There are many books that speak of the inerrancy of the Bible (Bibliography available upon request). The Bible also talks about Ishmael the father of the Arab race. God told Hagar to go back from running away from Abraham and Sarah. He said Ishmael was going to be very strong (Donkey of a man) with him against very man and very man against him. That is what I believe we see today - the Arab race against every man and every man against him. That is Biblical prophesy in action today. Jesus comes from the seed of Isaac and Ishmael comes for the seed of Ishmael Jehovah spoke in Isaiah 45:23 and said “I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear.” Colossians 2:9 States that in Christ dwells all of The Godhead fully. Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. In Jn. 13:19 Jesus declares himself “ I am” To the Jews he does it again by saying before Abraham was “I am” That is some pretty strong evidence according to the Bible that is inerrant by the hand of the Almighty that Jesus will tear down very imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickness in high places. This is all said according to Scripture and can be backed up as such.
So you believe Arianism is the "true" Christianity? You are putting forward a conspiracy theory. That is all it is. Which I thought was against forum rules?
I know Arianism was one of the upstart sects that was removed. but I also believe that the original churches founded by the other apostles were pushed aside and there beliefs ignored.
We do know that Mark Started a Church in Alexandria, which is the coptic Christians. However, they do have a different view of Isa(as) and their beliefs were some of the books excluded, however that was at an earlier council. We do know that the Church started by Peter in Rome survived and is todays Roman Catholic. The Church founded in Greece by Paul in Greece became the Othodox Church which later split from Rome.
Now to show that the Church in Constantinople was quite strong. Most of the Christian Writings can only be traced back to the Greek from them.
The Othodox Church was Established in Constantinople at an early date and well before the Nicene council. The Basilica de Santa Sophia was completed in 537
Santa Sophia: AD 537
In Santa Sophia in Constantinople (completed astonishingly in only five years) the architects working for Justinian achieve with triumphant skill a new and difficult feat of technology - that of placing a vast circular dome on top of a square formed of four arches.
The link between the curves of two arches (diverging from a shared supporting pillar) and the curve round the base of the dome is made by a complex triangular shape known as a pendentive. Santa Sophia (or Hagia Sophia, the two being Latin and Greek for 'Holy Wisdom'), is not the first building in which a pendentive is used. But it is by far the most impressive.
I know Arianism was one of the upstart sects that was removed. but I also believe that the original churches founded by the other apostles were pushed aside and there beliefs ignored.
We do know that Mark Started a Church in Alexandria, which is the coptic Christians. However, they do have a different view of Isa(as) and their beliefs were some of the books excluded, however that was at an earlier council. We do know that the Church started by Peter in Rome survived and is todays Roman Catholic. The Church founded in Greece by Paul in Greece became the Othodox Church which later split from Rome.
Now to show that the Church in Constantinople was quite strong. Most of the Christian Writings can only be traced back to the Greek from them.
The Othodox Church was Established in Constantinople at an early date and well before the Nicene council. The Basilica de Santa Sophia was completed in 537
You have applied much circumstantial "evidence" that can be used to shape your conclusion, but it still dodges the most obvious point, which is why? I know you will suggest it was because Paul wanted to make the Christian faith more attractive to the pagans in Constantinople and Rome, but that logic still seems flawed to me. To accept that you would have to accept that no Christian in the hierarchy of the church was a true believer. You would have to accept that Paul was beheaded and martyred, not to mention the countless others who were martryed, and were willing to die for a faith they knew was false. That doesn't seem logical to me. I respect your opinion, but these arguments are rather weak when placed into the context of the Christian faith and the historical challenges they faced.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
this seems to only be comprhensible to christians. i must admit, i do not understand it either and long ago gave up trying.
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu
i'm not sure they "comprehend" it either. it seems more like a mantra!
[just keep repeating it until you believe it; there's no place like home, there's no place like home, etc...]
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
I know Arianism was one of the upstart sects that was removed. but I also believe that the original churches founded by the other apostles were pushed aside and there beliefs ignored.
Arianism was a doctrine that accepted Jesus as the Son of God, but they did not believe that Jesus was in the very nature God. They believe He was a created being; in fact, that doctrine is still alive amongst cults like JW's and other sects. To the Christian these typs of teachings are heresies. We feel that any attack on the deity of Christ is really the devil at work regardless of what form it comes in.
We do know that Mark Started a Church in Alexandria, which is the coptic Christians. However, they do have a different view of Isa(as) and their beliefs were some of the books excluded, however that was at an earlier council. We do know that the Church started by Peter in Rome survived and is todays Roman Catholic. The Church founded in Greece by Paul in Greece became the Othodox Church which later split from Rome.
Now to show that the Church in Constantinople was quite strong. Most of the Christian Writings can only be traced back to the Greek from them.
The Othodox Church was Established in Constantinople at an early date and well before the Nicene council. The Basilica de Santa Sophia was completed in 537
Arianism was a doctrine that accepted Jesus as the Son of God, but they did not believe that Jesus was in the very nature God. They believe He was a created being; in fact, that doctrine is still alive amongst cults like JW's and other sects. To the Christian these typs of teachings are heresies. We feel that any attack on the deity of Christ is really the devil at work regardless of what form it comes in.
You have applied much circumstantial "evidence" that can be used to shape your conclusion, but it still dodges the most obvious point, which is why? I know you will suggest it was because Paul wanted to make the Christian faith more attractive to the pagans in Constantinople and Rome, but that logic still seems flawed to me. To accept that you would have to accept that no Christian in the hierarchy of the church was a true believer. You would have to accept that Paul was beheaded and martyred, not to mention the countless others who were martryed, and were willing to die for a faith they knew was false. That doesn't seem logical to me. I respect your opinion, but these arguments are rather weak when placed into the context of the Christian faith and the historical challenges they faced.
You have applied much circumstantial "evidence" that can be used to shape your conclusion, but it still dodges the most obvious point, which is why?
At the moment I am going to take a cop out on that. Circumstantial is in the eye of the beholder.
I know you will suggest it was because Paul wanted to make the Christian faith more attractive to the pagans in Constantinople and Rome, but that logic still seems flawed to me.
I thought about going in that direction. But, I can agree that for what ever reason Paul thought he was right.
To accept that you would have to accept that no Christian in the hierarchy of the church was a true believer. You would have to accept that Paul was beheaded and martyred, not to mention the countless others who were martryed, and were willing to die for a faith they knew was false. That doesn't seem logical to me.
That would be illogical. I do believe they were very sincere in their beliefs. But, I also believe they did not know the truth.
I respect your opinion, but these arguments are rather weak when placed into the context of the Christian faith and the historical challenges they faced.
Likewise your opinion is accepted. But, I suspect we are looking at the world through different windows.
Strength of an argument is only as strong as your proof appears to your adversary.
Alapiana, if you feel that it is not worth burning yourself forever in the hell fire, please accept the religion of the Lord of Jesus, peace be upon him, sent for this period of time till the day of reckoning. One of the worst crimes is to associate God with partners or sons or daughters and there is no forgiveness for that. Free yourself by accepting the truth and be sincere in your struggle.
The people who cry about freedom are slaves to their own desires. I am a slave of my Exalted and Merciful Rabb, Allah, Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Alhamdulillah
Now, it is true there is know indication that any of the apostles wrote anything deragatory about Paul. But, they did not right a single word about Paul. No Apostle has indicated they ever met or even knew anything about Paul.
I think Peter does mention Paul. Here's II Peter 3:15, 16. Peter mentions Paul and his writings, equating them with scripture.
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Last edited by don532; 04-03-2007 at 01:28 PM.
Reason: fixed quotations
Alapiana, if you feel that it is not worth burning yourself forever in the hell fire, please accept the religion of the Lord of Jesus, peace be upon him, sent for this period of time till the day of reckoning. One of the worst crimes is to associate God with partners or sons or daughters and there is no forgiveness for that. Free yourself by accepting the truth and be sincere in your struggle.
You advice is coming across as critical, judgmental and condescending to boot. I would never say your not sincere about what you believe. Even if you gave me some credit by saying something like I know your sincere - sincerely wrong though, that wouldn't have been so bad. When I write on this forum I try to pray all the time so that I am not leaning to my on understanding. I believe that we wrestle not against flesh and blood but spiritual wickness in high places.
That verse was a general statement (advice) not meant to be directed at anyone, but it is something that both Muslim and Christian can benefit by doing. No need to ask me how it is working for me, you can find out for yourself.
I am not insulting at all... I am actually turning the table around...
There is usually one underlying meaning to most of his posts.... And I wanted to see if the advise he passes out to us Muslims has in fact worked for him!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I am not insulting at all... I am actually turning the table around...
There is usually one underlying meaning to most of his posts.... And I wanted to see if the advise he passes out to us Muslims has in fact worked for him!
Yes, you are. Let's call a spade a spade. What is the underlying meaning, and why are you singling me out? I know I came on strong in the beginning, but I have already apologized to you and others. Can't you forgive and forget? I don't have anything against you. I pray that God leads you into his perfect will and makes it clear to you.
I was not clear. My point is some of the other books in the NT were written by people other than Paul. I still see Jesus' message in those books.
'I still see Jesus' message in those books'
How do you know what Jesus' message was? What is supposed to happen is that from those books you then understand what Jesus' Message was. Not that you have a picture in your head and then say 'I still see his message in those books' where did you get his message from for you to recognise it?
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
Here are the authors of the books of the New Testament according to my understanding:
Matthew = Matthew - 55 A.D.
Mark = John Mark - 50 A.D.
Luke = Luke - 60 A.D.
John = John - 90 A.D.
Acts = Luke - 65 A.D.
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - 50-70 A.D.
Hebrews = unknown, best guesses are Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - 65 A.D.
James = James - 45 A.D.
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - 60 A.D.
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - 90 A.D.
Jude = Jude - 60 A.D.
Revelation = John - 90 A.D.
Are you going to tell us how you derived to this conclusion? I mean just throwing names and dates is something anyone can do.
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
I don't see how Paul could have hijacked the message of Jesus all those other people heard and saw, without them reacting. In II Peter 3:15, 16 Peter even describes Paul's writings as scriptures. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything at this point. I'm just sharing my perspective.
Peace.
And do you know what some scholars say about 2nd Peter? I.e. with regards to the author ship?
This is what I mean, looking at the Bible without historical background is futile. Anyone can do it and come out with what they want to come out with.
What your also assuming is that let's say, FOR EXAMPLE, Paul did hijack the true message of Jesus, you claim the others who opposed would have spoken out, how do you know they didnt? it could be possible that they were small in numbers, and actually if you do read into things you'll find that this could be possible.
I wonder if we're going to proceed forward here.
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
I may not get this exactly right, but I believe the Muslim perspective on this is that Paul's writings are the ones where the concepts of the trinity and Jesus being equal to God are mentioned most. Having anyone else equal to God is blasphemy in Islam. Perhaps some Muslim members here can better or further explain this for alapiana. This is most likely also covered in previous posts if you care to do some searching here.
Well Muslims can give their opinions but I have yet to see the Islamic breakdown on this.
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
How do you know what Jesus' message was? What is supposed to happen is that from those books you then understand what Jesus' Message was. Not that you have a picture in your head and then say 'I still see his message in those books' where did you get his message from for you to recognise it?
The basic message I read is Jesus died and rose again, fulfilling the old law.
Are you going to tell us how you derived to this conclusion? I mean just throwing names and dates is something anyone can do.
And do you know what some scholars say about 2nd Peter? I.e. with regards to the author ship?
This is what I mean, looking at the Bible without historical background is futile. Anyone can do it and come out with what they want to come out with.
What your also assuming is that let's say, FOR EXAMPLE, Paul did hijack the true message of Jesus, you claim the others who opposed would have spoken out, how do you know they didnt? it could be possible that they were small in numbers, and actually if you do read into things you'll find that this could be possible.
I guess one must evaluate the qualifications and possibly the motivations, of scholars to be listened to and believed.
I wonder if we're going to proceed forward here.
Probably not.
Well Muslims can give their opinions but I have yet to see the Islamic breakdown on this.
I am a little surprised at this. I thought the Muslim perspective on Paul's writings and his supposed corruption of Jesus' message was one of the common and well known pieces of reasoning in Islam.
I am not insulting at all... I am actually turning the table around...
There is usually one underlying meaning to most of his posts.... And I wanted to see if the advise he passes out to us Muslims has in fact worked for him!
A brother had pointed out to me that what I said may have come acrosss as an insult. If Muslims believe they are walking in the perfect will of God and His path is already clear to them; then, I could see how what I said is an insult. Please note that this was not intentional. This is something that I would pray for with any Christian brother and one would pray for me. If you know the way a Christian thinks on this matter, I hope that you can understand that I was just trying to wish you the best.
Peace
aj
I don't mind at all that Muslims share their views of Christ, that is the point of comparitive religion, but there are a large number of posts directed at Christians in this forum dedicated not for understanding or comparison, but simply attack threads. I understand this is a Muslim forum, but if you want respect you should also give respect.
i am neither christian or muslim but i would have to agree with the above.
however, i also see christians crossing the line between informing and answering and promoting. (never you, keltoi and not most of the regulars). this is a problem because it is a grey area.
i would hope when muslims (and christians) ask questions they would check their motives first and make sure that their motive is to seek information.
it would do much to promote mutual understanding.
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
The basic message I read is Jesus died and rose again, fulfilling the old law.
I think maybe I misunderstood you, I thought we were talking about how do we know Jesus' message was preserved, and i think now you meant that you see the same message in the Gospels even without pauls writings.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Re: Jesus prophet or God
Re: Jesus prophet or God
Re: Jesus prophet or God
Re: Jesus prophet or God
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks