A refutation of the refutation of 'an affair on Golgatha'

Thank you for asking.

I have no rational solution - that's rather the point. Islam is no more rational than any other faith if "rational" is intended to imply "factual reality." On the other hand, if "rational" is intended to imply whatever means to justify one's beliefs at all costs fully in spite of and open defiance of contrary rationale, then the word "rational" loses any sense of meaning. Attempting to debate on these latter terms is fraught to begin with and destined to fail precisely because of the moving goalposts. Labelling the irrational as rational doesn't make it so.

"Does so!"
"Does not!"
"Does so!"
"Does not!"
"Does so!"
"Does not!"

And around and around it goes.

What tripped my switch was the complete utter disregard and disrespect, blatantly, sarcastically and willfully, after I had gone to lengths to engage in as polite a manner as I could muster. I am not Mother Teresa or Reinhold Niebuhr, I have my limits. My respect is earned, not demanded, and I treat others the same way.

 

Do you understand how insulting this is?

Because I am more in line with Christ’s Sermon on the Mount:

‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
‘Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
‘Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.
‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matthew 5:17:29
https://www.enterthebible.org/Contr...sourcebox.aspx?selected_rid=783&original_id=2
(whole passage)

Your comments show a complete misunderstanding of Christ, because militant Islam is basically completely at odds with all he taught and lived. I prefer Christ’s life and teaching to that of Muhammad.

Repeat the part that you ignored: Before going against other faiths you need to focus on providing non-scriptural evidence that your own faith is sound …

Regarding the trinity @Thomas has already explained to you the formula is used in Matthew's gospel, long before Constantine and Nicea. He provides references that this fact is overwhelmingly universally accepted. You choose to ignore him. You choose the references that suit your narrative and throw out those which do not.

But why do you object to what Christians believe? I’m sure the vast majority of Christians just leave you alone to get on with it. Why do you need to impose your belief on Christians? Why is what others believe so objectionable to you?

You rightly say there is controversy around the trinity, and then you admit there is controversy in Islam too. So what's the point of all this? Rationality? If human rationality was all that was required, mankind wouldn't need any scriptures.

You make your rational choice of faith, and others make theirs. Is it impossible to understand? Why can't you just leave others alone? Why do you need to insult their belief?

And you just keep doing it. You ignore what a person says and just keep stamping your foot and insisting you are rational and therefore correct. You are not right to try to impose your belief on others.

But what's the relevance? How the Catholic church behaved long ago is to ignore that things have moved on and that in fact you seem to know very little about how the church is now. It is just as easy to wiki up stuff against Islam. And just as easy to show evidence of how much good is done by the Catholic Church, which is the largest non-governmental charity in the world:

https://catholicherald.co.uk/a-worldwide-force-for-good/
www.johnbradburne.com

It's like judging the modern UK monarchy by medieval standards. At the same time Islam's modern behaviour is often not very pretty

 

No, I sincerely can't see what is insulting about this at all?
I believe in the ascension to heaven. I believe that God [ the Father ] in His wisdom, took the Messiah
out of this world FOR A REASON.
I was merely asking you why YOU think Jesus ascended to heaven at that particuar time?
What is insulting about that?

Why don't you and @juantoo3 forget about the fact that I am a Muslim? Why do you keep bringing up the Qur'an and Muhammad?
I am in complete agreement with the sermon of the mount .. what particular verses of it show that the trinity is true or untrue?
We are not discussing what Islam might be or not be..

I'm not going against other faiths. It is the majority of Christians who insist that belief in the trinity is essential.

Argumentum ad Populum is no basis for determining what is true and what is untrue. i.e. Most Christians believe in the trinity, so it's true

I don't .. it is you that object to what Muslims believe, it seems to me. It is orthodox Christians that have historically persecuted those who do not agree with the trinity

Clearly, you feel insulted. That is not my intention. It is the topic. It seems that the article from Mr. Garaffa insulted you
as well. He was just stating his opinions. We should not take it personally.

I am not doing anything of the sort. Employing a rational argument to show that the trinity is flawed does not constitute
"force" .. unlike the Roman Empire who persecuted those that refused to believe in the trinity.
It is political. Empires and those in power often impose their "beliefs" on others.

It is not "the modern Catholic church" that is being discussed. The discussion is about the trinity and its origin.
I'm not accusing any particular person or church of insincerity.

 

Apart from trying to distance your comment from what you said earlier, shown above?
‘Take up your cross and follow me’ is core Christian doctrine. Do you know that? Do you think it is a bit silly? Or do you know better than Christ? The crucifixion and resurrection are core, but you know better? And you know the NT well enough to be sarcastic about it.
* You would have to read the gospels

It is the core of your argument. I'm glad you agree with the Sermon on the Mount, in spite of it says nothing about the trinity. And we are not just discussing the Trinity. That has been shelved LONG ago! Go back and read my last post It's not argumentum ad populum.

We are discussing the ‘Golgotha’ article which inadequately purports to dismantle also the crucifixion and the resurrection and the sacraments and the divinity and very much else.

I most certainly do not object to what Muslims believe. I object to you telling me what I have to believe.

I do not take it personally. He is never blasphemous or sarcastic. Just stating his opinions, as you correctly observe. I am interested in providing a balanced, intelligent and well written homepage for the site.

Well if it’s about the trinity, then you can drop it now and stop banging your drum. @Thomas has explained that it dates from long before Constantine.
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19631/#post-341896 #7

Believe what you choose and let others get on with what they want to believe – unless they ask for your advice. IMO

Take it or leave it. I can’t make it plainer.

edited ...

 

Hmm ..perhaps you'd like to discuss that issue from the thread that it originates i.e. "Is Islam a myth"

That is correct .. and I pick up at the start of @Thomas' refutation about whether Jesus said he was God or not..
i.e. God is a trinity and so on

I quote what I think is relevant to the discussion .. the origin of the trinity and how those that insisted on it persecuted those that didn't.
Furthermore, the timeline of Justinian is interesting:-

• 538 Byzantine general Belisarius defeats last Arian kingdom; Western Europe completely Catholic
• 541-542 Plague of Justinian
• 543 Justinian condemns Origen, disastrous earthquakes hit the world
• 544 Justinian condemns the Three Chapters of Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428) and other writings of Hypostatic Union Christology of Council of Chalcedon
• 553 Second Council of Constantinople, 5th ecumenical, called by Justinian
• 556–561 Pope Pelagius I, selected by Justinian, endorsed Judicatum
• 589 Catholic Third Council of Toledo: Reccared and the Visigoths convert from Arianism to Catholicism and Filioque clause is added to Nicene Creed of 381
• 590–604 Pope Gregory the Great, whom many consider the greatest pope ever, reforms church structure and administration and establishes Gregorian chant, Seven deadly sins
• 591–628 Theodelinda, Queen of the Lombards, began gradual conversion from Arianism to Catholicism
• 614 Khosrau II of Persia conquers Damascus, Jerusalem, takes Holy Cross of Christ
• 622 Mohammed founds Islam after fleeing from Macca to Medina

 

- wikipedia -

- wikipedia -

December the 25th. .. what a coincidence!

- wikipedia -

..so in 303, all the Chrstian scriptures were burned.
..and then we are expected to believe that the creed that the Roman Empire adopted was
"the truth" and all other creeds should be eliminated ?

One cannot really discuss the doctrine of the trinity without mentioning the Roman Empire. "One faith, one empire".
It is a fact that trinitarian Christianity was established in the Empire, by the use of force.

 

..so there is my "non-scriptural evidence" for why I think the trinity is incorrect.
..along with the rational arguments against it I have already mentioned,
such as the shema .. Jesus praying to God .. Jesus being tempted in the wilderness etc.

..so where is YOUR "non-scriptural evidence" for why you think that it is correct?

 

All NT scripture dates from later than 303?
Including the passage in Matthew quoted here?
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19631/#post-341896 #7

As you have observed, not all Christians are Trinitarians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism
And we are talking about Christianity today, not in Roman times.

To discuss Jesus' temptation in the wilderness etc, you need at least a basic in context understanding of the scripture.
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Matt 4:7

 

Anyone can copy a timeline or quote a list of books or authors. It is incredibly poor scholarship to dump like that and not pull specifics to build your case.

But what strikes me here, you didn't even bother to proofread. If the last Arian Kingdom was defeated, HOW could the Queen of the Lombards gradually convert from Arianism beginning some almost 50 years later, and not finish until 40 years after that...fully 90 years after the last Arian kingdom had been defeated??? At best that tells me of an incomplete understanding of the subject and given the precedence a grasp at straws for anything to support your cause, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Seriously, what on earth does a Pagan Persian King taking Jerusalem have to do with what you claim to be talking about???

Don't flatter yourself. Your martyr complex syndrome is your business. I've talked to Mr Garaffa, I had a long conversation with him, I have to say I admire him, his was the politest conversation I *EVER* had on this site...and if you take a look, that's a number of years. I was herding cats on this site longer than you've been a member. I could converse with Mr Garaffa all day long if he had made himself available.

You on the other hand, are disrespectful. You are arrogant. You are opinionated. You are right, by Allah!, at all costs, no matter who you steam roll over. You are NOTHING like Mr Garaffa.

I know this subject a LOT deeper than you, I've already pointed to my extended (over 12 pages, at 10 posts a page) thread dealing with the transition period of Rome and Christianity. But you can't be bothered, because you know it all already. You are sarcastic when deliberately stomping on other people's cherished beliefs. Doesn't matter if you think they are misguided, they are cherished beliefs, and for that reason alone respect is due.

Edit: Content removed

 

Rationally chasing one's tail?

I'm going to tread in where I shouldn't be, my understanding is limited. As I understand (and if someone has better understanding from the Jewish POV, please correct me), words have power. Specifically, G-d's words have creative power. G-d spoke, and it came to be. (And why I find it irrational that G-d could be a liar) G-d created all that we can understand by the power of His spoken word, the word was the tool or manner in which G-d created all there is.

With that in mind, the opening of the Gospel of John takes on a bit different meaning, "In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d, the same was in the beginning with G-d."

Whether one believes Christ is a manifestation of G-d or not is irrelevant to this point just now, insomuch as words have creative power. Surely even esoteric practices teach as much? I've read that Tibetan Buddhists credit the AUM as the sound of the Earth, its creation and continuation, its rhythm, its pulse.

It becomes an in-depth study that I haven't pursued, but I intuit.

And then we have the enigmatic character of Melchizedek, who "was not born and did not die." This is the Priest-King of Salem that blessed Abraham. Little is said of him in the Bible apart from what I just wrote, yet Christ is said in the books of Paul to be "a Priest after the Order of Melchizedek." I am certain the teachings of Judaism would have something to say about Melchizedek, I've not heard or read. Nothing in the archeological record to indicate Melchizedek existed - so do I presume he is fictional? He seems to play an important role in the life of Abraham, and so the foundation of the monotheistic faith that would become Judaism, and by a circuitous route Islam. He is a seminal character in the mythos.

I have one more limb to go out on... My understanding of the Hindu (forgive me if I have the name wrong) pantheon is not a host of different gods, but different aspects of one G-d. Since the Vedas are widely acknowledged to be the oldest religious texts (still in use), a reasonable speculation might be the Egypto-Greco-Roman pantheon was a misinterpretation or misapplication of this concept. This thought is two edged; either it explains a Christian possibility, or it explains a Pagan possibility that was merged into Christianity - "baptized" as it were, as I've read before in similar context. The idea of one G-d having multiple aspects is an ancient belief.

So when the Gospel of John picks up a bit further on and says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth," it is natural to a Christian to make the association between the Christ and G-d the Father. Particularly so when layered upon the passage from Isaiah: "The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God."