'An Affair On Golgotha' -- a refutation

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by RJM Corbet, Jan 19, 2021.

  1. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,575
    Likes Received:
    497
    Yes .. I'm waiting for your opinions..
    If you think that Muhammad, peace be with him, did not exist or that the Qur'an is a forgery, please show us
    and provide your refs.
     
  2. Tone Bristow-Stagg

    Tone Bristow-Stagg Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2021
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    97
    No I will leave that alone. ;) The reason being you asked a question but you have your answer. :D

    Regards Tony
     
  3. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Immortal Bodhisattva Babaji
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavatar_Babaji

    Mahāvatār Bābājī (literally; Great Avatar(Revered) Father or Elder or Wise One) is the name given to an Indian yogi by Yogiraj Lahiri Mahasaya, and several of his disciples who reported meeting him between 1861 and 1935. Some of these meetings were described by Paramahansa Yogananda in his 1946 book Autobiography of a Yogi, including a report of Yogananda's own meeting with the yogi.

    Another account was given by Sri Yukteswar Giri in his 1894 book The Holy Science. According to Sri M's autobiography (Apprenticed to a Himalayan Master), Babaji was Lord Shiva. In the second last chapter of his book, he mentions Babaji changing his form to that of Lord Shiva.

    All of these accounts, along with additional reported meetings, are described in various biographies. According to Yogananda's autobiography, Babaji has resided for at least hundreds of years in the remote Himalayan regions of India, seen in person by only a small number of disciples and others ... etc

    I am not saying it is true in all the details, and I am not equating Babaji with the Christ -- but it is to put forward the concept of an immortal spiritual being in control of his own physical manifestation and appearance?
     
  4. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,832
    Likes Received:
    2,220
    I don't think so. Rather I've demonstrated that the basic premise of the essay is based on assumptions that have, in the light of more recent archaeology and research and understanding, been found to be erroneous. The author's own low opinion of Paul has led him to make some rather ludicrous accusations which again founder on the basis of erroneous assumption.

    That he identifies himself as a Muslim speaks for itself.

    Well as the role of Constantine in the Church has been discussed at length elsewhere. As for persecution, we need to be cautious about imaginings of blood spilled, and so on. To pay for the construction of Constantinople, his new capital, Constantine required those who had not converted to Christianity to make payments. This diverted monies from the temples to his treasury, and the temples then closed through lack of support; there was no need to use force in this implementation, it was a quite canny move. That temples "were annihilated" was a phrase used in the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor writing some 500 years later, and is regarded as an exaggeration by contemporary historians. The persecution was of a more discreet kind, but I do allow that to refuse to profess Christianity was to cost one.

    Nevertheless, Constantine's court was composed of respected and honoured men. While those from leading Roman families who declined to convert to Christianity were denied positions of power, they still received appointments. At the end of his life, two-thirds of his senior officials were non-Christian.

    regarding church affairs – suffice to say that Emperor Constantine invited the bishops to Nicea for one reason – to settle the Arian dispute – and it failed. In fact the debate simmered on and subsequent Emperors both East and West learned that the Church did not take kindly to state interference in matters of doctrine. The theological disputes went on for more than a hundred years and were politically injurious.

    Three hundred years after Constantine, Pope Martin I was kidnapped and tortured on the command of Emperor Constans II, subsequently dying of his injuries, but refused to bend to the emperor's will.
     
  5. Cino

    Cino Big Love! (Atheist mystic) Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    1,242
    From my perspective, Truth (as opposed to my opinions about things that may or may not be truth) is always available. It is a matter of being perceptive and open-minded enough to receive it.

    Maybe this is similar to what you are saying about denial?
     
  6. Cino

    Cino Big Love! (Atheist mystic) Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    1,242
    "Wat den Eenen sin Uhl, ist den Annern sin Nachtigall", as they say in parts of my country. What is idolatrous to one person is sacred to another. This is an interfaith forum, after all. Let's be respectful of our differences and delight in what we share in common.
     
  7. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,575
    Likes Received:
    497
    No, no .. I'm talking about "heresy"

    - wikipedia -

    So as an emperor, the Arians were quashed, "stamped out".

    - wikipedia -

    Yes .. "killed off" by Roman persecution.

    "the Church" ? Any religious body is also political by nature. God knows best why different communities have different creeds.
    It is common knowledge that "the Roman Church" declares Christians to be heretics if they don't agree with "Jesus is God". [ or made of the same substance .. bla bla ]

    What possible motive could they have for this other than political? Jews clearly don't believe in the trinity, but Jesus does?
    Hmmph!

    ..and again, I remind you that Constantine repented and died as an Arian.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2021
  8. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,575
    Likes Received:
    497
    Being open-minded is very important, yes.
    ..but not to the extent that we can say that all beliefs/faiths are true. They may have their ROOTS in monotheism.
    Claiming that belief in [ insert your god(s) here ] is the same as Abrahamic belief is not reality.

    Of course we need to show respect. It is actually possible to have a debate, disagreeing with people, and not becoming upset.
    I don't know why people have to start insulting each other if they don't believe as they do :)
     
    Cino likes this.
  9. Cino

    Cino Big Love! (Atheist mystic) Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    1,242
    Well, there are many diverse faiths which trace back to the Patriarch Abraham. While they are all monotheist, there are some profoundly different approaches to what this oneness actually means. Prominent examples of such fundamental differences in nuance are trinitarian beliefs, and the various approaches to Theodicy.

    Also, all of these faiths have esoteric teachings, even if not all their adherents practice or even approve of them. This, too, is reality.
     
  10. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,832
    Likes Received:
    2,220
    Contrary to popular propaganda, Constantine adopted a policy of toleration towards non-Christians. "He did not punish pagans for being pagans, or Jews for being Jews, and did not adopt a policy of forced conversion." Pagans remained in important positions at his court. He used forceful rhetoric against non-Christians, but never engaged in a persecution as his predecessor had against the Christians. Maxentius' supporters were not slaughtered when Constantine took the capital, Licinius' family and court were not killed, there were no pagan martyrs.

    The Edict of Milan (313AD) granted religious toleration to all faiths, securing them from state persecution, not just Christians. It allowed anyone to worship whichever deity they chose. Constantine never directly outlawed paganism. He decreed that polytheists could "celebrate the rites of an outmoded illusion," so long as they did not force Christians to join them, and indeed, he seemed as lax and tolerant towards pagans as he was towards his own religion of conversion. The Edict of Milan reaffirmed the Edict of the Provincials, calling for peace and tolerance: "Let no one disturb another, let each man hold fast to that which his soil wishes…" Constantine never reversed this earlier edict. Constantine calls pagan temples as 'temples of falsehood', and denounces paganism as idolatry and superstition in the same document. Paganism was defined as a superstitio – an 'outmoded illusion.

    Constantine would sporadically prohibit public sacrifice and close pagan temples. He certainly stripped pagan temples of their art to decorate his new capital, but very little pressure was put on individual pagans.

    Lives were lost around the imperial court for various reasons and intrigues, but there is no evidence of judicial killings for illegal sacrifices before Tiberius Constantine (574-582AD). Constantine was generally not in favour of suppression of paganism by force, instead he took steps to legally limit the public practice of pagan worship. Constantine's main approach was to use enticement by making the adoption of Christianity beneficial.
    - wikipedia -

    No, quite the opposite.

    Nope.

    Well there you go, you've undone your own argument. ;)
     
  11. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,575
    Likes Received:
    497
    Not at all .. I wasn't attacking Constantine..

    I suppose you will tell me that there is no such thing as "the imperial Church" or the Vatican ..
    One wonders where the term "Roman Catholic" actually comes from :)
     
  12. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,832
    Likes Received:
    2,220
    I would say from the Great Schism in 1054AD, prior to that there was only 'the Holy, Catholic Church'.
     
  13. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,575
    Likes Received:
    497
    More semantics?
    ..still "the imperial Church" based in Rome .. the seat of the Roman Empire.

    We have good reason to be suspicious of Roman involvement when it comes to religion.
    They destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, and they had an interest in deflecting Jesus' true nature i.e. the Jewish Messiah
    It suited their purposes just fine to encourage misbelief. Divide and rule .. and it's still going on.

    As you know, I agree with a great deal of Catholic/Orthodox theology. Jesus is God? No.
     
  14. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,832
    Likes Received:
    2,220
    Oh dear ...

    I am withdrawing from all debate when it seems evident the point being debated is purposely misrepresented.
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  15. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    The Jews really had to work at upsetting the Romans enough to finally do it, though. It was a last resort by Titus. Josephus 'The Jewish War' expands the whole business in horrific detail.
    The Christ is the bridge between God and man. A bridge exists on both sides.
    It is too subtle to just keep stomping your foot down that you are a unitarian and that Jesus was not God, based on the text of the Quran, when the Gospels say that Christ is God and which Christ himself does not deny -- in context and in the way it is understood by Catholics
     
    Thomas likes this.
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,832
    Likes Received:
    2,220
    Quite.

    I think if one is going into a specific arena, as it were, one needs to be able to argue a doctrine on its own terms. Saying 'it's wrong because my religion says so' is not a reasonable argument nor grounds for discussion, and does not accord to the ethos of Interfaith, I think.
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  17. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,575
    Likes Received:
    497
    Saying it's right because my religion says so is even worse. imo :)
    Furthermore, I don't think I've quoted the Qur'an in this thread at all.

    I have been using common sense, which I am told is not necessary to understand the trinity ;)
    A pity that. I don't know why anyone should think that God expects us to believe something
    that is so complex. The first commandment is not complex. It is very clear indeed!
     
  18. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,832
    Likes Received:
    2,220
    I have not said, nor ever said that.

    OK, let me correct that. saying something is wrong simply because one thinks so is not etc., etc.

    Well, the Father is God, Jesus declared His own divinity, and said He would send another:
    "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you." (John 14:26, emphasis mine) "But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me." (John 15:26, emphasis mine)

    Common sense would say the Father is God, the Son is God because no man has the authority to direct the Holy Spirit of God (as well as stated, implicitly or explicitly elsewhere), and the Holy Spirit of God is, also, God.

    See – plain common sense.

    Christians are baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" the practice of the church from the beginning, and we can assert that from the Didache, written around 60-80AD. It has been the profession of faith of the Christian since Apostolic times.

    In discussing the Holy Trinity, there is a distinction between theologia (theology) and oikonomia (economy). In this sense, 'economy' refers to the works by which God reveals Himself and communicates His life. It is through the oikonomia that the theologia is revealed, while the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia.

    The oikonomia is common sense inasmuch as it is a belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Theologia proceeds according to what has been revealed, contemplated (as best one is able) through one's own capacities and is, of course, not a simple understanding, but nevertheless is neither irrational nor illogical.
     
  19. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    The birds and the bees is the simple way of explaining things to children. It is an entry point. Things get more complicated as one grows and learns. God is a neutron star and also the humblest and tiniest little snail creature, that you may walk upon without even noticing -- but God knows.

    So God is not simple.

    There is no standing still -- standing still is stagnation and stagnation is death. The map is to indicate reality, not to encompass the complexity of the reality.

    You can't say no that tree or that hill or that river isn't on the map, so therefore the map is correct and the river does not exist.

    That's what having an open mind really is ...
     
    Cino likes this.
  20. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,575
    Likes Received:
    497
    Great .. must be right then :)
    Clearly, I'm not "the Christian". I don't follow "the Church". I follow what I believe Jesus followed.
    I believe Jesus taught the Lord's prayer, and did not pray to himself :)
     

Share This Page