Page 17 of 26 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 257

Thread: Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

  1. #161
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Asia
    Faith
    Christian
    Posts
    213
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    41
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and siam and same hakeem demonstrate exactly that by intentionally ignoring the consistent Bible records of the words, sayings and deeds of Christ, twisting His mission and teachings into siam’s incomparably amusing and comical piece of nonsensical misrepresentations and hence, misinterpretations below.

    None of your polemical speculations are actually consistent with what Jesus Christ actually taught and brought into the world. Your ‘prophet’ Muhamed and the later redacted koran, from inaccurate and in-complete knowledge of Jesus Christ coming centuries later, only brought revisionist ideas based on hear-say, rumours, unorthodox heresies and Islamic agenda.

    All the NT ie the Synoptics and the Johannine Gospels from the Canon of Scripture are from 400 years before Muhamed’s birth. It is so easy to see how Mohamed copied ideas from both the OT and NT of the
    Bible.

    In John 6: 41 Jesus said “I AM the bread that came down from heaven”

    John 6: 51 “I AM the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread, he will live
    forever.”

    John 3: 13 “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.”

    The koran imitates and mimics Jesus Christ coming down in His incarnation in sura 17/105-107-

    “We sent it (the koran) DOWN in truth, and in truth IT HAS DESCENDED.. It is a koran which We have di-vided, in order that you may recite it to men at intervals.. When it is recited to them, they FALL DOWN ON THEIR FACES in prostration.”

    This is called “the incarnation of the Koran”. Notice how the koran imitates Jesus Christ’s descent and coming down to earth. And is worshipped by people FALLING on their faces IN PROSTRATION when they encounter the koran.

    Siam and same hakeem were challenged to hold the koran in the left hand, to place it on the floor and bring it to the bathroom but both of them are cowards to run away from this challenge. Because the koran is sacralized and is divine to the extent Muslims worldwide idolize it to veneration beyond any other book! There is no pure monotheism in orthodox Islam.

    Why muslims are forced to ritually wash themselves in ritual ablutions before they can touch the koran?

    If we light the Koran with a matchstick flame, it will be burned and destroyed, reduced to ashes and can be easily flushed down the tube. So where is its 'power'. Isn't Allah's Word destroyed?

    The incarnation of the koran is as ludicrous as the "de-incarnation of Christ"! Siam and s.Hakeem. Muslims practically worship the Koran, especially the orthodox, sunni ones, even if you deny it.



    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    4) Well, maybe ...if Christianity was more simple and clear, I would not be drawing far-fetched conclusions and be confused!!??

    points 1, 2 and 3---rephrasing with particular note to the underlined points in the above explanation...

    a) sinful humanity is useless for incarnation
    b) God has to create a sinless creature in order to incarnate (God-man)
    c) Incarnation is necessary in order to de-Incarnate (spiritual death)
    d) De-incarnation is necessary to forgive sins. (most important part in this whole process)

    so...the formula is...sinless creature + incarnation/de-incarnation = forgiveness.

    This makes Jesus unnecessary---as there are plenty of sinless creatures on earth---any animal can do. Just incarnate into one---then de-incarnate and there you go---all sins are forgiven!!

    Such logic would make Hinduism the most forgiving religion in the world as it has God hopping around incarnating into, and de-incarnating out of, a variety of creatures....all of them sinless..

    Prediction---
    at this point---a Christian might argue that Jesus is very necessary, that God had to create "sinless" Jesus in order to incarnate and de-incarnate...because it is Jesus who suffered on the cross and the above formula of forgiveness requires a cross/torture for it to be valid. (without a cross/torture = no forgiveness)
    so...sinless creature+incarnation+torture & cross +de--incarnation = forgiveness as per God's will.

    ...but this logic brings up an even more disturbing point...
    According to Christianity itself---This whole process/formula is in accord with God's will and is a message that Jesus (the God-man) himself taught.
    and...according to Christianity---it is the Jews and Romans that obeyed God's will and followed his instructions....NOT the Christians who watched from the sidelines without even lifting a stone to throw at Jesus!!! In fact, Christians are the ones who blatantly disregarded and/or actively disobeyed God's will.
    God specially creates a "sinless" creature to get the whole process of forgiveness started---and the very people to whom he gives the message/formula are too chicken to do it. They have others do the dirty deed then have the gall to claim the benefits of God's forgiveness!!! That is indeed Bold!

  2. #162
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,244
    Amen (Given)
    5381
    Amen (Received)
    3862
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    So, the person YHWH is the source of the person Jesus, even though the person Jesus is as eternal as the person YHWH? Can you make sense of that?
    Yes, the Sons existence being dependent on the Father doesn't require a temporal relation.

  3. #163
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,244
    Amen (Given)
    5381
    Amen (Received)
    3862
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    4) Well, maybe ...if Christianity was more simple and clear, I would not be drawing far-fetched conclusions and be confused!!??
    I think the main problem is you keep strawmanning and making the weirdest conclusions even when you have absolutely no warrant for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    points 1, 2 and 3---rephrasing with particular note to the underlined points in the above explanation...

    a) sinful humanity is useless for incarnation
    b) God has to create a sinless creature in order to incarnate (God-man)
    c) Incarnation is necessary in order to de-Incarnate (spiritual death)
    Spiritual death is not "de-incarnation". Jesus still remained human even after His death on the cross.

    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    d) De-incarnation is necessary to forgive sins. (most important part in this whole process)

    so...the formula is...sinless creature + incarnation/de-incarnation = forgiveness.

    This makes Jesus unnecessary---as there are plenty of sinless creatures on earth---any animal can do. Just incarnate into one---then de-incarnate and there you go---all sins are forgiven!!
    No, the "formula" is a sinless human. I already pointed out that Jesus had to become like us in post #131. "Any animal" can most certainly not do.

    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    Such logic would make Hinduism the most forgiving religion in the world as it has God hopping around incarnating into, and de-incarnating out of, a variety of creatures....all of them sinless..
    In that case it's a good thing I've never used such logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    Prediction---
    at this point---a Christian might argue that Jesus is very necessary, that God had to create "sinless" Jesus in order to incarnate and de-incarnate...because it is Jesus who suffered on the cross and the above formula of forgiveness requires a cross/torture for it to be valid. (without a cross/torture = no forgiveness)
    so...sinless creature+incarnation+torture & cross +de--incarnation = forgiveness as per God's will.

    No, they might argue that you're still strawmanning and continuing to draw completely unwarranted conclusions.


    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    ...but this logic brings up an even more disturbing point...
    According to Christianity itself---This whole process/formula is in accord with God's will and is a message that Jesus (the God-man) himself taught.
    and...according to Christianity---it is the Jews and Romans that obeyed God's will and followed his instructions....NOT the Christians who watched from the sidelines without even lifting a stone to throw at Jesus!!! In fact, Christians are the ones who blatantly disregarded and/or actively disobeyed God's will.
    God specially creates a "sinless" creature to get the whole process of forgiveness started---and the very people to whom he gives the message/formula are too chicken to do it. They have others do the dirty deed then have the gall to claim the benefits of God's forgiveness!!! That is indeed Bold!
    According to Christianity it was Jesus Himself who willingly gave up Himself to be crucified, and willingly gave up His own life. And even though the result was the forgiveness of the world, that doesn't mean the people who sentenced Jesus to be executed and carried it out weren't committing a grave sin.

    And you're wrong about having others do the dirty deeds. It was our sins that made it necessary for Christ to incarnate and going to the cross, the issue of who nailed Him to that cross is a minor irrelevancy compared to that fact.

  4. #164
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,244
    Amen (Given)
    5381
    Amen (Received)
    3862
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    c) Incarnation is necessary in order to de-Incarnate (spiritual death)
    Just realized I didn't address this point fully. What you call "de-incarnation" is not spiritual death. Just to make it sure, the biblical definition of spiritual death is separation from God, which Jesus never experienced as far as I'm aware.

    The way I've been using "spiritual death" in this thread though, is not the biblical definition, instead I've been using it to denote complete destruction of the spirit. In any case, neither definition fits the situation in this case, since I've constantly argued that Jesus died physically on the cross, not spiritually.

  5. #165
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,244
    Amen (Given)
    5381
    Amen (Received)
    3862
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and siam and same hakeem demonstrate exactly that by intentionally ignoring the consistent Bible records of the words, sayings and deeds of Christ, twisting His mission and teachings into siam’s incomparably amusing and comical piece of nonsensical misrepresentations and hence, misinterpretations below.
    Yeah, I've noticed that.


    Siam, I recall in another thread you mentioned you haven't even read the NT completely, only bits and pieces. Why are you here discussing doctrines of Christianity when you can't even take the time to familiarize yourself with the writings on which Christian doctrine are based? If it was only a case of mild curiosity I would understand, but you're constantly arguing against Christianity and coming up with the weirdest misrepresentations based on your limited and misunderstood knowledge.

    You said if Christianity was more simple and clear maybe you wouldn't be so confused. I think you have it backwards. Maybe if you actually took the time necessary to familiarize yourself with the writings from which Christianity derives it's doctrines you wouldn't be so confused all the time.

  6. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  7. #166
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,198
    Amen (Given)
    2137
    Amen (Received)
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Yes, the Sons existence being dependent on the Father doesn't require a temporal relation.
    But the son, like the father, is eternal, right? The father didn't choose for the son to exist, the father didn't create the son, the son, like the father, has always existed and always will exist whether the father likes it or not, right? So in what sense is the sons existence anymore dependent on the father, than the fathers existence is dependent on the son? And I guess that question would pertain to the 3rd person of the trinity as well, was the Holy Spirit begotten and dependent.
    Last edited by JimL; 04-09-2020 at 12:01 PM.

  8. #167
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,244
    Amen (Given)
    5381
    Amen (Received)
    3862
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    But the son, like the father, is eternal, right?
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    The father didn't choose for the son to exist, the father didn't create the son, the son, like the father, has always existed and always will exist whether the father likes it or not, right?
    True, although there's no possible world where the Father wouldn't want the Son to exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    So in what sense is the sons existence anymore dependent on the father, than the fathers existence is dependent on the son? And I guess that question would pertain to the 3rd person of the trinity as well, was the Holy Spirit begotten and dependent.
    I've already answered this. The Sons ground of existence lies in the Father. I'm not sure how to say it any simpler than that. Same goes for the Holy Spirit, although in that case we have the issue of the filioque as well, which I won't go into here.

  9. #168
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,198
    Amen (Given)
    2137
    Amen (Received)
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Correct.
    Good, the son is eternal, not begotten in the usual sense of the term.

    True, although there's no possible world where the Father wouldn't want the Son to exist.
    But wanting, wasn't the question. Dependent for his existence, was. If the father is a person, and the son is a person, and yet the two are one, and both persons are eternal, then in what sense is the latters existence dependent on the former, anymore than the formers existence is dependent on the latters.? Wanting the son to be omniprest would have nothing to do with it, because just like his existence, the son is omnipresent whether the father wants it or not, correct?


    've already answered this. The Sons ground of existence lies in the Father. I'm not sure how to say it any simpler than that. Same goes for the Holy Spirit, although in that case we have the issue of the filioque as well, which I won't go into here.
    I'm not seeing the logic in that. If they are one simple indivisible substance, then one being the eternal ground of the other makes no sense. And the filioque is controvercial even within christianity itself. Proceeding from seems to be more like an attribute than a third person.

  10. #169
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,244
    Amen (Given)
    5381
    Amen (Received)
    3862
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Good, the son is eternal, not begotten in the usual sense of the term.
    Not begotten in the temporal sense, no.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    But wanting, wasn't the question.
    I commented about your use of the word "want" because you brought it up in the first place, completely out of the blue. I'm not sure what relevance you think it has when it comes to the issue of the eternal generation of the Son.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Dependent for his existence, was. If the father is a person, and the son is a person, and yet the two are one, and both persons are eternal, then in what sense is the latters existence dependent on the former, anymore than the formers existence is dependent on the latters.? Wanting the son to be omniprest would have nothing to do with it, because just like his existence, the son is omnipresent whether the father wants it or not, correct?


    You're arguing that the fact that both the Father and the Son being eternal makes the Son being dependent on the Father for His existence inexplicable, but I fail to see how that's the case. And again, what does "wanting" have to do with anything?




    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    I'm not seeing the logic in that. If they are one simple indivisible substance, then one being the eternal ground of the other makes no sense. And the filioque is controvercial even within christianity itself. Proceeding from seems to be more like an attribute than a third person.
    Presumably you want to argue that the Father being the eternal ground of existence for the Son means that they cannot be one simple indivisible substance, but you're failing to show the logical connection between the argument and the conclusion.

  11. #170
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,198
    Amen (Given)
    2137
    Amen (Received)
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Not begotten in the temporal sense, no.
    Not begotten in any sense of the word, begotten. My guess is that "The only eternal son of god" just wouldn't fly logically. An eternal being can't even be said to be a son, because as we all know, sons are begotten. So in what sense is the so called son, a son?


    I commented about your use of the word "want" because you brought it up in the first place, completely out of the blue. I'm not sure what relevance you think it has when it comes to the issue of the eternal generation of the Son.
    I don't believe I ever used the word want, I said choose, God didn't choose, as a matter of fact, God had no choice in the matter when it comes to the existence of what you call the son. Without a son, there is no father. Same logic goes for the Holy Spirit who you use the term "proceeds from" to explain its existence, which is just a semantical twist on the term, "begotten." If you disagree, then explain how one person can be begotten, and another person can proceed from, and yet they are both persons. How does a "begotten person," differ from a "proceeds from" person?




    You're arguing that the fact that both the Father and the Son being eternal makes the Son being dependent on the Father for His existence inexplicable, but I fail to see how that's the case. And again, what does "wanting" have to do with anything?
    No, what I'm arguing is that the idea of an eternal son, not to mention a "begotten one", makes no sense. And neither does the idea of a 3rd eternal "person" "proceeding from" the Father make sense. If the son and the holy spirit were just metaphorical symbols depicting certain eternal attributes of god, that could work, but persons, no.





    Presumably you want to argue that the Father being the eternal ground of existence for the Son means that they cannot be one simple indivisible substance, but you're failing to show the logical connection between the argument and the conclusion.
    Persons are divisible, one from the other, simple substances are not.
    Last edited by JimL; 04-09-2020 at 08:20 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •