Menyanggah Klaim Umat Kristiani atas agama Buddha

[K.K.]

Terima kasih.

[GandalfTheElder]

kakakakak hebat bener, bisa jadi pendeta nih GTE

Nggak mau ah kalau pendeta..... mending pandita... hehe....  


The Siddha Wanderer

[ryu]

kakakakak hebat bener, bisa jadi pendeta nih GTE

Nggak mau ah kalau pendeta..... mending pbandit a... hehe.... 


The Siddha Wanderer

[GandalfTheElder]

kakakakak hebat bener, bisa jadi pendeta nih GTE

Nggak mau ah kalau pendeta..... mending pbandit a... hehe.... 


The Siddha Wanderer

gpp lah jd bandit... asal nyurinya hatinya cewek.... 

Dan asal jangan pwandita. hehe....


The Siddha Wanderer

[Sunkmanitu Tanka Ob'waci]

 

[Indra]

galak banget Pak, kan udah selesai

[ryu]

iye mau topic apaan lagi yak
Kalau yang Yesus in india tuh gimana yah om GTE?

[GandalfTheElder]

Maaf om Mod....  cuma guyonan sementara saja buat melepaskan ketegangan di topik ini... hehe.... 

Kalau soal Yesus di India saya masih ragu, karena bukti-buktinya tidak banyak. Apalagi teks Hindu yang mengutip tentang Yesus yaitu Bhavishya Purana, adalah teks yang tergolong sangat telat.

Ngomong-ngomong di Taisho Tripitaka saya nemuin sutra berjudul "Yesus Messiah Sutra" ..... nama lainnya Xuting Mishishuo jing. Sutra tersebut adalah kitab kaum Nestorian yang terkena pengaruh agama Buddha.


The Siddha Wanderer

[ryu]

Maaf om Mod....  cuma guyonan sementara saja buat melepaskan ketegangan di topik ini... hehe.... 

Kalau soal Yesus di India saya masih ragu, karena bukti-buktinya tidak banyak. Apalagi teks Hindu yang mengutip tentang Yesus yaitu Bhavishya Purana, adalah teks yang tergolong sangat telat.

Ngomong-ngomong di Taisho Tripitaka saya nemuin sutra berjudul "Yesus Messiah Sutra" ..... nama lainnya Xuting Mishishuo jing. Sutra tersebut adalah kitab kaum Nestorian yang terkena pengaruh agama Buddha.


The Siddha Wanderer

Wah bagi2 dong inponya

[SandalJepit]

Saya reply postingan bro. Kainyin Kutho dan nyanadhana ini bersamaan:

Betul. Kalo mo lihat dari sejarah, sungguh sangat banyak aliran kr****n pada awal sebelum konsili Nicaea. Namun penganut paham Arianisme jauh lebih banyak daripada paham Athanasia (bahwa Yesus Tuhan). Itulah kenapa mereka sangat takut pada pengaruhnya sampai membuat konspirasi dan membunuh Arius.
Kalau mau cari tentang Yesus sebagai manusia, boleh cari di kitab2 yang dianggap "tidak valid" dan dibuang dari Alkitab.

Injil Aquarian mencatat hal itu namun kalo ga salah tinggal serpihan yang tidak utuh. Pihak gereja masa kini bisa saja mengklaim bahwa itu kitab sesat.Yang mana yang benar semuanya sebenarnya kembali ke mereka yang menyimpan rahasia catatan masa lampau ataupun mungkin sekarang mereka sudah menutup mata mengenai hal ini.

Injil Aquarian baru muncul pada tahun 1908 ditulis oleh Levi H Dowling. Yesus lahir pada abad 1 M sedangkan Injil Aquarian muncul ditulis pada abad 20 M. ya jelas dibilang sesat deh....... apalagi rentangnya 20 abad alias sekitar 2000 tahun. Hooohhh...... 

injil aquarian ditemukan setelah levi mempelajari bible dari sisi mistiknya dan kitab-kitab klasik jaman dahulu yang dikumpulkan kembali secara terperinci.  Hal ini mirip sekali dengan kisah Nagarjuna mengumpulkan kitab-kitab mahayana yang dibawa dari istana naga. bagaimana mungkin anda bisa sembarangan menuduh sesat?   suatu saat anda juga bisa menuduh mahayana sesat karena "istana naga" itu tidak bisa dibuktikan

Kitab-kitab yang dianggap tidak valid itu kebanyakan adalah kitab yang menganut paham Gnostik. Paham Gnostik tetap menganggap Yesus itu satu dengan Tuhan. Hanya bedanya Tuhannya PB dengan Tuhannya PL dianggap tidak sama. Tuhannya PB (Yesus) dikatakan lebih tinggi ketimbang Tuhannya PL (Demiurge). Marcion (110-160 M), Bapa Gnostik, juga menyatakan demikian.

Docetisme adalah paham yang kurang lebih sama dengan Gnostik. Adoptionisme menganggap Yesus sama dengan Tuhan baru ketika dibaptis.

Paham-paham di atas semuanya mendukung paham bahwa Yesus adalah Tuhan, yang berbeda adalah pandangan "Yesus adalah Tuhan" mereka berbeda dengan pandangan "Yesus adalah Tuhan" kaum pendukung Trinitas (Bapa-Bapa Gereja).

ada kejanggalan disini, walaupun ada yang menyatakan yesus adalah tuhan , namun tidak ada konsep roh kudus. konsep roh kudus itu adalah konsep yang belakangan ditambahkan oleh kelompok tertentu.

Satu-satunya paham yang menyatakan Yesus sebagai murni manusia adalah Ebionites. Dan saya menemukan ini dalam website kaum Ebionite sendiri:

Are the Ebionites Christians?
We are in no way Christian or supportive of Christianity. We consider Christianity to be a type of Mystery Religion devised by Paul of Tarsus and others. We believe that there is no relationship between Christianity (actually better described as Paulism) and the man Christians refer to as "."  For that matter, since Christians often claim that "Christian" means Christ-like (that is like ""), it is most unfortunate that there are few who could honestly make that claim.
Some scholars categorize the ancient Ebionites as Christian or Jewish-Christian. That description is unjustified and untenable. In fact there is no such thing as a Jewish-Christian just as there are no Muslim-Christians.

Kaum Ebionite tidak merasa mereka adalah umat Kristiani. Wajar kalau mereka tidak menerima Trinitas.

Sama dengan Islam yang tidak menerima Trinitas, karena Islam bukan Kristiani, alias agama yang berdiri sendiri.


The Siddha Wanderer

muhammad pada awalnya adalah seorang karistiani. hal ini dapat dibuktikan dengan ayat-ayat alquran itu sendiri.   dalam perjalanan menyebarkan agama, dia memasukkan doktrin-doktrinnya sendiri , memusuhi orang yahudi dan karistiani.

[SandalJepit]

bagi yang suka membawa-bawa kitab suci untuk mendukung paham trinitas, tolong dicek kembali ke-asli-an kitab sucinya, anda pake versi kitab suci yang mana? berikut ini adalah kitab-suci beserta revisinya tentang paham trinitas.



The Controversy of I John 5:7 (Johannine Comma)

14 October 2005

Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi

The strongest "evidence" for the Trinity in the Bible is the verse 1 John 5:7 or otherwise known as the 'Johannine Comma'. Unfortunately for the Trinitarians, it has long been known by scholars that it is not part of the original text. It was never in the Greek manuscripts, but surfaced in the Latin translation in the fifth century, after the Trinity doctrine had been accepted. It appears that a 'gloss' - a marginal comment in a Bible - had found its way into the Latin Bible. Due to some "unfortunate politics", Erasmus, who compared various manuscripts in the 16th century to select what he thought was the best Greek text, included the verse against his better judgment in his third edition of the New Testament. From there it found its way into the King James Version, which was based on Erasmus' text. Christian scholars have also agreed that the verse was fabricated. This is further evident when we compare the King James Version (KJV) with the more modern Bible translations, the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New International Version (NIV), the Good News Bible (GNB), and the Living Bible Version (LBV) and contrast this particular verse within these Bibles:

K.J.V.: "For there are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, and the word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one"

R.S.V.: (not included)

N.I.V.: "For there are three that testify; the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood and these three are in agreement."

G.N.B.: "There are three witnesses; the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood."

L.B.V.: (not included)

The reason why the 'Johannite Comma' is not included in the most recent versions of the Bible is evident when we read in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible that

    The text about the three heavenly witnesses (I John 5:7 KJV) is not an authentic part of the NT.1

Further, it also states that

    1 John 5:7 in the KJV reads: 'There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one' but this is an interpolation of which there is no trace before the late fourth century.2

The Eerdman's Bible Dictionary states an almost similar objection.

    1 John 5:7 in the Textus Receptus (represented in the KJV) makes it appear that John had arrived at the doctrine of the trinity in explicit form ('the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost'), but this text is clearly an interpolation since no genuine Greek manuscript contains it.3

The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words:

    Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza.4

Peake's Commentary on the Bible says that

    The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSV, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus.

It was only the horrors of the infamous Church inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all.

    In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books...Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best.5

Conclusions

We have seen how Christian scholars themselves have agreed that 1 John 5:7, the most significant verse in the New Testament to depict the Trinity, was inserted into the text and not part of the original. Hence, with this "Trinitarian" verse being confirmed as a fabrication, where is the justification for the Trinitarian beliefs held by Christians today?

[SandalJepit]

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txn/filioque.htm

Filioque
General Information

Protestant Perspective

Filioque is a combination of Latin words meaning "and from the Son," added to the Nicene Creed by the Third Council of Toledo in 589: Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit ("I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and Son"). It refers to the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Although it was accepted by the Western church as a belief by the end of the 4th century, the formula was not authorized for general liturgical use before the early part of the 11th century. It was assailed vehemently by Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople (present-day �stanbul), in 867 and 879. The Eastern church did not accept the addition on two distinct grounds:

    * (1) The addition was made unilaterally, altering a creed approved by early ecumenical councils; and
    * (2) the formula reflected a particular Western conception of the Trinity, to which most Byzantine theologians objected.

The filioque clause was probably devised in response to Arianism, which denied the full divinity of the Son. To the Byzantines, however, the clause also appeared to compromise the primacy ("monarchy") of the Father, which according to the Eastern church is the source of deity. An unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the two points of view was made at the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439. The Eastern and Western churches have remained separate, and the doctrine represented by the term filioque stands as one of the primary points of difference between them.

Filioque
Advanced Information

The term means "and from the Son" and refers to the phrase in the Western version of the Nicene Creed which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Originally this was not in the confessions agreed to at Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). It seems to have been first inserted at the local Council of Toledo (589) and in spite of opposition gradually established itself in the West, being officially endorsed in 1017. Photius of Constantinople denounced it in the ninth century, and it formed the main doctrinal issue in the rupture between East and West in 1054. An attempted compromise at Florence in 1439 came to nothing. Among the fathers Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Epiphanius, and Cyril of Alexandria may be cited in its favor; Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret against it; with the Cappadocians occupying the middle ground of "from the Father through the Son."

On the Eastern side two points may be made. First, the relevant verse in John (15:26) speaks only of a proceeding from the Father. Second, the addition never had ecumenical approval.

Two points may also be made for the filioque. First, it safeguards the vital Nicene truth that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. Second, the Son as well as the Father sends the Spirit in John 15:26, and by analogy with this relationship to us we are justified in inferring that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son in the intratrinitarian relationship. Not to say this is to divorce the Spirit from the Son in contradiction of the passages that speak of him as the Spirit of Christ (cf. Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6).

G W Bromiley
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
K Barth, Church Dogmatics I / 1 12, 2; J N D Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines; H Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith, II,; H B Swete, History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.

Filioque
General Information

Orthodox Perspective

By the 4th century a polarity developed between the Eastern and Western Christians in their respective understandings of the Trinity. In the West God was understood primarily in terms of one essence (the Trinity of Persons being conceived as an irrational truth found in revelation); in the East the tri-personality of God was understood as the primary fact of Christian experience. For most of the Greek Fathers, it was not the Trinity that needed theological proof but rather God's essential unity. The Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea) were even accused of being tri-theists because of the personalistic emphasis of their conception of God as one essence in three hypostases (the Greek term hypostasis was the equivalent of the Latin substantia and designated a concrete reality). For Greek theologians, this terminology was intended to designate the concrete New Testamental revelation of the Son and the Spirit, as distinct from the Father.

Modern Orthodox theologians tend to emphasize this personalistic approach to God; they claim that they discover in it the original biblical personalism, unadulterated in its content by later philosophical speculation.

Polarization of the Eastern and the Western concepts of the Trinity is at the root of the Filioque dispute. The Latin word Filioque ("and from the Son") was added to the Nicene Creed in Spain in the 6th century. By affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only "from the Father" (as the original creed proclaimed) but also "from the Son," the Spanish councils intended to condemn Arianism by reaffirming the Son's divinity. Later, however, the addition became an anti-Greek battle cry, especially after Charlemagne (9th century) made his claim to rule the revived Roman Empire. The addition was finally accepted in Rome under German pressure. It found justification in the framework of Western conceptions of the Trinity; the Father and the Son were viewed as one God in the act of "spiration" of the Spirit.

The Byzantine theologians opposed the addition, first on the ground that the Western Church had no right to change the text of an ecumenical creed unilaterally and, second, because the Filioque clause implied the reduction of the divine persons to mere relations ("the Father and the Son are two in relation to each other, but one in relation to the Spirit"). For the Greeks the Father alone is the origin of both the Son and the Spirit. Patriarch Photius (9th century) was the first Orthodox theologian to explicitly spell out the Greek opposition to the Filioque concept, but the debate continued throughout the Middle Ages.

[Hendra Susanto]

OOT

uda ada yang baca ' Family Tomb' ?

diperkirakan yesus nikah sama maria n ada anak lohhh

*gw belon baca abis sich

[SandalJepit]

agama karisten orthodox tidak mengenal trinity, jadi apabila ada yang berpendapat bahwa intisari Kristiani itu sudah pasti tidak benar.

[ryu]

waduh Cici Sandal lg semangat yah kakakakak