Averroes wrote:Again why are you so stupid and ignorant? Even the Bible itself acknowledges that it is corrupted! Jeremiah 8:8 reads as follows:
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.[Jeremiah 8:8]
One point is I am confident people like Al Fadi, David Wood, Shamoun and others are very capable to countering whatever Muslims throw at them based the numerous articles I read and video heard from them.Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:45 pmI watched that. These people are clowns. They have not presented any argument; Trinitarian Christians are very bad at logic; I recently witnessed that on the forum itself. That is because the moment someone embraces the Trinity, it's bye bye logic for them until they realize that they have been fooled and reject it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:54 am Re Jeremiah 8:8 here is the counter from Al Fadi, David Wood and Sam Shamoun;
The following is an argument that conclusively settles the matter. It's obvious that one cannot both, on the one hand, accept that the Bible is corrupted (as Christians scholars do) and on the other hand counter Jeremiah 8:8, which is saying the Jewish scriptures are corrupted! I am not surprised though that you didn't see that contradiction as we all now know you are stupid. Anyway, I now will present the evidence from true Bible scholars on Jeremiah 8:8.
There is a scholarly book which is a collection of academic papers of around 18 recognized Bible scholars (most of them Christians) which addresses the corruption of the Jewish scriptures: Changes in Scripture, Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila.
Knowledge of Hebrew is recommended for one to be able to read all the chapters of the book as the numerous examples of corruption shown in the book are in Hebrew, the original language.
An excerpt from a chapter of the book written by biblical scholar John J Collins on Jeremiah 8:8 on page 23:
- “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us,’ when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie” (Jer 8:8)
We do not know precisely what Jeremiah had in mind in his scathing denunciation of scribal activity on the Torah. Many scholars think that the prophet was opposed to any written Torah.1 He was certainly concerned that the authority of the prophet to speak for God was being usurped by the scribes, as indeed it was. But it is also established beyond doubt that scribes frequently changed the supposedly revealed texts that they transmitted. Ironically, the book of Jeremiah is itself a prime example of scribal composition, where the original oracles of the prophet are now overshadowed by the accretions, often ideological, of scribal transmission.2 Of course, Jeremiah’s judgment on such accretions reflects a particular perspective, which is not inevitable. Religious traditions sometimes value the contributions of the editors, who gave the material its canonical shape, more than those of the prophets. It is often assumed that these editors were attempting to preserve and explicate the true meaning of their sources, and undoubtedly this was often so. But Jeremiah’s outburst should warn us that a “hermeneutic of suspicion” towards the ideological underpinnings of scribal activity is not entirely anachronistic. Claims to speak with divine authority were especially fraught with implications for power in ancient society, and were inevitably, and properly, contested.
Sam Shamoun presented various points that argue Jeremiah 8:8 is not to be taken literally by itself and need to be cross-referenced to other parts of Jeremiah, Daniel and elsewhere.Quran 10:94 And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverer.
Since you simply brushed it off with "Jesus refer to himself" ...Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:45 pmI watched the David Wood monologue till the end. And he is in fact saying that biblical Jesus did indeed refer to himself in the verse Luke 19:27! This is how stupid some people can be; in trying to refute Luke 19:27, they ended confirming their belief in it!Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:54 am Re Luke 19:27
Here is the counter Al Fadi, David Wood and Sam Shamoun;
And don't forget Luke 14:26, where biblical Jesus is clearly commanding hate towards family and community members:As you entertained me with that video, I too will like to do the same for you, God willing. The following YT link will no doubt not fail to entertain you as well: https://youtu.be/Y0_iluq6uus
- “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)
I read up a few explanations to Luke 14:26, the one below is the most effective;Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:45 pm And don't forget Luke 14:26, where biblical Jesus is clearly commanding hate towards family and community members:
- “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)
Jesus told his disciples to love even their enemies (Luke 6:27), therefore he cannot be telling us to literally hate our families. So, what does he mean? And what is his point?
It helps to understand the contemporary custom for expressing choice. Take what the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible says on this topic,
"While the Hebrews naturally had a whole range of such emotions ranging from outright death-seeking malice to mere preference, disregard, and rejection, they had no suitable words to express different shades of meaning. Thus words such as “love” and its opposite “hate” (Heb. śānēʾ; Gk. miśō) were used to express the idea of preference." *
Choose who you love - really love
We cannot love two masters: Luke 16.13. Jesus is asking his followers to choose their master. The same idea surfaces in the Old Testament. God expressed hatred for insincere worship (Isa. 1:14; Amos 5:21), therefore part of what Jesus is saying, is “are you all in - fully sincere?”
"the love the disciple has for him must be so great that the best of earthly loves is hatred by comparison (cf. Matt. 10:37)." **
Jesus comes first. Before all people and before all things.
God bless, Malcolm
* Kealy, C.S.Sp, Seán. Freedman, David Noel, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, eds. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Accordance electronic edition, version 3.6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
** Morris, Leon. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC 3. IVP/Accordance
seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:14 pmWhen it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.
I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...
...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.
It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.
In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.
Now,...
(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)
...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?
That sounds no different than the materialistic blatherings of a modern-day neurophysiologist.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:08 am Hume asserted the self is merely a bundle of activities and nothing more, i.e. he meant no substantial self such as a permanent soul.
Other than the single personage represented in number 2, there is nothing about that list that even comes close to resembling the 3 individual persons of the Christian Trinity that somehow blend together in the mystical union that forms the transcendent Godhood.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:08 am However empirical evidence from personal experience and observation there is obviously the trinity of the following;
1. the empirical self [physical which all can verify],
2. the I-self [the mental self personhood] and
3. empirical self that is interdependent within all other empirical selves.
All the above are verifiable empirically and philosophically.
I don't believe in trinity.seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:14 pmWhen it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.
I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...
...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.
It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.
In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.
Now,...
(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)
...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?
_______
What do you believe?bahman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:33 pmI don't believe in trinity.seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:14 pmWhen it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.
I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...
...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.
It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.
In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.
Now,...
(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)
...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?
_______
I believe in myself, other peoples, and spiritual reality.attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:35 pmWhat do you believe?bahman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:33 pmI don't believe in trinity.seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:14 pm
When it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.
I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...
...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.
It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.
In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.
Now,...
(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)
...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?
_______
Hume's definition of self is similar to Buddhism-proper's anatta.seeds wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:15 pmseeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:14 pmWhen it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.
I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...
...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.
It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.
In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.
Now,...
(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)
...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?That sounds no different than the materialistic blatherings of a modern-day neurophysiologist.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:08 am Hume asserted the self is merely a bundle of activities and nothing more, i.e. he meant no substantial self such as a permanent soul.
It is nothing more than the standard form of existential nihilism that offers no ultimate or eternal purpose for humans as individuals.
In other words, it will never work as the replacement for the “old paradigm religions” as was discussed in the “What causes Muslims to be violent?” thread.
I thought you asked for an example of a real manifestation of trinity within humans, thus my example of a real trinity.Other than the single personage represented in number 2, there is nothing about that list that even comes close to resembling the 3 individual persons of the Christian Trinity that somehow blend together in the mystical union that forms the transcendent Godhood.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:08 am However empirical evidence from personal experience and observation there is obviously the trinity of the following;
1. the empirical self [physical which all can verify],
2. the I-self [the mental self personhood] and
3. empirical self that is interdependent within all other empirical selves.
All the above are verifiable empirically and philosophically.
Again, if according to the Biblical assertion that a human is created in the image of God, then because you cannot look upon a human as consisting of 3 individual “persons,” then, likewise, neither can you look upon God as consisting of 3 individual “persons.”
The Trinity concept was a subsequent (ad hoc) “add-on” to Christianity due to an arbitrary consensus decision made by, again, a bunch of confused and smelly old men, three and a quarter centuries after the death of Jesus.
It was a misguided diversion away from the pure monotheism of the Abrahamic concept of God.
Indeed, it was a diversion that I have often suggested was corrected with the invention of Islam which (if nothing else) steered the Abrahamic project back onto the course of, again, pure monotheism, thus putting the kybosh on the Trinity nonsense.
_______
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:08 am Hume asserted the self is merely a bundle of activities and nothing more, i.e. he meant no substantial self such as a permanent soul.
seeds wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:15 pm That sounds no different than the materialistic blatherings of a modern-day neurophysiologist.
It is nothing more than the standard form of existential nihilism that offers no ultimate or eternal purpose for humans as individuals.
In other words, it will never work as the replacement for the “old paradigm religions” as was discussed in the “What causes Muslims to be violent?” thread.
We’re getting off topic here, but, you’re kidding, right?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 6:02 am Hume's definition of self is similar to Buddhism-proper's anatta.
Buddhism-proper provides a Life Problem Solving Technique that would deal with the existential issues that are grounded within the issue re “What causes Muslims to be violent?”...
Note Buddhism-proper is divorced from the idea of Rebirth, Buddhist heaven, gods, myths, spirits, etc., believed by various lower levels Buddhists.
Setting aside any conflicting interpretations of Buddhism, the bottom line is that the individualization of personal, self-aware consciousness that was once known here on earth as Siddhartha Gautama (aka, the Buddha) is either alive right now in some higher context of reality...Wiki wrote: The Buddha and Rebirths
The texts report that on the night of his enlightenment the Buddha gained the ability to recall his previous lives. It is said that he remembered not just one or two, but a vast number, together with the details of what his name, caste, profession, and so forth had been in each life...
— Damien Keown, Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:08 am However empirical evidence from personal experience and observation there is obviously the trinity of the following;
1. the empirical self [physical which all can verify],
2. the I-self [the mental self personhood] and
3. empirical self that is interdependent within all other empirical selves.
All the above are verifiable empirically and philosophically.
seeds wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:15 pm Other than the single personage represented in number 2, there is nothing about that list that even comes close to resembling the 3 individual persons of the Christian Trinity that somehow blend together in the mystical union that forms the transcendent Godhood.
It should have been obvious from the way I was setting up the argument that it was meant to demonstrate that the Christian Trinity is self-refuted by Christianity’s very own prime doctrine that declares that humans are created in the image of God.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 6:02 am I thought you asked for an example of a real manifestation of trinity within humans, thus my example of a real trinity.
I had no intention to compare this type of trinity to Christianity's Trinity which is "real" to Christians but I believe is delusional.
The choice is larger than believing in Trinity, or not believing in Trinity. Your thoughts are free. Trinity might be a nice idea for you and might help you to make decisions. There is no need to presume ideas such as Trinity are the sole property of religions.I don't believe in trinity.
thanks for rely, and i welcome understanding, and members that do of Restern Reiligions in this forum - whcih lacks such.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:39 amI am not interested on discussion the "seven? incarnations of 'God' " which is going off topic. Note,gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 3:49 am since you seem to know of Eastern Religions (Jainism/Hinduism/Buddism) - which this forum is lacking, i'd welcome your views of the 7? encarnations of God (I know by name only 2 of the seven - Rama and Krisha).................I'm a hellbound Atheist, but have interest in religions (i lack knowledge in the Eastern ones, but know more than most Believers - from Christians to Jews and Muslims - though know more of Judiasm, and a little less of Islam/Christianity - read all those books decades ago - well most of.....my personality conforms more to Judaism (Recipocity) - i do not love those the hate me, so no christian mentally.
again, if you can inform me and this forum about the Eastern Hindu's theology of the seven? incarnations of "God", i'd love to read/learn via your reply.
"No Hindu has ever worshiped an undifferentiated One.." because this is like starring at the Sun [most powerful physical thing] all day. This is why the majority comprising a wide range of spiritual maturity direct their attention of the Trinity, incarnations and manifestations [idols] of the all powerful [they are aware of] which they can effectively connect with and benefit from.
- Re Trinity is Hinduism
The most well known Hindu Trinity (trimurti) is Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva as Judge. The impersonal Brahman of the Upanishads represents the Godhead in this view.
No Hindu has ever worshiped an undifferentiated One, just as no Greek ever worshiped Aristotle’s unmoved mover. (In fact, Shankara, the Hindu father of absolute monism, was a devout Shaivite and wrote wonderful hymns to his personal Lord Shiva.) The theological basis of Hindu personal theism is the Purusha hymn of the Rig-Veda (10.90) and trinitarian formulations of this personal Godhead developed in both the religions of Shiva (Shavism) and the religion of Vishnu (Vaishnavism).
Hindus who follow Shiva worship him as Creator, Preserver, and Judge, and timeless interpenetration of these three modes of existence is roughly equivalent to the perichoresis of the Christian Trinity.
i think i understand, but not sure here, and would welcome clarification on the matter if willing.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:39 am That is the problem and disadvantage with Islam where everyone is forced to stare at the Sun [one and only Allah] every moment which is a torture to most Muslims and leading to so many Muslims committing terrible evil acts upon non-Muslims.
I understand, and why i respect Buddism - be it theist or non-theist, its tenents are all about knowing yourself (which is Wisdom), so that religions' value of is the same as mine.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:39 am If you are a non-theist [atheist], Buddhism-proper [no God involved] would be more relevant to you. Buddhism-proper focus on how to increase one's well being and be a better person in alignment with the well-being of humanity.
There are many forms of Buddhism but the more advanced Buddhism, which is more effective, is AT PRESENT a bit too ahead for the majority of people.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:04 pm
sure..I don't think U R even worthy of my suffering for IT.
i don't understand your theology, but interested if you are willing, i just think - your reply was out of order per his post - and so called you out on it.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:51 am
when I have answered his request re "Trinity" and he insists that he be garnered from the buy_bull..not from direct gnosis with the Supreme Being. (from whom I suffered greatly)
As in:-
Trinity?
God formed its own intelligence from chaos...hence why infinite regress is stifled.
..as it formed, from great suffering, it created a reality that life could evolve within, indeed eventually wo/man were designed.
God eventually saw a point in time where HE would grow as a human among men...and ensure that there is a REASON for his suffering mentally and physically...HE grew as CHRIST.
SO. Back to the Trinity - a trivial matter in consideration of such a degree of suffering on all accounts.
GOD - formed as a MAN - and created a COLD LOGIC system - THE HOLY SPIRIT.
GOD - CHRIST - HOLY SPIRIT (basically Gods technology - akin to A.I. that manifests ALL Matter)
One point is Buddhism-proper recognizes humanity comprises humans with a wide range of tendencies in different conditions and have spiritual awareness ranging from 0.1/100 to 99.9/100 with the majority at less than 30/100.seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:13 pmVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:08 am Hume asserted the self is merely a bundle of activities and nothing more, i.e. he meant no substantial self such as a permanent soul.seeds wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:15 pm That sounds no different than the materialistic blatherings of a modern-day neurophysiologist.
It is nothing more than the standard form of existential nihilism that offers no ultimate or eternal purpose for humans as individuals.
In other words, it will never work as the replacement for the “old paradigm religions” as was discussed in the “What causes Muslims to be violent?” thread.We’re getting off topic here, but, you’re kidding, right?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 6:02 am Hume's definition of self is similar to Buddhism-proper's anatta.
Buddhism-proper provides a Life Problem Solving Technique that would deal with the existential issues that are grounded within the issue re “What causes Muslims to be violent?”...
Note Buddhism-proper is divorced from the idea of Rebirth, Buddhist heaven, gods, myths, spirits, etc., believed by various lower levels Buddhists.
I mean, how in the world can it be claimed that “Buddhism-proper” divorces itself from the idea of Rebirth when Buddha himself is said to have remembered a vast number of his past lives?
According to Wiki:
Setting aside any conflicting interpretations of Buddhism, the bottom line is that the individualization of personal, self-aware consciousness that was once known here on earth as Siddhartha Gautama (aka, the Buddha) is either alive right now in some higher context of reality...Wiki wrote: The Buddha and Rebirths
The texts report that on the night of his enlightenment the Buddha gained the ability to recall his previous lives. It is said that he remembered not just one or two, but a vast number, together with the details of what his name, caste, profession, and so forth had been in each life...
— Damien Keown, Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction
...or...
...his personal consciousness and personal sense of self-awareness have been extinguished and no longer exist.
Which is it?
Pick one and explain why.
If there are no permanent [anicca] and no self/soul [anatta], what is there to be reborn?In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" — that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul, or essence in phenomena.[1][2] It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism[3] and one of the three marks of existence along with dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanence).
-wiki
I am not into the above approach.gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:26 am thanks for rely, and i welcome understanding, and members that do of Restern Reiligions in this forum - whcih lacks such.
if you are willing - and to be frank all you said to me is utter greek - i no nothing outside of my posts prior - and would love to understand more, but = if you are willing, to "school" me. as an ignoranous, so i may understand your above - which i honestly do not.
I', here to both say my views on things, and to learn, i see you know and i don't per Eastern Religions, and would love to learn from you more about said religions.
if you are willing.
if not, that fine, my lose, i affirm freewill, so only a request not a demand.
serously, you stated stuff above i have no knowledge of, and i welcome more understanding of Bubbism and Hinduism from you - assuming you know of them - so i may become more knowledgabe tomorrow than today.
thanks for reply Sir!