Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, andres said:

Trinity is not Biblical. That Jesus died on the cross is Biblical. But did Muhammed know this? I am not certain. He never refers to the Biblical text, only to Christian belief as he understood it.

Jesus called the Son of God is also Biblical. But how? We do not know, but certainly not the the way I had my son. What was Muhammeds impression of Christian belief concerning this? Who knows.

 

9 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

The concept of trinity is still just that imo. The interesting thing about the council is they came up with the theology but didn't change the scriptures to prove it. Paul didn't teach a trinity either. Often times, the corruption is around the scriptures, not in it. 

Which is the "Clear book"? If you ask Muslims, the Qu'ran is so deep that the average man cannot comprehend. 

 

 

If the concept of trinity is not Biblical, that is, it is not part of the what you define to be the words and commandments of God, the creator of universe, then whos words are they and on whos authority do christians follow this concept?

Is it a small thing to divide the one God into 3 beings?

On whos authority is this done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IbnSina said:

 

 

If the concept of trinity is not Biblical, that is, it is not part of the what you define to be the words and commandments of God, the creator of universe, then whos words are they and on whos authority do christians follow this concept?

Is it a small thing to divide the one God into 3 beings?

On whos authority is this done?

This is as good a history as any. Trinity It's flawed from the get go, but it's what was taught.

Now about that clear book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IbnSina said:

 

 

If the concept of trinity is not Biblical, that is, it is not part of the what you define to be the words and commandments of God, the creator of universe, then whos words are they and on whos authority do christians follow this concept?

Is it a small thing to divide the one God into 3 beings?

On whos authority is this done?

Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible. It is a theological try to explain the relation between God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Far from all Christians agreed when the dogma was decided in the 4th century. There are many subjects in the Bible that are open to different interpretation. I am certain you know this from the Quran too. Why did God not send a perfect book to prevent our religions to split into so many different beliefs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, andres said:

Far from all Christians agreed when the dogma was decided in the 4th century.

Jesus became God (one withe the Father) during the first Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. It was decided by a show of hands: 5 more bishops in favour of the trinitarian doctrine.

The Trinity is classified as a Mystery: The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv)

The wall of text legitimising the Trinity in the Catholic Encyclopedia is here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

I never forget seeing the car sticker:

God killed Himself on the cross to save His creation from His own wrath. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, andres said:

Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible. It is a theological try to explain the relation between God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Far from all Christians agreed when the dogma was decided in the 4th century. There are many subjects in the Bible that are open to different interpretation. I am certain you know this from the Quran too. Why did God not send a perfect book to prevent our religions to split into so many different beliefs? 

um, the knowledge about God being only one is not a disputed matter in Islam. While a scripture can be open to different interpretations, the main important things cannot be interpreted however we like. I've been debating Christians for five years many Christians committ heresies while explaining the trinity. 

 

Edited by Melvind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quisant said:

God killed Himself on the cross to save His creation from His own wrath.

The above is pretty much what the majority of Christians believe in essence. It is quite confusing.

Do you guys really think this makes sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Melvind said:

um, the knowledge about God being only one is not a disputed matter in Islam. While a scripture can be open to different interpretations, the main important things cannot be interpreted however we like. I've been debating Christians for five years many Christians committ heresies while explaining the trinity. 

 

But we do not always agree on what the "important things"are. Just have a look at believers in the Quran. They are Sunni, Shia, ISIS, Boko Haram, Alawit, Wahabi and others. As SoP pointed out, the Quran is vert difficult to read, so there is no reason to be surprised. The Bible is probably easier, still Christianity has also split into different directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IbnSina said:

The above is pretty much what the majority of Christians believe in essence. It is quite confusing.

Do you guys really think this makes sense?

It should be: jesus sacrificed himself to save humanity. Does it make sense? 2.000 years ago it probably did. One person coult take anothers punishment. Today most of us find this strange. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andres said:

It should be: jesus sacrificed himself to save humanity. Does it make sense? 2.000 years ago it probably did. One person coult take anothers punishment. Today most of us find this strange. 

If I remember correctly from our previous discussions, you mentioned that we have to "modify our scriptures" or beliefs. Such as acceptance of homosexuality and so forth since we live in this "modern world". Correct?

 

My question pertains to this issue. Can liberal Christians give a rational reply of how the atonement isn't against human rationality and human rights and therefore isn't required to modify? Sacrifice is an act of killing, so how do liberal Christians not find this odd? Why not reject this so-called sacrifice?

 

Isn't the Qur'aan more rational when it comes to sins? Repenting, turning back to God, not do the sin again and so forth. In what way has Jesus saved humanity? I'm not saved because I don't believe that he's god and I reject the Father who puts Jesus into this horrible situation. -- Child Abuse?

 

Yes, and KKK differ with Protestant Christianity, but we can still say that it's Christianity then... since you took in Daesh and Boko Haram which no major Muslim scholar ever supported, in fact, published fataawas against them. What are the main tenets of Islam? You can check it out which are clearly mentioned in the Qur'aan. The belief in one God, his Messengers and Prophets, Angels, the DoJ, Salaat, Zakaat and so much more that we agree. However, Christians as a whole can't agree upon ONLY ONE TENET and that's the relationship between the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Thus, Christianity itself is not a rational belief and to explain it away, the missionaries claim that the trinity is a mystery!

Mystery means something that baffles understanding and cannot be explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Melvind said:

If I remember correctly from our previous discussions, you mentioned that we have to "modify our scriptures" or beliefs. Such as acceptance of homosexuality and so forth since we live in this "modern world". Correct?

 

My question pertains to this issue. Can liberal Christians give a rational reply of how the atonement isn't against human rationality and human rights and therefore isn't required to modify? Sacrifice is an act of killing, so how do liberal Christians not find this odd? Why not reject this so-called sacrifice?

I do find it odd that God needs a sacrifice in order to forgive my sins. But when it happened, it was probably more normal. Jews sacrificed sheep to please God. Had it been today, I think God maybe had done it differently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Melvind said:

Yes, and KKK differ with Protestant Christianity, but we can still say that it's Christianity then... since you took in Daesh and Boko Haram which no major Muslim scholar ever supported, in fact, published fataawas against them. What are the main tenets of Islam? You can check it out which are clearly mentioned in the Qur'aan. 

Maybe I was not clear. The Bible can also be understood very differently. The many different groups (you mentioned KKK) is a proof of this. This should also tell us that the Bible is not a perfect Book, but a human product. The same goes for the Quran. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/07/2017 at 10:08 PM, andres said:

Maybe I was not clear. The Bible can also be understood very differently. The many different groups (you mentioned KKK) is a proof of this. This should also tell us that the Bible is not a perfect Book, but a human product. The same goes for the Quran. 

Why do you blame the Quran if man misinterprets? Surely isn't man to blame and not the Quran. With the Quran the Holy Prophet and Holy Imams were sent as the interpreters of the Book so man cannot interpret but they are interpreters. So don't blame the Book but blame Man. If you want to blame the Book then Blame God for creating man because He has brought Chaos into this world by creating man. Do you remember Genesis 6. God himself said that he Regretted making Man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Wa aleykumsalaam, Here is what our Aimmah has to say on this regard. 1 - محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن ابن محبوب، عن جميل بن صالح، عن أبي عبيدة، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: إن ناسا أتوا رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) بعد ما أسلموا فقالوا: يا رسول الله أيؤخذ الرجل منا بما كان عمل في الجاهلية بعد إسلامه؟ فقال لهم رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله): من حسن إسلامه وصح يقين إيمانه لم يأخذه الله تبارك وتعالى بما عمل في الجاهلية ومن سخف إسلامه ولم يصح يقين إيمانه أخذه الله تبارك وتعالى بالأول والآخر. Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from ibn Mahbub from Jamil ibn Salih from abu ‘Ubaydah from abu Ja’far(as), who has said the following: “Certain people came to the Messenger of Allah after accepting Islam and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, will any of us, after accepting Islam, be held responsible for what he had done in the time of ignorance?’ The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Whoever is good in his Islam and corrects the certainty of his belief is not held responsible for his acts in the time of ignorance in the judgment of Allah, the Most Blessed, the Most High. Whoever’s Islam is nonsense and has not corrected the certainty of his belief will be held responsible in the judgment of Allah, the Most Blessed, the Most High, for his past and later deeds.’” Source: al-Kafi by Shaykh Kulayni, Vol 2, Pg 461, H 1.  Al-Mahaasin by Shaykh al-Barqi, Vol 1, Pg 250, H 264. Grading: Allamah Majlisi said hadeeth is "Saheeh" (Authentic) in his Mirat ul Uqool, Vol 11, Pg 383. Shaykh Bahbudi also grades this hadeeth as "Saheeh" (Authentic) in his Saheeh al-Kafi, Vol 1, Pg 132.   2 - علي بن إبر هيم، عن أبيه، عن القاسم بن محمد الجوهري، عن المنقري، عن فضيل بن عياض قال: سألت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام)، عن الرجل يحسن في الاسلام أيؤاخذ بما عمل في الجاهلية؟ فقال: قال النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله): من أحسن في الاسلام لم يؤاخذ بما عمل في الجاهلية ومن أساء في الاسلام اخذ بالأول والآخر. Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad al- Jawhari from al-Minqari from Fudayl ibn al-‘Iyad who has said the following: “Once I asked abu ‘Abd Allah(as), ‘Will a man who is good in Islam be held responsible for his deeds in the time of ignorance?’ The Imam said, ‘The Holy Prophet has said, “Whoever is good in Islam will not be held responsible for his deeds in the times of ignorance and anyone who is not good in Islam will be held responsible for his acts of the past and those thereafter.’” Source: al-Kafi by Shaykh Kulayni, Vol 2, Pg 461, H 2.  Wa aleykumsalaam
    • should n't the sign be ">" instead of "=".
    • A bird in hand is better than two in a bush. 
    • So far you are winning. Try this:      
    • Lived there for 4 years brother
×