Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 25, 2014, 04:37:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Unitarian Christianity - what do you think?  (Read 1600 times)
a_ahmed
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5751


Team Nasser


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2012, 11:27:58 AM »

Quote
The rock that the Moslems pray to (even though they don't believe in idols...) was in fact first used for Pagan worship and is a black meteorite.
Becuase of this stones relevance to all Arabic peoples different Pagan religions at the time, it was seen as a unifying symbol and was incorporated into the new religion and political system which aimed to unify the Arab people.

You keep reading way too much ignorance from non-muslim sources.

The Black Stone, in Muslim belief, originated in the time of Adam. According to the Hadith, "it descended from Paradise whiter than milk, but the sins of the sons of Adam made it black". According to belief, an angel spoke to the prophet Abraham, and told him to institute the rite of the stone in the hajj at Mecca.

We do not worship this stone it's a meteorite:

Quote
Islamic tradition holds that the Stone fell from Heaven to show Adam and Eve where to build an altar, which became the first temple on Earth. Muslims believe that the stone was originally pure and dazzling white, but has since turned black because of the sins of the people.

Adam's altar and the stone were said to have been lost during Noah's Flood and forgotten. Ibrahim was said to have later found the Black Stone at the original site of Adam's altar when the angel Jibrail revealed it to him. Ibrahim ordered his son Ismael—who is an ancestor of Muhammad—to build a new temple, the Kaaba, in which to embed the Stone.

As Umar ibn al khattab is quoted in a hadith, speaking about the stone, you can not benefit me or harm me. In other words it is not a part of worship nor a 'deity' idol.
Report to moderator   Logged
bigbobs
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9622


Islam, Nasser and Corvettes.


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2012, 10:26:28 PM »

Matthew 26:63-64
63 But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

When Christ replies "you have said so" he isn't sarcastically replying "if you say so"......he's saying "you said it chief!"  He's affirming the claim.

When I read this, I honestly re-read it three more times in confusion, trying to piece together how you arrived at the conclusion that Jesus is affirming he is God in these verses?  It gives me the opposite conclusion, as Jesus is asked whether he is the son of God and he responds referring to himself as the son of man. 

Although I hadn't come across these verses before ironically I'm adding them to my examples of where Jesus denies being the son of God. 
Report to moderator   Logged
bigbobs
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9622


Islam, Nasser and Corvettes.


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: October 06, 2012, 10:35:43 PM »

Once again, from a theological perspective:

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This was not written by Paul but by John who was a Disciple of Jesus.

Did you know that Matthew Mark and Luke are referred to as the "synoptic gospels" because of their common view, while the the gospel according to John is quite different?  In fact John's gospel was rejected as heretical by many within the early Christian movement, and was eventually accepted into the official canon but over many objections.  

Quote from wikipedia itself "According to the majority viewpoint for most of the 20th century, Jesus' teaching in John is largely irreconcilable with that found in the Synoptics, and scholars consider the Synoptics to be more accurate representations of the teaching of the historical Jesus." source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Report to moderator   Logged
Griffith
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1837


....


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2012, 03:32:27 AM »

Did you know that Matthew Mark and Luke are referred to as the "synoptic gospels" because of their common view, while the the gospel according to John is quite different?  In fact John's gospel was rejected as heretical by many within the early Christian movement, and was eventually accepted into the official canon but over many objections.  

Quote from wikipedia itself "According to the majority viewpoint for most of the 20th century, Jesus' teaching in John is largely irreconcilable with that found in the Synoptics, and scholars consider the Synoptics to be more accurate representations of the teaching of the historical Jesus." source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John



From Wikipedia as well:

Recent discoveries and trends have cast doubt on the certainty that many mid-20th century biblical scholars had about the historical inferiority of John's Gospel. A prominent example is the archaeological discovery of the pool of Siloam in Jerusalem in 2004—a discovery that in a small way undermines much of the criticism leveled at John during the 20th century. Recent evidences such as the pool and a turn away from the vestiges of positivism as evidenced by the growing number of books addressing the historicity of John reveal that the final word has not been said on how much of the historical Jesus inhabits John's gospel.

Throughout the 20th century a minority of prominent scholars, such as John A.T. Robinson, have argued that John is as historically reliable as the synoptics. Robinson wrote that, where the Gospel narrative accounts can be checked for consistency with surviving material evidence, the account in the Gospel of John is commonly the more plausible;[111] that it is generally easier to reconcile the various synoptic accounts within John's narrative framework, than it is to explain John's narrative within the framework of any of the synoptics;[112] and that, where in the Gospel Jesus and his disciples are described as travelling around identifiable locations, the trips in question can always be plausibly followed on the ground,[113] which he says is not the case for any synoptic Gospel. Scholars such as D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Craig Blomberg, often agree with Robinson.[114][115] Henry Wansbrough says: "Gone are the days when it was scholarly orthodoxy to maintain that John was the least reliable of the gospels historically."
Report to moderator   Logged
a_ahmed
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5751


Team Nasser


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: October 07, 2012, 08:48:15 AM »

So pretty much all of these 'gospels' are contested, unreliable and questionable.

Then there are the 'letters' of Paul which are his own personal ramblings and where ultimately the trinitarian doctrine is derived from.

He proves in his own writings to be a hypocrite, to be contrary to Jesus' teachings, to be cursing the disciples of Jesus, to being rejected and never accepted by Jesus' own disciples.
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14681


Isaiah 40:28-31 ✝


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2012, 01:32:42 PM »

When I read this, I honestly re-read it three more times in confusion, trying to piece together how you arrived at the conclusion that Jesus is affirming he is God in these verses?  It gives me the opposite conclusion, as Jesus is asked whether he is the son of God and he responds referring to himself as the son of man. 

Although I hadn't come across these verses before ironically I'm adding them to my examples of where Jesus denies being the son of God. 

Might as well add them to your list of favorite peanut butters or brand of sneakers....makes about as much sense.   

Report to moderator   Logged

Griffith
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1837


....


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2012, 12:21:29 AM »

So pretty much all of these 'gospels' are contested, unreliable and questionable.

Then there are the 'letters' of Paul which are his own personal ramblings and where ultimately the trinitarian doctrine is derived from.

He proves in his own writings to be a hypocrite, to be contrary to Jesus' teachings, to be cursing the disciples of Jesus, to being rejected and never accepted by Jesus' own disciples.

The entire Koran is contested as it's written 600 years later from even later texts and includes Arabic culture and traditions into its message.

And as mentioned earlier the stone they worship is a meteorite which was also used for Pagan worship and was merely included into their new sect because it was a unifying aspect of Arabic culture.

Then there's the blatant promises of sexual pleasures which followers will receive in the afterlife which is a worldly message of human vices which will be perpetuated even in death.

This final fact alone discounts the entire Koran.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!