Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

A true Sunni

Veteran Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by A true Sunni

  1. There are no Imambargahs in Brighton. Your closest Imambargah is in Crawley. Stafford House 1 Bonnets Lane RH11 0NX
  2. I think it's difficult to say what the Ebionites believed since they are now extinct. I agree Ebionites were regarded as Heretics but that just means that they were/are in the minority. Shias are often called heretics and the proof that they are heretics given is that Sunnis are the majority
  3. Thanks Andres, interesting parallels between Shia & Sunni. The companions claiming that they know Jesus better then the family and then going on to claim overall leadership of the Christian Church. What evidence do you have that James ever accepted Jesus as a Deity. The only writings I have read from James are the fragmented Apocalypse 1 & 2. Intriguing fragments that imply a different deeper teaching from Jesus.
  4. It is unlikely he is a prominent Maliki scholar. If he was a prominent Maliki scholar he would know the following incontrovertible facts. Maliki school of thought has an extra level jurispudence over and above the other 3 schools The extra level of jurispudence says if you find 2 conflicting opinions and cannot resolve which one is correct, look to the people of Medina and do what they do. So in respect of Salaat. Imam Qasim who one of Imam Malik's most prominent students reports that he asked Imam Malik his opinion on those that folded their arms in salaat. Imam Malik is reported to have said 'I have never seen the people of Medina pray with their arms folded. The second piece of evidence that is in my opinion far more illuminating is that the Ibadis of Oman also pray with their arms open. The Ibaadis are the descendents of the Kharijis who split from the main Ummah after Jang-Sifeen. They are well known to have rejected religious indoctrination from the Omayads, Abbasides and indeed Hz Ali(as) or any of the 4 Sunni Imams. Since it is quite clear they developed in isolation from the rest of the Muslim Ummah it is enlightening that they also pray with their arms open. Malikis , Shias and Ibaadis historically do not share any Religious Jurists therefore either they all independently all started opening their hands or this was the original method. Hanafi. Hanbal and Shafi all share a common origin and teachings and all have closed arms. Just on the balance of probability hand clasping would appear to be the modification
  5. Apologies I am genuinely puzzled, are saying the first Christians didnt believe that Jesus was a deity or did believe he was a deity
  6. You have obviously not been reading what I have said or tried to understand. When a person says this is an academic debate, he is by definition admitting there are differing views on the subject and wants to explore differing view points. In addition to that if a person makes a claim that is objective then he must be prepared to be challenged on that issue. As I said to Baqar I am not here to convince you nor do I expect to because what we are discussing is partly an article of faith. It is unfortunate that you are unused to these academic debates
  7. What's your thought of 'son of God' being used in Jewish literature as an honorific for the Messiah. is it possible that references to son of God in the NT meant the Messiah not the literal son of god. Only it's original meaning got lost with the Greekified Christians. We all know the Greeks & Romans created deities at the drop of a hat
  8. There seems to be different traditions , indicating different houses. However my point stands about is a daughter considered her fathers household after she is married.
  9. And yours is based on wishful thinking and a revionist mind set trying to cover up for what is apparent in the written records. No actual proof of what you say just a theory based on a wish and a prayer literally
  10. The discussion from my point of view is purely an academic one, not one of trying to prove people right or wrong or indeed have an end. This discussion has forced me into researching further and the more I read the more I learn.
  11. We are not talking about the contents of the Bible or the Quaran. We are not talking about the Quaran or Bibles interpretation or misinterpretation . The concept of the Trinity is not derived from the bible hence its irrelevant whats written there except as a back drop. The Nicean Creed is very important because the original and subsequent changes gives us a snap shot in time of the predominant view of the Church. History is written by the victors and this applies to religion as much as anything else. Majority of Christians in 2017 are Trinitarians. It is an inconvenient observation that a significant proportion of Christians in the earliest period might not have considered Jesus a Deity. According to the argument you are using it seems that you are saying that Arius believed Jesus was the Son of God but couldn't resolve the issue of his relationship to the Father. According to you they excommunicated him on this basis but didnt bother resolving the third leg of the triune. Highly doubtful Its more likely I contend that Arius believed that Jesus was the Son of God ( Messiah - as the Jews of old used the terminology) The split occured because the Eastern church which hadnt been influenced by 'Greekified Christianity' and all its deities wasnt prepared to make Jesus a Deity
  12. so they got all these guys together from all over Christendom and left the creed in a big a mess as when they started . As far as I can tell the trinity was hardly accepted by anyone.
  13. So a question that might be pertinent here. If a girl marries and joins her husbands household is she still thought of as being part of her fathers household. Are children of the daughter considered to be part of the grandfathers household. It seems that 'Ahlul Bait' that are being purified are the household of Hz Ali (as). The cloak incident is reported to have taken place in the House of Hz Ali (as) This would be entirely consistent with Shia philosophy.
  14. As I said 99% signed up to a Di-ity model that persisted for over 200 years. You keep harping on about trinitarians but as I said several pages ago Talking about the Father Son and Holy Ghost doesnt make you a Trinitarian. Its affirming a particular relationship between the Father Son and Holy Ghost that makes you a Trinitarian. If the Trnity was accepted by everyone it would have been written in the Creed.
  15. With all respect that's a very creative interpretation. As I said I really call into question the competency of the Bishops if indeed they were basing their creed on what they weren't rather then what they were. Now you are also accusing the Bishops of hypocrisy by signing up to something they didn't believe. That silent group with their own opinions set Christianity down the path of embracing Trinity. Interesting I have been looking at the usage of the term 'Son of God' in Jewish writings. Judaism as you know does not countenance a real physical son of God ( as in Christian teachings), but nevertheless does use the term occasionally. It uses 'son of god' when it discusses the Messiah but also very occasionally kings. Is it possible the real 'Arian' controversy was that Bishop Arius wanted Jesus recognised as a Messianic Son of God ( not a deity) And the other group wanted to deify Jesus Just a thought
  16. I see, so what you are saying to me is that you have no answer and therefore just try and shout down what you don't understand but I will humour you for the moment So which member of 'your Ahul bait' is responsible for the killings of thousands of innocent Muslims?
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  • Create New...