Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-05-2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Not being a Christian it is hard for me to understand what particular features characterized the "orthodox" that allowed their leaders to merge with the Roman political regime more than those leaders of other groups simply by virtue of what appear to be obscure religious doctrines.

Unless it had nothing directly to do with the particular doctrines of the "orthodox" and that the theological ideas were merely incidental to their attainment of political power as compared with the theological ideas of other groups who did not succeed in acquiring power, and who may not have even been competing for it.

...

Paragraph 1 is completely confused. Paragraph 2 is closer to reality.

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 10:35 AM

The question about Paul comes up in relation to this verse from the Quran (36:14):

When We (first) sent to them two messengers, they rejected them: But We strengthened them with a third: they said, "Truly, we have been sent on a mission to you."

Some classical Muslim commentators say this refers to Simon Peter, John and Paul (Shamun, Yohana and Bulus).

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 10:40 AM

I was asking what difference the theology would have made to the acquisition of power by the Orthodox, and whether their Nicene theology that they were fighting about so sharply was merely incidental or whether it played a pivotal role in that process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Not being a Christian it is hard for me to understand what particular features characterized the "orthodox" that allowed their leaders to merge with the Roman political regime more than those leaders of other groups simply by virtue of what appear to be obscure religious doctrines.

Unless it had nothing directly to do with the particular doctrines of the "orthodox" and that the theological ideas were merely incidental to their attainment of political power as compared with the theological ideas of other groups who did not succeed in acquiring power, and who may not have even been competing for it.

...

Paragraph 1 is completely confused. Paragraph 2 is closer to reality.

Toto · 01-05-2012, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, that's a good point, though when it comes to condemnation, I suppose the Quran could have thrown in something about Paul or his ideas of the risen Christ salvation, i.e. "Woe to him who thinks that any salvation comes from anywhere other than Allah himself." "Woe to the Christians who were misled by Baulus...."

Muslim attitudes toward Paul would be a worthwhile field of inquiry. I'm sure that they would tend to see him as a great apostle, but would regret that he got too close to the pagans with his theomorphizing.

Contemporary Muslims classify Paul as a false apostle (as did the Ebionites.)

Paul of Tarsus: The False Apostle According to Islam

Toto · 01-05-2012, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I was asking what difference the theology would have made to the acquisition of power by the Orthodox, and whether their Nicene theology that they were fighting about so sharply was merely incidental or whether it played a pivotal role in that process.

To spell things out for you: Theology is meaningless. The only thing Constantine wanted to accomplish at Nicea was to put a stop to Christians fighting among themselves over theological issues.

The only relation between theology and success happened earlier on, when the proto-orthodox prevailed over the gnostics. The gnostics believed that truth was within you, and every person needed to search for themselves. This is not an effective way to build a movement, as everyone goes off on their own. The proto-orthodox claimed to have the truth as transmitted through the apostles; this allowed them to build a more stable organization.

Toto · 01-05-2012, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The question about Paul comes up in relation to this verse from the Quran (36:14):

When We (first) sent to them two messengers, they rejected them: But We strengthened them with a third: they said, "Truly, we have been sent on a mission to you."

Some classical Muslim commentators say this refers to Simon Peter, John and Paul (Shamun, Yohana and Bulus).

This claim seems to come from Christian missionaries.

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 10:50 AM

Some interpretations of 36:14 indicate that the three messengers were Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. Someir thought it referred to Shamun, Yohanna and Bulus, with the city in question being Antioch.

No Robots · 01-05-2012, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Contemporary Muslims classify Paul as a false apostle (as did the Ebionites.)

They're making a big mistake here, as did the Ebionites.

No Robots · 01-05-2012, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The only relation between theology and success happened earlier on, when the proto-orthodox prevailed over the gnostics. The gnostics believed that truth was within you, and every person needed to search for themselves. This is not an effective way to build a movement, as everyone goes off on their own. The proto-orthodox claimed to have the truth as transmitted through the apostles; this allowed them to build a more stable organization.

All quite true.

Toto · 01-05-2012, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Some interpretations of 36:14 indicate that the three messengers were Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. Someone named Al-Kathir thought it referred to Shamun, Yohanna and Bulus, with the city ib question being Antioch.

The link in the post above yours refutes this. Evidently, Christian missionaries have no shame.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-05-2012, 10:35 AM	#22
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The question about Paul comes up in relation to this verse from the Quran (36:14): When We (first) sent to them two messengers, they rejected them: But We strengthened them with a third: they said, "Truly, we have been sent on a mission to you." Some classical Muslim commentators say this refers to Simon Peter, John and Paul (Shamun, Yohana and Bulus).

01-05-2012, 10:50 AM	#27
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Some interpretations of 36:14 indicate that the three messengers were Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. Someir thought it referred to Shamun, Yohanna and Bulus, with the city in question being Antioch.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.