Name:StarLight •
Title: Religions With Blind Faith Aren't True •
Date posted: 03/06/07 1:41
Q: While I'll say it is way to early to know definitively one way or the other if this is the actual Jesus tomb, the claim that Jesus floated up into heaven is just the strand of hay on the whole hay stack of claims that don't stand up to rational thought Christianity says you need blind faith.
Like for instance, if someone writes a book, and tells everyone that God inspired them to write the book, do you conclude that God inspired them to write the book, or do you simply acknowledge that the author claims that God inspired it? In all honesty, that is all we can know (that the modern bible claims it), and we cannot know that a god inspired it. (The Christian arguement is of the form: "The Bible is inspired by God. How do we know? It tells us so!") So they say you need blind faith.
While at the same time millions of Muslims say having faith in Allah will give the right interpretation in the Quran and it was inspired by Allah.
Surah 20. Ta Ha
113. Thus have We sent this down - an Arabic Qur'an -
and explained therein in detail some of the warnings,
in order that they may fear Allah,
or that it may cause their remembrance (of Him).
114. High above all is Allah, the King, the Truth!
Be not in haste with the Qur'an
before its revelation to thee is completed, but say,
"O my Lord! advance me in knowledge."
With blind faith, no one even needs reason to claim something. They can just say they saw it by having faith. Which means they can manipulate people to believe in anything no matter how irrational, untrue or harmful it may be.
All sorts of different religions use blind faith to get people to believe in their religion. Yet all of the faiths have led people to believe different things. While at the same time there is no way to disprove the other because no one has anything obective to say. That isn't a basis someone of divine origin would use to show people the truth, something that leads people to ambiguous conclusions with no way to disprove each other.
When anyone is trying to show people the truth they don't give something that nonbelievers can't see. Otherwise there is nothing to prove to them so they can change their minds about it. In effect the truth isn't spread.
Now there are many things in the universe that we have no way of knowing about with modern science at the moment but to say something is true without having any reason for it is even more faulty. Someone saying a tree is God could use the same way of thinking because not knowing about it opens up the possibility for anything, not a certain and specific thing. So when the way they came to those conclusions were faulty, the truth can't be found by those religions.
I agree with the kind of faith where your mind is open to your surroundings and feeling secure with something after you already know the reason for it. However the kind where someone blindly follows something without reason no matter what it says is dangerous. It opens up the possibility for anyone hungry for power to control the public and make them do bad things no matter what the real truth may be. All from there interpretation of what the people had faith in. It also opens up the possibility if anyone finds a variation of interpretation that is irrational from the truth it would make people do anything no matter how bad.
Name:noura •
Date: 03/07/07 0:12
A: The teachings of Islam are not that of blind faith. Any Muslim scholar will tell somebody who is searching for the right answer to explore for themselves, question everyone and everything for God gave you the ability to reason. How is one supposed to come up with the right answer if they don't question? The Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." With a powerful statement like that I think it would be safe to say that there is no blind faith in Islam, because in a way blind faith is compulsion. It scares people into believing something that they wouldnt ordinarily believe. They think, "hey man i just gotta believe, because that's what so-and-so told me to believe." There is no blind faith in Islam, there's data handed down that was written about the Prophet during his era. Now whether or not you believe that the data of Islam is valid or has been tampered with by Muslim Scholars let the modern day Muslim's convictions be evidence as to what they believe. The Quran is not open to interpretation, it says what it says and has said the same thing for the past 1400 years. If people believe that the Quran says what it says then why would anyone mess with the statistical data that proves what they believe to be true? I beg to differ with you on saying that it's a blind faith, because it definitely is not! I apologize if this is choppy as im in a rush
Name:jesusman •
Date: 03/07/07 0:37
A: There is a way... Jesus being the ROCK OF TRUTH speaking seeds of this truth in your life transforming you to a stone as in Peter's case. Jesus says he is TRUTH and learning from him we can recongnize the truth from THE ROCK OF TRUTH. Being transformed into the ROCK OF TRUTH is in the loving hands of God!
Love RIchard
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 2:38
A: Actually, that isn't the Christian argument, thats more of a leftist strawman argument that crops up from time to time. Its true that inspiration cannot be proven by reason, and christians who believe in Inspiration (myself included) do accept the doctrine by faith, however, we don't simply leave our faith without exercising our reason to back things up as it were. For me, I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail when I was a teenager, and that led me to a lot of questions about the New Testament, its accuracy and veracity. I found out there are many very good reasons for accepting that the Bible is reliable (and while reliability isn't proof of inspiration, if the Bible is inspired, it must be able to prove itself reliable). Let me give you one piece, you can find more on other threads, if you like.
In the nineteenth century, an archeologist trained in leftist theological presuppositions (Sir William Ramsey) accepted the general notion that the book of Acts was written in the middle of the second century and was useless in any type of historical work, since it was never actually intended as a history. He was surprised to find out, however, that several of things he discovered matched some of the commonly cited "inaccuracies" in the book of Acts, so he began to investigate further. He found that the author of Acts (who he eventually accepted as Luke, the companion of Paul) got the minute details correct. He eventually declared Luke (also the author of the book of Luke) to be a historian of the first rank, at least as good as any other historian in the ancient world still extant. As I read some of his work, I realized, that guys who are trying to create a forgery, or who are writing things that they do not themselves to be true (or to have seen) don't exercise the necessary care to get these types of details right.
Name:StarLight •
Date: 03/07/07 18:05
A: I could go into how a certain document was accurate or translated accurately but that wasn't my point.
Just because there are stories about something doesn't make it true.
We have proof of the historical Jesus but not any proof of the miracle making, walking on water Jesus. That goes about the same with the Quran too. Like Muhammad being visited by angels, etc.
If I were to assert that an Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe, and that it caused everything to happen, how could you disprove me? I know its pink because my religion tells me so and I know through faith, and you can never find it because its invisible. Disprove me, or else this must be true.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 18:27
A: Your later post is more accurate, but thats not really in view, since miracles, etc., are outside of pure science and the conclusions you seem to be advocating require one to step in what I tend to think of in terms of philosophical science (or more precisely "Scientism"). The miracles of the Bible can't be proven by science, since they aren't repeatable phenomenon (at least, not by human beings) as such, at some point a leap of faith is necessary to accept Christianity. You have to remember that scientism (or philosophical science, or naturalism, or whatever other term you want to use) is ultimately a religious system (as religion is a catagory of questions not a catagory of answers). It has unproven and unprovable presuppositions and assumptions (your own ability to use logic, the accuracy of your sense, that only what can be explained scientifically and rationally is real, etc.). Therefore, you are forced to take those presuppositions on faith - at some level those presuppositions are testable, but they are not provable. Your faith isn't blind, but its still faith.
What I dispute is the phrase, "blind faith." That phrase indicates that faith means not using reason, and not looking at evidence, we do. A lot of Christians, myself included, don't fit in that catagory. Frankly, your initial post is simply a strawman/ad hominum argument that is simply demeaning than actually valid.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 18:29
A: Incidentally, I can disprove your analogy. A unicorn cannot be both invisible and pink without violating the law of non-contradiction. Now, you can examine the statement, refine it, etc., but you can't maintain the statement as it stands now.
Name:NormDoering •
Date: 03/07/07 18:50
A: StarLight wrote:
"... the claim that Jesus floated up into heaven is just the strand of hay on the whole hay stack of claims that don't stand up to rational thought..."
I agree. When one of Ted Koppel's theologians started arguing for the bodily ascension of Jesus into the sky. I have to ask; where did his body go? You think heaven is up in the sky? What's up there is 350,000 feet worth of atmosphere and then the vacuum of space and the Van Allen radiation belts. Where did Jesus' body go? To the Moon? Is Heaven hiding behind a cloud? If it all weren't so tragically insane it would be funny.
The idea of this bodily ascension of Jesus into the sky is based on an ancient and very wrong model of our world where they actually thought that heaven was upstairs in the sky, either beyond the crystal spheres or the dome of the sky. It shows up in other biblical passages and in the Koran -- like when God comes down to smash the tower of Babel because it's getting too close to heaven. In the Koran a winged horse takes the prophet to heaven.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/
Name:StarLight •
Date: 03/07/07 18:50
A: I already explained this in my first post:
"All sorts of different religions use blind faith to get people to believe in their religion. Yet all of the faiths have led people to believe different things. While at the same time there is no way to disprove the other because no one has anything obective to say. That isn't a basis someone of divine origin would use to show people the truth, something that leads people to ambiguous conclusions with no way to disprove each other.
When anyone is trying to show people the truth they don't give something that nonbelievers can't see. Otherwise there is nothing to prove to them so they can change their minds about it. In effect the truth isn't spread.
Now there are many things in the universe that we have no way of knowing about with modern science at the moment but to say something is true without having any reason for it is even more faulty. Someone saying a tree is God could use the same way of thinking because not knowing about it opens up the possibility for anything, not a certain and specific thing. So when the way they came to those conclusions were faulty, the truth can't be found by those religions."
Whether our senses are limited or not, making people believe in something that isn't objective is even more faulty. As I explained above.
.................................-...................................
Quote:- Incidentally, I can disprove your analogy. A unicorn cannot be both invisible and pink without violating the law of non-contradiction. Now, you can examine the statement, refine it, etc., but you can't maintain the statement as it stands now.
..................................-..................................
Yo-u- can only know the unicorns color if you have faith. Then it will be revealed to you. Like christians say you can only know the Holy Spirit if you have faith that Jesus was resurrected from God.
If you try to disprove me any attempt would be using reason and not blind faith. Unless you wanted to just say so, which doesn't prove anything and I'm just saying so as well. You don't witness the miracles of the Pink Invisible Unicorn because you don't have faith. You see in this case it is very reasonable to have reason to provide people with if you want to show people the truth so they can be "saved"
Name:kbob •
Date: 03/07/07 18:55
A: KRS
Name:StarLight •
Date: 03/07/07 18:56
A: Well said NormDoering!
Name:kbob •
Date: 03/07/07 18:58
A: KRS
Do you have your dictionary or and ready when you type? "Violates the law of noncontradiction"? Did you read the meaning before you used it or is it another attempt on your part to sound smarter than....?
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 18:59
A: But this requires you to change the laws of language - which means you are simply being irrational. That means I can't prove it subjectively - I have proved it objectively.
Again, my problem is with the Ad Hominum use of the word blind.
Name:StarLight •
Date: 03/07/07 19:04
A: What do you mean by "requires you to change the laws of language" I use the word blind because I think it still logically stands. I meant it in a metaphorical way.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 19:04
A: KBob,
I stated that it would violated the law of non-contradiction because for something to be pink, it must be visible since "pink" is a description of how something appears when seen by the human eye.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 19:06
A: I meant change the law of language in regard to color (pink) not in regard to blind. I took umbrage primarily because it seems that you are implying that Christians are simply being irrational.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 19:09
A: KBob,
I also don't make any attempts to sound "smarter than I am," but I have studied a lot more about New Testament backgrounds than most people have.
Name:kbob •
Date: 03/07/07 19:21
A: KRS
"I have studied a lot more about New Testament backgrounds than most people have". That's quite an assumption given the FACT that you have no idea who you are talking to in any of the topics you have participated in on this particular site. Or, can you truthfully tell me you personally know all you have conversed with?
You also completely avoided the incorret claim of the violation of the law of noncontradiction.
Name:StarLight •
Date: 03/07/07 19:21
A: Oh well the Pink Invisible Unicorn changes a lot of laws as it has many ways you can't comprehend. Just as your saying that the christian god has many ways humans can't comprehend.
I only think they are being irrational because thats what has shown to be true. I'm meaning to offend anyone. I just have real reason to think so. I even was a christian for 20 years and was studying to be a biblical scholar.
If you think christians are being reasonable rather than believing in something without any evidence. What is the objective evidence that Jesus really was resurrected and that Jesus was resurrected by God. That Jesus walked on water and healed people. For that matter that the real God is the God in the bible. Believe me I've looked no one has had that evidence all the way to 1st century. Which for it to be plausible it should have been evident since then. The only people I have seen claim that were shown to be biased, mislead or scamming people. We have proof of the historical Jesus but no proof of the miracle making Jesus. Just because there are stories about something doesn't make it true.
Name:Jim D •
Date: 03/07/07 19:43
A: To Kbob & Starlight......the PROBLEM is, your arguments/comments that you have put forth, are NOT logical. The Law of Non-Contradiction is an essential law, relative to logic and its use, thereof. If either one of you knew anything about logic and rational thought/argument processes, you would know the Bible is logical and rational. Christianity is historically accurate and its precepts logical. More so than the "Theory of Evolution" and all other works of antiquity.
KRS, I applaud your efforts to enlighten various people on this forum. I enjoy reading your comments and answers. But, alas, you should stop with these two....don't cast pearls before swine...or pink unicorns....
Name:kbob •
Date: 03/07/07 19:49
A: JIM
That's hysterical. And just as expected. You can't debate and defend so you resort to insults. Typical, but not surprising. Thanks for being such a "Good Christian". Jesus would be proud. Or would he?
Name:StarLight •
Date: 03/07/07 20:32
A: Jim D why is it not logical because you say so? Your saying things out of context with the conversation and not addressing my real points in my first post. That shows alot. The Law of Non-Contradiction was what KRS was saying about my example of blind faith religions. It was me imitating christianity in a different form. So I never said anything like I don't agree with the Law of Non-Contradiction. I was just turning the tables to prove a point and for you to say that so out of context shows you really either didn't read or try to comprehend what we are saying.
Name:Red •
Date: 03/07/07 20:46
A: Krs said that changing the law of language would be irrational. Why do claims in the NT change or obliterate laws of Physics at will and it not be Illogical???
As you debate, you show a very flexible regard to logic.
Name:NormDoering •
Date: 03/07/07 21:01
A: KRS wrote:
"... change the law of language in regard to color (pink) ..."
The problem with your assumed law about the color pink in regards to language is that the language violates the laws of physics. Color is not an intrinsic property of any object. Intrinsic describes a property of some thing which is essential and specific to that thing. A characteristic which is not essential or inherent is extrinsic.
Color changes with lighting conditions, surface conditions, etc. Nothing in saying "a unicorns is pink" directly implies the property is intrinsic rather than extrinsic.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/
Name:StarLight •
Date: 03/07/07 21:20
A: ..............................
Quote: Krs said that changing the law of language would be irrational. Why do claims in the NT change or obliterate laws of Physics at will and it not be Illogical???
As you debate, you show a very flexible regard to logic.
..............................
Yes the bible is filled with illogical claims, these come from just a quick recall in Matthew:
~"The star ... went before them."
If the star "went before them," leading them to Bethlehem, then it couldn't have been a star or any other astronomical object or event. But Matthew couldn't have known that. Everyone at the time thought that stars were just little points of light a short distance above the earth. It'd be no problem to have one hover above a particular place for a while. 2:9
~Jesus tells his disciples to perform all the usual tricks: "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and cast out devils." 10:8
~According to Matthew, people who cannot speak are possessed by the devil. 9:32-33
~Jesus casts out a devil from a man who was blind and dumb. (Thos we are unable to see or hear are possessed by devils.) 12:22
~Jesus believed that Noah's flood actually happened. 24:37
~When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the land." And when he died, there was a great earthquake with many corpses walking the streets of Jerusalem. It is strange that there is no record of any of these extraordinary events outside of the gospels. 27:45, 51-53
A: I'll add to the claim above that Luke is supposably accurate and that Luke can be declared "to be a historian of the first rank" Just look at these passages in Luke:
When was Jesus born?
.......................
Matthew 2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king.
Luke 1:5
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Herod the Great died in 4 BCE.
Wikipedia.com: Herod the Great
.........................
Luke 2:1
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
Quirinius became governer of Syria in 6 CE, ten years after king Herod's death.
Wikipedia: Quirinius
........................
The devil takes Jesus to the top of a mountain and shows him "all the kingdoms of the world." I guess the world was flat in those days. 4:5
.........................
Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. 17:26-27
.........................
Jesus also believes the story about Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history. 17:29-32
.........................
When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the earth." It is strange that there is no record of this extraordinary event outside of the gospels. 23:44-45
*lol-*- Science says no to what? Sorry I tried the link and it doesn't seem to be working.
Name:sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 23:19
A: Source:
"The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) is North America's oldest and largest organization devoted to the world of archaeology with more than 8,500 members belonging to 104 AIA societies in the United States, Canada, and overseas, united by a shared passion for archaeology and its role in furthering human knowledge. Click here to learn more
Firs-t- let me point out that by making this announcement in the popular media, Jacobovici, Cameron, and the others involved have chosen to circumvent the usual academic process. Archaeology is a scientific discipline. New discoveries and interpretations typically are presented in scientific venues such as professional meetings or are published in peer-reviewed journals, where they can be considered and discussed by other specialists. By first making the announcement in the popular media, those involved have precluded legitimate and vital academic discourse. This is because it is impossible to explain the many flaws of their claim in a one-minute segment on TV or the radio, or in two or three sentences in the newspaper, as I have been asked to do repeatedly since the announcement was made. The history and archaeology of Jerusalem in the first century are far too complex to be boiled down to a short sound bite, yet that is precisely what has happened here. This is a travesty to professional archaeologists and scholars of early Judaism and Christianity, and it is a disservice to the public. "
"The- evidence is presented step by step, much as any good attorney might do before a jury, to create a compelling case to the layman. For scholars, however, at least those who are not too busy fulminating on television about the publicity-seeking proclivities of those associated with this project, this case is an eminently flawed one. "
"Thus, unlike Jacobovici and company's impressively qualified statistician, the assertion that there was a 1 in 600 to 1 in 1,000 chance that ossuaries with the names inscribed on the Talpiot examples might be found in one tomb, has failed to impress archaeologists. We know that we have seen these names before and we know that the universe from which statistical analyst Feuerverger's results are drawn is a flawed one that no amount of mathematical manipulation can overcome."
Yes,- I am sure The Archaeological Institute of America has an agenda more than JC (lol) and his motley crew. I"m sure that they do not consider money a motive at all, but the AIA has TONS of money to make by refuting it right?
WAKE UP PEOPLE.
Name:sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 23:21
A: By the way the reson the links do not work is because they put programming in here so that people can't link. YOu have to remove the hyphens when you paste it in your URL bar. If you can't then just Google the AIA. They are a CREDIBLE SOURCE unlike JC and his cronies.
Name:StarLight •
Date: 03/08/07 4:13
A: Okay but that doesn't have anything to do with the thread subject.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 4:23
A: KBob,
I'm operating on probabilities, like everyone else, when I look at the levels of the statements on this site . . . the conclusion seems pretty obvious.
As for non-contradition, I'm was replying to the self-contradictory statment "Invisible pink." The law of non-contradiction states that a law can't be both true and false at the same time, in the same way.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 4:57
A: Starlight, lets go through them one at a time.
First, remember that when it comes to miracles, it is by definition, non-repeatable phenomenon, therefore science cannot argue whether they are possible or not, unless you are making the unprovable assumption that only that which is understood by the scientific method can be true. You may believe this, you may say its reasonable (and it is a reasonable position) but you can't argue that it has been proven. Several of your passage references that simply point to the miraculous, then I will skip over, because your position is ultimately as much a faith position as anyone elses.
Matt 2:9 - The term star in Greek has a much broader semantic domain than the English word, therefore your case is moot. I don't know what the phenomenon was, but the Greek term doesn't require it to be astronomical phenomenon in the sense that you are defining it.
Matt 9:23 - arguing that all people who are unable to speak are demon possessed on the basis of this passage is like arguing that every time someone is throwing up they have the influenza virus. In other cases, Jesus healed people, and there is no reference to possession. You may not accept the reality of demonic forces on the basis of your world view, but don't try to twist the passage to try to prove that point.
Luke 23:44-45 - first, the word most English translations translate as "World" can also be translated land, so it may have been localized to just Judea. Second, as to historians that record it, the third century father, Julius Africanus cites two historians who are not extant now(Thallus AD52 and Phlegon who wrote somewhere in the first century), as referring to an eclipse of the sun during the fullmoon. Its not as strong as we would like, but it can't be said to be without evidence.
Luke 2:1, actually, there are several answers to this one, but the one I find most convincing is that this can be translated in two ways into English, and essential the English translators chose the wrong ones. Vs 2 can also be translated "And this decree first went out before Quirenus was govenor of Syria" and seems to be differentiating this from a later sensus that began when Quirenus was govenor.
Luke 4:5 - this doesn't imply that the world is flat, because height isn't what is showing the kingdoms of the world, there is something supernatural being described here. The term "kingdoms" indicates domains, Satan isn't merely showing Him topography.
As to Noah's ark and Sodom, these haven't been disproved, so much as most people don't think they are real. I can't prove either happened, but no one has definetively proved that they didn't happen.
Luke 2:1 can be translated more than one way, one is the way you have here and is the more common way in most English translations. The second is (very roughly since its late), "And it was that census that was before quiernus was govenor of Syria."
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 4:59
A: Red,
Science is the study of natural phenomenon, as miracles are, by definition, not natural phenomenon, science can't argue for or against them. The idea that only what can be verified as real is a common presupposition that a lot of people have, but it hasn't been proven.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 5:01
A: KBob,
Science has no bearing on the pink, invisible unicorn. Language and words are not defined by Science, they are defined by standard usage. This is a simplified argument, but you get the gist.
Logic, likewise, is not a scientific discipline. In fact, a lot of the earlier scientists took a purely empiricist approach that had no place for deductive reasoning.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 5:05
A: Starlight,
History is not a scientific discipline - it is a critical discipline, but your ultimately using the blind faith you have in your own philosophical system as a filter for the evidence. Your welcome to do that, but you can't argue that your position has been proven.
Name:daki •
Date: 03/08/07 5:08
A: Hi
Many are trying to axe this theory . But how many of them are willing to investigate to counter it ? I didn't saw any at the moment (but I hope it changes in the next few weeks) .
What I can't understand is people saying that it just deserve to be silenced and forgotten . A tomb with 6 ossuaries with biblic names including some stating the bloodline is I think a serious matter to investigate thoroughly . Anyone saying otherwise is having a VERY biaised behaviour don't it ?
Peace to all . Faith is a serious issue but I hope our societies have matured enough to search for the Truth even if it crushes 2000 years old beliefs . I have big respect for christianity and the whole philosophy behind it but as most non-believers I'm having some troubles buying ressurection , ascencion , miracles etc ...
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 5:17
A: Jim,
I appreciate the kind words, and I have that passage in mind. I'm not going to be spending much more time on this site, as it is, since what I am trying to do ultimately I have almost done. I didn't find the documentary persuasive, but I believe that, even as Christians we ought to investigate these things objectively. I have found a lot of flaws in the methods used in this documentary, and I'm almost done compiling my arguments against it. Primarily, I want to be prepared to answer these questions when I am asked by people at church or by future students, and provide some material to some pastor and seminary prof. friends.
I am not so much trying to prove something to KBob and Starlight - I am becoming convinced that these two aren't capable of being objective with the presuppositions that they take on faith (odd how the pot calls the kettle black so often). Nevertheless, I don't know who is reading this and I hope that it will at least spur believers to study their Bibles more closely and unbelievers to consider that the answers may not be as pat as much of society thinks. If I am thought a fool, so be it, it is a small cross to carry for the Master.
Name:Jim D •
Date: 03/08/07 16:40
A: To KRS:
Thank you for your efforts and ministry on this site. I am not as eloquent as you, nor do I have the same level of knowledge relative to apologetics. However, I do know that no supporter of this site, nor the documentary itself, has accomplished what they set out to do. In fact, they've done just the opposite.
Your answers truly demonstrate Christ, in that you are always respectful and your passion for the Truth, always comes through. Thank you my brother or sister, and I will pray for you.
In Christ, our Lord and Saviour,
Jim D
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 16:44
A: Thanks Jim,
Men who are given the gift of being able to study His Word in Depth owe the Lord all the service they can to his little ones.
KRS
Name:Jim D •
Date: 03/08/07 16:48
A: Kbob.....I can't defend or debate? And you can? Why not debate my statements relative to logic and and the historical accuracy of the Bible?
As for being a "good Christian"....what is good? Can you define good? Here's a hint: "unless you believe in God, you don't know what good really means".
Name:Jim D •
Date: 03/08/07 16:49
A: KRS...
If you can recommend some good sights relative to defending the faith, I would truly appreciate it.
God bless!
Name:Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/08/07 17:31
A: Jim,
"However, I do know that no supporter of this site, nor the documentary itself, has accomplished what they set out to do."
In your "religious" mind the questions raised in the documentary are an "attack" on your faith.
If you assume that people who support this documentary are trying to destroy your faith, then no, they didn't achieve that goal.
But if they really just wanted people to look at the thing and ask more questions, then yes, mission acomplished.
By the way, I am also a servant of the Lord. He asked me to remind people not to hang their faith on theological arguments.
Be humble,
Be cool to other people,
Have faith that you are part of something bigger than yourself.
And remember the good guys win in the end.
That's my ministry-
gotta go, just saw the coolest pink unicorn fly past my window.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 17:45
A: Jim,
There are a lot of sites, but really, apologetics comes down to your knowledge of what is really going on in the BIble in the first place. The case for Christ is a good laylevel work thats easy for people to read, but doesn't really water the arguments down to far to be valid. If you really want to learn apologetics, you might want to read something like D Edmond Hiebert's Introduction to the New Testament (which is fairly easy compared to the more seminary level text book), and a few of the works by Norman Geisler or Josh McDowell at your local family bookstore. McDowell is less scholarly, but he's easy to read, Geisler is a guy who can introduce you to the tough stuff.
Name:roy •
Date: 04/02/07 23:38
A: Blind faith surrender itself to truth if one looks well at the origin, and similarity of all faiths.
Quran witnesses same doctrine with old and new testament, pointing to the same God sent them.
Mohammads teaching were unlike any other books, memorized by hundreds of muslims systematicaly and diligently. The simple words of him Hadiths were forbidden to be written or recorded in order prevent mess up with revelations.
Records of bible were not kept in order and deliberately distorted. However muslims believe the original is kept by God and it is true that it was given to Jesus.
There are too many proofs that Bible was edited, added many false claims, manupulated according to politics, finally diverted from its true path. Muslims hadiths books were similar in their destiny. They were overly biased, lies alleged to Mohammad (sas) added, religion overburdened with unnecessary hardships, bigotry, bidat (added ruling, principles).
They took their toll to the extent that, they claimed Mohammad, as the imam of all prophets, for whom the earth was created for. In one hadith they claim he went several times between God and Moses to reduce repetition of prayer in a day from 50 times down to five times. It was claimed on some occasions inspired by christian faith, God had shank (God forbid! Never).
Early Christian belief was too much different than todays versions. I put down the historic events and different sects of Christians, some still in effect today, which have been very close to Muslim version of religion. It shows only one truth that God has sent several prophets, prescribing same religion at basic concepts ,ie.. pray one God only, give charity, not kill or commit adultry, etc.. I hope this will give a secular insight to our beliefs.
Roys script: Please bear in mind that the notes were written according to Biblical names, here Jesus was referred as son instead of prophet, many times. (it is misleading attribute as the true meaning should be God slave and Messenger according to muslim faith.)
NONTRINITARIANISM
Nontrinitarianism is any of various Christian beliefs that reject the doctrine that God is three distinct persons in one being, (the Trinity).
The notion of the Trinity is not of particular importance to most nontrinitarians. Persons and groups espousing this position generally do not refer to themselves affirmatively by the term, although some nontrinitarian groups such as the Unitarians have adopted a name that bespeaks of their belief in God as subsisting in a theological or cosmic unity. Modern nontrinitarian groups views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Various nontrinitarian views, such as Arianism, existed alongside what is now considered mainstream Christianity before the Trinity was formally defined as doctrine in AD 325. Nontrinitarianism was very rare for hundreds of years. It surfaced again in the Gnosticism of the Cathars and in the Enlightenment and Restorationism.
Forms of Nontrinitarianism
ALL NONTRINITARIANS ARGUE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE EARLIEST FORM OF THE CHURCH WAS NOT TRINITARIAN. Typically, nontrinitarians explain that the Church was altered as a direct and indirect consequence of the edicts of Constantine the Great, which resulted in toleration of the Christian religion, and the eventual adoption of Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Because it was at this time of a dramatic shift in Christianity's status that the doctrine of the Trinity attained its definitive development, nontrinitarians typically find the development of the doctrine questionable. It is in this light that the Nicene Creed is seen by nontrinitarians as an essentially political document, resulting from the subordination of Church to State interests by the leaders of Catholic Church, so that the Church became, in their view, an extension of the Roman Empire.
Although Nontrinitarian beliefs of a great variety continued to multiply, and among some people (such as the Lombards in the West) it was dominant for hundreds of years afterward, the Trinitarians now had the immense power of the Empire behind them. NONTRINITARIANS TYPICALLY ARGUE THAT THE PRIMITIVE BELIEFS OF THE CHURCH WERE SYSTEMATICALLY SUPPRESSED (EVEN TO THE POINT OF DEATH), AND THAT THE HISTORICAL RECORD, PERHAPS ALSO INCLUDING THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WAS ALTERED AS A CONSEQUENCE.
Nontrinitarian followers of Jesus fall into roughly four different groups.
Some believe that Jesus is not God, instead believing that he was a messenger from God, or Prophet, or the perfect created human. This is the view espoused by modern day Unitarianism and ancient sects such as the Ebionites. A specific form of Nontrinitarianism is Arianism, which had become the dominant view in some regions in the time of the Roman Empire. Arianism taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but held that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father. However, Arians did not consider worship of Jesus as wrong.[citation needed] Another early form of Nontrinarianism was Monarchianism.
Others believe that the one God who revealed himself in the Old Testament as Jehovah revealed himself in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is a doctrine known originally as Sabellianism or modalism, although it is explained somewhat differently in the churches which hold these beliefs today. Examples of such churches today are Oneness Pentecostals and the New Church.
Several denominations within Mormonism (including the largest, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) accept the divinity of Jesus, but believe the three persons of the Trinity to be separate. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct individuals (D&C 130:22), but can and do act together in perfect unity as a single monotheistic entity (the "Godhead") for the common purpose of saving mankind, Jesus Christ having received divine investiture of authority from Heavenly Father in the pre-existence.
Several denominations within the Sabbatarian Church of God and certain groups within Seventh-day Adventism accept the divinity of the Father and Jesus the Son, but do not teach that the Holy Spirit is a Being. The Living Church of God, for example, teaches, "The Holy Spirit is the very essence, the mind, life and power of God. It is not a Being. The Spirit is inherent in the Father and the Son, and emanates from Them throughout the entire universe". This view has historically been termed Semi-Arianism or Binitarianism.
kingdomready.org/topics/god.php
[ GOD IS 1 NOT 3 ]
Only the Father, Yahweh, is God. Jesus is the Son of God, His only begotten Son, the Messiah. The Bible emphatically and repeatedly sets forth Yahweh's supremacy and exclusivity. There are no other gods besides Him. God is all powerful, everywhere present, immortal, invisible, and all knowing. He did not become a man, His word (reason, intent, plan, self-expression) did. Jesus is the perfect human who always did what God wanted done and always spoke what God wanted said. In fact, it was Jesus who said that the Father is the only one who is truly God (John 17.3). Paul likewise confessed belief in a single deity when he said, "Yet, for us there is but one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ..." (1 Corinthians 8.6). Below are resources that aim to describe what the Bible teaches not the philosophies of men.
Origins and basis for Nontrinitarianism
Nontrinitarians claim the roots of their position go back farther than those of their counterpart Trinitarians. The biblical basis for each side of the issue is debated chiefly on the question of the divinity of Jesus. Nontrinitarians note that in deference to God, Jesus rejected even being called "good", that he disavowed omniscience as the Son,[1] and that he referred to ascending unto "my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God", and that he said "the Father is the only true God." Additionally, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 when saying in Mark 12:29 "The most important one (commandment)," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one."
Siding with nontrinitarians, scholars investigating the historical Jesus often assert that Jesus taught neither his own equality with God nor the Trinity (see, for example, the Jesus Seminar). Jesus Seminar is a research team of about 135 New Testament scholars founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan under the auspices of the Westar Institute.[1][2] The seminar's purpose is to use historical methods to determine what Jesus, as a historical figure, may or may not have said or done. In addition, the seminar popularizes research into the historical Jesus. The public is welcome to attend the twice-yearly meetings. They produced new translations of the New Testament plus the Gospel of Thomas to use as textual sources. They published their results in three reports The Five Gospels (1993),[3] The Acts of Jesus (1998),[4] and The Gospel of Jesus (1999).[5] They also run a series of lectures and workshops in various U.S. cities.
The text of the Nicene Creed and the Trinity state that the three are "coequal". This is the term actually used in the Doctrine. One might consider co-owners of a business as being equal owners but with different roles to play in operating the business. But nontrinitarians point to a very important statement by Jesus that contradicts the use of the term equal or "coequal". It is a simple passage where Jesus stated his explicit subordinance to the Father: "for my Father is Greater than I(John 14:28)."
In addition, the Trinity and the Nicene Creed were doctrines established over 300 years after the time of Christ on Earth as a result of conflict within the early Church. It is curious to note that Jesus had forewarned the reader in Matthew "beware the doctrines of men".
Some nontrinitarians accept that Scripture teaches Christ is divine in some sense, and the son of God, but deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.
Main Points of Dissent
1. The Trinity as being irrational
Criticism of the doctrine includes the argument that its "mystery" is essentially an inherent irrationality, where the persons of God are claimed to share completely a single divine substance, the "being of God", and yet not partake of each others' identity. It is also pointed out that many polytheistic pre-Christian religions arranged many of their gods in trinities, and that this doctrine may been promoted by Church leaders to make Christendom more acceptable to surrounding cultures.
2. Possible lack of Scriptural support
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, says, "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught [explicitly] in the [Old Testament]"[14], "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established [by a council]...prior to the end of the 4th century"[15], and The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia adds, "The doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament". The question, however, of why such a supposedly central doctrine to the Christian faith would never have been explicitly stated in scripture or taught in detail by Jesus himself was sufficiently important to 16th century historical figures such as Michael Servetus as to lead them to argue the question. The Geneva City Council, in accord with the judgment of the cantons of Zόrich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, condemned Servetus to be burned at the stake for this, and for his opposition to infant baptism.
3. Divinity of Jesus
For some, debate over the biblical basis of the doctrine tends to revolve chiefly over the question of the deity of Jesus (see Christology). Those who reject the divinity of Jesus argue among other things that Jesus rejected being called so little as good in deference to God (versus "the Father") , disavowed omniscience as the Son, "learned obedience" , and referred to ascending unto "my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God" .
They also dispute that "Elohim" denotes plurality, noting that this name in nearly all circumstances takes a singular verb and arguing that where it seems to suggest plurality, Hebrew grammar still indicates against it. They also point to statements by Jesus such as his declaration that the Father was greater than he or that he was not omniscient, in his statement that of a final day and hour not even he knew, but the Father , and to Jesus' being called the firstborn of creation and 'the beginning of God's creation,' which argues against his being eternal.
In Theological Studies #26 (1965) p.545-73, Does the NT call Jesus God?, Raymond E. Brown wrote that there are "texts that seem to imply that the title God was not used for Jesus" and are "negative evidence which is often somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject."
Trinitarians, and some non-Trinitarians such as the Modalists who also hold to the divinity of Jesus Christ, claim that these statements are based on the fact that Jesus existed as the Son of God in human flesh. Thus he is both God and man, who became "lower than the angels, for our sake" and who was tempted as humans are tempted, but did not sin .
Some Nontrinitarians counter the belief that the Son was limited only during his earthly life (Trinitarians believe, instead, that Christ retains full human nature even after his resurrection), by citing ("the head of Christ [is] God" [KJV]), written after Jesus had returned to Heaven, thus placing him still in an inferior relation to the Father. Additionally, they claim that Jesus became exalted after ascension to Heaven, and regarding Jesus as a distinct personality in Heaven, all after his ascension.
4. Possible un-Biblical terminology
Christian Unitarians, Restorationists, and others question the doctrine of the Trinity because it relies on non-Biblical terminology. The term "Trinity" is not found in scripture and the number three is never associated with God in any sense other than within the Comma Johanneum. Detractors hold that the only number ascribed to God in the Bible is One and that the Trinity, literally meaning three-in-one, ascribes a threeness to God that is not Biblical.
5. Many scriptural citations lack the Holy Spirit
It is also argued that the vast majority of scriptures that Trinitarians offer in support of their beliefs refer to the Father and to Jesus, but not to the Holy Spirit. This suggests that the concept of the trinity was not well-established in the early Christian community.
6. Whether it is truly monotheistic or not
The teaching is also pivotal to inter-religious disagreements with two of the other major faiths, Judaism and Islam; the former reject Jesus' divine mission entirely, the latter accepts Jesus as a human prophet just like Muhammad but rejects altogether the deity of Jesus. Many within Judaism and Islam also accuse Christian Trinitarians of practicing polytheism, of believing in three gods rather than just one. Islam holds that because Allah is unique and absolute (the concept of tawhid) the Trinity is impossible and has even been condemned as polytheistic. This is emphasized in the Qur'an which states "He (Allah) does not beget, nor is He begotten, And (there is) none like Him." (Qur'an, 112:3-4)
Scriptural texts cited as implying opposition
Among Bible verses cited by opponents of Trinitarianism are those that claim there is only one God, the Father. Other verses state that Jesus Christ was a man. Trinitarians explain these apparent contradictions by reference to the mystery and paradox of the Trinity itself. This is a partial list of verses implying opposition to Trinitarianism:
One God
Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."'"
John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
The Son is subordinate to the Father
Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."
John 14:28: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
John 17:20-23: "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
1stCorinthians 15:24-28: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."
Jesus is not the old testament God
John 2:16: And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
Acts 3:13: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up...
John 20:17: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
Daniel 7:13: I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Psalms 110:1: Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Ontological Differences Between "God" and Jesus
John 17:1-3 Jesus prays to God.
Hebrews 2:17,18 Hebrews 3:2 Jesus has faith in God.
Acts 3:13 Jesus is a servant of God.
Mark 13:32 Revelation 1:1 Jesus does not know things God knows.
John 4:22 Jesus worships God.
Revelation 3:12 Jesus has one who is God to him.
1stCorinthians 15:28 Jesus is in subjection to God.
1stCorinthians 11:1 Jesus' head is God.
Hebrews 5:7 Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God.
Acts 2:36 Jesus is given lordship by God.
Acts 5:31 Jesus is exalted by God.
Hebrews 5:10 Jesus is made high priest by God.
Philippians 2:9 Jesus is given aurthority by God.
Luke 1:32,33 Jesus is given kingship by God.
Acts 10:42 Jesus is given judgment by God.
Acts 2:24, Romans 10.9, 1 Cor 15:15 "God raised [Jesus] from the dead".
Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34 Jesus is at the right hand of God.
1 Tim 2:5 Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man.
1 Cor 15:24-28 God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus.
Alternate views to the Trinity
There have been numerous other views of the relations of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the most prominent include:
Arius believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father, firstborn of all Creation. However, the Son did have Divine status. This view is very close to that of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Ebionites believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father and nothing more than a special human.
Marcion believed that there were two Deities, one of Creation / Hebrew Bible and one of the New Testament.
Modalism states that God has taken numerous forms in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and that God has manifested Himself in three primary modes in regards to the salvation of mankind.
Swedenborgianism holds that the Trinity exists in One Person, the Lord God Jesus Christ. The Father, the Being or soul of God, was born into the world and put on a body from Mary.
The Urantia Book teaches that God is the first "Uncaused Cause" who is a personality that is omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent, infinite, eternal and omnipotent, but He is also a person of the Original Trinity - "The Paradise Trinity" who are the "First Source and Center, Second Source and Center, and Third Source and Center" or otherwise described as "God, The Eternal Son, and The Divine Holy Spirit".
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka "Mormons," hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct individuals (Covenant 130:22), but can and do act together in perfect unity as a single monotheistic entity (the "Godhead") for the common purpose of saving mankind, Jesus Christ having received divine investiture of authority from Heavenly Father in the pre-existence.
Docetism comes from the Greek: δοκηο (doceo), meaning "to seem." This view holds that Jesus only seemed to be human and only appeared to die.
Adoptionism holds that Jesus was chosen on the event of his baptism to be anointed by the Holy Spirit and became divine upon resurrection.
Rastafarians accept Haile Selassie I, the former (and last) emperor of Ethiopia, as Jah (the Rasta name for God incarnate, from a shortened form of Jehovah found in Psalms 68:4 in the King James Version of the Bible), and part of the Holy Trinity as the messiah promised to return in the Bible.
Islam's Holy Book, the Quran, denounces the concept of Trinity (Qur'an 4:171, 5:72-73, 112:1-4), also in nonstandard forms, a Trinity composed of Father, Son and Mary (Qur'an 5:116). Inclusion of Mary in the presumed trinity may have been due to either a quasi-Christian sect known as the Collyridians in Arabia who apparently believed that Mary was divine, or use of the title "Mother of God" to refer to Mary.
Theory of pagan origin and influence
Nontrinitarian Christians have long contended that the doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example of Christian borrowing from pagan sources. According to this view, a simpler idea of God was lost very early in the history of the Church, through accommodation to pagan ideas, and the "incomprehensible" doctrine of the Trinity took its place. As evidence of this process, a comparison is often drawn between the Trinity and notions of a divine triad, found in pagan religions and Hinduism. Hinduism has a triad, i.e., Trimurti.
Some find a direct link between the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Egyptian theologians of Alexandria, for example. They suggest that Alexandrian theology, with its strong emphasis on the deity of Christ, was an intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.
Nontrinitarians assert that Catholics must have recognized the pagan roots of the trinity, because the allegation of borrowing was raised by some disputants during the time that the Nicene doctrine was being formalized and adopted by the bishops. For example, in the 4th century Catholic Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra's writings, On the Holy Church,9 :
Such a late date for a key term of Nicene Christianity, and attributed to a Gnostic, they believe, lends credibility to the charge of pagan borrowing. Marcellus was rejected by the Catholic Church for teaching a form of Sabellianism.
The early apologists, including Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus, frequently discussed the parallels and contrasts between Christianity and the pagan and syncretic religions, and answered charges of borrowing from paganism in their apologetical writings.
Hellenic influences on Christian thought
Advocates of the "Hellenic origins" argument consider it well supported by primary sources. They see these sources as tracing the influence of Philo on post-Apostolic Christian philosophers - many of them ex-pagan Hellenic philosophers - who then interpreted Scripture through the Neoplatonic filter of their original beliefs and subsequently incorporated those interpretations into their theology. The early synthesis between Hellenic philosophy and early Christianity was certainly made easier by the fact that so many of the earliest apologists (such as Athenagoras and Justin Martyr) were Greek converts themselves, whose original beliefs had consisted more of philosophy than religion.
Controversy over Nontrinitarianism's Status
Most nontrinitarians identify themselves as Christian. In this regard The Encyclopedia Britannica states, "To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine."This view (nonrtinitarian) in the early church, still supported by some Christians, generates controversy among mainstream Christians. Most members of mainstream Christianity considered it heresy not to believe in the Trinity.
Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity, most mainline denominations have taken a "hands-off" policy on the subject of the trinity, realizing that since personal study and free thought have been encouraged for years, it is not surprising that some of the conclusions reached would be nontrinitarian. The recognition here is that the trinity is tool for pointing to a greater truth. In other words, Christianity has historically sought to look beyond its doctrines (see Apophasis) to the greater truth they are intended to address, IE God. It is not uncommon for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican to profess non-trinitarian views, even among the clergy. The response from the governing bodies of those denominations is usually neutral, so long as the disagreement is voiced in respect.
Nontrinitarian Christian groups
American Unitarian Conference
Arian Catholicism
Arianism
Bible Students
Christadelphians
Christian Conventions a non-denominational group which publishes no dogmatic positions, but which a majority of observers classify as non-Trinitarian
Church of Christ, Scientist
Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)
Church of the Blessed Hope (Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith)
Creation Seventh Day Adventism
Doukhobors
Higher Ground Online
Jehovah's Witnesses
Living Church of God
Living Hope International Ministries
Molokan
Monarchianism
New Church
Oneness Pentecostals
Polish Brethren
Socinianism
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church; see also Mormon)
The Way International
Unification Church
Unitarian Christians
Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship
Iglesia ni Cristo
True Jesus Church
Nontrinitarian people
Natalius, ~200
Sabellius, ~220
Paul of Samosata, 269
Arius, 336
Eusebius of Nicomedia, 341, baptized Constantine
Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor, 361
Antipope Felix II, 365
Aλtius, 367
Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, 383
Priscillian, 385, considered first Christian to be executed for heresy
Muhammad, 632, see also Isa
Ludwig Haetzer, 1529
Juan de Valdιs, 1541
Michael Servetus, 1553, burned at the stake in Geneva under John Calvin
Sebastian Castellio, 1563
Ferenc Dαvid, 1579
Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1604
John Biddle, 1662
Thomas Aikenhead, 1697, last person to be hanged for blasphemy in Britain
John Locke, 1704
Isaac Newton, 1727
William Whiston, 1752, expelled from University of Cambridge in 1710
Jonathan Mayhew, 1766
Emanuel Swedenborg, 1772
Benjamin Franklin, 1790
Joseph Priestley, 1804
Joseph Smith, 1805
Thomas Paine, 1809
Thomas Jefferson, 1826
James Madison, 1836
William Ellery Channing, 1842
Robert Hibbert, 1849
John Thomas (Christadelphian), 1871
Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1882
Benjamin Wilson, 18??
James Martineau, 1900
Charles Taze Russell, 1916
Neville Chamberlain, 1940
William Branham, 1965
Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986
UNİTARİANİSM
Unitarianism is the belief in the oneness of God opposed to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one God). Unitarians believe in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus.
Unitarianism as a system of Christian thought and religious observance has its basis, as opposed to that of orthodox Trinitarianism, in the unipersonality of the Christian Godhead, i.e. in the idea that the Godhead exists in the person of the Father alone. Unitarians trace their history back to the Apostolic age, claim for their doctrine a prevalence during the ante-Nicene period. A small number of Unitarians claim a continuity through Arian communities and individual thinkers to the present time.
ARİANİSM
God the Father ("unbegotten"), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ ("only-begotten"), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God."
Arianism refers to the theological positions made famous by the theologian Arius (c. 250-336 AD), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. The controversial teachings of Arius dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus Christ, a relationship known as the doctrine of the Trinity.
While Arianism continued to dominate for several decades even within the family of the Emperor, the Imperial nobility and higher ranking clergy, in the end it was Trinitarianism which prevailed theologically and politically in the Roman Empire at the end of the fourth century. Arianism, which had been taught by the Arian missionary Ulfilas to the Germanic tribes, was dominant for some centuries among several Germanic tribes in western Europe, especially Goths and Longobards, but ceased to be the mainstream belief by the 8th Century AD. Trinitarianism remained the dominant doctrine in all major branches of the Eastern and Western Church and within Protestantism, although there have been several anti-trinitarian movements, some of which acknowledge various similarities to classical Arianism.
ANOMOEAN
In 4th century Christianity, the Anomans, also known as Anomeans, Heterousians, Aetians, or Eunomians, were a sect of Arians who asserted that Jesus Christ (the Son) was of a different nature and in no way like to that of God (the Father).
The word is from Greek α(ν)- 'not' and όμοίος 'similar' i.e. "different; dissimilar".
In the 4th century, this was the name by which the followers of Aλtius and Eunomius were distinguished; they not only denied the consubstantiality of Jesus but even asserted that he was of a nature different from that of God. This was in contradistinction to the semi-Arians, who indeed denied the consubstantiality of Jesus, but believed at the same time that he was like the Father.
ARİANİSM İN THE EARLY MEDİEVAL GERMANİC KİNGDOMS
During the time of Arianism's flowering in Constantinople, the Gothic convert Ulfilas (later the subject of the letter of Auxentius cited above) was sent as a missionary to the Gothic barbarians across the Danube, a mission favored for political reasons by emperor Constantius II. Ulfilas' initial success in converting this Germanic people to an Arian form of Christianity was strengthened by later events. When the Germanic peoples entered the Roman Empire and founded successor-kingdoms in the western part, most had been Arian Christians for more than a century.
The conflict in the 4th century had seen Arian and Nicene factions struggling for control of the Church. In contrast, in the Arian German kingdoms established on the wreckage of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, there were entirely separate Arian and Nicene Churches with parallel hierarchies, each serving different sets of believers. The Germanic elites were Arians, and the majority population Nicene.
The Franks were unique among the Germanic peoples in that they entered the empire as pagans and converted to Nicene Christianity directly.
"ARİAN" AS A POLEMİCAL EPITHET
Like the Arians, many groups have embraced the belief that Jesus is not the one God, but a separate being subordinate to the Father, and that Jesus at one time did not exist. Some of these profess, as the Arians did, that God made all things through the pre-existent Christ. Some profess that Jesus became divine, through exaltation, just as the Arians believed. Drawing a parallel between these groups and Arians can be useful for distinguishing a type of unbelief in the Trinity.
Those whose religious beliefs have been compared to or labeled as Arianism include:
*Unitarians, who believe that God is one as opposed to a Trinity, and many of whom believe in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus. Arianism is considered to be an antecedent of Unitarian Universalism.
*Jehovah's Witnesses, who do have some similar beliefs to Arius, namely, that Jesus had a pre-human existence as the Logos. However, Arius viewed the Holy Spirit as a person, whereas Jehovah's Witnesses do not attribute personality to the spirit. Jehovah's Witnesses also, unlike Arians, deny belief in a disembodied soul after death, eternal punishment in hell for the unrepentantly wicked, and episcopacy.
*Christadelphians, along with the Church of the Blessed Hope, believe that Jesus' pre-natal existence was a conceptual Logos, rather than a literal Logos.
*Mormons, followers of the various churches of the Latter Day Saint movement, who believe in the unity in purpose of the Godhead but that Jesus is a divine being distinct from, and created by, God the Father, but similar in every other respect (thus roughly Homoiousian rather than Anomoean). Thus, Jesus is literally (spiritually) the Firstborn of the Father. Also in line with Arianism, Mormons believe that the pre-incarnate Jesus (the Logos of John 1) created the Earth under the direction of the Father. In fact, they go further than most on this point, equating the pre-existent Jesus with Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament (perhaps as a spokesman for the Father, for whom they reserve the Old Testament title Elohim). Although the LDS Church views the doctrinal schisms of the late Roman Empire as a sure sign of the Great Apostasy, they do not officially claim any allegiance to Arius.
*Muslims, who believe that Jesus (generally called Isa), was a Messenger and Prophet of the one God, but not himself divine.
*Michael Servetus, a Spanish scholar and Protestant reformer, is viewed by many Unitarians as a founding figure. In 1553, he was sentenced to death and burned at the stake by his fellow reformers, including John Calvin, for the heresy of Antitrinitarianism, a Christology that may seem similar in some ways to Arianism. However, Servetus rejected Arius's teaching on the Son being a creature created by the Father, and his theology was actually closer to Sabellianism.
*Unpublished writings by Isaac Newton indicate that he held anti-Trinitarian beliefs and regarded the worship of Jesus Christ as God to be idolatrous.[2] He did not publicize these views, which could have cost him his fellowship at Trinity College, Cambridge, and has been described by modern scholars as a secret Arian.[3]
*Spanish liberation theologian Juan Josι Tamayo was accused in 2003 of defending "a renewed version of the old Arian error" which is "incompatible with the Catholic faith", by the Spanish Bishops' Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith, because of his theological positions published in several of his books about the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. Tamayo has up to now rejected the Bishops' demand to stop writing on this issue.[4]
THE THEOLOGİAN JUAN JOSE TAMAYO, ADMONİSHED BY İTS İNCOMPATİBLE İDEAS "WİTH THE CATHOLİC FAİTH"
ABC MADRID.
His book "God and Jesus", written by the secretary of the Association of Theologians and Theologians Juan XXIII, Juan Jose Tamayo Acosta, when considering that their conclusions "are incompatible with the catholic doctrine".
Frontal rejection of the tradition of the Church in its cristolσgicas definitions, arbitrary selection - not justified of passages of the New Testament with the express abandonment of others and interpretation of such according to confused criteria that do not specify ". In the same way,negation of the divinity of Jesus Christ, presentation of Jesus like a mere man, negation of the historical and real character of the resurrection, and this one like fundamental data of the Christian faith ".
THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATES REOPEN AFTER COUNCIL OF NICEA.
The Council of Nicea had not ended the controversy, as many bishops of the Eastern provinces disputed the homoousios, the central term of the Nicene creed, as it had been used by Paul of Samosata, who had advocated a monarchianist Christology. Both the man and his teaching, including the term homoousios, had been condemned by the Synods of Antioch in 269.
Hence, after Constantine's death in 337, open dispute resumed again. Constantine's son Constantius II, who had become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire, actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed.
Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed, especially Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed.
As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new formula, three camps evolved among the opponents of the Nicene creed.
The first group mainly opposed the Nicene terminology and preferred the term homoiousios (alike in substance) to the Nicene homoousios, while they rejected Arius and his teaching and accepted the equality and coeternality of the persons of the Trinity.
The second group also avoided invoking the name of Arius, but in large part followed Arius' teachings and, in another attempted compromise wording, described the Son as being like (homoios) the Father.
A third group explicitly called upon Arius and described the Son as unlike (anhomoios) the Father. Constantius wavered in his support between the first and the second party, while harshly persecuting the third.
The debates between these groups resulted in numerous synods, among them the Council of Sardica in 343, the Council of Sirmium in 358 and the double Council of Rimini and Selecia in 359, and no less than fourteen further creed formulas between 340 and 360, leading the pagan observer Ammianus Marcellinus to comment sarcastically: "The highways were covered with galloping bishops." None of these attempts were acceptable to the defenders of Nicene orthodoxy: writing about the latter councils, Saint Jerome remarked that the world "awoke with a groan to find itself Arian."
After Constantius' death in 361, his successor Julian, a devotee of Rome's pagan gods, declared that he would no longer attempt to favor one church faction over another, and allowed all exiled bishops to return; this had the objective of further increasing dissension among Christians. The Emperor Valens, however, revived Constantius' policy and supported the "Homoian" party, exiling bishops and often using force.
Valens died in the Battle of Adrianople in 378 and was succeeded by Theodosius I, who adhered to the Nicene creed. This allowed for settling the dispute.
Two days after Theodosius arrived in Constantinople, November 24, 380, he expelled the Homoian bishop. Theodosius had just been baptized, by bishop Acholius of Thessalonica, during a severe illness, as was common in the early Christian world. In February he and Gratian published an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith), or be handed over for punishment for not doing so.
In 381, at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, a group of mainly Eastern bishops assembled and accepted the Nicene Creed of 381, which was supplemented in regard to the Holy Spirit, as well as some other changes, see Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381. This is generally considered the end of the dispute about the Trinity and the end of Arianism among the Roman, non-Germanic peoples.
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/03/07 19:50
A: When the Qu'ran is not open to interpretation, then it is narrow and blind, a faith based religion as Christianity. Their convictions and intentions are obviously evident. If the Qu'ran were opened to interpretation it could not stand the test of logical reasoning and the foundation would subsequently collapse. No religion based on copyright violations could stand up to scrutiny.
Name:roy •
Date: 04/04/07 9:48
A: Shlomo,
You are just making wiredrawn argument. For the sake of being opponent to something. Or being marginal to attract attention.
Have you ever happen to know how many interpretation books were published pro or con for Quran. Who said there were copyright disputes of Quran. It is unique in itself, it has made many corrections atributed to historical events , as well as unknown scientific facts, soem of them yet to be discovered.
I put here again the msyteries of knowledge unknown to people at 600 AD.
MIRACLES IN QURAN
The Quranic description of the earth, the solar system, the cosmos and the origin of the universe is centuries ahead of the time of its first revelation. For instance, the Quran, delivered in the seventh century C.E., states or implies that:
-As for the shape of the earth, And the earth afterwards, he made it egg-shaped. (79:30)
-Time is relative (70:4; 22:47).
-God created the universe from nothing (2:117).
-The earth and heavenly bodies were once a single point and they were separated from each other by an explosion (21:30).
-The universe is continuously expanding (51:47).
-The stage before the creation of the earth is described as a gas nebula (41:11).
-Planet earth is floating in an orbit (27:88; 21:33).
-Earth's atmosphere acts like a protective shield for the living creatures (21:32).
-Wind also pollenates plants (15:22).
-The creation of living creatures follows an evolutionary system (15:28-29; 24:45; 32:7-9; 71:14-7).
-The earliest biological creatures were incubated inside flexible layers clay (15:26).
-The stages of human development in the womb are detailed (23:14).
-Our biological life span is coded in our genes (35:11).
-Photosynthesis is a recreation of energy stored through chlorophyll (36:77-81).
-The atomic number, atomic weight and isotopes of Iron are specified. (57:25).
-Atoms of elements found on earth contain maximum seven energy layers (65:12).
-The sound and vision of water and the action of eating dates (which contain oksitoxin) reduces labor pains (19:24-25).
-The total amount of annual rain on earth does not change equals same/year (43:11; 15:21).
-There is life (not necessarily intelligent) beyond earth (42:29).
-The number of months in a year is stated as 12 and the word Month (shahr) is used exactly twelve times.
-The number of days in a year is not stated, but the word Day (yawm) is used exactly 365 times.
-Dual sexes of everything created
-Flowing journey of sun in a path
-Source of light of sun; reflecting feature of moon
-Possibility of lunar voyage
-Surface layers to the pit of earth
-Elipsoid shape of earth, arctic basins are at lower altitude
-Feature of wind as carrier of seed
-Water curtain at waterpasses between seas
-Flow of current at deep sea, darkness of depth
-Feature of mountains as balancing weight to the earth surface
-Movements of mountains as clouds, departing continents
-Earthquake break lines
-Evolution of petroleum
-Breathing is uneasy at increased altitudes
-Environmental problems as a result of man fault. Warning keep the balance
-Sexes in plants
-Female bee making the hove
-Communication ability in birds and ants
-Texture of man from earth and water
-Creation starting from water
-Identification on tips of fingers
-Love between the couples
-Groups intermingle with marriages
-Spread of mankind from the city of Mecca
-Sabeans, Magrib dam catastrophy,
-Yemen Ad Comunity Extinction Lost Pillars found recent years
-Lut Comunity, Sodom Gomorah being the lowest point on earth surface Jordan
-Haman name (Vice president for Paroah) revelas recently Egypt
-Paroah of Egypt killed at Red sea finding. His corpse analysed as hit to the rocks and left at sea for a long time
-Old testament and new testament correction, amendment of stories
-Romans good news of victory over Persians within 3-9 years that happend.
-Transporting of matter in light speeds
-Possibility of death of stars and sun
-Boiling of oceans as a scientific result of global warming caused by icebergs melt or at resurrection day
-Big bang and big inner downfall crunch like locusts
-Seven layers above sky, and beneath earth down to pit.
And there's more much more. Many of the miracles mentioned in the Quran, for instance, represent the ultimate goals of science and technology. The Quran relates that matter (but not humans) can be transported at the speed of light (27:30-40); that smell can be transported to remote places (12:94); that extensive communication with animals is possible (27:16-17); that sleep, in certain conditions, can slow down metabolism and increase life span (18:25); and that the vision of blind people can be restored (3:49).
Further reading you may find at: quranmiracles.com/
Name:Anchorite •
Date: 04/05/07 1:50
A: Hi Roy,
I was working my way down the list you provided and stopped at the 57:25 entry since that would be very specific and not a matter of lucky guessing. I did a quick Internet search. Not very satisfying. Too indirect.
I love the Koran. Willful and moral. It helps make good people. It doesn't need to anticipate all science to validate itself.
Name:roy •
Date: 04/05/07 14:25
A: Anchorite,
Thanks for your post. You are correct.
I found another two verses which makes an open challange to anyone who dares to bring a similar book to it.
2:23 And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witnesses beside Allah if ye are truthful.
10:38 Or say they: He hath invented it? Say: Then bring a surah like unto it, and call (for help) on all ye can besides Allah, if ye are truthful.
Some explanations and studies were made at www.quranmiracles.com but many authors some are scientists hold Phd. writing about these findings for many years.
Name:nothing_but_the_truth •
Date: 04/06/07 4:51
A: 'noura' wrote:
"The Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying"
Ah yes, the Hadith... If one were to believe the Qur'an is the accurate, complete, and precisely preserved word of god as it was recieved by Muhammad and written down by his scribe -- and believe it because the Qur'an says so -- then what makes the Hadith canonical, or the Shari'ah? The Shari'ah is not only a set of rules based on the Qur'an, but also a whole bunch of interpretations, many of which are understandable, since the Qur'an doesn't always apply to 21st century (like when the Qur'an forbids drinking wine and playing the maisir game, the meaning is extended to gambling and inebriation in general; although apparently Qat is off the list for some reason).
Name:roy •
Date: 04/06/07 11:49
A: noura
nothing_but_the_truth
Noura wrote:
The Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying, "Let there be no compulsion in religion.
Roy wrote:
The above statement is not hadiths it is ayat~verse from Quran
2: 256- Let there be no compulsion in religion
Most of the hadiths (alleged to Mohammad (sas)) is not truth, and not trustworthy. They were forbidden to be written by Mohammad himself. They kept this rule till 238 years after his death, then in fierce rush for power, the so-called muslims started to divert the true path of İslam, created different sects,killed each other, even they claimed new prophets or helpers to prophets as well as khalifas ~similar to todays Pope.
It is same in other faiths; misleading form of hadith/sunnaht books relevant to Mishna of Jewish as well as Pauls private letters added to Bible.
Shariah rules are also men written interpretation of İslam, it has nothing to do with true Shariah~God path described in Quran.
It is warned to omit using of any kind of inebriation material in general, Qat included. Although it is not forced nor any punishment is recommended, basically drunken is expelled from praying. Different people apply different lifestyles, it has not been attributable to Quran.
Quran miraculously also apply to 21 st century. It has cures for many wrongdoings of todays world. It doesnt force people to accept it as of no compulsion rule,but it gives advice.
If capital punishment for deliberate killing is applied there will be much less crime or war than today.
If marking hand is applied for theft, there will be almost no burglary in society.
If charity applies, there will be no hatred between poor and rich. Prosperity will be dispersed evenly.
If adultry is forbidden and considered degrading, punished equably, there will be no abortion issues to debate, or fatherless children in society.
If interest is not taken or given, there will be much free, happy society than today.
If the layers of distinction between rich/poor, noble /common, national/foreigner, white race/other race, ruler/slave, entrepreneur/worker has been abolished and everybody is considered equal, then the society will be much more peaceful.
If decissions are taken in terms of sura ~meaning consulting to each other in accordance to merit, capability, integrity of people, there will be much more improved societies around the globe today.
Name:roy •
Date: 04/06/07 12:13
A: Anchorite wrote:
I was working my way down the list you provided and stopped at the 57:25 entry since that would be very specific and not a matter of lucky guessing. I did a quick Internet search. Not very satisfying. Too indirect.
Roy wrote:
The statement is claimed by a Phd who lives in the states. He says in his book; the alphabetical number of the ayat/ letters is equal to atomic number of the iron. I dont have any objection or support to these theories of calculation. I only pass the article.
-The atomic number, atomic weight and isotopes of Iron are specified. (57:25).
Iron: The Most Useful Metal
[57:25] We sent our messengers supported by clear proofs, and we sent down to them the scripture and the law, that the people may uphold justice. And we SENT DOWN THE IRON, wherein there is strength, and many benefits for the people. All this in order for GOD to distinguish those who would support Him and His messengers, on faith. GOD is Powerful, Almighty.
The IRON : Sura 57 (57 = 19X 3)
Sura 57 in the Quran is called "The Iron" in Arabic (Al-Hadeed). The word (Al-Hadeed) in Arabic has a gematrical value of 57, the same like the sura number. The gematrical value of the Arabic word (Hadeed) without the (Al) is 26. Number 26 is the position of iron in the periodic table of elements.(the number of protons in the iron nucleus is 26)
The iron itself in mentioned in verse 25 of this sura. The last word God (ALLAH) mentioned in verse 25 is the 26th word GOD from the beginning of this sura. (This is the number of PROTONS in the iron nucleus.) Verse 25 in this sura is the 19th verse which contains the word God in Sura 57. God is Omniscient.
Yasser Haridi at NASA, sent this message;
I read an article about the miracle of IRON and the Qur'an. I was also reading an article about a scientist here at NASA regarding that subject and I thought it was worth mentioning.
Professor Armstrong works at NASA, otherwise known as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, where he is a well-known scientist here. He was asked about Iron and how it was formed. He explained how all the elements in the earth were formed. He stated that the scientists have come only recently to discover the relevant facts about that formation process. He said that the energy of the early solar system was not sufficient to produce elemental Iron. In calculating the energy required to form one atom of iron, it was found to be about four times as much as the energy of the entire solar system. In other words, the entire energy of the earth or the moon or the planet Mars or any other planet is not sufficient to form one new atom of iron, even the energy of the entire solar system is not sufficient for that. That is why Professor Armstrong said that the scientists believe that iron is an extraterrestrial that was sent to earth and not formed therein.
Notice the word SENT DOWN and also notice that IRON was the only kind of metal mentioned by name as sent down, in the Qur'an and has a whole sura entitled THE IRON or Al Hadeed.
Name:hayomtov8 •
Date: 04/12/07 18:17
A: A: HEY GUYS,
RELIGIOUS OR NOT ,BELIEVER OR UNBELIEVER, NATURALIST OR CREATIONIST.COME ON! YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR HOME WORK . THIS IS A FORGERY! A HOAX ! ALL OF YOU WHO ARE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS FAKE FRAUDAULENT FIND ARE GOING TO HAVE EGG ON YOUR FACES!! THIS IS GOING TO END UP STRENGTHENING THE CHRISTIANS POSITION WATCH!!! IT IT IS A STRAW DOG FOR SURE. THERE ARE SO MANY RED FLAGS TO THE DISCRIMINATING MIND. MARK MY WORDS!! I PROMISE I WILL POST NO OTHER STATEMENTS UNTIL THAT DAY WHICH HAS ALREADY BEGUN . THE TRICKLE OF DETRACTIONS,RESHUFFLELING,RETRACTIONS WILL BECOME A RAGING RIVER!!!!! ON THAT DAY I WILL POST AGAIN,SO UNTIL THEN KEEP......(FILL IN THE BLANKS WITH WHAT EVER YOU CALL YOURSELVES DOING).
