[Zimphire]

No, not really LBK, and tell me, What do you think about what Talisan is trying to push off on us as the truth?

Do you agree with him?

[Patty]

Taliesin, why don't you do us all a favor and STFU? I want to go stare at tub girl now just to erase the memory of this idiotic thread.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by MacManMikeOSX

Todah Vmarks ani maniakh sheattah yachol ldaber 'Ivrit. attah amarta mah shertziti lichtov ach haytah mtuqtzeret tov yoter, lif'amim qasheh l'hasbir tziyoniyut la'goyim mekho"l.

Ooo eee ooo ah ah ting tang Walla walla bing bang.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No, not really LBK....

Why?

Originally Posted by Zimphire

and tell me, What do you think about what Talisan is trying to push off on us as the truth?

Do you agree with him?

I agree with what von wrangel said earlier somewhere. Its been an interesting exchange but it's not a topic than can be explained singularly.

[Zimphire]

You dodged my question. I didn't ask you if you agreed with von. I asked you if you agreed with Tailspin.

You either agree with him, or you don't


And as far as the link that was posted not being the same, how do you know that one is really legit?

Again, not that it matters. Tali had already been proven wrong 4 pages ago.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Patty

Taliesin, why don't you do us all a favor and STFU? I want to go stare at tub girl now just to erase the memory of this idiotic thread.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Ooo eee ooo ah ah ting tang Walla walla bing bang.

What's the matter? If it isn't in a language you understand it must be the Witch Doctor song?

Such respect you have for a language of People of the Book. You must be so proud.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by eklipse

You really should pick your sources more carefully: http://www.ifrance.com/amipalazzi/indexgb.htm

So should you- if you look at amimuslims.org (the association of Muslims in Italy, one of the places that ifrance mentions) at the news item from 5 April 2004, they state:

The undersigned Omar Danilo Speranza, President of A.M.I. - Italian Muslim Association, hereby confirms and affirms that:

only what is expressed on our website www.amimuslims.org represents A.M.I.;

certain parties who we are not familiar with (specifically Francesca Russo), have published material on the website www.ifrance.com/amipalazzi/ which associates our association with Mr. Massimo Palazzi and his actions in a completely erroneous manner, with what we consider to be a shameful vein of anger. They have continued to maintain this link. We have no idea what possible goals their false declarations may have;

we are not acquainted with Ms. Francesca Russo nor with Mr. Massimo Palazzi, nor do we have any relationships to any other individuals of this kind. We have absolutely no intention of participating in raging, sterile and pointless diatribes which only serve to cause harm to true Islam, which we believe to honor (but only Allah knows this) only when we act as peacemakers and cease to promote and participate in such pointless polemics and begin to offer concrete assistance to needy Muslims, true believers, and human beings in general.


------

Summary so far: the association distances itself from the link you posted. They don't know the author and they say that the person writing the site is in error. Therefore you need to pick better sources.

In addition to that, we also find if we dig deeper at the association's site that it was re-founded, and that Palazzi isn't associated with the new association in a leadership role. Because the site is the site for the new group, he isn't mentioned on it- but he was in a leadership role in the old group as near as I can find.

In any event, I only offered it as another opinion, since you were so hung up on the use of the word 'opinion' previously in this thread. Rather than take it as an opinion, you chose to denigrate the source. Which is fine and well, it's only your opinion, and I dis-count it.

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Summary so far: the association distances itself from the link you posted. They don't know the author and they say that the person writing the site is in error. Therefore you need to pick better sources.

In addition to that, we also find if we dig deeper at the association's site that it was re-founded, and that Palazzi isn't associated with the new association in a leadership role. Because the site is the site for the new group, he isn't mentioned on it- but he was in a leadership role in the old group as near as I can find.

Hmm - interesting.

On the Italian version of the amimuslims.org site there is a further article dated April 2005 that (as near as I can make out) says that the site is currently pursuing legal against Mr. Palazzi concerning the potentially damaging confusion between his 'Italian Muslim Association' and the real 'Italian Muslims Association' and accuses Mr. Palazzi of posting false and defamatory articles about Danilo Speranza, President of (the real) A.M.I. This would seem to validate (at least in part) the accusations made against Palazzi on the ifrance.com site.

Originally Posted by vmarks

In any event, I only offered it as another opinion, since you were so hung up on the use of the word 'opinion' previously in this thread. Rather than take it as an opinion, you chose to denigrate the source. Which is fine and well, it's only your opinion, and I dis-count it.

Zimphire was the one hung up about people not annotating their opinions, not I.

I read the opinion you posted - I didn't think much of it, it seemed like a fairly flimsy argument with little hard evidence to back it up. I decided to look up the author to get a better idea of where the guy might becoming from and discovered a man with an extremely colorful history that covered everything from denying the holocaust ever happened to claiming to be a professor of a university that doesn't exist. Incidentally, the article you linked to also contains a footnote claiming that Palazzi is a professor at this fictional university.

The guy's credibility appears to be as non-existent as his university.

[Zimphire]

Flimsy arguement? No.

It was a smackdown at the 4th degree.

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

It was a smackdown at the 4th degree.

Truly, your debating skills are wasted on us lesser mortals.

[Zimphire]

I am not the one that smacked you down. Vmarks was.

And yes, he is MUCH better than I am at this.

But at least I can admit it. Unlike others in here that are in denial.

[von Wrangell]

What did his smackdown say? What was the smackdown?

[Zimphire]

Hmm is the option to copy the link of a post gone now?

[von Wrangell]

I take it you didn't understand the point of his post and just posted "smackdown" to stay true to the fanclub?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I take it you didn't understand the point of his post and just posted "smackdown" to stay true to the fanclub?

Wow, how did you come to that baseless accusation?

I am betting it came out of your lower oriface.

Yes, yes I indeed understood it.

And if I didn't, I wouldn't have ANY problems messeging vmarks to ask him about what he meant, as I have done many times.

Stop being silly.

[deomacius]

And yet ANOTHER perfectly good thread degenerates into a pissing contest.

[von Wrangell]

So, what was the smackdown about? (don't bother linking to the post I've read it and just imagine I'm a bit slow)



ps. What's your obsession with the "lower oriface"?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by deomacius

And yet ANOTHER perfectly good thread degenerates into a pissing contest.

I'm sorry about that. I'll stop replying to Zimph now.

Again, sorry for taking part in destroying this thread.

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I am not the one that smacked you down. Vmarks was.

Ok, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I was 'smacked down' by our good friend Mr. Marks - I obviously missed it or am too feeble minded to comprehend it.

Perhaps you could use your own towering intellect to enlighten me?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by deomacius

And yet ANOTHER perfectly good thread degenerates into a pissing contest.

Perfectly Good?

It pretty much sucked from the get go.

And everything in-between.

It sucks to debate with someone that has no clue on the subject matter he speaks of.

[von Wrangell]

[Zimphire]

He was funny up to about page 3, then it got kinda pathetic and boring.

[Taliesin]

I don't really care who that "sheikh" is and what colourful past he had, afterall everyone can error and change his opinion, religion, etc..., we are all just mere humans that sin and make mistakes, and therefore I will consider this article and check its ideas:

Originally Posted by vmarks

Someone else's opinion:

http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html


WHAT THE QUR'AN REALLY SAYS


by Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi

THE QUR'AN SAYS:



"To Moses We [Allah] gave nine clear signs. Ask the Israelites how he [Moses] first appeared amongst them. Pharoah said to him: 'Moses, I can see that you are bewitched.' 'You know full well,' he [Moses] replied, 'that none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth has revealed these visible signs. Pharoah, you are doomed.'"


"Pharoah sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharoah] together with all who were with him."

This is not a good translation, the pharao planned to kill all of these israelites that rebelled under Moses and God's orders against the pharao, not just to scare them out of the land. Moses and his followers among the israelites wanted to leave Egypt through the "red sea" back towards the promised land. The paharao tried to reach them in order to kill them all as a punishment so that no other slave-group thinks about rebelling again, but God helped Moses and his followers and parted the "red sea" so that they could get through securely without boats and when the pharao and his army followed them through the parted "red sea", God let the red sea become one again and drowned the pharao and his army therein.

But the rest is ok.

Originally Posted by vmarks

Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]."

Here he adds in the brackets: [in the Land of Israel], eventhough it is not in the Quran at all. Besides if you read carefully that verse merely talks about the israelites of ancient times those that followed Moses into the promised land escaping slavery in Egypt. It says to those israelites to dwell in that land and that when judgment day comes they will be recreated like all humans and assembled to receive either reward in paradise or punishment in hell depending on the individual faith and actions.

That's what the verse reads like without the brackets and additional content:

"Then We said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land. When the promise of the hereafter comes to be fulfilled, We shall assemble you all together."

Originally Posted by vmarks

"Say: 'O God, King of the kingdom (1), Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou pleasest, and Thou strippest off the kingdom from whom Thou pleasest; Thou endowest with honour whom Thou pleasest, and Thou bringest low whom Thou pleasest: all the best is in Thy hand. Verily, Thou hast power over all things.'"(2) [Qur'an 3:26]

I agree, though the Quran doesn't talk about kingdoms, but more so over "power" or "souvereignity" but ok, it doesn't change the content much. But the interpretation and conclusion the author of the article drawed from it is again quite interesting to say the least. Context is again important as God called prophet Muhammad to utter that verse towards the "people of the book" that claimed at that time that they would have a guarantee towards the reward of paradise, and that they would at the worst have to endure only a few days of hell. The context is that God prepared prophet Muhammad on what to say to "people of the book" that would call prophet Muhammad a faker:

19. The Religion before God is submission to His Will: Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of God, God is swift in calling to account.

20. So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted My whole self to God and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves (to God)?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Thy duty is to convey the Message; and in God's sight are (all) His servants.

21. As to those who deny the Signs of God and in defiance of right, slay the prophets, and slay those who teach just dealing with mankind, announce to them a grievous penalty (in the afterlife).

22. They are those whose works will bear no fruit in this world and in the Hereafter nor will they have anyone to help.

23. Hast thou not turned Thy vision to those who have been given a portion of the Book? They are invited to the Book of God, to settle their dispute, but a party of them Turn back and decline (The arbitration).

24. This because they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days": For their forgeries deceive them as to their own religion.

25. But how (will they fare) when we gather them together against a day about which there is no doubt, and each soul will be paid out just what it has earned, without (favour or) injustice?

26. Say: "O God. Lord of Power (And Rule), Thou givest power to whom Thou pleasest, and Thou strippest off power from whom Thou pleasest: Thou enduest with honour whom Thou pleasest, and Thou bringest low whom Thou pleasest: In Thy hand is all good. Verily, over all things Thou hast power.

27. "Thou causest the night to gain on the day, and thou causest the day to gain on the night; Thou bringest the Living out of the dead, and Thou bringest the dead out of the Living; and Thou givest sustenance to whom Thou pleasest, without measure."

That means that God told prophet Muhammad how to deal with those people of the book that would deny prophet Muhammad's legitimacy and that would say that God's blessing is only upon the people of the book and that would claim that people of the book had an exclusive and guaranteed reward in paradise with at the worst only a few days of hell for them. God says therein to prophet Muhammad to say to the people of the book that the power is only with God and that he gives the blessing of it to whoever He wants and that there is no guarantee for reward for noone on earth, without favour or injustice for anyone.

Originally Posted by vmarks

"And [remember] when Moses said to his people: 'O my people, call in remembrance the favour of God unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.'" [Qur'an 5:20-21]

What's the point, we all know the history of Moses and those that followed him out of slavery from Egypt going to the promised land. The stories about Moses and co talk about ancient israelis escaping from slavery in a country of polytheists(pharao and co) and trying to gain foot in the promised land that was settled upon by polytheists.

Originally Posted by vmarks

Moreover - and those who try to use Islam as a weapon against Israel always conveniently ignore this point - the Holy Qur'an explicitly refers to the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel before the Last Judgment - where it says: "And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd.'" [Qur'an 17:104]

No, that verse surely doesn't talk at all about a return of jews to the land of Israel, it just states the general promise/warning/prophecy that God would recreate the children of Israel for judgment day and afterlife, which depending on individual faith and deeds be either in paradise or hell, a promise/warning/prophecy that God let all prophets say to their followers, in this case God let it Moses say to his followers.

Originally Posted by vmarks

Therefore, from an Islamic point of view, there is NO fundamental reason which prohibits Muslims from recognizing Israel as a friendly State.

There is indeed no fundamental reason to not recognize Israel, but the arguments this author has brought up have unfortunately not supported that view. Quite to the contrary there are quranic verses that condemn acts that Israel has undoubtedly commited in order to found Israel, like driving out of people from their lands and homes, killing of civilians, destroying of property, harvests, etc.. and continued oppression till today.

Besides according to the Quran there was no need for Israel to found a souvereign state, afterall the God of Israel is the same as the God of Islam and therefore muslims are not only brothers in blood but also in faith, so if they had truly wanted to live in the promised land with an open heart then they should have immigrated with the permission of the muslims and worked towards integration into the arabic/islamic society, and not to violently drive out believers in God, to rob them of their lands and homes, to terrorise them, to kill and oppress them.

Instead the secular zionists used a colonialistic approach that denied the rights of the natives and dwelled in an ideology of european superiority.

Originally Posted by vmarks

PLO documents can in no way be regarded as Islamic.

PLO was always quite secular, so...

Originally Posted by vmarks

They use a distorted interpretation of Islam as a political tool, and unfortunately the majority of uneducated Arabs believe their poisonous propaganda.

Strange that he talks about distorted interpretation of Islam. While I agree with him that radical islamists indeed are distorting Islam, the author of this article does it, too, as shown above! Oh, my, the irony...

Originally Posted by vmarks

We read:
"...They would not follow thy direction of prayer (qiblah), nor art thou to follow their direction of prayer; nor indeed will they follow each other's direction of prayer..." (5)

Oh, please, it would really help if the author had stated what verse and sura he quoted it from and while he was at it to quote at least the whole sentence, better yet the whole paragraph for context.

Besides what does have the qibla to do with souveregnity of any sort?

Originally Posted by vmarks

In complete opposition to what "Islamic" fundamentalists continuously claim, the Book of Islam [the Qur'an] - as we have just now seen - recognizes Jerusalem as the Jewish direction of prayer.

I can't recall any muslim saying otherwise, off course Jerusalem is and was the qibla in which jews prayed to, there was even a time when muslims too prayed in direction of Jerusalem. But again what does have the qibla to do with souvereignity, the state of Israel etc.. Since muslims are devoted to the same God of Israel, there was never a religious need for a souvereign state of modern Israel.

Originally Posted by vmarks

After reviewing the relevant Qur'anic passages concerning this matter, I conclude that, as no one denies Muslims complete sovereignty over Mecca, from an Islamic point of view - despite opposing, groundless claims - there is no reason for Muslims to deny the State of Israel - which is a JEWISH state - complete sovereignty over Jerusalem.

Now that we know how the author of that article is "reviewing the relevant Qur'anic passages" I have no hope that he can conclude anything that would make sense. Yes, jews have a right to go to Jerusalem if they do it peacefully, but they have no religious right to drive out violently believers in God and to found a souvereign state therein and to terrorise and oppress the native people that were uprooted.

Originally Posted by vmarks

Anti-Jewish sentiments expressed by Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East are, in fact, not religious in nature, but, rather, political. The best proof of this is in the fact that Islamic anti-Judaism is quite recent.


Omar ended the Roman ban that prevented Jews to enter Jerusalem, the Ummayad caliphs in Cordoba built a synagogue for Maimonides, and Salahu-d-Din, after defeating the Crusaders, wrote to the Jewish leaders, "Your exile is over. Whoever wants to come back is welcome."

I agree, but funnily that point goes against his own interpretation, namely that souvereignity for jews is necessary. Here he clearly said that muslims invited jews back to Jerusalem after the roman empire and much later the crusaders were defeated, but all this inside an islamic state!

Originally Posted by vmarks

Apart from Mecca, no Islamic holy place is off-limits for non-Muslims. Historical sources say that the Prophet Muhammad entertained a delegation of Christians from Najran in the Mosque of Medina, and permitted them to celebrate a mass inside the Mosque, notwithstanding the fact that Christian rites can include words that are against Islam [such as stating that Jesus is God].


There is nothing in Jewish worship that can be offensive for Muslims, and nothing in Islamic Law prevents Jews to pray on Haram al-Sharif/Har Habayyit (the Temple Mount), in the Cave of Machpela or in any other place that is regarded as holy by Muslims.

Again I agree, but souvereignity is something different.

Originally Posted by vmarks

NOTES:


1. The original Arabic word we translated as "kingdom" is mulk, from a Semitic root m-l-k, that is common to both Arabic and Hebrew. According to Islamic theological terminology, the three synonyms for "kingdom" are mulk, malakut and jabarut. They refer respectively to the physical, psychic and spiritual levels of existence. Of course, G-d can be called King of all of them; if here only mulk is quoted, it depends on the fact that this verse directly concerns the earthly domain. To denote a kingdom in the secular and political sense, Arabic commonly uses another derived form, that is mamlakah.


2. Koran 3:26. For typographical reasons, it is not possible to reproduce here the original Arabic text of the Koran, which must nevertheless be understood as quoted. As well here as in other Koranic quotations, the English translation of the meaning of Koranic words from Arabic is my own, but based on the most authoritative English commentaries, such as M. Marmaduke Pickthall's "The Meaning of The Glorious Koran" (Beirut 1973), 'A. Yusuf 'Ali, "The Holy Koran - Text, Translation and Commentary" (Maryland 1983) and A. 'A. Maududi "The Holy Koran - Text, Translation and Brief Notes" (Lahore 1986).


3. In using the term "martyr" I do not simply refer to one who lost his life for a good cause. I give a precise translation of the Arabic word "shahid," which identifies a "martyr" in the strictly religious sense; that is to say, someone who spent his life serving the cause of G-d. Since making peace with former enemies is an explicit Koranic order (see Koran 8:61), and since, according to Islam, Peace is G-d Himself, any believer who is killed because of his search for Peace must be understood as a religious martyr. The same considerations clearly apply to Yitzhak Rabin. 4. Arabic name of Jerusalem, from the root q-d-s, meaning "holiness". It is an abridged form of Bayt al-maqdis, "the sanctified House" or "the House of the Sanctuary", an exact equivalent of the Hebrew Beth ha-mikdash. The name originally referred only to the Temple Mount, and was afterward extended to the City as a whole. This extension of meaning became common among Arabs from the tenth century C.E. onwards. Earlier Islamic sources use the name Iliyia, an adaptation to Arabic pronounciation of the Roman name Aelia.


5. Koran 2:145.


6. M. Shaykh Zadeh Hashiyaah 'ali Tafsir al-Qadn al-Baydawn (Istanbul 1979), Vol. 1, p. 456.


7. Daniel 6:10

These "Notes" should really be noted, note how the author writes "God" as "G-d", which shows that he cannot be a real muslim, for a muslim never tries to hide God's name, usually jews do that. It's also possible though that the article was just edited by a jew.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

the God of Israel is the same as the God of Islam and therefore muslims are not only brothers in blood but also in faith.

Taliesin

In your opinion. Right?

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

These "Notes" should really be noted, note how the author writes "God" as "G-d", which shows that he cannot be a real muslim, for a muslim never tries to hide God's name, usually jews do that. It's also possible though that the article was just edited by a jew.

You do know they do this out of respect for his name, right? I see nothing wrong with that.

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I can't recall any muslim saying otherwise, off course Jerusalem is and was the qibla in which jews prayed to, there was even a time when muslims too prayed in direction of Jerusalem. But again what does have the qibla to do with souvereignity, the state of Israel etc.. Since muslims are devoted to the same God of Israel, there was never a religious need for a souvereign state of modern Israel.

Please help me understand the following then...
Temple Mount

Specifically...

The site was secretly turned into the biggest mosque in the country, which can accommodate 30,000 people.

Following its completion, Wakf officials dumped more than 12,000 tons of earth, with history-rich artifacts, at a garbage dump outside the Old City, an action which the Antiquities Authority later called "an unprecedented archaeological crime."

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by deomacius

You do know they do this out of respect for his name, right? I see nothing wrong with that.

The author of the article claims to be a Muslim. A Muslim doesn't write God's name like that.

That added to his invented status of professor at a University that doesn't exist should tell people how seriously to take him.

Don't you agree?

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The author of the article claims to be a Muslim. A Muslim doesn't write God's name like that.

That added to his invented status of professor at a University that doesn't exist should tell people how seriously to take him.

Don't you agree?

I got hung up on the last part that mentioned that it might have been edited by a Jew. Time for a coffee or something, I think.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by deomacius

I got hung up on the last part that mentioned that it might have been edited by a Jew. Time for a coffee or something, I think.

np

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by deomacius

I got hung up on the last part that mentioned that it might have been edited by a Jew. .

Funny how that was forgotten the second time around eh?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by deomacius

You do know they do this out of respect for his name, right? I see nothing wrong with that.

Yep, it's based on respect, and I've seen Muslims do it too.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Yep, it's based on respect, and I've seen Muslims do it too.

Just out of curiosity. Is there anyone in particular you remember?

Just wondering because I've never seen that.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I guess you are thinking prophet Muhammad was a false prophet, don't you? That one is as old as the pope's propaganda that started the crusades centuries ago, and the late pope Paul II has officialy corrected that stance in the catholic church and acknowledged the legitimacy of the islamic religion as well as its prophet.

No, the Pope did no such thing. The Pope kissed the Qu'ran because the Qu'ran is worthy of respect. The Catholic Church doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the Islamic religion, but believes that it is a monotheistic faith which has elements of the Truth which God has revealed for us.

There is actually a lot in common between the Catholic Church and Islam, for example: faith and good works are required for salvation, the importance of virtues, teachings on Mary etc.

I have a lot of respect for Islam and I admire the fervent faith of Moslems and long for the day that Western societies may attain the same level of faith and detachment from the material world as the Moslems.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No, the Pope did no such thing. The Pope kissed the Qu'ran because the Qu'ran is worthy of respect. The Catholic Church doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the Islamic religion, but believes that it is a monotheistic faith which has elements of the Truth which God has revealed for us.

There is actually a lot in common between the Catholic Church and Islam, for example: faith and good works are required for salvation, the importance of virtues, teachings on Mary etc.

I have a lot of respect for Islam and I admire the fervent faith of Moslems and long for the day that Western societies may attain the same level of faith and detachment from the material world as the Moslems.

Yes, you are right, the pope went as far as possible and stopping only a hair-wide away from acknowledging propet Muhammad's legitimacy and the Quran being the direct word of God.

Going that far would have meant to acknowledge the wrongness of christian's doctrine/interpretation of Jesus as a real/literately meant son of God, because God says in the Quran quite clearly that Jesus was a wonder to humanity and a for the purpose-created prophet, that was God's word in person and flesh but not God's son.

Personally I think the whole trinity-teachment wasn't caused by Jesus but by the roman empire Constantin for political purposes, as a way to make it easier for the majority of pagans in the roman empire to convert to christianity:

But in the same year as Constantine achieved supremacy over the empire (and effectively over the Christian church) the Christian faith itself suffered a grave crisis. Arianism, a heresy which challenged the church's view of God (the father) and Jesus (the son), was creating a serious divide in the church.Constantine called the famous Council of Nicaea which decided the definition of the Christian deity as the Holy Trinity, God the father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit.
Had Christianity previously been unclear about its message then the Council of Nicaea (together with a later council at Constantinople in 381 AD) created a clearly defined core belief. However, the nature of its creation - a council - and the diplomatically sensitive way in defining the formula, to many suggests the creed of the Holy Trinity to be rather a political construct between theologians and politicians rather than anything achieved by divine inspiration.
It is hence often sought that the Council of Nicaea represents the Christian church becoming a more wordly institution, moving away from its innocent beginnings in its ascent to power.
The Christian church continued to grow and rise in importance under Constantine. Within his reign the cost of the church already became larger than the cost of the entire imperial civil service.

Source: http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

Interesting is that right when Constantine chose christianity for state-religion and made himself effectively the head of the church, and propagated the trinity-teachment, strong opposition came up in the form of arianism among the christians of that time, which made up about half of the christians. Arianism noted that Jesus was created at a certain timephase and before that never existed, and could therefore be not on the same level as God, while the catholics thought of Jesus as son of God and God's word that existed always with God and that only made its appearance at a certain timephase:

The Council of Nicea and its aftermath

Because Arius and his followers had great influence in the schools of Alexandria � counterparts to modern universities or seminaries � their theological views spread, especially in the eastern Mediterranean. By 325 the controversy had become significant enough that Emperor Constantine I called an assembly of bishops, the First Council of Nicaea (modern Iznik, Turkey), which condemned Arius's doctrine, largely by excluding those bishops who accepted it.

The trinitarian arguments that prevailed at Nicaea were formulated in the Nicene Creed, which is still recited in Catholic, Orthodox, and some Protestant services. The Athanasian Creed is less often used but is a more overtly anti-Arian statement on the Trinity. Constantine ordered all Arian books burned and Arius exiled. Arius died in 336 without having recanted.

The Council of Nicea did not end the controversy. Some bishops continued to hold Arian beliefs, and indeed, when Constantine, who had been a catechumen much of his adult life, accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was from an Arian bishop. However, as a result of the Council of Nicaea's strong condemnation of Arius and Arianism, few major theologians inside the Roman Empire professed themselves to be Arians by the middle of the century, and almost all accepted the equality and coeternality of the persons of the Trinity. But the Nicene Creed was by no means universally accepted. For decades, many churchmen continued to use the homoiousios formula to describe the Trinity; others attempted to avoid the dispute by saying only that Jesus was like (homoi) the Father. These non-Nicene theologians would not have identified themselves as Arians; however, their enemies, such as Ambrose of Milan and Gregory of Nazianzus, often did call them just that, and, due to the authority these Nicenes had within the church, the epithet has generally stuck. Several Emperors, including Constantius II and Valens, supported the non-Nicene faction within the Church, but with the accession of the firm Nicene Theodosius I the matter was settled. The Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381 is generally considered the end of this phase of the Arian-Nicene conflict.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

So again Constantine played a major role...

But what are the arguments for Jesus' divinity? Many christians would say they are the fact that in the New Testament, a witness-report of Jesus sayings and deeds written down by numerous inspired humans years/decades after Jesus supposed crucifying, Jesus speaks of himself as the son of God. But that attribute was also used in the Old Testament for David, so that is not a statement to be taken literally.
The other arguments used by christians for his divinity are his wonder-birth from a virgin, but also his wonders made like curing blinded humans or making those that can't use their legs walk again, etc...

As to the virgin-birth, well God is capable of making that possible with just one word of Him. As to Jesus committed wonders, God is surely able to do them, while it seems like Jesus is doing them. Moses was able to do similar things with God's will, like the nine signs he brought to the pharao in Egypt..


But regardless of that difference between Islam and Christianity, pope John Paul II acknowledged that muslims, jews and christians are worshipping the same one God:

MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS ADORE THE ONE GOD
Pope John Paul II

Like Christians and Jews, Muslims look upon Abraham as a model of submission to God's will and know that in God we find our origin and end

At the General Audience of Wednesday, 5 May, the Holy Father spoke about religious dialogue with Islam. While mentioning the point on which Christians and Muslims most differ, the mystery of the Trinity, the Pope also said that the two traditions "have a long history of study, philosophical and theological reflection, literature and science, which have left their mark on Eastern and Western cultures", and "are called in one spirit of love to defend and always promote human dignity, moral values and freedom". Here is translation of his catechesis, which was the 12th in the series on God the Father and was given in Italian.

1. Continuing our discussion of inter-religious dialogue, today we will reflect on dialogue with Muslims, who "together with us adore the one, merciful God" (Lumen gentium, n. 16; cf. CCC, n. 841). The Church has a high regard for them, convinced that their faith in the transcendent God contributes to building a new human family based on the highest aspirations of the human heart.

Muslims, like Jews and Christians, see the figure of Abraham as a model of unconditional submission to the decrees of God (Nostra aetate, n. 3). Following Abraham's example, the faithful strive to give God his rightful place in their lives as the origin, teacher, guide and ultimate destiny of all beings (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Message to Muslims for the end of Ramadan, 1417/1997). This human docility and openness to God's will is translated into an attitude of prayer which expresses the existential condition of every person before the Creator.

Christians and Muslims believe in the same God, the one God

Along the path marked out by Abraham in his submission to the divine will, we find his descendant, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus, who is also devoutly invoked by Muslims, especially in popular piety.

2. We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: "We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection" (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497). The patrimony of revealed texts in the Bible speaks unanimously of the oneness of God. Jesus himself reaffirms it, making Israel's profession his own: "The Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Mk 12:29; cf. Dt 6:4-5). This oneness is also affirmed in the words of praise that spring from the heart of the Apostle Paul: "To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen'"(1 Tm 1:17).

Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2MUSLM.HTM

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, you are right, the pope went as far as possible and stopping only a hair-wide away from acknowledging propet Muhammad's legitimacy and the Quran being the direct word of God.

Going that far would have meant to acknowledge the wrongness of christian's doctrine/interpretation of Jesus as a real/literately meant son of God,

Or they didn't acknowledge it because it was dead wrong about the life of Jesus.

because God says in the Quran quite clearly that Jesus was a wonder to humanity and a for the purpose-created prophet, that was God's word in person and flesh but not God's son.

Jesus said otherwise. That is why he was crucified.

Personally I think the whole trinity-teachment wasn't caused by Jesus but by the roman empire Constantin for political purposes, as a way to make it easier for the majority of pagans in the roman empire to convert to christianity:

Well that is cool and all to think that, but Jesus stated otherwise.

Source: http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

Interesting is that right when Constantine chose christianity for state-religion and made himself effectively the head of the church, and propagated the trinity-teachment, strong opposition came up in the form of arianism among the christians of that time, which made up about half of the christians. Arianism noted that Jesus was created at a certain timephase and before that never existed, and could therefore be not on the same level as God, while the catholics thought of Jesus as son of God and God's word that existed always with God and that only made its appearance at a certain timephase:

Actually that is speaking about the Catholic Church. And your conspiracy theories are just that.

But what are the arguments for Jesus' divinity? Many christians would say they are the fact that in the New Testament, a witness-report of Jesus sayings and deeds written down by numerous inspired humans years/decades after Jesus supposed crucifying, Jesus speaks of himself as the son of God. But that attribute was also used in the Old Testament for David, so that is not a statement to be taken literally.

No, not in the same way, and yes it was to be taken literally.
AGAIN, that is why Jesus was crucified. All Jesus had to do to get out of being crucified was admit that he was not God, the chosen one. So if he wasn't, why didn't he?

The other arguments used by christians for his divinity are his wonder-birth from a virgin, but also his wonders made like curing blinded humans or making those that can't use their legs walk again, etc...

As to the virgin-birth, well God is capable of making that possible with just one word of Him. As to Jesus committed wonders, God is surely able to do them, while it seems like Jesus is doing them. Moses was able to do similar things with God's will, like the nine signs he brought to the pharao in Egypt..

But regardless of that difference between Islam and Christianity, pope John Paul II acknowledged that muslims, jews and christians are worshipping the same one God:

Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2MUSLM.HTM

Taliesin

Taliesin, I am not Catholic. And Catholicism means nothing to me. either does the Pope.

You REALLY need to learn the difference bettween denominations. And stop treating Catholicism as Christianity as a whole.

AGAIN, Secularly we worship the same God. Spiritually we do not.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Jesus said otherwise. That is why he was crucified.

In your opinion, right Zimphire?

AGAIN, Secularly we worship the same God. Spiritually we do not.

So you don't worship the same God as the Catholics. Interesting...

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

In your opinion, right Zimphire?

I don't mean to be argumentative, but have your READ the Bible? He's right on point. Jesus was killed because he claimed to be the son of God. A blasphemous claim at the time that required death.

So you don't worship the same God as the Catholics. Interesting...

Yes and no. The Catholic church has a different perspective than just the "Vanilla Christian". There is a lot more ritual and "reverence" for Mary. Something considered a very serious offense for traditionalists. Again, all of this can be verified if you simply crack the spine on a good "New King James"

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, you are right, the pope went as far as possible and stopping only a hair-wide away from acknowledging propet Muhammad's legitimacy and the Quran being the direct word of God.

Going that far would have meant to acknowledge the wrongness of christian's doctrine/interpretation of Jesus as a real/literately meant son of God, because God says in the Quran quite clearly that Jesus was a wonder to humanity and a for the purpose-created prophet, that was God's word in person and flesh but not God's son.

Personally I think the whole trinity-teachment wasn't caused by Jesus but by the roman empire Constantin for political purposes, as a way to make it easier for the majority of pagans in the roman empire to convert to christianity:


Source: http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

Interesting is that right when Constantine chose christianity for state-religion and made himself effectively the head of the church, and propagated the trinity-teachment, strong opposition came up in the form of arianism among the christians of that time, which made up about half of the christians. Arianism noted that Jesus was created at a certain timephase and before that never existed, and could therefore be not on the same level as God, while the catholics thought of Jesus as son of God and God's word that existed always with God and that only made its appearance at a certain timephase:



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

So again Constantine played a major role...

But what are the arguments for Jesus' divinity? Many christians would say they are the fact that in the New Testament, a witness-report of Jesus sayings and deeds written down by numerous inspired humans years/decades after Jesus supposed crucifying, Jesus speaks of himself as the son of God. But that attribute was also used in the Old Testament for David, so that is not a statement to be taken literally.
The other arguments used by christians for his divinity are his wonder-birth from a virgin, but also his wonders made like curing blinded humans or making those that can't use their legs walk again, etc...

As to the virgin-birth, well God is capable of making that possible with just one word of Him. As to Jesus committed wonders, God is surely able to do them, while it seems like Jesus is doing them. Moses was able to do similar things with God's will, like the nine signs he brought to the pharao in Egypt..


But regardless of that difference between Islam and Christianity, pope John Paul II acknowledged that muslims, jews and christians are worshipping the same one God:



Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2MUSLM.HTM

Taliesin

The Christians were persecuted for their faith by the Roman Emeperor as little as twenty years before the Council of Nicea; they resisted the forces of the Emperor suffering crucification, mass torture, enslavement etc. Why do you that having been doing that for 250 years, they would suddenly give up orthodoxy to please Constantine the Great? It doesn't make sense.

BTW - I can show you hundreds of documents written well before the Council of Nicea which speak of Christ's divinity. Christ was always seen as divine, and even claimed as such ('I am etc.'). To say that the present Church's theology was formed by pagan influences of the Roman empire from Constantinus Magnus is historically ludicrous and can be easily disproved. Although the word trinity was never used (It was invented to define what was already believed) there is substantial evidence from before the Council that the Church taught Jesus was divine, the sacramental nature of the Church, the necessity of apostolic succession etc.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

The Christians were persecuted for their faith by the Roman Emeperor as little as twenty years before the Council of Nicea; they resisted the forces of the Emperor suffering crucification, mass torture, enslavement etc. Why do you that having been doing that for 250 years, they would suddenly give up orthodoxy to please Constantine the Great? It doesn't make sense.

BTW - I can show you hundreds of documents written well before the Council of Nicea which speak of Christ's divinity. Christ was always seen as divine, and even claimed as such ('I am etc.'). To say that the present Church's theology was formed by pagan influences of the Roman empire from Constantinus Magnus is historically ludicrous and can be easily disproved. Although the word trinity was never used (It was invented to define what was already believed) there is substantial evidence from before the Council that the Church taught Jesus was divine, the sacramental nature of the Church, the necessity of apostolic succession etc.

I'm sure that before the council of Nicea there was a part of christianity that believed in Jesus' divinity, but that was hardly the majority. What happened, at least in my opinion, was that the emperor Constantine couldn't ignore or squash christianity anymore, it already spread in the roman empire too much, so he approached or was approached by church's leaders in order to turn christianity into state-religion, and that's the point where the part of the christians that believed in Jesus divinity, equal to God, came forth and made a compromise with emperor Constantine. Afterall the trinity-teachment is not paganism, since every part of the trinity is just an "expression" of the one God, but it would make the transfer easier for pagans that were still the major part of the roman empire.
You don't have to forget that after the council of nicea and Constantin's decision for christianity as state-religion, every other religion was immediately presecuted and oppressed and the citizens of the roman empire were from one day to the next forced to accept and convert to christianity. On the other hand Constantin financed the building of churches and the establishment of the central catholic church and organization that declared all other interpretations of Jesus as heresy.
Interesting enough is that the eastern and south-part of christianity, and those that live near or in the area of where Jesus' was active, the majority believed in Jesus as a prophet from God and not as God himself, while the western and northern part of christianity believed in the majority in his divinity and Constantin obviously made the deal with the northern, western part of christianity and started to oppress the south and eastern part of christianity, even burning "heretic" books, torturing "heretic" preachers, etc..., that would be known as arians.


After a few decades of unrest and brutal oppression arianism disappeared officially, but the population hadn't forgotten it and was from then on skeptical if not even hateful of the roman empire and the official church of the empire. A few hundred years later prophet Muhammad would be inspired/invoked by God and the Quran came onto the world-scene, confirming the previous prophets Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and , yes Jesus and their messages, calling Jesus a wonder of God and a for the purpose created prophet and contradicting the interpretation of the official church of Jesus as God's son or even as God himself.

It didn't take long after Muhammad's death until the news of a united Arabia with a new religion made the round in the roman empire through arabic merchants and trade, and so the Quran's message also made its way through the trade-routes, and the oppressed ex-arians in the south and eastern of the roman empire soon called for help from the muslims, aka God-devoted people, to free them up from oppression. Over the decades the muslims reacted and freed those people who called for help from the oppression through the roman empire, and most of these freed people converted voluntarily to Islam seeing the Quran's message as a proof and confirmation of their own hidden belief of Jesus' prophethood but not godness.

Most historians portraited that sudden and quick spread of Islam as being a consequence of Islam's forced conversions through the sword, but that idea can't be upheld anymore, considering the call of help through the people of the southern and eastern part of the roman empire, who were oppressed for centuries, and the similarities between arianism and the Quran's message about Jesus.

Taliesin

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I'm sure that before the council of Nicea there was a part of christianity that believed in Jesus' divinity, but that was hardly the majority. What happened, at least in my opinion, was that the emperor Constantine couldn't ignore or squash christianity anymore, it already spread in the roman empire too much, so he approached or was approached by church's leaders in order to turn christianity into state-religion, and that's the point where the part of the christians that believed in Jesus divinity, equal to God, came forth and made a compromise with emperor Constantine. Afterall the trinity-teachment is not paganism, since every part of the trinity is just an "expression" of the one God, but it would make the transfer easier for pagans that were still the major part of the roman empire.

You don't have to forget that after the council of nicea and Constantin's decision for christianity as state-religion, every other religion was immediately presecuted and oppressed and the citizens of the roman empire were from one day to the next forced to accept and convert to christianity. On the other hand Constantin financed the building of churches and the establishment of the central catholic church and organization that declared all other interpretations of Jesus as heresy.

Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the ROman empire. He certainly funded the building of the Churches, but he certainly made little attempt to convert the empire ass such. The senate was still thoroughly pagan, the Vestal fires still burnt in the Forum of Rome, pagan sacrafices were still offered before every government meeting, the Pontifex Maximus was still a pagan etc. Not until Emperor Theodosius was any attempt made to thoroughly Christianise the empire. Theodosius was actually excommunicated by St. Ambrose, the famous Bishop of Milan for his murderous rampages trying to force pagans to convert to Christianity. He spent several years in public penance (as was the custom in those times).

[b]
Interesting enough is that the eastern and south-part of christianity, and those that live near or in the area of where Jesus' was active, the majority believed in Jesus as a prophet from God and not as God himself, while the western and northern part of christianity believed in the majority in his divinity and Constantin obviously made the deal with the northern, western part of christianity and started to oppress the south and eastern part of christianity, even burning "heretic" books, torturing "heretic" preachers, etc..., that would be known as arians.

After a few decades of unrest and brutal oppression arianism disappeared officially, but the population hadn't forgotten it and was from then on skeptical if not even hateful of the roman empire and the official church of the empire. A few hundred years later prophet Muhammad would be inspired/invoked by God and the Quran came onto the world-scene, confirming the previous prophets Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and , yes Jesus and their messages, calling Jesus a wonder of God and a for the purpose created prophet and contradicting the interpretation of the official church of Jesus as God's son or even as God himself.

It didn't take long after Muhammad's death until the news of a united Arabia with a new religion made the round in the roman empire through arabic merchants and trade, and so the Quran's message also made its way through the trade-routes, and the oppressed ex-arians in the south and eastern of the roman empire soon called for help from the muslims, aka God-devoted people, to free them up from oppression. Over the decades the muslims reacted and freed those people who called for help from the oppression through the roman empire, and most of these freed people converted voluntarily to Islam seeing the Quran's message as a proof and confirmation of their own hidden belief of Jesus' prophethood but not godness.

Most historians portraited that sudden and quick spread of Islam as being a consequence of Islam's forced conversions through the sword, but that idea can't be upheld anymore, considering the call of help through the people of the southern and eastern part of the roman empire, who were oppressed for centuries, and the similarities between arianism and the Quran's message about Jesus.

Taliesin

Your history is just plain wrong. Sorry.

The main proponents of the Orthodox teaching of Jesus's divinity actually came from the East, the most famous one being Athanasius (remember 'Athanasius contra mundum?') of Egypt. The Arians were in the minority; out of the 250 bishops present in the Council of Nicea (250 is the number recorded by Eusebius) only two voted against the Nicean creed. The Arians were in the minority, fervent Arians were almost non-existant. As well, the imperial family sympathised more with Arianism than the Orthodox and received teachings of the vast majority of the church.

THe only Arians which remained after the Council of Nicea were the Goths (who came from the North!).

Here is a nice summary from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Your history is just plain wrong. Sorry.

The main proponents of the Orthodox teaching of Jesus's divinity actually came from the East, the most famous one being Athanasius (remember 'Athanasius contra mundum?') of Egypt. The Arians were in the minority; out of the 250 bishops present in the Council of Nicea (250 is the number recorded by Eusebius) only two voted against the Nicean creed. The Arians were in the minority, fervent Arians were almost non-existant. As well, the imperial family sympathised more with Arianism than the Orthodox and received teachings of the vast majority of the church.

THe only Arians which remained after the Council of Nicea were the Goths (who came from the North!).

Here is a nice summary from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

You are right, my history of arianism and emperor Constantine was wrong, I'm sorry for that, I should have paid more research-time on it. Nonetheless I found today an interesting read about arianism and Arius, of which I want to quote here a few passages:

Introduction

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus poses an important question to his disciples: "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" The twelve quickly answer his question with a list of popular opinions, but when forced to reach a decision on their own, they cannot easily come up with an answer.[1] Indeed, three centuries after this question was initially posed by Jesus, it had still not been satisfactorily answered by his followers. The question is no mere theological polemic, for if it is through Jesus that mankind is saved, the question of Jesus' identity is necessarily a question that strikes at the very nature of salvation itself. It is beyond the scope of this paper to answer a question of such magnitude; rather, this paper will examine the teachings of a man who did attempt such an answer, the philosophical background that produced his teachings, and the early developments of the movement that his teachings inspired. He is often referred to as the Great Heretic; scorned as a teacher of false doctrine and a servant of the devil, his name is Arius, and his teachings are known as Arianism.

...

Any examination of the historical beginnings of Arianism is immediately hampered by a lack of first-hand Arian literature. After the teachings of Arius were rejected by the Christian Church at the council of Nicea in 325, Arius was condemned as a heretic, and "people who owned his writings were ordered to deliver them up on pain of punishment."[3] Although some extant copies of Arius' own writings and other early Arian sources do exist, they are nonetheless painfully sparse. Therefore, in order to make a thorough examination of early Arianism -- indeed, any examination at all -- one must attempt to find in the works of later Arian writers, and the works of one of Arius' great opponents, Athanasius of Alexandria, some core of early Arian doctrine.

...

First century Christian writers, such as Paul of Tarsus and John the Evangelist, described Jesus of Nazareth as having a 'preexistence' as God's Wisdom or 'Logos.'[7] Jesus' human birth at Bethlehem had been adequately described in the gospels, but the question of whether the preexistent Logos had come into being through generation or creation was not specifically laid out in Scripture. Paul spoke of the preexistent Christ as "Son" and "the firstborn of creation," and the Gospel of John specifically refers to him as the "only begotten." There is some reason to believe that these references were originally meant to be taken within the context of the Jewish tradition, and not to be taken literally. Jesus was called "begotten," and was "God's Son" only in a figurative sense, and certainly had been "created" or made by God.[8]

If this was indeed the early Christian community's view of Jesus of Nazareth, by the late third and early fourth century, the Christian view of God had radically changed. No longer was the Son conceived of as having been simply created. By the time Arius was born in Libya in 256, the Christian Church had come to believe, like the Gnostic heretics of the second century, that the Son had been generated by the Father.[9] Although generation in this regard was not identical to human generation, fourth century Christianity taught that the Logos was by no means a creature. Those phrases of Scripture that called the Logos "Son" or "begotten" were now taken in a much more literal sense by such influential theologians and Christian apologists as Justin Martyr, Theophilus and Origen.[10]

...

By the fourth century, the persecution of the Church that had long been the hallmark of previous centuries had ended with the edict of Milan in 312. Persecution from the government had occupied such a central role in the lives of Christians during the second and third centuries, that any doctrinal disputes that may have existed at the time were certainly secondary in importance. Now, however, imperial repression would no longer overshadow the Church's need to clarify its doctrines. The Church had for nearly a century maintained some degree of clarity on the Son's divinity by following Origen's sufficiently vague teaching that the Son was "eternally generated" from the Father.[11] It became painfully apparent in the early part of the fourth century, however, that more clarity was needed. Christianity after 312, therefore, could not allow Jesus to ride the fence of divinity as it were; to allow this to continue would create uncertainty about the person of Jesus, and thus bring into question the issue of salvation. To no surprise, some were content to leave God's relationship to the Son in the realm of mystery. A young presbyter by the name of Arius, however, decided that, in the midst of the Church's uncertainty, he was going to set everyone straight.

...

As stated above, Scripture had called the Son "God," and apparently considered him to be equal with the Father.[13] At the same time, however, even a cursory glance at the New Testament reveals that Jesus himself claimed to be inferior to, and distinct from God. At John 20:17, he tells Mary Magdalene that the Father is his God; he specifically says in John 14:28 that "the Father is greater than I;" he claims imperfect knowledge; he could not do things by himself, and apparently disclaimed moral perfection as well.[14]

Arius drew upon these passages to demonstrate that, although the Son should indeed be called "God," since he was inferior to the Father, he was "God" in name only. With Christ's inferiority as his starting point, Arius then put into motion his supreme argument from one of his most important 'proof-texts,' Proverbs 8:22. Here, God's Wisdom says, "The Lord created me as the beginning of his work." For Arius, then, God the Father had created the Son, who then became a "secondary God" or a "subservient God."[15] The Father and the Son were indeed 'one,' but in moral perfection only, and were certainly not identical in being.[16] In other words, Arius had effectively solved the issue of Christ's divinity by placing him with the 'created' beings.

...

1. God Seperate from the World

First of all, one of Arius' central doctrines revolved around the fact that God was completely and utterly separate from the world. So far removed and unapproachable, in fact, that He could not directly create the matter of the universe Himself. Demophilius, the last Arian Archbishop of Constantinople, commented that "[God] would have been under the necessity of either making everything gods to be worthy of Him, or else everything would have disintegrated by contact with Him."[18] Therefore it was necessary for God to create the World through an intermediary, namely the Son. Once this mediating Being came into existence, the rest could be created.[19] Soteriologically, it would be incorrect, however, to say that the Arians believed in a demi-God mediator between man and God. Rather, as according to 1 Timothy 2:5, the mediator between God and man was the man Jesus Christ. The Orthodox questioned first of all the need for God to create an intermediary in creation. Athanasius rather mockingly stated that God was neither so spent from creating the Son that he needed further assistance to create the rest of creation, nor was he so vane as to not merely condescend himself rather than send an aide. Second of all, Athanasius questioned whether this Arian doctrine of God really allowed for the creation of a creaturely Son. If all of creation could not stand the direct presence of God, how could a single being? As well, how could a creature bring into creation other creatures?[20]

2. The Son is Created 'Ex Nihilo'

Second of all, since the Son had a beginning and was created by the Father, he must have been created out of nothing like the rest of creation. As scandalous as this may have sounded to Arius' opponents, Arius was firm in his declaration that the Son "having not existed, attained existence by the Father's will."[21] The Logos was the 'son' of God, not in the sense of biological generation, but in the extended meaning of the word in designation of all believers, or adoptive sons of God. The term has this meaning in Arian proof texts such as Deuteronomy 14:1, "You are children of the Lord your God," and John 1:12, "But to all who received [the Son], who believe in his name, he gave power to become children of God." The relationship between the redeemer and God was "by participation in the Spirit," "by a participation of grace," "a certain grace and habit of virtue," "by adoption," "by free gift of God," "named Word and Son according to grace," "grace by acquisition," "grace as an accident," and so on. [22]

Indeed, it seems that the Arians believed that there were many different Words and Powers and Wisdoms of God, and that Christ was in no sense the only one. For the Arians to maintain that the Son was the true Word or Wisdom of God would have been to capitulate to the entire Alexandrian substantialist viewpoint. If Christ was the true Word of God, then he would necessarily share in the divine essence. The true or essential Word, Power, and Wisdom of God, according to the Arians, was to be found completely and solely within the nature of God alone. These were, in other words, God's intrinsic attributes that He could give to no other. The Son as Word and Wisdom could only be described as a derivative of the eternal divine Word and Wisdom.

Having the distinct honor of being directly created by the Father (while the rest of creation was created 'through' the Son), Christ was, however, not completely similar to the other creatures. Arius himself describes the Son as being the "only-begotten God, and he is different from any other."[23] Beyond his ontological position within creation, Christ's unwavering obedience, for the Arians, also placed him in a position far above the other creatures. While Christ was in many regards like the other "brothers" who are "partakers in the heavenly calling," to no other creature were the same tittles applied.[24]

Yet, at the heart of the Arian view of Christ was the image of an obedient servant. The term 'son' and 'servant' were often times interchangeable in Arian biblical exegesis. It is not so much in Arianism that the Son's will is that of the Father's, but rather that the Son chose to follow the Father's will, and in doing so was obedient throughout his life, even (and especially) unto his death. This was in precise opposition to the Orthodox view of the Father and Son as homoousius . In orthodox thought, the Son can do no other than the will of the Father, since in essence they are the same. As Robert Gregg notes: "as the very hypostasis of the Father's will, there can be no split in [the Son] between hearing and doing."[25]

The essential difference between the Arian and the Orthodox viewpoint can here be described, then, as the difference between 'being' and 'will.' The Orthodox saw reality in terms of static being. The Son has the being of the Father, and as such, is eternally co-equal and co-substantial with the Father. The Arians saw reality, not in terms of static being, but in terms of event and will. The Son is the Word and Wisdom of God due to his following of the divine will. It is the event of following, rather than an inherited essence or nature, that brings about his distinction from the rest of creation.[26]

3. The Son is not Omniscient

Third, since the Son was created out of nothing, he cannot have complete knowledge of a Being, namely the Father, who is uncreated.[27] This doctrinal statement was particularly unpopular among the readers of Arius' works, but Arius was nevertheless rather blunt in his assertion that "God is mysterious to the Son."[28] In fact, it was thought by the Arians that the Son learned from the Father through inquiry even before his earthly ministry. The Father taught the Son how to fashion the cosmos, whereupon the whole created order was made. Arius stated further that:

For neither perfectly nor accurately does the Logos know the Father, nor is he able to see him fully. And indeed the Son, as he is, does not even know his own essence.[29]

It is on the Son's knowledge of the Father in particular that one may catch a glimpse of Arius' thinking. The Alexandrian presbyter must have known the kind of response he would receive in saying that the Son has incomplete knowledge of the Father, but his concern does not seem to be with how his teachings were to be received. It seems that Arius' main concern was with taking a point of doctrine to its most logical conclusion. If the Son is created, obviously he can not fully know the uncreated Father

4. The Son is not Immutable

Last of all, since the Son is a creature, he would by definition have to be capable of moral change. Indeed, central to the Arian view of Christ as an obedient servant was the insistence upon the Son's free-will, and thus the changeable moral nature of the redeemer. A favorite Arian proof text was the Christological hymn of Philippians 2:6-9:

Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death --
even death on a cross.
Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name that is above every name.

Here they stressed the rewards the Son received for being obedient. How could the Son advance in position, they asked, if he was fully God and incapable of change? The ramifications of such a doctrine are enormous. According to a Christian interpretation of Scripture, the devil had once held a position of great honor as one of the archangels, but as a creature, he had the opportunity to turn away from God, and indeed did just that. Arius' opponents were quick to point to the devil's fall from glory as a possible future for a 'creaturely' Son.[30] If Christ could turn away from God as the devil had done, and it is was through Christ that mankind is saved, our salvation , in a sense, is in danger of being nullified. Athanasius in particular, since he held that in God there is no free-will, did not give much credence to the Arian concepts of obedience and free response. For Athanasius, the Son's mission to earth was simply that of a free gift; his mission never in doubt, nor an alternate outcome possible.[31]

Although Athanasius' soteriological views seem rather rigid to the modern reader, the Arian view was not as open as it may at first seem. Arius himself was able to mitigate his stand somewhat in order to avoid the disturbing possibility of a potential loss of salvation due to the Son's disobedience. He stated that although the Son was capable of change, he was capable of change in principle only.[32] The Arians noted that, while it was possible that Christ could have sinned, he never did indeed do so. God would never have created a redeemer that would have rebelled. Indeed, God foresaw that the Son would not 'turn bad,' as it were, and therefore "exempted him from evil in advance."[33]

Source: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olym...61/earian2.htm

That was about the interpretation of the New Testament by Arius, basically saying that Jesus is indeed divine, even saying Jesus created the universe, but a lesser god than the one God that created Jesus... therefore opening up the possibility of lesser gods created by the one uncreated God who is so much apart from the created universe that he couldn't have created it, needing a lesser god to do it for Him... so this makes it completely clear that arianism is definetly completely different from Islam despite its on-the-surface-similarities.

For both groups Jesus' divinity is out of question, considering his virgin-birth and the miracles he performed, and that's where both errored and which drew them into problems:

Instead of considering that the virgin-birth was caused by one word of God and that the miracles that Jesus performed were only possible through God's will, who is always present, the christians developed the interpretation of Jesus being divine, omnipotent and allknowing...

During the years/centuries of persecution they didn't have the time to discuss the consequences of Jesus' supposed divinity, but once Constantine stopped the persecution and allowed christianity as one of a few allowed state-religions, the discussion started:

How could Jesus be divine and yet obviously created at a certain time-phase? The one side of the discussion developed the idea that Jesus is just God in human form, that Jesus existed for all times that he was the logos, God's eternal word... which later became the trinity-teachment. That way it was possible to stick to God's oneness that was expressed in the old testament and still allow Jesus' divinity by saying that Jesus was merely one of three of God's expressions, the other two being the Father and the holy spirit..

The other side of the discussion developed the idea that Jesus was obviously created, and since his divinity was out of question due to his miracle-performing and virgin-birth, this could only mean that there are two categories of gods, the one eternal God that was so different from his creation that he needed a lesser-god to create it...

So, from the point of view of Islam both are wrong because they started on the basis of Jesus' divinity, which is interlocked with the idea of salvation through Jesus.., but the orthodox view of trinity is the lesser of the two "evils", since it's more monotheistic than the arianism that had the potential to open the doors for polytheism with possible numerous lesser gods...

But regardless of that once christianity decided in favour of the trinity-teachment it started to use violence, espescially after Theodosius came to power, in order to try to nihilate all other interpretations of the New Testament, but not only that Theodosius started to prohibit all religions but christianity and to force the citizens of the roman empire to convert. With that strategy there was made a precedent for the centuries-long oppression of roman empire-citizens in the name of faith, that should accelerate the empire's decline and created distrust and hostility from parts of the roman empire...

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

In your opinion, right Zimphire?

No, that is what Jesus said. That isn't of my opinion.

So you don't worship the same God as the Catholics. Interesting...

Where did I say that?

The fact that they too believe that Jesus is the son of God, and only through him might you be saved makes us spiritually worshipping the same God.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

You are right, my history of arianism and emperor Constantine was wrong, I'm sorry for that, I should have paid more research-time on it. Nonetheless I found today an interesting read about arianism and Arius, of which I want to quote here a few passages:


Source: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olym...61/earian2.htm

That was about the interpretation of the New Testament by Arius, basically saying that Jesus is indeed divine, even saying Jesus created the universe, but a lesser god than the one God that created Jesus... therefore opening up the possibility of lesser gods created by the one uncreated God who is so much apart from the created universe that he couldn't have created it, needing a lesser god to do it for Him... so this makes it completely clear that arianism is definetly completely different from Islam despite its on-the-surface-similarities.

For both groups Jesus' divinity is out of question, considering his virgin-birth and the miracles he performed, and that's where both errored and which drew them into problems:

Instead of considering that the virgin-birth was caused by one word of God and that the miracles that Jesus performed were only possible through God's will, who is always present, the christians developed the interpretation of Jesus being divine, omnipotent and allknowing...

During the years/centuries of persecution they didn't have the time to discuss the consequences of Jesus' supposed divinity, but once Constantine stopped the persecution and allowed christianity as one of a few allowed state-religions, the discussion started:

How could Jesus be divine and yet obviously created at a certain time-phase? The one side of the discussion developed the idea that Jesus is just God in human form, that Jesus existed for all times that he was the logos, God's eternal word... which later became the trinity-teachment. That way it was possible to stick to God's oneness that was expressed in the old testament and still allow Jesus' divinity by saying that Jesus was merely one of three of God's expressions, the other two being the Father and the holy spirit..

The other side of the discussion developed the idea that Jesus was obviously created, and since his divinity was out of question due to his miracle-performing and virgin-birth, this could only mean that there are two categories of gods, the one eternal God that was so different from his creation that he needed a lesser-god to create it...

So, from the point of view of Islam both are wrong because they started on the basis of Jesus' divinity, which is interlocked with the idea of salvation through Jesus.., but the orthodox view of trinity is the lesser of the two "evils", since it's more monotheistic than the arianism that had the potential to open the doors for polytheism with possible numerous lesser gods...

But regardless of that once christianity decided in favour of the trinity-teachment it started to use violence, espescially after Theodosius came to power, in order to try to nihilate all other interpretations of the New Testament, but not only that Theodosius started to prohibit all religions but christianity and to force the citizens of the roman empire to convert. With that strategy there was made a precedent for the centuries-long oppression of roman empire-citizens in the name of faith, that should accelerate the empire's decline and created distrust and hostility from parts of the roman empire...

Taliesin

Arius is an interesting guy. However, I don't believe his claims are supported by scripture, and for these reasons:

(quoted from something I wrote a while back)

Yet nethertheless, the references to the Divinity of Christ in the Bible are many. As claimed by the Watchtower correctly, Jehovah is our one and only God (1). Nor were there any gods before Jehovah or in existence besides Jehovah (2, 3).

(1) De 6:4 Jehovah our God is one Jehovah
(2) Is 43:10 Before me there was no God formed.
(3) Is 45:5.22 with the exception of me there is no God.

The status and existence of God is not determined by his name, it is simply God's own nature which make him God. He exists outside of our consciousness and exists through Himself (4).

(4) Ps 96:4-5 One True God by nature

A common title of God is 'Lord' and 'Saviour'. Lord and Saviour were commonly used as a titles of Jehovah himself because to call God by name was considered improper (5).

(5) De 10:17 Jehovah is Lord of lords
(6) Is 49:26 I, Jehovah, am your Savior and Repurchaser

Both titles 'Lord' and 'Saviour are attributed to Jesus Christ. The quote from Rev 17:14, 19:16 (7) is in a similar format to De 10:17 (5). Ro 10:9 (8) explicitly states that Jesus Christ 'is Lord' and that by him we have salvation. Saviour, God and Jesus Christ are used in apposition in 2 Peter 1:1 (9). Thus not only do we have 'Saviour' title of Jesus Christ but 'God' as well. The Watchtower however, against tradition and the advice of secular experts on Koine and Classical Greek, places 'the' between and...Saviour so the meanings differs creating two distinct objects 'Our God' and 'the Saviour Jesus Christ'.

(7) Rev 17:14, 19:16 Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of lords.
(8) Ro 10:9 declare that Jesus is Lord and exercise faith... for salvation
(9) 2 Pet 1:1 our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ.
(10) Titus 2:10 our Savior, God

Jesus Christ is not subordinate to Father as the Watchtower claims. Jesus Christ, the Son, is Equal to the Father, in all circumstances. From this quote from Titus (12) , one infers that not only is Jesus Christ Saviour, but is a 'manifestation of the great God', implying a person of God. Jesus Christ is God but he is not inferior, as it is suggested by 1 Corinthians 15:28 (11).

(11) 1 Corinthians 15:28 �when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One�
(12) Titus 2:13 we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Jesus Christ.



The instances in which the word 'God', 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Saviour' and 'Lord' are all too numerous for it to be coincidental. Most famously of all, St. Thomas exclaimed "My Lord and my God!" when seeing Jesus risen from the dead. The wording of the Gospels make the divinity of Jesus Christ obvious to most common people, to whom the readership of Bibles, written in the Vulgate Latin tongue, was intended. From the wording of the Bible alone one can conclude that "Jesus Christ is Lord" (5).
The argument can be further extended by logic in reference to specific Bible quotes. The Watchtower claims that Jesus is a created being. However, if Jesus was a created being, then all things could not have come into existence through him. Jesus could not have a 'helping' hand in creation as the Watchtower says unless he is wholly God. This is because God created all things by himself (14,15). Logically speaking Jesus Christ must be God or the Bible would be a contradiction.

(13) Jo 1:1-3 all things came into existence through him (Jesus).
(14) Is 44:24 I, Jehovah..., stretching out the heavens by myself.
(15) Ep 3:9 God, who created all things

Jesus Christ is also like God being 'the first and the last' (16,17). If Jesus was 'first', then He could not be a created being, he must be God. This passage contradicts the Watchtower teaching that Jesus Christ is a created being.

(16) Is 44:6,8 Jehovah says "I am the first and I am the last"
(17) Rev 2:8 the First and the Last, who became dead and came to life again (Jesus)
The most definitive evidence in the Bible of Jesus' divinity is His statement of ego eimi' (I am) numerously quoted in the Gospel of John (18). 'I am' is the unmentionable name of God. It was God who said to Moses when in the flaming bush "ego eimi o (omega)n" (I am being). "I am" signifies the very essence of God. "????", used in a timeless sense, contrasts with the Greek verb "ginomai", used in a temporal sense (used in Modern Greek in sense of 'become', however that is not precisely the meaning in Koine Greek). 'ego eimi' is an unnatural Koine Greek expression rarely used within Greek without some sort of complementation. Rather it is a Hebrew expression thus should be read as so. For the Hebrews, the correlation to the flaming bush would be quite obvious. It is in this way 'ego eimi' should translate 'I am existence'. Similar claims to divinity are made in various other verses in John (19,20). Jesus' constant use of 'ego eimi' reinforces Hebrews 1:3 (21).

(18) John 18:6: When he said to them, "I AM," they turned away and fell to the ground.
(19) John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
(20) John 8:16 I am not alone, but it is I and the Father who sent me
(21) He 1:3 (Jesus is) the exact representation of his very being (God)

Watchtower claims that because no concept of the Trinity was mentioned in the Old Testament, such a concept can not exist because God's nature does not change, and exists outside of time. However this can be refuted by saying that because the fullest extent of the stages of revelation was not yet to come to pass, there were many things that the Israelites did not know about God that we know today. These stages of revelation began with Abraham, Noah and the Prophets and then last bit of necessary revelation for salvation was given by Jesus Christ, who also fulfilled the prophecy of previous prophets. Certainly, the Israelites did not know that 'Jesus Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead', but this does not mean that such a thing will not happen.
The Watchtower also claims that the Trinity is a doctrine which stemmed from the influence of Constantine over the Council of Nicea (Constantine was a pagan by birth). However, along with the biblical evidence presented earlier, the works of the great ante-Nicean Church Fathers beg to differ. St Ignatius of Antioch, died between 98 - 117 A.D said this on the Lord's divinity in the 'Spirit of the Apostles and the Birth of the Lord' and the 'Letter to the Romans':

'There is one Physician who is both Flesh and Spirit, born and unborn, who is God and became Man, true life in death. He sprang both from Mary and from God.
From Apostolistic Spirit and the Birth of Our Lord, by St Ignatius of Antioch

'Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son: to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God"
From Letter to the Romans, by St Ignatius of Antioch (Circa 110 A.D)

Even Origen a 3rd century Christian heretic was overtly Trinitarian as he wrote:

"We believe, however that there are THREE PERSONS, the FATHER and the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that ALL THINGS were produced through the WORD, and that the HOLY SPIRIT is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ."
From Commentaries on John 2:6, Jurgens, volume 1, p. 202

St. Melito of Sardes (Circa 177 A.D.) wrote this on the Divinity of Christ:

"The acitivities of Christ after his Baptism and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance tothe world of the Deity, hidden in His flesh. Being God, and likewise perfect man, He gave positive indications of His two natures: of His Deity, by the miracles during the three years following after His Baptism; of His humanity, in the thirty years which came before His Baptism, during which, by reason of His condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before the ages."
From Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai, St Melito of Sardes

-----------------

I'd like to add something to this, on a subtle point in which I believe I erred. There is a sense of subordination that Christ exhibits to his Father. This is very much indicative from the 'Father', 'Son' relationship. However, this relationship is very complicated. This was the mistake that Arius made - he tried to rationalise the filial relationship of Christ to his Father in terms in which humans can understand by stating that Jesus Christ is lesser than God and thus a created being. Of course, this is clearly contradicted in the New Testament (ego sum alpha et omega etc.). The Trinity is a great mystery of God which Christians should not try to fathom.

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Arius is an interesting guy. However, I don't believe his claims are supported by scripture, and for these reasons:

(quoted from something I wrote a while back)
{snip}

Nice!

I could have used this about 7 or 8 months ago when I was {ahem} entertaining JW's every Saturday. It ended up being a vicious circle with neither side ready to concede defeat to the other.