemned his views as heretical in the Council of Nicea in 325.

resolve
20th February 15, 07:25 PM
Well, I assume you don't believe that there's more than one God. So if Jesus and God the Father aren't the same being, then Jesus isn't a God.

Jesus is a part of God. At least in my thinking. It's a little more complicated than that, but I don't want to derail this thread any more than it has been.

Cullion
20th February 15, 07:28 PM
Please ask your Muslim friends if they believe Jesus was divine and see what they say.

They don't believe Jesus is God. They believe he was the messiah, born of a virgin and capable of miracles no other prophet was capable of. Arians didn't believe he was God either.

You understand ? non-trinitarian Christians did not believe that Jesus was God. I am not talking about trinitarian Christians. Their belief that Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit are all mysterious aspects of the same being is regarded as weird and illogical by Muslims, Jews, and several types of Christian that the Roman church exterminated during the dark ages.

resolve
20th February 15, 07:34 PM
Cullion I edited my comment. You may like to read it.

Cullion
21st February 15, 01:49 PM
Trinitarian Christianity is the belief that there's one God, and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all representations or components of it/him.

Arian Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus was created by the divine for prophecy, messiahood and was made able to perform miracles no other prophet could (e.g. resurrection of the dead), but was not actually God. They see him as a messenger created by him. Note the emphasis on 'created'. God is the causeless cause. Anything created by God is not God. Arians and Muslims both saw Jesus as a created being.

Arian Christians are just not trinitarians in exactly the same way Muslims are not trinitarians. They are not 'less' trinitarian. They just aren't trinitarians. Because Jesus isn't God to them. When Jesus isn't God, there's no trinity.

This is why Muslims regard trinitarian Christians as having a kind of muddled, impure take on monotheism. For them it's simple. God is God. There's one. They revere Christ as a messenger of God.

resolve
24th February 15, 09:15 PM
Trinitarian Christianity is the belief that there's one God, and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all representations or components of it/him.

Yes but you are forgetting one VERY IMPORTANT thing that makes it different. Co-equal.

Arian christians believed that Jesus was not co-equal with the Father, but still divine.

This is why people literally fought wars over these stupid definitions back in the day.

resolve
24th February 15, 09:27 PM
I hope you understand this:



The Jews proposed a supreme God who created by His word. It was an idea of a mediating "Word or Wisdom - the Word which is pronounced, the Wisdom which is created - whereby the Father communicated Himself to man and took possession of him."


The Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of a"mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the first principle which reduced the distance between God and the world"


The primitive Church had to "reconcile the notions they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy. Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer that would agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in the scriptures."


This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural and philosophical thought to explain the Trinity. The Council did triumph over Arianism but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial support and confusion in theological terminology were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out battle as we will see.


With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is simply a Greek word for 'word') as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in creation.


The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering."


This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities."


Arianism was essentially polytheism/monolatrism, in a very strange and roundabout way, with regard to the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All divine, sharing the same nature, but not sharing the same essence... homoousios and homoiousios... thus the Son and Spirit are lesser than the Father. This is why it was condemned as heresy by the council of Nicea.

Guitton, Jean. 1965. Great Heresies and Church Councils. New York: Harper and Row.


Ward D.D., Bishop J.W.C. 1955. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R. Mowbray and Co. Limited


The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill. Book Co. Vol. 8. St. Lucian of Antioch, by P. W. Harkins.

resolve
24th February 15, 10:24 PM
BTW, it wasn't the Arians the Muslims had contacts with/conquered when they rose to power and formed their opinions of Christianity via the Mohammad.

It was the Orthodox and Monophysite Egyptian, Arabic, Syrian, Asian, African, and Imperial churches.

Arianism survived mostly in Germanic countries until it phased out over time before it had a slight resurgance with the Protestant/Reformation movements before dying out again.


The closest thing you'll find to Arianism today is probably Mormon teaching (who are fully Polytheist btw) who say that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are completely separate gods and its offshoot the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) who hold the more Arian view that the Father and Son share the same being but not the same essence in that the Son is lesser than the Father.

NoBowie
24th February 15, 11:34 PM
None of this matters. It is all bunk.

"NO, HEFTY SMURF WAS THE TRUE LEADER OF THE LITTLE PEOPLE"

"NO, ALTHOUGH MANY PEOPLE WOULD THINK PAPA SMURF IT WAS ACTUALLY SMURFETTE, SHE RULED WITH HER VAGINA"

"BUT EPISODE 3 CLEARLY STATES THAT..."

"THAT WAS AN ALLEGORY!!! IT WAS LAID OUT LITERALLY IN EPISODE 10!!!!!"

nihilist
25th February 15, 02:43 AM
...people literally fought wars over these stupid definitions back in the day.
Ultimate truth is arrived at by whoever has the strongest army.
AMEN.

Cullion
25th February 15, 03:08 AM
Arian christians believed that Jesus was not co-equal with the Father, but still divine.


Only in the same way that Muslims do.

resolve
26th February 15, 10:52 PM
Wrong again.

Please read what I posted and try to understand it.

Simply reiterating what you said over and over as fact when you have no actual backing for it aside from some historically and theologically inaccurate statements isn't doing anything to prove to me you know what you are talking about on this.

Cullion
27th February 15, 03:54 AM
I read what you posted. Arius wasn't a trinitarian. He thought Christ was a created being who performed miracles at God's grant. That's what Muslims think too. Your quote claims that Arius defined Christ as another deity though, and that isn't true. Not any more than Gabriel is a deity.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th February 15, 07:45 AM
My understanding of Arius was that he considered Jesus as some kind of mediator between God(TM Crazy Swivel Eyed Middle Eastern Death Cult) & creation and not consubstantial with God(TM Crazy Swivel Eyed Middle Eastern Death Cult).

I was always under the impression that this was one of the first major spats between Trintarians and Unitarians in Roman Catholic history?

Cullion
27th February 15, 11:50 AM
Hint: Resolve is determined not to admit that the description of Christ consistent with a plain reading of Christ's own words in the New Testament supports the Muslim view of Christ better than it supports trinitarian Christianity.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 15, 08:49 AM
Simply reiterating what you said over and over as fact when you have no actual backing for it .....

LOL

resolve
1st March 15, 10:02 AM
I read what you posted. Arius wasn't a trinitarian. He thought Christ was a created being who performed miracles at God's grant. That's what Muslims think too. Your quote claims that Arius defined Christ as another deity though, and that isn't true. Not any more than Gabriel is a deity.

You are still so wrong about this. I would highly suggest you read up on the actual history of Bishop Arius and what he taught.

You should note that most stuff about him is highly propagandistic, as was the nature of how people dealt with those they claimed were heretics at this juncture of time.

So devastating were the arguments over each other and unification was so important to the Christian world at the time that they didn't want anyone to have any wiggle room over these subjects so often released false information and claimed that's what people really taught when it isn't true.

resolve
1st March 15, 10:04 AM
Hint: Resolve is determined not to admit that the description of Christ consistent with a plain reading of Christ's own words in the New Testament supports the Muslim view of Christ better than it supports trinitarian Christianity.

You can feel entirely free to believe something nonsensical by ignoring history and theology all you want. You also take many liberties with what I actually believe.

But that's ok. It's easier to deal with straw men than real men.

Pie of Hate
1st March 15, 10:45 AM
<Sn>believe something nonsensical<ip>.

BINGO!

nihilist
1st March 15, 01:28 PM
I believe in life after Christianity.

Cullion
1st March 15, 02:30 PM
You are still so wrong about this. I would highly suggest you read up on the actual history of Bishop Arius and what he taught.

I have. It contradicts what you keep claiming. You aren't able to offer any countering source. He wasn't a trinitarian. He very clearly believed that Christ was a created being and therefore not The Creator.



So devastating were the arguments over each other and unification was so important to the Christian world at the time that they didn't want anyone to have any wiggle room over these subjects so often released false information and claimed that's what people really taught when it isn't true.

Has it not occurred to you that this is exactly how you came to believe in this strange '3 in 1'-God-who-had-a-physical-son-on-earth-but oops-really-he-and-his-son-are-the-same-person-because-we're-supposed-to-be-monotheists weird story ?

Have you never looked at the idea of the trinity, then read Christ's own words and thought 'this just doesn't add up' ?

Üser Friendly
1st March 15, 02:42 PM
You lack faith Cullion

nihilist
1st March 15, 05:07 PM
You lack faith Cullion
Thank god.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
1st March 15, 06:39 PM
New Advent disagree with you resolve (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm)


Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.

And lets be honest they wrote the fucking book!

NoBowie
1st March 15, 09:06 PM
http://i.imgur.com/8meYNnv.jpg

nihilist
2nd March 15, 12:24 AM
Have you never looked at the idea of the trinity, then read Christ's own words and thought 'this just doesn't add up' ?
Yes, but then he prayed and the little voice in his head talked him down from reason.

Cullion
2nd March 15, 04:45 AM
New Advent disagree with you resolve (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm)


And lets be honest they wrote the fucking book!

Resolve is never going to admit that the words of Christ in the New Testament support Islam more strongly than they supports trinitarian Christianity.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
2nd March 15, 06:14 AM
He's never going to admit he's wrong about anything full stop.

Syntactical Disruptorize
2nd March 15, 11:06 AM
He's never going to admit he's wrong about anything full stop.
That's not about religion, in my opinion. I think he was always a cocksure jerk. Now he just scrawls God's face over his arrogance.

nihilist
5th March 15, 11:38 AM
Allow me to clear up the confusion.

mII6-IyaT3o

resolve
6th March 15, 09:14 PM
a plain reading of Christ's own words in the New Testament supports the Muslim view of Christ better than it supports trinitarian Christianity.

I'm just quoting this for later.

resolve
6th March 15, 09:46 PM
He's never going to admit he's wrong about anything full stop.

This is patently untrue. I have admitted I'm wrong on several things when I was proven to be wrong even on this very board and I apologized for it.

Fat lot more than any of you have done.

Cullion uses the "bludgeon them with intellectual loopholes until they give in, I don't even care if I'm right or not I just want to win and when faced with logic I'll shift the focus" tactic.
You use the "oooh I'm a doctor look at me insert my opinion on everything and anything that isn't my speciality but when I get called on not knowing something I retreat behind my doctorate and wild experiences therefore I should probably know more than you... possibly" tactic.
Doofa uses the "fuck this isn't going well at all isn't it? Hey everyone look at me I'm clowning now!" tactic.
Reese uses the "constantly move the goalposts and if that doesn't work here's some crass humor" tactic.
Lily uses the "I'm grumpy! I've got my bitchface on! I'm a strong-opinioned level-headed possibly pretty lady (lol internet) don't hurt me?" tactic.
Nun on Break uses the "fuck this everything is absurd, I'm absurd, look at how absurd life is! LOLOLOL!" tactic.
Snake and Ozz both use the "just change the subject" tactic.

To not admit they are wrong. Others just end up leaving the site.

When I'm sure of something but want to back myself up enough to stand solidly on it I research to find why I'm so sure of something, why that gut instinct or educated guess is so strong. And if I am wrong I openly admit it and have done so in the past.

But because of the mere fact that I constantly disagree with most of you, or there are several of you who enjoy trolling me, you find reasons to disparage my character.

The only character traits I have shown that are openly worth disparaging are occasional laziness, poor time management, and getting too passionate on things. It's funny that these are the least talked about things here. Instead invented anachronisms against my character are constantly lobbed at me.

There's really nothing I can do about it but keep on keeping on and say "well, you're free to say that but it's simply not true."

NoBowie
6th March 15, 09:52 PM
Resolve uses the "things I have faith in but cannot be proven via science or even normal interpretation of the bible are true beyond a shade of doubt" method.

resolve
6th March 15, 10:09 PM
I understood the trinity as God in three parts when I read the Bible when I was a child. What I didn't understand was what it "looked like" or "how it worked" and I think that is an intentional mystery of God.

There are obvious references to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There are obvious references to the divinity of the Messiah in the Old Testament. There are obvious references to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and there are obvious references to the divinity of all three in the New Testament.

But again, how does that work? What does that look like?

The Great Councils (three to five centuries after Christ) muddied the waters a bit in Orthodoxy because of anti-Rabbinical Judaism and the despisement of anything too close to Rabbinical Judaism which was openly attacking Christianity in its teachings saying things like Christ is in hell for false teachings etc, reactions to blatant heresies, and power plays by certain Emperors/Queens/Bishops.

There has always been a tripartate Godhead in Christianity, that is from plain reading. What that means is what all the arguing was done over because -THAT- is not what is clear. Is it the divine nature they share and not the essence or vice versa? Where does personality enter in? Does God have separated parts of Himself? How close to polytheism are we going because we surely believe in one God? How close to a single being understanding are we going where it was the Father who suffered on the cross and became the Holy Spirit but what does it mean when Christ ascended and said He would be at the right hand of the Father? What about the Holy Spirit being a helper makes it different than the Father and the Son? What about Jesus in one statement saying He is about His Father's business and in the other saying He and the Father are one?

These are things I have been studying all my life.

What the Orthodox Councils did, when not used as a tool to propel one See over another (and there was plenty of that, and Rome didn't even enter into that until much much later) was simply make statements on these mysteries that "This is what makes the most sense from plain reading of all the scriptures we could properly vet about the nature of God and by openly debating these things we fervently believe we are not in error about it."


To simply state something as simplistic as Cullion has stated is the height of either ignorance or arrogance in trolling. And that too, is from plain reading.

nihilist
7th March 15, 01:37 AM
I will forgive resolve for his transgressions against reason.

The mechanism for the absolution of his sins will be by having my son tortured and killed.

GLORY!

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
7th March 15, 06:34 AM
So you disagree with the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Arianism? (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm)

Üser Friendly
7th March 15, 02:29 PM
Don't be silly

Catholics aren't real christians

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
7th March 15, 03:29 PM
Thought it was their idea in the first place?


OOOooOOoo its all so confusing, if only there was somebody who knew something about it who could comment..

Cullion
8th March 15, 06:56 PM
There has always been a tripartate Godhead in Christianity, that is from plain reading.

No there hasn't.


I'm just quoting this for later.

Was Christ created ?

NoBowie
11th March 15, 12:56 AM
BQaOlxhg8xg

nihilist
14th March 15, 03:29 AM
NgxE3nrMlTw

Feryk
24th March 15, 01:48 PM
They will rebuild it. Bigger, Better, More Obnoxious than Ever Before.

resolve
25th March 15, 09:42 PM
Ex-muslim Dr. Nabeel addresses every single point made in this thread, because he used to make them, just as cocksure as you guys and backed up with his fervent belief in Islam, to fight christians with... before he found Jesus when he understood the context of what he was saying. He brings forth the issues succinctly, entertainingly, and factually. If you guys care about any of what you said in this thread, I hope you watch this.H3lHueRXvh0

nihilist
26th March 15, 12:17 AM
https://youtu.be/mSy1-Q_BEtQ

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th March 15, 04:30 PM
If you guys care about any of what you said in this thread, I hope you watch this.

How wonderfully passive-aggressive.

I listened & he just trots out the same line as you but not once does really address the development of Trinitarianism over Unitarianism in the early Christian churches. He just speaks with emotion after outlining how he hypnotized himself into believing what he does.

Then he gets off on the Jesus suffered for us coz he loves us that much yadda yadda yadda I gave up my family yadda yadda yadda cry coz I believe Jesus loves us mehhhhhhhhhhh

You honeslty think we are stupid dont you?

Cullion
27th March 15, 04:37 PM
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.

Cullion
27th March 15, 04:40 PM
Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’ ‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

Cullion
27th March 15, 04:46 PM
By myself I can do nothing


At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?


Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it.

This is not a description of the eternal & omniscient creator of the universe masquerading as a human. This is a description of a mortal, limited human who channels some kind of supernatural power from a more powerful source.

Cullion
27th March 15, 04:50 PM
Another example of Jesus himself not thinking that he was God


...you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.

And this is what Christ said just before he was supposed to have ascended to heaven


I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

How can it be any clearer? Not even Jesus believed in the trinity. This fairy story isn't even supported by its own source materials.

NoBowie
27th March 15, 06:59 PM
http://i.imgur.com/mGUIatV.jpg

nihilist
27th March 15, 09:36 PM
What about all the instances of Jesus praying? God wouldn't need to pray.

Üser Friendly
28th March 15, 04:11 AM
It's quite common to talk to one's self

I do it quite a lot when carpenting

Cullion
28th March 15, 04:41 AM
Jesus rebuking somebody for even vaguely suggesting he was god-like:-


And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Belief in God or the supernatural aside, this self-proclaimed 'servant of God' repeatedly makes it clear that he is not God, in his own words.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th March 15, 07:14 AM
You're obviously reading them out of context.

Feryk
28th March 15, 10:26 AM
Jesus got promoted after the Ascension.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th March 15, 11:10 AM
That's some great company perks right there!

Robot Jesus
1st April 15, 11:54 PM
Jesus is the son of Allah and inventor of baklava.

I'm the only ordained minister here so everyone else needs to shut up.

nihilist
1st April 15, 11:57 PM
I think being an ordained anything disqualifies you from opening your religious trap.

resolve
9th April 15, 08:35 PM
It sure is easy to take quotes of someone and clip half of what was said off to make points though, huh Cullion?

Adouglasmhor
10th April 15, 01:19 AM
Jesus is the son of Allah and inventor of baklava.

I'm the only ordained minister here so everyone else needs to shut up.

I'm a pope and you've seen my Pope licence.

nihilist
10th April 15, 01:40 AM
It sure is easy to take quotes of someone and edit it till you get a bible.

Cullion
12th April 15, 08:22 AM
It sure is easy to take quotes of someone and clip half of what was said off to make points though, huh Cullion?

None of the quotes I use are taken out of context. Christ didn't think he was God. If you doubt that, show me how surrounding verses change the meaning of the verses I posted.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
14th April 15, 02:08 PM
He'll get right back to you

nihilist
14th April 15, 02:13 PM
No god expects the Sociocide inquisition.

Cullion
14th April 15, 04:33 PM
I honestly suspect most people don't understand what the phrase 'taken out of context' actually means.

nihilist
14th April 15, 11:43 PM
This is from a blogger that seems appropriate:
Out of Context http://coupleofatheists.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/elisha-water-miracle-and-bear-attack.jpg?w=300&h=195 (https://coupleofatheists.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/elisha-water-miracle-and-bear-attack.jpg)

“It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”- Mark Twain

It can often seem like a mugs game to bring the bible into question during discussions with Christians. It never fails that when I post a verse from scripture that I think supports my argument, I’m immediately charged with taking that verse out of context. The arguments that ensue tend to deteriorate quickly and often frustratingly run in circles. When giving a critical analysis of Christianity in general, the religious faithful are quick to accuse me (and all atheists) of not doing my homework. But this is especially the case when I dare to tread on holy ground, which is the bible itself. It’s as if they assume I was never a Christian (which I was), never read the bible (which I have), and am just being exposed to it for the first time (which I haven’t). The general consensus among Christians seems to be that merely being a non-Christian automatically disqualifies one out of hand from accurately citing the holy book. This careless, outright dismissal proves to be little more than a dodge and it doesn’t excuse the believer from demonstrating this supposed misrepresentation.

It’s confusing at times to know exactly what is meant by “taking it out of context”. Take the story of Elisha’s journey from 2 Kings[1] for example. It’s hard to imagine how a passage stating that God sent two bears to massacre forty two children in gruesome fashion for mocking Elisha’s baldness could be taken out of context. Not to mention how nonchalantly this terrible event is treated and how casually the story moves on. It was as if the children getting torn apart was a mere bump in the road. As if it was hardly worth mentioning. What else are we to interpret from this? In what other context could this be taken? It can hardly be disputed what those words say here. According to the story, either God sent bears to maul forty two children or not. Any extraneous interpretation the Christian wishes to read into this doesn’t do much to make the story less vile and horrific. When Christians offer a different “interpretation” to this story, what they are doing is offering more than the words say. Whatever addendum is made, however many excuses are made, the context is pretty clear. When confronted with the merciless brutality of a passage like this, they often instead focus their attention on finding a way to establish some moral meaning behind it, which ultimately proves to be too big a boulder to push in this case, or they argue that it was badly mistranslated.

Translation is a tricky bit of maneuvering that seems to be the preferred tactic for the more indefensible passages found within the bible, as it is for the passage referenced above.[2] While I don’t doubt that there are occasional mistranslations interspersed throughout the bible, scholars and historians still debate over this very topic, we can hardly say that this alters the context as currently presented in such a significant way as to warrant disregarding entire passages on a whim simply for the purpose of recreating them to appear more acceptable or reasonable. Nor does it account for all the versions of the bible circulating today that translate these passages in a very similar way. Lest the Christian wishes the conversation to regress to the very origins of the bible. At which point it may be the case that we ought to disregard the entire bible altogether. This, of course, would leave the Christian at quite the disadvantage and hardly seems to be their intention. So instead of conceding the bible, many shamelessly commit themselves to an act of intellectual dishonesty and create their own “translation”. And in doing so, they in effect become the ones taking verses out of context, and in the most disingenuous manner, I might add. Tailoring the bible this way is not only indecorous of the Christian, but also immoral. The attempt to hide the horrific nature of this passage, and many others like it, by assuming translational errors ultimately can’t salvage the bible from failing to uphold what we would consider to be the most basic of humanities and common sense. Furthermore, what the Christian fails to realize is that this “lost in translation” argument creates far more problems for the believer than for the skeptic. The biggest one being that they have effectively stripped their bible of any practical reliability, and along with it, any argument for biblical inerrancy.

As I stated earlier, being a non-Christian seemingly disqualifies one from accurately referencing the bible. Maybe the problem is in how “accurately” or “correctly” is applied here. Historical implications aside for a moment, the meaning here appears to be supernatural. The Christian often claims that the only way to truly understand the bible is to believe in God, because they believe the bible is the word of God. So, according to the Christian, it stands to reason that if one doesn’t believe in God, then one won’t be able to interpret the bible correctly. Along with the obvious objection of circular reasoning, as well as being a thinly disguised attempt at unfalsifiability, it fails for another very big reason. One that I see as being the most difficult problem for the Christian to overcome. This is the problem of the many various denominations of Christianity. They all believe and interpret the bible differently in some key areas. All claiming the same justification from God. To put this into perspective, just think about how many millions and millions of people claim, and have claimed, that the bible is the word of God. And how millions and millions of these same professed believers disagree with other believers, who are just as sincere, on some significant points. The thing they all have in common is they all claim God assures them they are right. They also have the same explanation as to why the others are wrong. To try to account for every interpretation that is accepted as truth by the vast number of denominations would be far too exhaustive and it isn’t the non-Christians responsibility to do so. My business isn’t to sort out all these doctrinal disputes. It’s as if skeptics (atheists especially) are being saddled with the burden of needing to know every interpretation of every denomination just to even mention the bible in any critical manner. And when we fail to satisfy this imposed burden, the charge of misinterpretation and atheistic bias is assumed justified. But then this would mean the individual believer must also know all the varying interpretations as well. For the believer to be excused this, then they must concede that their own claim to “biblical truth” could not have been from the the same exhaustive search that they hold the non-christian to and either accept that it isn’t necessary or admit they could be wrong. All these problems the believer is now faced with not only render their original objection moot, it sheds light on the shear volume of inconsistencies contained within the bible, and as we see, thus further expounding the Christians own problems…
~ Rich

[1] 2 Kings 2:23-24 (NIV) 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

[2] Apologists frequently attempt to re-invent this passage as if Elisha was being attacked by a mob of young men. In it’s original Hebrew, while the word na’ar (boy or youth) could mean “young man”, it is paired with the qualifier katan which means “little” or “small”. Translating literally as “small boys”. And they are telling him to “go on up, baldhead” or “get out of here, baldy” and Elisha turned around to curse them. This indicates that they were behind him and taunting him, not blocking his path or threatening him.

Üser Friendly
15th April 15, 02:06 AM
I honestly suspect most people

Have a little faith in Human kind Cullion

NoBowie
16th April 15, 01:28 PM
http://i.imgur.com/LVmQSlh.png

NoBowie
16th April 15, 09:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/v9rDyOF.jpg

Cullion
17th April 15, 07:14 PM
I don't mind people praying to metaphors as long as they pick nice ones.

Robot Jesus
19th April 15, 02:44 PM
What about the joy luck club being a metaphor for the struggles of the Oklahomans who emigrated to california during the great depression?

Cullion
19th April 15, 03:46 PM
lol oklahomo

Feryk
20th April 15, 12:08 PM
What about the joy luck club being a metaphor for the struggles of the Oklahomans who emigrated to california during the great depression?

Are you saying you like Grapes with your Wrath?

Pie of Hate
1st May 15, 05:19 AM
http://gaspull.geeksaresexytech.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/robocup1.jpg

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
1st May 15, 05:34 AM
There seems to be a theme developing....

Pie of Hate
1st May 15, 05:49 AM
Can't see it myself.

NoBowie
1st May 15, 08:36 AM
There seems to be a theme developing....

Robocup?

Pie of Hate
1st May 15, 08:38 AM
https://img0.etsystatic.com/046/1/6206181/il_340x270.677128818_hmk7.jpg

resolve
7th May 15, 11:38 PM
I listened & he just trots out the same line as you

This is not true.


but not once does really address the development of Trinitarianism over Unitarianism in the early Christian churches.

Then this debate with the same guy may serve you better if that's what you are directly looking for.

FWpqqqZn7Kg

nihilist
7th May 15, 11:48 PM
The best way to find out about transcendent beings is to consult the ramblings of ancient dipshits.

resolve
7th May 15, 11:48 PM
Cullion, you know very well that taking something out of context is taking something out of its discussional, historical, and relational meaning thereby stripping what was said of part of its true meaning.

You quote John 8:40 which in context says:



Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.


I know that you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father. "Abraham is our father," they answered. "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do what Abraham did.


As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me.


Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!


Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."


The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed? "I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.


I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death."


At this they exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"


Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word.


Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." "You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (Divine name used here)


At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

resolve
7th May 15, 11:51 PM
This is not a description of the eternal & omniscient creator of the universe masquerading as a human. This is a description of a mortal, limited human who channels some kind of supernatural power from a more powerful source.

He never masqueraded as a human.

This is what you don't get.

It was God's divine essence IN A HUMAN BODY. Fully God and fully man!

All the limits of mankind, but with the authority that comes from being part of God. The Son to the Father.

This is why he could "channel" energy. He had the authority to do so because He was part of God.

Please see my reply to your post in CTC for more on that line of thought.

resolve
7th May 15, 11:54 PM
NVM I'll just requote it for the lazy.


"Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” (divine name used here) said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man (the divine Son of Man in the Daniel prophecies) sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death."

Mark 14:63-64

Daniel mention for completeness:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Daniel 7:13-14

resolve
7th May 15, 11:59 PM
What does authority, glory, and -SOVEREIGN- power when given from God mean to you?

Jesus is begotten from God's spirit and placed into a human body and as this fully human being (a human is an animal body with a soul/spirit) with fully divine essence He was thus gifted with all the authority, glory, and sovereign power from heaven. He knew God as His God and Father because He is His Son.

Why do you think christianity harps on adoption so much; becoming sons and daughters of God? Because through believing in Jesus and following His way we can be adopted into God's family. Not just redeemed from sin and the destruction of our souls.


Sometimes in the Old Testament it will even state when God does something like

"YHWH does this from/out of YHWH" indicating again what has already been stated.

And the words used for God's nature in the Old Testament mean singular and plural together.

The same words used for "cluster of grapes" and "union of a man and woman" when there are other words used for the specific singular that are not used in this reference to God.

resolve
8th May 15, 12:01 AM
The best way to find out about transcendent beings is to consult the ramblings of ancient dipshits.


"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."

1 Corinthians 1:27

nihilist
8th May 15, 12:06 AM
"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."

1 ancient dipshits 1:27

The meek shall inherit nothing.

Syntactical Disruptorize
8th May 15, 12:40 AM
The meek shall inherit nothing.
And if they did, the strong would take it from them shortly thereafter. This isn't necessarily an immoral act. Weakness does not imply virtue.

Cullion
8th May 15, 03:43 AM
NVM I'll just requote it for the lazy.

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah in that quote, not God. The Messiah isn't God. The messiah was always a human being in Jewish prophecy. This quote describes a man being annointed by God to become a King. It does not describe God manifesting in human form. I am perplexed that you don't understand this.


My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word.

Are you suggesting that Jesus thought he was his own father, and obeyed himself?

This is nuts. No 1st century Jew who followed Jesus believed what you believe. This is hellenestic paganism mixed in centuries later, which you're torturing the plain meaning of words to try and justify.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
8th May 15, 05:48 AM
This is not true.

Appears to be



Then this debate with the same guy may serve you better if that's what you are directly looking for.

I'm not looking, you're trying to show something, there's a difference. Whilst you may get off on listening to 3 hours of self confirmation, after siting through the last video you posed by that guy, I'm gonna give it a miss.

Cullion
8th May 15, 04:23 PM
Note to resolve: Muslims believe that Jesus was the messiah too. Just not God.

Hope this helps.

resolve
9th May 15, 04:36 PM
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah in that quote, not God.

You really don't understand the quote then.


The Messiah isn't God. The messiah was always a human being in Jewish prophecy.

Yes, but He was also divine in the very same prophecies. This is what the Muslims REFUSE to understand because Mohammad wrote against it. The Koran was purposefully written to discredit the Judeo-Christian tradition by distorting those very traditions. How do you get a human being which is made of animal and special soul that is divine? By the spirit being divine.


This is nuts. No 1st century Jew who followed Jesus believed what you believe.

You'd be very, very surprised.

Jesus is not the Father, but He is -of- the Father. Begotten. He is part of the Father, identified as 'the word'. It's a very important concept, and one that was the most important to the disciples.

I really wish you would read the book of Acts. I also wish you would watch that debate between the two Dr.'s I posted.

I will simply ask you a question.

Who is 'us'?


And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” – Genesis 3:22

God is singular and plural at once from the very earliest scriptures to the last. Elohim was the first word used for God. And it is plural. But God Himself asserts He is one. So how is that? I had addressed these earlier in another thread, to which you just waved your hand and dismissed even when history and theology agree with me.

The Bible itself is actually remarkably consistent on this matter, even if people haven't been.

You glean the surface of a thing and then try to deduce from there what is going on at a deeper level. It is your modus operandi. It is also why you are filled with knowledge but understand nothing.

nihilist
10th May 15, 04:44 AM
The best part of jebus ran down the crack of Mary's prayer cloth.

Cullion
10th May 15, 07:35 AM
You really don't understand the quote then.

Yes I do.



Yes, but He was also divine in the very same prophecies. This is what the Muslims REFUSE to understand because Mohammad wrote against it.

Muslims think Jesus was the messiah, created directly by God without having a human father, and performed many miracles. They agree with the New Testament about all these things. They just don't think he was God. One reason for this, is that Jesus himself said several times that he was not God, as I've already shown you.



The Koran was purposefully written to discredit the Judeo-Christian tradition by distorting those very traditions. How do you get a human being which is made of animal and special soul that is divine? By the spirit being divine.

This is your own tortured logic. Jesus himself says in plain language that he is not God. The tradition of your ancestors about this is deeply embedded in your psyche but simply wrong, in obvious contradiction with the original source.


And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

Ah, so now it's down to mistranslation of Hebrew.

Tell me resolve, why do all hebrew speaking Rabbis disagree with you on this issue?

Do you think that when our Queen uses the 'royal We', she's actually claiming to be more than one person? No? is it possible that there are situations where common grammar particles take on different meanings in languages other than English?

Feryk
11th May 15, 11:33 AM
And if they did, the strong would take it from them shortly thereafter. This isn't necessarily an immoral act. Weakness does not imply virtue.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N36Yn_TcTts

NoBowie
16th September 15, 10:53 AM
http://i.imgur.com/ATuOtuj.gif

NoBowie
1st June 17, 04:59 PM
qjtQSMe0VeI

Syntactical Disruptorize
1st June 17, 10:05 PM
God was like Archie Bunker and Jesus was like Meathead, the hippie son-in law.
GLORIA TRANSIT MUNDI: Daddy, you boil sinners in a lake of fire!
ARCHIE DOMINUS: Wouldja like it any better, little goil, if they was buried in broken glass?

NoBowie
5th June 17, 12:19 PM
http://i.imgur.com/rsz5yiA.jpg

Jean-Paul Sartre
11th August 18, 05:40 PM
Remember, "demon" can be an offensive term, refer them to as "mortally challenged."

Jean-Paul Sartre
6th November 18, 02:11 PM
LOL. Sinead O'Connor converts to Islam and changes name to Shuhada'

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/26/entertainment/sinead-oconnor-ireland-islam-intl/index.html

Irish singer Sinead O'Connor has announced her conversion to Islam, changing her name to Shuhada' Davitt.

"This is to announce that I am proud to have become a Muslim," she wrote on Twitter on October 19. "This is the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian's journey. All scripture study leads to Islam. Which makes all other scriptures redundant."
The singer added: "I will be given (another) new name. It will be Shuhada'."

"I'm terribly sorry. What I'm about to say is something so racist I never thought my soul could ever feel it. But truly I never wanna spend time with white people again (if that's what non-muslims are called). Not for one moment, for any reason. They are disgusting."

https://etcanada.com/news/383877/sinead-oconnor-calls-white-people-disgusting-in-long-twitter-rant/

MerkinMuffly
7th November 18, 12:07 PM
Islam is no more ridiculous than catholicism.

MerkinMuffly
7th November 18, 12:19 PM
That being said, how long till she puts on a bomb belt?

Jean-Paul Sartre
7th November 18, 07:06 PM
Islam is no more ridiculous than catholicism.

I disagree. Compare a hijab to a Catholic school girl uniform.

MerkinMuffly
8th November 18, 02:50 PM
I disagree. Compare a hijab to a Catholic school girl uniform.

Uniform or hijab?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wje8in_qNmk/ThY6i1KFSGI/AAAAAAAAAtY/OZzoO3Nz3EA/s1600/Screen%2Bshot%2B2011-05-25%2Bat%2B10.35.54%2BPM.pngYou decide.

Üser Friendly
10th November 18, 01:03 PM
The lion and the cobra and I do not want what I do not have were great albums, but poor Sinead always was a bit hat stand