A small trinity question

[rajeev15]

I am pasting the writings of sadhu sunder singh from his book "At Masters Feet"
*************************************************************
The Disciple(Sadhu Sunder Singh),--Master, if Thou wouldst make a special manifestation of Thyself to the world, men would no longer doubt the existence of God and Thy own divinity, but all would believe and enter on the path of righteousness.
The Master(Jesus Christ),--1. My son, the inner state of every man I know well, and to each heart in accordance with its needs I make Myself known; and for bringing men into the way of righteousness there is no better means than the manifestation of Myself. For man I became man that he might know God, not as someone terrible and foreign, but as full of love and like to himself, for he is like Him and made in His image.
Man also has a natural desire that he should see Him in whom he believes and who loves him. But the Father cannot be seen, for He is by nature incomprehensible, and he who would comprehend Him must have the same nature. But man is a comprehensible creature, and being so cannot see God. Since, however, God is Love and He has given to man that same faculty of love, therefore, in order that that craving for love might be satisfied, He adopted a form of existence that man could comprehend. Thus He became man, and His children with all the holy angels may see Him and enjoy Him (Col. i.15, ii.9). Therefore I said that he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father (John xiv.9-10). And although while in the form of man I am called the Son, I am the eternal and everlasting Father (Isa. ix.6).
2. I and the Father and the Holy Spirit are One. Just as in the sun there are both heat and light, but the light is not heat, and the heat is not light, but both are one, though in their manifestation they have different forms, so I and the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, bring light and heat to the world. The Spirit, which is the baptismal fire, burns to ashes in the hearts of believers all manner of sin and iniquity, making them pure and holy. I who am the True Light (John i.9, viii.12), dissipate all dark and evil desires, and leading them in the way of righteousness bring them at last to their eternal home. Yet We are not three but One, just as the sun is but one.
3. Whatever worth and power and high faculty God has endowed man with must be brought into action, otherwise they gradually decay and die. In this way faith, if it is not truly fixed on the living God, is shattered by the shock of sin and transformed into doubt. Often one hears something like this, "If this or that doubt of mine be removed I am ready to believe." That is as though one with a broken limb should ask the doctor to take away the pain before he sets the limb. Surely this is folly, for the pain comes from the breaking of the limb, and when that is set the pain will of itself pass away. Thus by the act of sin man's tie with God has been snapped, and doubts, which are spiritual pains, have arisen. It needs must, therefore, that the union with God be again renewed, then those doubts which have arisen regarding My divinity and the existence of God will of themselves disappear. Then in place of pain there will come that wonderful peace which the world cannot give nor take away. Thus it was that I became flesh, that between God and poor broken men there might be union, and they might be happy with Him in heaven for evermore.
4. God is love, and in every living creature He has set this faculty of love, but especially in man. It is therefore nothing but right that the Lover who has given us life and reason and love itself should receive His due tribute of love. His desire is to all He has created, and if this love be not rightly used, and if we do not with all our heart and soul and mind and strength love Him who has endowed us with love, then that love falls from its high estate and becomes selfishness. Thus arises disaster both for ourselves and for other creatures of God. Every selfish man, strangely enough, becomes a self-slayer.
This also I have said, "Love thy neighbour as thyself." Now although in a sense all men are neighbours one of another, yet the reference is especially to those who habitually live near each other, for it is an easy matter to live at peace with one who is near at hand for a few days only, even though he be unfriendly; but in the case of one who has his dwelling near you, and day by day is the cause of trouble to you, it is most difficult to bear with him, and love him as yourself. But when you have conquered in this great struggle it will be more easy to love all others as yourself.
When man with all his heart, mind, and soul loves God, and his neighbour as himself there will be no room for doubts, but in him will be established that Kingdom of God of which there should be no end, and he, melted and moulded in the fire of love, will be made into the image of his heavenly Father, who at the first made him like Himself.
5. Also I manifest Myself by means of My Word (the Bible) to those who seek Me with a sincere heart. Just as for the salvation of men I took on a human body, so My Word also, which is Spirit and Life (John vi.63) is written in the language of men, that is, there are inspired and human elements united in it. But just as men do not understand Me, so they do not understand My Word. To understand it a knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues is not a necessity, but what is necessary is the fellowship of that Holy Spirit, abiding in whom the prophets and apostles wrote it. Without doubt the language of this Word is spiritual, and he who is born of the Spirit is alone able fully to understand it, whether he be acquainted with the criticism of the world or be only a child, for that spiritual language is well understood by him since it is his mother tongue. But remember that those whose wisdom is only of this world cannot understand it, for they have no share in the Holy Spirit.
6. In the book of nature, of which I also am the Author, I freely manifest Myself. But for the reading of this book also spiritual insight is needed, that men may find Me, otherwise there is a danger lest instead of finding Me they go astray.
Thus the blind man uses the tips of his fingers as eyes, and by means of touch alone reads a book, but by touch alone can form no real estimate of its truth. The investigations of agnostics and sceptics prove this, for in place of perfection they see only defects. Fault finding critics ask, "If there is an Almighty Creator of the world why are there defects in it, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, eclipses, pain, suffering, death, and the like?" The folly of this criticism is similar to that of an unlearned man who finds fault with an unfinished building or an incomplete picture. After a time, when he sees them fully finished, he is ashamed of his folly, and ends by singing their praises. Thus too, God did not in one day give to this world its present form, nor will it in one day reach perfection. The whole creation moves onward to perfection, and if it were possible for the man of this world to see from afar with the eyes of God the perfect world in which no defect appears, he too would bow in praise before Him and say, "All is very good" (Gen. i.31).
7. The human spirit abides in the body very much as the chicken in the shell. If it were possible for the bird within the shell to be told that outside of it was a great widespread world, with all kinds of fruit and flowers, with rivers and grand mountains, that its mother also was there, and that it would see all this when set free from its shell, it could not understand or believe it. Even if anyone told it that its feathers and eyes, ready now for use, would enable it to see and to fly, it would not believe it, nor would any proof be possible till it came out of its shell.
In the same way there are many who are uncertain about the future life and the existence of God, because they cannot see beyond this shell-like body of flesh, and their thoughts, like delicate wings, cannot carry them beyond the narrow confines of the brain. Their weak eyes cannot discover those eternal and unfading treasures which God has prepared for those who love Him (Isa. lxiv.4, lxv.17). The necessary condition for attaining to this eternal life is this, that while still in this body we should receive from the Holy Spirit by faith that life-giving warmth which the chicken receives from its mother, otherwise there is danger of death and eternal loss.
8. Again, many say that the thing, or the life, that has a beginning must of necessity have an end. This is not true, for is not the Almighty who is able at His will to make from naught a thing which is, also able by the word of His power to confer immortality on that which He has made? If not He cannot be called Almighty. Life in this world appears to be liable to decay and destruction, because it is in subjection to those things which are themselves the subject of change and decay. But if this life were set free from these changeful and decaying influences, and brought under the care of the eternal and unchanging God, who is the fountain and source of eternal life, it would escape from the clutch of death and attain to eternity.
As for those who believe on Me, "I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand" (John x.28). "I am the Lord God Almighty that is and was and is to come" (Rev. i.8).

 

[arunma]

Doesn't really matter which. Whichever one strikes your fancy really. The Mysteries of Osirus, Dionysus, Attis, Adonis, Serapis, and so on and so forth.

I've read the myth of Dionysus. It's a play called The Bacchae written by the Greek playwright Euripides. It bears no similarity at all to the Gospel. The idea of pagan christs was first proported by John Robertson in 1903, in a book called Pagan Christs. These theories rely not on the myths themselves, but on summaries of the myths. I've found that usually, a person sumarizes the myth, injects Christian terminology (for example, the death of the false god Krishna by an arrow is deliberately referred to as "crucifixion"), and draws on similarities that don't really exist.

Now, I obviously haven't read all of the myths that you mentioned. But you can probably tell that my experience with the Dionysus myth causes me to be skeptical of all other arguments of this nature.

You are right, that there is no record of Jesus appointing Paul as an Apostle or Spokesman while he walked the earth. But Jesus did appoint Peter as his chief spokesman, and Peter called Paul a "brother".

Because Christians believe in the physical resurrection of Christ Jesus, the record of Saint Paul's appointment in the book of Acts is an example of Jesus "while he walked on the earth." Also, while there is some evidence that Saint Peter acted as the leader of the church, it would not be right to say that he was the chief spokesman, since all the Apostles had authority to speak the word of God.

Even the Apostle Peter said something like, "Our brother Paul writes many things, which are difficult to understand..."

This is the verse you are referring to:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

​

Those quotes from Hebrews say nothing about God having three "persons". Paul was talking, in his very complicated way, about the analogy between Jesus' self-sacrifice and the ritual sacrifices commanded by Moses.

If I'm reading you right, you seem to have assumed that Saint Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is true that the King James Version claims Pauline authorship of the letter. But there has always been dispute over this letter's authorship. The vast majority of Christians today do not believe that Paul wrote Hebrews. Paul always introduced himself in his letters, and he has not done so here. I believe that some church fathers also dispute Pauline authorship. I can try to find the pertinent writings, if you'd like.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Salaam, alyaba and benmaarof

First alyaba:

are you arguing that from the bible it apears that jesus never claimed to be god or are you trying to say that christions just ignore that part.

Let me answer the last part first, since it's the easiest to answer. True, most Christians haven't even read most of the Bible, though I expect that those who post here have read at least a good part of it. I will speak, therefore, about those who post here: No, I don't think they ignore any of the Bible. Most of the Christians I have seen posting are sincere truth-seekers; and if they haven't read a scripture and you point out the fact to them, they will look it up.

But you must remember that we humans are not at all objective in how we read and interpret things: We all come from different cultures and sub-cultures. We all have friends and loved ones who are in one doctrianl "camp" or another, and it is against our human self-interest to go attacking long-enshrined doctrines; and for the Christian, Trinitarianism is a long-enshrined doctrine. So whenever we read the Bible or Qur'an or any other book, we always read it from our personal and cultural perspective, which is always biased. And remember that most of what we read can be interpreted many ways; so a Trinitatian, for instance, will always interpret what he/she reads with a Trinitarian slant.

Having said that, let me say that I don't hope to convince any Christians here of anything. I've had close friends turn against me, rather than abandon their doctrine. The last friend I had, who was willing to continue reading the Bible with me, was the grandson of an Assyrian Christian; but he died a year ago and I am left alone. That's why I've posted here. I'll tell you right up front, that I'm a Jew and an ardent Zionist, and it's hard for me to even think of Moslems as human beings, because of the awful things they are doing in my ancestral homeland. But when I saw you folks here having to deal with these Trinitatians, it was refreshing to see someone who was on my side in the matter, and I thought I would lend a hand.

As for Jesus "claiming to be God", you are correct: He never said any such thing, and this is exactly what I am saying.

Hello, benmaarof.

Yes, you may call me "Joe", or even JosephStalin. Neither is my real name, but I don't mind spine-chilling names, because I know who I am: I am a human being, capable of the most awful things. If you must know, one of my distant ancestors converted to Islam, and married a descendant of Fatima. She was not my ancestor, though -- I am descended from a Moorish concubine he picked up in a Spanish seaport. You see, my ancestor was a Dutch pirate, who dealt in human lives as merchandise. After the Moslems captured him, he converted and worked for their side. He became the admiral of the Sultan of Fez's pirate "navy", and ruled his feif in Salee like a dictator. He would kidnap whole villages in places like Ireland and Iceland, and sell them to the highest bidder. In short, he was among the most vile of human beings.

Others of my ancestors were Iroquois Indians, who used to cut open captives while they were still alive, tie their bowels to trees, then prod them with spears to make them run around the trees. I have other ancestors, and other tales which are too gruesome to relate here; so please don't think I am offended if you call me JosephStalin -- It's as good a username as any.

We Muslims do not believe that everything in the OT and the NT to be false. If it contradict the Quran or the Hadith or logic, only then we will say that they (parts of it, not all) are false.

Here, let me do what you just said, WITH what you just said:

"We Muslims... believe ...everything... to be false. If... the Quran or the Hadith or logic, ...they ...are false."

Now do you see why I said what I did? You do not believe the Bible at all: You only believe Qur'an; so when you quote the Bible, you only "cut and paste" verses out of it, so they say essentially the same things as Qur'an -- just as I cut and pasted verses above, to say the exact opposite of what you meant.

I have read in Qur'an, where your prophet (who forced Jews to wear yellow stars, by the way, and massacred them by the thousands) accused the Jews of altering the scriptures. If you really wanted Mohammed to sound like a conciliatory person, you might have interpreted what he said like this,

"When the Prophet (may his name be ___), said such-and-such, he was referring to the Jewish Talmud, which gave a wrong interpretation of Holy Torah."

I used to try to think that when reading Qur'an. I say you MIGHT have said this; but I believe your interpreters are correct: This isn't what he was saying; He was attacking the Bible itself, saying it is untrue. So really, we have two totally different books with two totally different beliefs about what sort of person God is, who the Jews are, etc. This doesn't mean we can't sit at table and discuss things, and it doesn't mean we can't agree on points. And concerning the oneness of God, I agree wholeheartedly with you and with Qur'an!

You mentioned the fact that Qur'an doesn't say anything about Jesus having been a carpenter. That's actually an important omission. While Qur'an correctly says that Isa (like Jesus of the Bible) is not God, it does give him a "super-human" attributes -- namely, that he didn't die. The fact that Qur'an doesn't mention Jesus' trade, adds to this "aura" about him, that he wasn't like ordinary men. The New Testament tells not only that he was a carpenter, but that he got tired, hungry, angry and sad; that he cried at times, sometimes profusely; that he was provoked at times to violence; that he cursed a fig tree in a fit of emotion. If he had whipped people in an American church, the way he whipped them at the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he would have been surrounded by poliecemen and arrested. In short, he is portrayed in the New Testament as fully human: A man who loved companionship, had favorites, loved life and didn't want to die. What's more, he wasn't a scholar, and would have been looked down upon even today by the Jews because of his blue-collar upbringing and his fisherman and tax-collector friends. No religious Jew today would take him seriously, because he had not gone to yeshiva, to study at the feet of Hillel. And he bled, and suffered, and cried out in agony, and yes, he really did die.

You see, his having been a carpenter was part of a complete picture of the man, and he was a very different man from the Isa of Qur'an. Nevertheless, Qur'an does give Isa some attributes which Jesus shared. For instance, it is correct concerning his birth, that Isa did not have to be divine to have been supernaturally born. Concerning Jesus of the Bible, Paul affirms that he was the seed of David according to the flesh, implying that, as the genealogies in both Matthew and Luke assert, Joseph was his biological father. Mary was the daughter of one Yoachim, according to early Christian tradition, a farmer of Nazareth. Joseph was the son of Eli (according to Luke) and the (probably adopted) son of Jacob, according to Matthew; so none of Jesus' genealogies point to Davidic descent except through Joseph. Moreover, Jesus HAD to be descended from David through the male line, in order to be the Messiah. Yet his birth was miraculous without intercourse, just as John the baptist's birth was miraculous with intercourse. As Qur'an correctly asserts, referring to Isa, such a thing should not be thought of as too difficult for the Creator of All Life.

Therefore, I do understand what you mean when you say, "We believe the Bible, but only in part", and I expect you also understand what I mean when I say "You don't believe the Bible". In fact, both of us are correct in what we say. I think the important thing, for the sake of this discussion, is that there are points on which you and I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

Shalom & Salaam,

Joe

 

[alyaba]

you know josephstalin i think i used the wrong word when i sayed ignore you are right about what you said i even in person know very good people that are christions that would not ignore something like that perhaps a better word would be overlook or maby they just dont give it that importance becouse it contradicts what they believe i dont know, but what i do know is that me and you both agree that he is not god based on the christion bible.

if i was a christion i would definatly be puziled if a jew and muslim would agree on anything lol (just joking) and i would be more puzeled if they agree that the bible says that jesus is not god.

regarding what you said about how it is hard for you to look at muslims as human beings i would say that i use to be that way but after moving to america i got in situations where i had to look at things from both points of view even if i didnt agree with one i would still try to understand where the other is coming from and then i would think to my self what they are missing, for example when i first moved here my cusin came to meet me(i am half american half arab) we were driving around in his car and he strait up told me he hated arabs i was amazed that he would say that to me becouse i am an arab and i barly even spoke english then he said that i didnt have to worry becouse i am family, so i asked him why he hated arabs he said becouse they come here and go to schools and all of them have fancy cars and that americans have to work all there life and cant afford one of those cars, i simply smiled and said i dont even have a car souldint that tell you something. anyways after i went home i started thinking about it and decided to put my self in his shoes and i noticed that he had a point almost all the arabs here had very nice cars, but that doesint mean that all arabs are rich just becouse they have oil, infact if you go to saudi you will find the same thing saudis with messed up cars and americans working there for triple the normal salary driving the latest bmw. so basicly what im trying to say is that you cant look at the problem from one side you have to look at both side and then look for a couse and if posible a solotion.

i believe if we apply that to the problem that we have over there and look at it from both sides and see the pain that both sides go threw we can easaly find a solution online problem is that most polotitions dont want to do that becouse they dont want to apear as weak and fear of being voted out or forsed out.

by the way i would like to talk to you more about this but i dont think this is the right forum if it is then maby we could start a thread. im actually thinking about a good thread to start that would involve religion.

 

[HeWhoSearches]

I've read the myth of Dionysus. It's a play called The Bacchae written by the Greek playwright Euripides. It bears no similarity at all to the Gospel. The idea of pagan christs was first proported by John Robertson in 1903, in a book called Pagan Christs. These theories rely not on the myths themselves, but on summaries of the myths. I've found that usually, a person sumarizes the myth, injects Christian terminology (for example, the death of the false god Krishna by an arrow is deliberately referred to as "crucifixion"), and draws on similarities that don't really exist.

Now, I obviously haven't read all of the myths that you mentioned. But you can probably tell that my experience with the Dionysus myth causes me to be skeptical of all other arguments of this nature.

Oh I know about the play. But the play isn't the whole story oh no. Keep in mind, we probably won't ever know alot about the Mysteries considering the Orthodox Church went through great length to destroy them. What else we know is from sources outside of "plays," Never really meant to say they were "copies" per say, but that alot of the things all the characters said and did were all alike. The eucharist, rasing of a "Lazarus," turning water to wine at a wedding, death by crucifiction, or "hung from a tree" as Paul says, ect.

Krishna crucified? That is odd.

 

[arunma]

Oh I know about the play. But the play isn't the whole story oh no. Keep in mind, we probably won't ever know alot about the Mysteries considering the Orthodox Church went through great length to destroy them.

If the church destroyed the accounts of the false gods, then on precisely what are you basing your assertion? It sounds to me like you're making an argument based on evidence which, by your own admission, does not exist. But this argument sounds so absurd that I think I have simply misunderstood you. Please elaborate.

 

[HeWhoSearches]

If the church destroyed the accounts of the false gods, then on precisely what are you basing your assertion? It sounds to me like you're making an argument based on evidence which, by your own admission, does not exist. But this argument sounds so absurd that I think I have simply misunderstood you. Please elaborate.

Inscriptions, archaeological findings, pictures on tombs (for example, a mural of the child Dionysus being presented with a cross, signifying his ultimate fate), writings from detractors, little pieces and parts of the whole. Descriptions of initiation services among other things by the participants. At least this is what I have come to understand, but I never really looked into it all, because I really just didn't care.

Then of course, possibly it may all be lies, because we no original sources from which to substantiate these writings. Never may know for sure.

What I meant was that the actual literature and other items of the cults was destroyed by the early fanatical Christians. And then, the Romans weren't too kind to the Mystery practitioners either. Like the Christians, the Romans liked to "toy" with them.

 

[arunma]

Inscriptions, archaeological findings, pictures on tombs (for example, a mural of the child Dionysus being presented with a cross, signifying his ultimate fate), writings from detractors, little pieces and parts of the whole. Descriptions of initiation services among other things by the participants.

As you know from reading the Bacchae (assuming you have read it), Dionysus did not die on a cross. For that matter, crucifixion was not a form of execution in Euripides' time. So if a mural depicted child Dionysus being presented with a cross, then either someone created the mural in order to deliberately make a parallel between Christ Jesus and Dionysus (in which case it really is no parallel at all), or you are mistaking Dionysus for Jesus. As for these "inscriptions, archeological findings, and writings from detractors," this is all to vague. You must be specific before I can comment.

At least this is what I have come to understand, but I never really looked into it all, because I really just didn't care.

If you don't care, then why have you put stock in this teaching?

Then of course, possibly it may all be lies, because we no original sources from which to substantiate these writings. Never may know for sure.

There are a few sources for the Euripides play, and there are probably also manuscripts of the other myths. And some of what we know about these pagan gods comes from the church fathers. There is not as much uncertainty as you have said. On the contrary, there exists enough material that this issue can be discussed at length, and I think that my position is substantiated.

What I meant was that the actual literature and other items of the cults was destroyed by the early fanatical Christians.

The "early fanatical Christians" were highly unpopular with the Romans. Until the Edict of Milan in 313 AD (which legalized Christianity and banned the persecution of Christians), the church had no political authority. It is effectively impossible that the church could have managed to destroy pagan temples, since this form of idolatry was the national religion of the Romans.

And then, the Romans weren't too kind to the Mystery practitioners either. Like the Christians, the Romans liked to "toy" with them.

I'm not aware of any Roman persecution of other pagans until well after the Edict of Milan.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Shalom alyaba

Thank you for your kind reply. It shouldn't be surprizing that we find points where we totally agree. Christians, Moslems and Jews all have "weak points" where they can be criticized, and those criticisms (like our pointing out the folly of the Trinity) are right on target. That doesn't mean the criticizer is virtuous; it just means we are all human.

Concerning my comment about the inhumanity of Moslems, it is impossible to look at these things objectively: The Moslems control the press, and we are ALWAYS presented with the Moslem point of view. When a Moslem targets and murders innocent women and children in cold blood, and the Israelis attack the killers, the press always excuses the Moslems and attacks the Israelis. Jews take these things in stride, because this has been the normal treatment of Jews for 2000 years -- whether at the hands of Pagans, Christians or Moslems. They hate us with an unreasoning hatred, because we have been chosen by God to be the bearers of His word. There are no "two sides" in any of this: Jews are condemned as "guilty" by one and all. This is taken by Jews as a given in life: Just as surely as the sun rises in the East, we will be hated by all peoples at all times. It's not a personal matter: It's just a fact of life, like the Law of Gravity. But when a little girl is targeted and killed while in her father's arms, and when the killer is released from prison at the insistance of the Americans, as a "goodwill gesture" to please the Arabs, and after he is released he goes and kills more innocent Jews; and when the very father of the girl is harrassed by the Israeli police and called a "Right Wing Extremist" because he wants Jews to protect their homes; and when the police and storm troopers (presumably Jews) come out in force to tear women and children out of their homes, in the land of their forefathers and by the tombs of those who have died to protect those very storm troopers; when these things happen; or when a terrorist dies in a premature bomb explosion, and the Jews are blamed for it; my kishkas (intestines) cry out. No, I don't want to see the "other side!" All I ever see is the other side! Please forgive me for being so "one-sided." I have nothing against you nor against any Moslem, Christian or Jew. But if I ever come across one of your "glorious shahids", I will race towards him to take him or her down, because nothing could give me more joy, than to spend my last moment on earth ridding the planet of such a vile piece of scum. This isn't something that can be "dialogued" about: The blood of those innocent women and children cry to heaven for vengeance; and anyone who does not cry in agreement is a sick, perverted creature -- and yes, not even human. But I do not treat innocent people this way, whether they are Moslems, Christians or Jews. I love all life and respect it; but those who hate life, who praise children who murder, who aspire to become murderers and teach others to do so; those who drove the Jews out of their own countries, and now want to push those who are left into the sea, just because they are God's Chosen; God fights against them.

I guess that puts it into words. I wish I could sound more friendly than this, especially after you have been so kind.

God bless you and keep you, good friend.

Shalom shalom.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Shalom & Salaam, alyaba.

I realize that I am posting this while you are not online, so you cannot quickly give me feedback. You said,

i would like to talk to you more about this but i dont think this is the right forum if it is then maby we could start a thread.

I agreee. It's hard to come up with an appropriate name for the thread: We are talking about something that is already a "war" or "Jihad" in the eyes of some, but it has purposely been kept to a low-level conflict by all sides, each for his own reasons. To the people most intensely feeling the bloody outpourings -- such as the Iraqis, Americans, Russians, Chechens, Australians and Jews, plus others -- it is not a war at all, but a brutal, lawless, immoral breach of peace, a criminal murdering of friends and loved ones. Yet despite all of these manifestations and lack of the same, there is a fuzzily defined "war" going on -- akin to the former "Cold War", but with the peculiar twist that each side seems to be declaring totally different people as "friends" and "enemies".

I have started the topic, calling it "Armageddon Today -- The Conflict of Everyone With Just about Everyone". It should be in

Christian Forums > Open to All Members Section > Discussion & Debate > Non-Christian Religion >

I'm afraid it will become a real mess to manage, and you and I must realize at the start, that it will spin completely out of our control. Still; I agree with you, that there ought to be a place where we can get these things out in the open. I trust that you and I will continue to be frank but civil, as we have been up until now; but I make no guarantees about others who will chime in. Of course, you and I are just "Junior Members", so I don't even know if Christian Forums will let us do this; but I will have a go at it.

Shalom arunma.

Upon careful examination of your recent post, I see that you addressed me. I'll respond here. You quoted me thusly:

Even the Apostle Peter said something like, "Our brother Paul writes many things, which are difficult to understand..."

to which you posted the scripture reference as 2 Peter 3:15-16. Thank you.

Then you quoted me again thus:

Those quotes from Hebrews say nothing about God having three "persons". Paul was talking, in his very complicated way, about the analogy between Jesus' self-sacrifice and the ritual sacrifices commanded by Moses.


responding,

...But there has always been dispute over this letter's authorship.

This has little bearing on the present discussion -- unless you are inferring, as I do not believe you are, that the Book of Hebrews is not an integral part of Christian doctrine. The book is certainly part of the Canon of Scriptures used by all modern Bibles, and it originally found its place in the canon by virtue of the claim that it had Apostolic authorship. I agree with you that it is of dubious authorship -- I lean toward thinking that Clement wrote it.

Some may feel, as the early Church Fathers felt, that such "non-Apostolic" authorship should engender suspicion about its "divine inspiration". This is not a problem for me, because nobody in the New Testament claims divine inspiration for their own writings. There is a reference in one place to "all scripture" as having been divinely inspired, but the author of that verse does not define what "all scripture" means. In his own writings, Paul claims in one place to be speaking for God; and in another place to be speaking for himself, as a human being. I read all scripture this way. God even commissioned a "lying spirit" at one point, to lie to the King of Israel. What the spirit said, then, was "divinely inspired"; but I don't think anyone believes it to be true.

But for the sake of dogma, when we refer to what "Jews" or "Christians" or "Moslems" believe, each faith has a canon of writings that it considers "divinely inspired", and treats them as such. Christians claim explicitly to trust the Christian Bible, in its Protestant and Catholic variants; besides this, the Catholics explicitly and the Protestants implicitly recognize various early Church Councils as inerrant and binding. The main Jewish sects all hold Oral Torah and Written Torah as inerrant and binding, along with some other writings which they collectively call "halacha" -- howbeit they distinguish between "majority opinions" and "minority opinions". Moslems universally hold to Qur'an, plus various written and unwritten doctrines, depending on whether they are Sunni, Shi'a or Druze.

Individuals in or closely aligned to these various faiths, of course, have individual beliefs; but when talking about various groups, we can only speak of the various canons.

I know that all sounds rather dull; but when we argue, it's good to have some "ground rules".

Shalom shalom