A true Sunni

Veteran Member
  • Content count

    6,442
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

A true Sunni last won the day on October 27 2016

A true Sunni had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About A true Sunni

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,779 profile views
  1. See here we have a problem. I am informed that the great and good Bishops with highest religious qualifications , the very best in all of Christendom sat down as a collective and wrote a creed. This creed set out the basic beliefs of the Christian Church, defined what it was to be a Christian, excommunicating those that didn't follow this Creed. All very noble objectives but calling into question the competency of the aforementioned Bishops since they all signed up to this Di-ity model. The only circumstance that this cannot be considered a di-ity model is if the 'holy spirit' was not considered a deity at Nicea 325 but becoming a deity in constantinople and then becoming part of the trinity in the 6th Century. If we are to use this model then we see it as a simple battle of One Deity ( father) vs 2 Deity ( father and son) ( Holy Spirit not considered a deity) You can see the how easily the Christian Church fell into this trap and started deifying entities whilst simultaneously trying to say they were one. So we have make a choice they were either incompetent or forced
  2. If you had read my answer you would have seen that I asked you the question and then answered it. If you had reflected on the questions and answers you would have realised that what I was saying to you that I didn't need go look for any more documentation. The great and good of Nicea 325 from every part of Christendom would have been far more aware of documents then we are 1700 years later. The great and good the experts and pinnacles of religious authority in Nicea 325 declared Di-ity . What other authority individually or collectively would you like to refer to that out weighs the cream of Christendom.
  3. Thank you at last we are moving forward. Before I answer your question, I would pose 2 questions to you and answering those will supply your answer. What was the purpose of the Nicean council ? And what does Creed mean ? Some of the objectives of the Nicean council council was to clear up controversies, define what a Christian was, define the nature of god and put this in a statement of belief called a 'Creed' So like it not the first Nicean conucil rejected Un-ity and embraced Di-ity without once mentioning Trin-ity. 60 years later they achieved a half way house to Trinity 200 years later they issued the Filoque which if you read it objectively and use 'Bishop Arius' logic it cannot be considered Trinity either. So yes Nicean Council 325 over 90% of the Bishops signed up to a Di-ity model
  4. Several points here and I fear I am in danger of repeating myself. Taking it from the top yet again because it appears that you wish to that you either aren't reading what I am writing or deliberately misconstruing what I am saying and what your own Christian theologians say. I am going to say a few comments about your posts to date, If you could avoid making the same mistakes or repeating mistakes it would be helpful. Talking about Deity is not the same as talking about Trinity there fore proving something is a deity does not prove they are Trinity ( this is basic theology) No-one has denied that there may have been elements within Christendom that supported Trinity Tertullian is a case in pont( I already acknowledged that - not sure why you felt the need to repeat it) Creed is a statement of belief and the Nicean Creed 325 was the codified statement of belief that the majority signed up to Trinity is about essence, substance as posted by you and included in the definition of Trinity. So in the Nicean creed even if Trinity isnt mentioned it should discuss substance and essence The question that was posed was what was the belief of the majority Bishops at Nicea 325 as evidenced by the Creed the majority signed up to. OK so what does the Nicean Creed 325 say Belief in One God Belief in Father & Son one essence one substance Belief in Holy Spirit That is not Trinity that is Di-ity Father & Son one essence and deity Holy Spirit another essence and deity Thats Di-ity In fact if you read the Filoque you will see the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father & Son Using Arian logic this makes the Holy Spirit subordinate to the Father & Son and there isn't a true Trinity either
  5. I can see why you might feel uncomfortable with logic, it flies in the face of everthing you believe. In your warped sense of the world 2 members of the 'Ahlul bait' can be sanctified by God, go to war with each other , get thousands of Muslims killed. But hey its OK no-one's to blame
  6. Thankyou for providing all this insightful information. I was not aware of this information However despite all you have written only 2 could be considered Trinitarian. So you have proven that some people considered trinity a viable creed. This makes it even more damning that the original Nicean creed or the constantinople creed didn't mention it all. The trinitarian creed was known but not even acknowledged in the writings. Any independent observer would be drawn to the conclusion that the trinitarians were such a minor irritation they werent even worth discussing
  7. The written creed from 325 proves my assertions not yours. I previously said to you to read evidence that you post before referencing it. I am not sure how many times I have to repeat myself before you go back and read the creed that you keep referencing. I summarised it for you which you didn't dispute and a few posts later you are again referencing it as supporting the Trinity. Any objective reader reader can see it's a di-ity + 1 . Any objective reader will see that even Constantinople creed doesn't reflect Trinity. Even the Filioque of the 6th century that caused the great schism casts into question the nature of the Trinity. So again and again and again I repeat ad nauseum Why would the great and good bishops of Nicaea codify Di-ity and reject Un-ity without even a mention of Trinity if that is what they believed. Then they added to the Creed to choose a half way house for the Holy Spirit at Constantinople 200 years later they again added to the creed trying to create a Trinity . the attempt to define the Trinity caused the great schism. Even Christian academic writings support this. The mystery of the Trinity is not the nature of the Trinity but why it took 600 years to codify it.
  8. I remember you said earlier that you said you were Lutheran so I meant Unitarian in the generic sense not in the specific sense. As to the trinity being an established theory, I would strenuously disagree with that because all the written evidence says otherwise. It seems that trinitarians feel threatened by the written record and thus feel the need to look for 'conwayan' alternative facts.
  9. Hi much as I respect and enjoy many of your other posts, on this point we are diametrically opposed. You will see from the links posted by Brother Andrés that the Nicean creed 325 is a statement of faith. It's a statement about the definitive belief of Christians at that time. As I have said repeatedly right from the beginning. The Nicean creed 325 is Di-ity + 1 . Yes I would agree that the Nicean creed 325 structure is broadly speaking the same then as it is today.2017 However when you look at the nature of God as decribed in the Nicean creed 325 it is Di-ity not Trin-ity which implies that Trin-ity was not even considered at that time
  10. It isn't important to me at all. As I said earlier this is an academic debate. I have no idea when trinity started developing but it wasn't a creed at Nicea. Before the trinity concept was formulated first you needed to create the environment for it to flourish. That environment was when the Christian body compromised with the 'Unity' of God and declared he had a son. That compromise led to evolution of thought processes that generated the Trinity If you are questioning my right to involve myself in an academic debate on the trinity equally I could say to you; You are a Unitarian why are you involving yourself in a discussion on the trinity?
  11. You are absolutely right there is no difference between triune and trinity so thank you for drawing my attention to that. It teaches me a valuable lesson in checking my terminology before using it. Now that we have that question settled lets turn our attention back to the question of the Trinity, Nicene Creed, Constantinople Creed , Filoque and the great Schism. I am also aware that you and iCambrian are not familiar with the creeds that much was obvious straight away, thats why I wanted you to post the creeds. To your credit you forced me to check all my sources again but broadly speaking my stance reamins unchanged if anything it hardens since it now appears that the Constantinople creed is not really trinitarian its a half way house. Just to remind you of the defintion of Trnity God is three consubstantialpersons[3] or hypostases[4]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". (So all 3 the same) simple Now lets look at Nicene Creed 325 Talks about beliefs Talks about Father & Son being same essence Talks about belief in Holy Spirit ( no mention of same essence as Father & Son) Di-ity +1 Now lets look at Constantinople creed Talks about beliefs Talks about Father & Son being same essence Talks about belief in Holy Spirit and how the son is incarnate from the Holy Spirit( no mention of same essence as Father & Son) Di-ity +1 ( but I acknowledge maybe a half way house to Trnity) Now lets look at Filoque 6th Century. Even in the 6th Century Filoque The trinity as we know it is still not clearly laid out and the meaning of the filoque caused the schism I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father 〈and the Son〉. Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified.
  12. Broadly speaking we are in agreement particularly like your reflection on 'corruption' The Islamic view point on the Mosaic/Davidic dietary laws is that they are universal and should have not been abbrogated hence Islam broadly speaking has similar dietary laws to the Jews (similar not identical) Your reflection on the texts is broadly speaking my understanding of the situation then. Sunni Islam also went through a similar process where it saught to achieve conformity in religion. Whittling down hundreds of Jurists down to just the 4 that are recognised today. This process was started by the Abbasides and completed by the Ottomans
  13. Since they are online perhaps you would like to post the links. Since you are so familiar with the contents of the Nicean creed and the Constantinople creed it would be helpful. I am also confident that the Catholic & Orthodox difference of opinion can be understood better once you have posted the link I am sure we will be able to discuss triune and trinity amicably after you have posted the links. thank you so much for your endeavours
  14. I think it would be useful if you used a dictionary to look up the difference between Triune and Trinity. I am not sure how many time I have asked you for proof of your assertions and you still wont provide the proof instead you are constantly distracted by side issues. You are very specific and confident in your assertion that the Nicean creed and Constantinople Creed differed by only a few words. So again I ask you to prove it.
  15. I think the media deliberately misinform the public about the nature of Sharia Law in the west and its application in the West. Sharia law will always be subordinate to the secular law of the country Sharia laws allows quick and easy arbitration on non-criminal cases. When this comes to matters of divorce, inheritance or alimony payments this can be a far cheaper option. If the person still disagrees with the Sharia court they still have legal redress in the secular courts. I know of cases where supposedly very religious individuals have specifically refused religious arbitration because they knew they would lose out financially. They have preferred to go the route of the secular courts resulting in astronomical legal fees for all parties. It not being a case of who was right or wrong but who 'blinked first' fees