Bushmaster: Corruption

elijah115 · Apr 26, 2008

Secundulus said:
Sorry, I was addressing that towards the Muslims.

Also, I wasn't intending to belittle Protestants. I have been learning theology from Southern Baptist Ministers and even they value tradition.

Catholic and conservative Protestant beliefs on this matter are much smaller than most believe. Catholic tradition can build upon scripture, but it cannot contradict it. Scripture remains the bedrock.

Also, I'm not particularly concerned with denominations either. However, I believe that it is God's will that we be united since Christ said those very words. I also believe that at this particular point in history, the only possible way to be united is by reestablishing communion with Rome and once again speaking with one voice.

The fact that on this very forum there are subforums where people argue that one billion other Christians follow the harlot of Babylon. This is an indictment on us and makes us look like fools to the world.

How can we expect anyone to take Christianity seriously when we are in such a state?

True, and I was a bit worried this was about to happen so I thought I'd take some initiative and stave off any distraction in that direction.

Secundulus · Apr 26, 2008

It appears to me that the Muslim belief is that God spoke to Muhammed and then grew silent. (please correct me if I am wrong)

The Christian belief is that God continues to speak, to each of us as needed, and through the Church to establish theological truth.

To the Muslims I ask, why do you think God has been silent for 1400 years? Does this make sense? Has he simply forgotten about us? Maybe he got busy with something else and humanity has completely escaped his mind.

HumbleSiPilot77 · Apr 26, 2008

Islam_mulia said:
Originally Posted by Bushmaster
It is noone's problem if you just can't read because you are so motivated to prove us something. He just answered to a question YES I AM, the Son of the Blessed One. Who is this Blessed One?

The question was not two fold, it was continuous... Then He referred to the messianic prophesy of Prophet Daniel identifying Himself, sure nothing points out Son of Man = God and that must be why Caiaphas tore his vestments.

Click to expand...

Do allow me to elaborate further on why the bible writers were playing with words and did not accurately provide a realistic picture to defend Jesus.

Actually, from what I can clearly read, it is you who are playing with words and trying to create new interpretations. We have four individual gospels and all are clear about HIS identity, Quran is not, that is your problem.

The bible states:
Quote:
63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. 67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68 and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?" (Matthew 26:63-68)
1)This drama happened after Jesus was seized and brought to the high priest. Some of the Jews were more than eager to accuse Jesus of anything to get rid of him.

First of all, this is not a drama; it is the trial of Christ before Sanhedrin, supreme national tribunal of the Jews, established at the time of the Maccabees. They accuse Him of the things He has actually shown and done, not knowing or paying attention to what He has to say, or the importance of it... Where does this “drama” exist in the Quran? Oh sorry, it doesn’t!

Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people. (John 18:14)

2) In one of the interrogations, the high priest asked Jesus if he was the Christ, the Messiah, the son of God. Jesus replied: Yes.

Question is: Was Jesus replying that he was the Messiah, the Christ or that he was saying that he was God?

Answer: Jesus was replying to the main point of the question, that he was the Christ, not that he was God. Reasons being:

Disconnective reasoning. If you are asking a question, make sure you have adequate Christian theology and understanding to be able to answer it. What you are doing is not answering, but speculating. Clearly logic shows that the question is asking about the titles as in a connection. There are no main and sub points of this question, it is read and heard loud and clear, one piece, are you this and that, not this or that? Basic logic also suggests a wishful thinking muslim would expect an answer; yes I am the Messiah but no I am not God. He says yes I am to the asked question.

2.1 After Jesus replied he was Christ, the Jews slapped Jesus and called him, Christ, not God. (See above in red)

Weak, VERY WEAK. Establish the logical requirement why the slapping Sanhedrin member should have called Him God with or without the title, Christ. The title stood for an extreme value, they didn’t deny that.

2.2 In the sysnoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) Jesus NEVER refers himself as a Son of God, but rather to being a Son of Man. Please show me if I am wrong here.

And? Did HE ask, WHO DO YOU SAY I AM? What was the answer?

3) As this concerns the Jewish belief, it will be good to know that Jews do not equate the Son of Man (which Jesus claims to be) to be equal to God or a God-Man. There is no Jewish literature that points to this belief.
Bushmaster may want to counter this by providing a Jewish source that refutes what I wrote.

First of all, even if the phrase "Son of Man" is a reference to Jesus' humanity, it is not a denial of His deity. By becoming a man, Jesus did not cease being God. The incarnation of Christ did not involve the subtraction of deity, but the addition of humanity. Jesus clearly claimed to be God on many occasions (Matthew 16:16,17; John 8:58; 10:30). But in addition to being divine, He was also human (Philippians 2:6-8). He had two natures (divine and human) conjoined in one person. Further, Scripture indicates that Jesus was not denying His deity by referring to Himself as the Son of Man. In fact, it is highly revealing that the term "Son of Man" is used in Scripture in contexts of Christ's deity. For example, the Bible says that only God can forgive sins (Isaiah 43:25; Mark 2:7). But as the "Son of Man," Jesus had the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). Likewise, Christ will return to earth as the "Son of Man" in clouds of glory to reign on earth (Matthew 26:63-64). In this passage, Jesus is citing Daniel 7:13 where the Messiah is described as the "Ancient of Days," a phrase used to indicate His deity (Daniel 7:9). When Jesus was asked by the high priest whether He was the "Son of God" (Matthew 26:63), He responded affirmatively, declaring that He was the "Son of Man" who would come in power and great glory (verse 64). This indicated that Jesus Himself used the phrase "Son of Man" to indicate His deity as the Son of God. Finally, the phrase "Son of Man" also emphasizes who Jesus is in relation to His incarnation and His work of salvation. In the Old Testament (Leviticus 25:25-26, 48-49; Ruth 2:20), the next of kin (one related by blood) always functioned as the "kinsman-redeemer" of a family member who needed redemption from jail. Jesus became related to us "by blood" (that is, He became a man) so He could function as our Kinsman-Redeemer and rescue us from sin.

So this point of yours has nothing to do with Jewish sources nor are they needed to distinguish the titles. OT is your source, additionally, please prove us that Christ does not refer to the prophesy of Prophet Daniel.

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
(Act 7:55-60)

Son of Man is used to designate Jesus Christ no fewer than eighty-one times -- thirty times in St. Matthew, fourteen times in St. Mark, twenty-five times in St. Luke, and twelve times in St. John. Contrary to what obtains in the Septuagint, it appears everywhere with the article, as ho huios tou anthropou. Greek scholars are agreed that the correct translation of this is "the son of man", not "the son of the man". The possible ambiguity may be one of the reasons why it is seldom or never found in the early Greek Fathers as a title for Christ. But the most remarkable thing connected with "the Son of Man" is that it is found only in the mouth of Christ. It is never employed by the disciples or Evangelists, nor by the early Christian writers. It is found once only in Acts, by St. Stephen. That whole incident proves that it was a well-known expression of Christ's. Though the saying was so frequently employed by Christ, the disciples preferred some more honorific title and we do not find it at all in St. Paul nor in the other Epistles. St. Paul perhaps uses something like an equivalent when he calls Christ the second or last Adam.

4) The high priest should know better that the Son of man is not God. Caiaphas was either exaggerating the Son of Man/Christ claim by saying that Jesus has blasphemed. Caiaphas could have claimed that Jesus was a false Messiah, which would make sense to the Jews. Or it could be that the bible writer wrote this to stretch his point and not understanding the Jewish belief. Matthew, or whoever wrote Matthew, has track record of misunderstanding the Jewish literature (eg, the Emmanuel story) and wrote this.

If Christ was a liar then yes Caiaphas would have left Him alone, kick Him out of there and make mockery of it. No, Caiaphas’ men had seen Christ raise Lazarus, too much for a fake Messiah. Stop improvising nonsensical scenarios, you have no room to even entertain these ideas considering the certainty of the Gospels. A sane man, under oath, claimed to be God in front of him and according to Jewish tradition, he tore his vestments. That was a lie, too, a false application of their law? Gospel authors are on the ball on many points of Jewish literature so to establish required credibility, and I duly note your jab at another misconception of yours, resolve it somewhere else.

yaqovzadeek · Apr 27, 2008

Secundulus said:
It appears to me that the Muslim belief is that God spoke to Muhammed and then grew silent. (please correct me if I am wrong)

The Christian belief is that God continues to speak, to each of us as needed, and through the Church to establish theological truth.

To the Muslims I ask, why do you think God has been silent for 1400 years? Does this make sense? Has he simply forgotten about us? Maybe he got busy with something else and humanity has completely escaped his mind.

Well because after the prophet Mohamed (pbuh) there was to be no other prophet. How is god going to send further revelation if he had planned to stopped that chain through which the revelation came through? Chinese whispers via some spirit?
This is what opened the doors for scripture corruption, where scribes of the bbile felt they were receiving revelation and chopped and changed the word of GOd to suit their whims.
Allah certifies in the Quran:5:3 This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islâm as your religion. Unlike christianity that message was not for a particular paople at a particular period of Time.Not just for the lost tribe of israel. Islam came for mankind and for all times until the end of times.
Nothing to be added and nothing taken out.Complete and named islam by GOD himself.No chinese whispers from spirits here and there. Otherwise every Tom, dick and Harry would calim to have received revelation and to be a prophet.
Peace
yaqovzadeek
aka James the Just

yaqovzadeek · Apr 27, 2008

Secundulus said:
Maybe he got busy with something else and humanity has completely escaped his mind.

Actually no he died on the cross and that was why he became in capable after that to run the world so his son had to do it for him.

yaqovzadeek · Apr 27, 2008

Bushmaster said:
I know that Eastern Orthodox Christians did not tamper with Scriptures as we hold the Gospel Holy. However, I do have a question, do you want to suggest and argue this point in the Orthodox forum, that Orthodox corrupted the Scriptures? I just need a yes or no....

Well this is not coming from me nor from a muslim scholar, Bot a well known Christian scholar himself so what you may hold may not exactly be fact since , if you had taken time to read the book before commenting you would see he gave loads of examples that was too much for me to copy and paste.I just gave the jist of what he was taliking about. So the orthoxy should read the book and then if they have any queries don't take it out on muslims (since we are just conveying the message) speak to your own scholars.Like I mentioned in one thread many Christian scholars after studying further and learnt what they did not learn in the church got didillusioned and left.

Bushmaster said:
Anthropomorphism concern of yours has been answered in your thread. Further, like I already mentioned, it can be found in the Quran also. I have no problem with it, I am created in the image of God, so He has a similar image to myself, which is Christ Jesus.

You see this is one of the reason I don't accept you were ever a muslim.Since you were you have known the answer to that and not make such a claim. Islam does not claim God wrestled with man and lost. That is an imperfection of God both to wrestle with man and further to lose. Also God in Islam is the all knowing and all seeing he does not walk into the Garden and ask Adam where art thou. That is not GOD the all knowing. The GOD of Islam does not regret not repent.He is the almighty powerful, omnipotent, omniscient.
That is the difference between the God of Islam and the what you beleive in.Allah just has to say be and whatever he wishes happens he does not have to wrestle with man to blees him and dislocate his hip or leg. He just has to say Be and anything happens.
Antropormorphism in the Bible is explained in the lectures you keep refusing to watch, courtesy of Yale Uni.
peace
yaqovzadeek
aka James the just

HumbleSiPilot77 · Apr 27, 2008

yaqovzadeek said:
Well this is not coming from me nor from a muslim scholar, Bot a well known Christian scholar himself so what you may hold may not exactly be fact since , if you had taken time to read the book before commenting you would see he gave loads of examples that was too much for me to copy and paste.I just gave the jist of what he was taliking about. So the orthoxy should read the book and then if they have any queries don't take it out on muslims (since we are just conveying the message) speak to your own scholars.Like I mentioned in one thread many Christian scholars after studying further and learnt what they did not learn in the church got didillusioned and left.

You see this is one of the reason I don't accept you were ever a muslim.Since you were you have known the answer to that and not make such a claim. Islam does not claim God wrestled with man and lost. That is an imperfection of God both to wrestle with man and further to lose. Also God in Islam is the all knowing and all seeing he does not walk into the Garden and ask Adam where art thou. That is not GOD the all knowing. The GOD of Islam does not regret not repent.He is the almighty powerful, omnipotent, omniscient.
That is the difference between the God of Islam and the what you beleive in.Allah just has to say be and whatever he wishes happens he does not have to wrestle with man to blees him and dislocate his hip or leg. He just has to say Be and anything happens.
Antropormorphism in the Bible is explained in the lectures you keep refusing to watch, courtesy of Yale Uni.
peace
yaqovzadeek
aka James the just

Are you blind? I just explained to Erfan about Burgon, why are you trolling? Why do you ignore arguments and keep parroting what you want to believe.? Learn about what Bi-la Kaifa means. They don't speak arabic in Pakistan I know but you claimed to study arabic along with 7 other languages to boast yourself. Fortunately, everyone by now knows that you are only talk ... When I come back from work tonight, I will show the CF another crushing of yaqov mentality....

MK11 · Apr 27, 2008

Hey Bushmaster
Did you forget that I am the one who began and opened that thread? Why are you keeping on ignoring me? Are my questions so itching?

MK11 · Apr 27, 2008

BTW, Bushmaster haven't answered my original questions till now, although he tried to do on the other forum which he recommended me in the beginning, saying that members there will refute me, I said ok let's see these refutations, I posted the OP, and my answer there in a new thread, I found very feeble replies and no one could answer my questions, I don't know why did Bushmaster refer me to that site which he looks to it as a site refuting Islam, while all what I saw ther is insult and total escape from arguments, and now they are suspending me from posting for 3 days. The case was really tragic that Bushmaster came and tried to answer my question in a lengthy post where he repeated most of what he said, I then replied him, and it has been the third day till now and he hasn't replied me yet. And now in that post he is totally ignoring me, while he is answering posts selectively and still talking in an arrogant way. I feel like he really passed a psychological problem with Muslims.
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=105550
Islam sub-forum
Name of the thread: Is Bible corrupted

yaqovzadeek · Apr 27, 2008

Bushmaster said:
Are you blind? I just explained to Erfan about Burgon, why are you trolling? Why do you ignore arguments and keep parroting what you want to believe.? Learn about what Bi-la Kaifa means. They don't speak arabic in Pakistan I know but you claimed to study arabic along with 7 other languages to boast yourself. Fortunately, everyone by now knows that you are only talk ... When I come back from work tonight, I will show the CF another crushing of yaqov mentality....

Now concerning burgon that has nothing to do with bila Kaifa.For God to claim he has a face, hand or other, but for it to be metaphoric or literal has nothing to do with Burgon,the antropomorphism in Judaism and christianity is a different issue.To literally claim and beleive God wrestles with man and Loses. I mean may be if one forces oneself one can can fathom the issue of the wrestling but to lose is not an attribute of GOD. God has attributes that may resemble that what he has given to man butit does not mean it is exactly the same. God does not need eys to see this or a brain in head to know what is going on heis far superior than that.He created the brain so how can he create something and then be part of it or it be part of him. How couuld GOD regret something he created and repent to who.That agin show the imperfection of the God you beleive in. I beleive he is above all thing.In might, knowledge, power and where he is.
anyway what you have with Pakistan i don't know but i have nothing to do with it, I mentioned that once before but you failed even to bring my words where i alledgely claimed I was from the. Anyway, I just have pity on those hwo make false claims about others yet refuse to back it up with any eveidence.Yet they have the audacity to claims the others are liars.
And on the issue of Knowing me as we say in London you knopw sweet F.A about.what do you know about me? the little that I have mentioned on this board so you think you know all about me.You can't even get where I am from correctly and you claim you know me.
you can show CF what you wish. You know sod all.

yaqovzadeek · Apr 27, 2008

MK11 said:
BTW, Bushmaster haven't answered my original questions till now, although he tried to do on the other forum which he recommended me in the beginning, saying that members there will refute me, I said ok let's see these refutations, I posted the OP, and my answer there in a new thread, I found very feeble replies and no one could answer my questions, I don't know why did Bushmaster refer me to that site which he looks to it as a site refuting Islam, while all what I saw ther is insult and total escape from arguments, and now they are suspending me from posting for 3 days. The case was really tragic that Bushmaster came and tried to answer my question in a lengthy post where he repeated most of what he said, I then replied him, and it has been the third day till now and he hasn't replied me yet. And now in that post he is totally ignoring me, while he is answering posts selectively and still talking in an arrogant way. I feel like he really passed a psychological problem with Muslims.
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/t105550
Islam sub-forum
Name of the thread: Is Bible corrupted

Brother don't say I told you so. getting insults from Christians is something I have learnt to live with now.You know what? I was called into a totally different forum to back up a friend who was getting slandered and islam getting slandered. The christians in that forum, did a search on my ID went and found my name and accused me online of being a member of al aqeeda when they knew full well I had nothing to do with it. So when they have no arguments that is what they resort to brother,Welcome aboard!
salams bro

MK11 · Apr 27, 2008

yaqovzadeek said:
Brother don't say I told you so. getting insults from Christians is something I have learnt to live with now.You what I was called into a totally different forum to back up a friend who was getting slandered and islam getting slandered. The christians in that forum, did a search on my ID went and found my name and accused me online of being a member of al aqeeda when they knew full well I had nothing to do with it. So when they have no arguments that is what they resort to brother,Welcome aboard!
salams bro

This is actually hurting, that many people can't withstand the truth, so their only solution is to insult and slander, and I see this a lot in Egyptian Coptic forums, who not only they do this, but their moderators come to Muslims' posts which refute their lies, delete most of it, and sometimes they leave small irrelevant parts in the post to show people that Muslims couldn't reply, that it became necessary for all Muslims who enter these forums to print screen their posts because Christians will delete it.

MK11 · Apr 27, 2008

Sorry Bushmaster, I have just seen your message

Bushmaster said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by MK11
When you ask a dead man for intercession or pray to him, this means that you believe that this man could benefit and harm, and this couldn't be from a dead man unless he has divine properties, which we consider as shirk, and as I told you this applies on Shia and Sufis as it is applied on Christians. If you are not willing to reply that, you don't have to, I will see your thread.

Click to expand...

I don’t know what you are babbling about, you are clearly confused, and you still didn’t read the thread that I told you to? You have no clue of the practices of the early church and what is meant by intercession. Intercession means prayer to God on behalf of another person. Like I said, what seems to your eye is not the practice we adhere to. Again, I will tell you once more and the last time, don’t tell me what I am willing to answer or not, because in this case, I answered you clearly. Tell me, when a man dies, does he cease to exist? And if that man was a saint, a beloved of God, if he didn’t cease to exist, could he NOT pray to my God and his God and ask God favors in his prayer? God ultimately hears this prayer. There is no praying to the saint, but asking the saint of his prayers. Stop giving it a twist that doesn’t exist. Stop tagging practices to our faith we don’t adhere to because of your Islamic confusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MK11
Well, I know that word eternal life means paradise, so what? And I know that this is the way to eternal life, that "that they know the Father (not God see verse 1) THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus the Christ, the one whom He sent).

Click to expand...

So what? Are you out of your mind? Or where do you get this authority to plow through my teachings and attempt to re-teach them with such arrogance? The eternal life Christ talks about here in His High-Priestly prayer is the Kingdom of God, it is Heaven, it is Paradise. You can dig St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on what you think Scriptural tampering, why don’t you check his teachings out on this one? Christ calls ONE TRUE GOD, HIS FATHER, what a close relation for a prophet, that even Muhammad could not even mention.
You asked what was that eternal life Jesus gives? Answer is, Kingdom of God through faith in God the Father and His Son. Here is the subservience of the Redeemer's universal dominion to this: He has power over all flesh, on purpose that he might give eternal life to the select number. Note, Christ's dominion over the children of men is in order to the salvation of the children of God. All things are for their sakes, 2Co_4:15. All Christ's laws, ordinances, and promises, which are given to all, are designed effectually to convey spiritual life, and secure eternal life, to all that were given to Christ; he is head over all things to the church. The administration of the kingdoms of providence and grace are put into the same hand that all things may be made to concur for good to the called.
Here is a further explication of this grand design (Joh_17:3): “This is life eternal, which I am empowered and have undertaken to give, this is the nature of it, and this the way leading to it, to know thee the only true God, and all the discoveries and principles of natural religion, and Jesus Christ whom, thou has sent, as Mediator, and the doctrines and laws of that holy religion which he instituted for the recovery of man out of his lapsed state.”
Here is,
The great end which the Christian religion sets before us, and that is, eternal life, the happiness of an immortal soul in the vision and fruition of an eternal God. This he was to reveal to all, and secure to all that were given him. By the gospel life and immortality are brought to light, are brought to hand, a life which transcends this as much in excellence as it does in duration. The sure way of attaining this blessed end, which is, by the right knowledge of God and Jesus Christ: “This is life eternal, to know thee,” which may be taken two ways - [a.] Life eternal lies in the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ; the present principle of this life is the believing knowledge of God and Christ; the future perfection of that life will be the intuitive knowledge of God and Christ. Those that are brought into union with Christ, and live a life of communion with God in Christ, know, in some measure, by experience, what eternal life is, and will say, “If this be heaven, heaven is sweet.” See Psa_17:15. [b.] The knowledge of God and Christ leads to life eternal; this is the way in which Christ gives eternal life, by the knowledge of him that has called us (2Pe_1:3), and this is the way in which we come to receive it. The Christian religion shows us the way to heaven, First, By directing us to God, as the author and felicity of our being; for Christ died to bring us to God. To know him as our Creator, and to love him, obey him, submit to him, and trust in him, as our owner ruler, and benefactor, - to devote ourselves to him as our sovereign Lord, depend upon him as our chief good, and direct all to his praise as our highest end, - this is life eternal. God is here called the only true God, to distinguish him from the false gods of the heathen, which were counterfeits and pretenders, not from the person of the Son, of whom it is expressly said that he is the true God and eternal life (1Jo_5:20), and who in this text is proposed as the object of the same religious regard with the Father. It is certain there is but one only living and true God and the God we adore is he. He is the true God, and not a mere name or notion; the only true God, and all that ever set up as rivals with him are vanity and a lie; the service of him is the only true religion. Secondly, By directing us to Jesus Christ, as the Mediator between God and man: Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. If man had continued innocent, the knowledge of the only true God would have been life eternal to him; but now that he is fallen there must be something more; now that we are under guilt, to know God is to know him as a righteous Judge, whose curse we are under; and nothing is more killing than to know this. We are therefore concerned to know Christ as our Redeemer, by whom alone we can now have access to God; it is life eternal to believe in Christ; and this he has undertaken to give to as many as were given him. See Joh_6:39, Joh_6:40. Those that are acquainted with God and Christ are already in the suburbs of life eternal.
How is this EXPOSITION for you? Because you assumed “This is how Jesus defines it, not that you believe that he is your God or your savior.” He EXACTLY says He is OUR SAVIOR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MK11
Till now, I see that you don't want to answer anyhting, if you can, then do it, but I see that you are wasting my and your time in worthless conversation, then calling me a kid, thanks. I didn't ask you to apply Islamic standards, because in this case there is no way for failure, but I think that I have questions about your evidence and reasons why I don't consider this as an evidence. If you are not interested, why didn't you say it from the beginning? You'd have saved our time.

Click to expand...

The reason you don’t see answers is that you create and follow polemics, and I feed you what you want. It is crystal clear that you want answers you’d like, and that is the last thing I could make my duty, to conform your false beliefs about my faith. Why do I call you a kid, because you appear to present somewhat credible argument but in an arrogant attitude that you already figured out other’s faith, no you didn’t. Grab a mirror and look into it. World doesn’t revolve around you. See, when we talk of evidence, that is a basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief, I can only give you evidence I have that relates to my faith, and from your point of view this this might not have any relation to your standards, your faith, or as it is obvious here, you wishes, however that doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply. Tough, like it or not, you don’t consider something evidence, but it is evidence, as much as you like to turn your back to it. So technically speaking, if you say that you don’t consider a historical fragment of Scripture as proof of that Scripture existed within the time frame calculated is ABSURD and not scholarly. Given that fragment is proven genuine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MK11
I didn't say that heresy didn't exist with Islam, yes it existed, and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) warned us about it a lot, but that doesn't mean that we accept a testimony of a heretic, it may be some cases that some may drive conclusions or false opinions based on wrong criteria or technique, but they have a good intention(which appears clearly from his life and writing), in this case he is excused, for this is considered an Ijtihad, but this couldn't happen in Christianity, because it is supposed that he has the holy spirit who guides him to the truth, if he didn't accept the guidance of the holy spirit this means that he surely has a bad intention, and that will mean that you either leave him, or take your faith from a heretic guy. That's what I meant.

Click to expand...

You are again wrong on your assumptions on Christian faith, especially you apply and take guidance of God’s spirit as a bunch of strings that is connected to a puppet. God’s Spirit also guides and leads the Church as a whole. God’s spirit doesn’t come on to person and then expect admission. Person manifests God’s spirit through his faith and works, just like it is instructed in the Scriptures. You are thinking in a mechanical mindset because that is all Islam teaches. Those rules do not apply here. Who is this heretic guy I take my faith from? Fathers of the Church??? Fathers of the Church, is a general name given by the Christian church to the writers who established Christian doctrine before the 8th century. The writings of the Fathers, or patristic literature, synthesized Christian doctrine as found in the Bible, especially the Gospels, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, ecclesiastical dictums, and decisions of church councils (see Council). They provided a standardized body of Christian teaching for transmission to the peoples of the Roman Empire. The so-called Doctors of the Church consist of four Western Fathers, including Saints Ambrose, Augustine, Pope Gregory I, and Jerome, and four Eastern Fathers, including Saints Athanasius, Basil, John Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nazianzus. The earlier Eastern Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria, St. Justin Martyr, and Origen, were strongly influenced by Greek philosophy. The Western Fathers, however, including Tertullian and Saints Gregory I and Jerome, generally avoided the synthesis of pagan and Christian thought.
The church established four qualifications for bestowing the honorary title of church father on an early writer. In addition to belonging to the early period of the church, a Father of the Church must have led a holy life. His writings must be generally free from doctrinal error and must contain an outstanding defense or explanation of Christian doctrine. Finally, his writings must have received the approval of the church

LittleLambofJesus · Apr 27, 2008

You are again wrong on your assumptions on Christian faith, especially you apply and take guidance of God’s spirit as a bunch of strings that is connected to a puppet. God’s Spirit also guides and leads the Church as a whole. God’s spirit doesn’t come on to person and then expect admission. Person manifests God’s spirit through his faith and works, just like it is instructed in the Scriptures.

Remember the story of Jesus at the well in John 4? :wave:

John 4:19The woman saith to him, `Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet;
20 the fathers of us in the Mountain, this, did worship, and ye are saying that in Jerusalem is the place where is binding to be worshipping.'
24 A Spirit the GOD/YHWH, and the ones-worshipping Him, in spirit and truth is binding to be worshipping.'

MK11 · Apr 27, 2008

Bushmaster said:
I dont know what you are babbling about, you are clearly confused, and you still didnt read the thread that I told you to? You have no clue of the practices of the early church and what is meant by intercession. Intercession means prayer to God on behalf of another person. Like I said, what seems to your eye is not the practice we adhere to. Again, I will tell you once more and the last time, dont tell me what I am willing to answer or not, because in this case, I answered you clearly. Tell me, when a man dies, does he cease to exist? And if that man was a saint, a beloved of God, if he didnt cease to exist, could he NOT pray to my God and his God and ask God favors in his prayer? God ultimately hears this prayer. There is no praying to the saint, but asking the saint of his prayers. Stop giving it a twist that doesnt exist. Stop tagging practices to our faith we dont adhere to because of your Islamic confusion.

As for your question, yes the saint exists by his soul ONLY, but to say that he will hear my prayer so that he will pray to God about it. That's what we don't accept. We don't a man who intercedes so that our prayers are accepted by God, especially when that man is dead, because he won't hear us, his life has already finished and he is waiting for the Hereafter, but what you are doing is the same as what God told in the Quran about Arab pagans.
[18] They serve, besides Allah, things that hurt them not nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." Say: "Do ye indeed inform Allah of something He knows not, in the heavens or on earth? Glory to Him! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)"
See, God didn't say they say they are our gods, but said they are our intercessors to God, and God called that worship. We believe that God didn't tell you to do so, to ask the saints to pray for you, and that they hear you.

Bushmaster said:
Christ calls ONE TRUE GOD, HIS FATHER, what a close relation for a prophet, that even Muhammad could not even mention.

He called Him ONLY true God, His Father, not His God, and I think you understand the difference between the two words, as for the word son, well that's another issue, but according to the Bible it doesn't mean real sonship.
As for John Chrysostom, I know he believed in the deity of Jesus and believed that this verse doesn't mean so as all Christians, but they only tried to twist it to fit Nicene Creed, that's another issue. But the verse clearly segregates between the Father and the Son by the word "Only true God". Btw, where is the Holy Spirit? Isn't he also a part of the Trinity? Why isn't he included in the eternal life? For example, if that one who denied the Deity of the Holy Spirit (I think you had the Constantinople Council for it) used kind of verses like these against you, how would you answer?

Bushmaster said:
So technically speaking, if you say that you dont consider a historical fragment of Scripture as proof of that Scripture existed within the time frame calculated is ABSURD and not scholarly. Given that fragment is proven genuine.

I don't know what is absurd in that, although there is a lot of doubt against the time of Magdalene papyrus, but I will assume that you are right that it belongs to 70 AD, tell me, how can a fragment like this worth an evidence that all the NT existed at its time?

As I told you before, all the givens we have at 70 AD is this manuscript only, we still don't have manuscripts or Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, and this fragment contains few words in the Bible, these words could have been from any other source, we can't say that because the Bible has this words this will mean that entire Bible exists at that time, this has no evidence as I said, because there were many teachings, many gospels at that time, and it may be it was referred to them. You'll ask me, what is your evidence, the evidence is actually on me not you because you are the one who assume that because these few words exist, this means that the entire gospels existed at the fragment's time.

Bushmaster said:
You are again wrong on your assumptions on Christian faith, especially you apply and take guidance of Gods spirit as a bunch of strings that is connected to a puppet. Gods Spirit also guides and leads the Church as a whole. Gods spirit doesnt come on to person and then expect admission. Person manifests Gods spirit through his faith and works, just like it is instructed in the Scriptures.

Exactly, so when a person believes in a heresy, won't the spirit warn him about it? If he didn't, then how is he guiding the person? Especially if the person thinks that his heresy is the mere orthodoxy?

Bushmaster said:
The church established four qualifications for bestowing the honorary title of church father on an early writer. In addition to belonging to the early period of the church, a Father of the Church must have led a holy life. His writings must be generally free from doctrinal error and must contain an outstanding defense or explanation of Christian doctrine. Finally, his writings must have received the approval of the church

It's ok let's see:
Theophilus of Antioch:said in his book "To Autolycus" Chapter 15 that the Tinity is "God, His word and His Wisdom"
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.ii.xv.html

Tertullian:Followed Montanus, the false prophet.
Their greatest conquest was the gifted and fiery, but eccentric and rigoristic Tertullian. He became in the year 201 or 202, from ascetic sympathies, a most energetic and influential advocate of Montanism, and helped its dark feeling towards a twilight of philosophy, without, however, formally seceding from the Catholic Church, whose doctrines he continued to defend against the heretics.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xii.ii.html

Iraneous: Tells that Jesus lived to 50 years.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxiii.html

Origen: Philip Schaff writes about him:
:"For and in this too he is like Schleiermacher he can by no means be called orthodox, either in the Catholic or in the Protestant sense. His leaning to idealism, his predilection for Plato, and his noble effort to reconcile Christianity with reason, and to commend it even to educated heathens and Gnostics, led him into many grand and fascinating errors."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xxix.html

Papias: Tells a bizarre story about death of Judas, seems he never read Gospel of Matthew.
Judas walked about in this world a sad; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.iii.html

That's enough for now, if you like more about Church Fathers, I can give you.

yaqovzadeek · Apr 27, 2008

MK11 said:
As for your question, yes the saint exists by his soul ONLY, but to say that he will hear my prayer so that he will pray to God about it. That's what we don't accept. We don't a man who intercedes so that our prayers are accepted by God, especially when that man is dead, because he won't hear us, his life has already finished and he is waiting for the Hereafter, but what you are doing is the same as what God told in the Quran about Arab pagans.
[18] They serve, besides Allah, things that hurt them not nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." Say: "Do ye indeed inform Allah of something He knows not, in the heavens or on earth? Glory to Him! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)"
See, God didn't say they say they are our gods, but said they are our intercessors to God, and God called that worship. We believe that God didn't tell you to do so, to ask the saints to pray for you, and that they hear you.

He called Him ONLY true God, His Father, not His God, and I think you understand the difference between the two words, as for the word son, well that's another issue, but according to the Bible it doesn't mean real sonship.
As for John Chrysostom, I know he believed in the deity of Jesus and believed that this verse doesn't mean so as all Christians, but they only tried to twist it to fit Nicene Creed, that's another issue. But the verse clearly segregates between the Father and the Son by the word "Only true God". Btw, where is the Holy Spirit? Isn't he also a part of the Trinity? Why isn't he included in the eternal life? For example, if that one who denied the Deity of the Holy Spirit (I think you had the Constantinople Council for it) used kind of verses like these against you, how would you answer?

I don't know what is absurd in that, although there is a lot of doubt against the time of Magdalene papyrus, but I will assume that you are right that it belongs to 70 AD, tell me, how can a fragment like this worth an evidence that all the NT existed at its time?

As I told you before, all the givens we have at 70 AD is this manuscript only, we still don't have manuscripts or Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, and this fragment contains few words in the Bible, these words could have been from any other source, we can't say that because the Bible has this words this will mean that entire Bible exists at that time, this has no evidence as I said, because there were many teachings, many gospels at that time, and it may be it was referred to them. You'll ask me, what is your evidence, the evidence is actually on me not you because you are the one who assume that because these few words exist, this means that the entire gospels existed at the fragment's time.

Exactly, so when a person believes in a heresy, won't the spirit warn him about it? If he didn't, then how is he guiding the person? Especially if the person thinks that his heresy is the mere orthodoxy?

It's ok let's see:
Theophilus of Antioch:said in his book "To Autolycus" Chapter 15 that the Tinity is "God, His word and His Wisdom"
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.ii.xv.html

Tertullian:Followed Montanus, the false prophet.
Their greatest conquest was the gifted and fiery, but eccentric and rigoristic Tertullian. He became in the year 201 or 202, from ascetic sympathies, a most energetic and influential advocate of Montanism, and helped its dark feeling towards a twilight of philosophy, without, however, formally seceding from the Catholic Church, whose doctrines he continued to defend against the heretics.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xii.ii.html

Iraneous: Tells that Jesus lived to 50 years.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxiii.html

Origen: Philip Schaff writes about him:
:"For — and in this too he is like Schleiermacher — he can by no means be called orthodox, either in the Catholic or in the Protestant sense. His leaning to idealism, his predilection for Plato, and his noble effort to reconcile Christianity with reason, and to commend it even to educated heathens and Gnostics, led him into many grand and fascinating errors."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xxix.html

Papias: Tells a bizarre story about death of Judas, seems he never read Gospel of Matthew.
Judas walked about in this world a sad; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.iii.html

That's enough for now, if you like more about Church Fathers, I can give you.

Bro I don't think it is worth pointing out Philip Schaff to him he will only tell you Schaff is a heretic,like they declined his teachings early in my posts, yet they were the ones who recommended ccel.org as being a good source to quote from.However once i did and it said things they did not want to hear then it was no longer a good source.These people have a habit if a scholar quotes what they want to hear they could even kiss his ......?????
However once you find one quote they don't want to hear about from him they straight claim he is a heretic.Remember the story of abdullah Bin salam from the seerah Bro.Same thing
salams

LittleLambofJesus · Apr 27, 2008

He called Him ONLY true God, His Father, not His God, and I think you understand the difference between the two words, as for the word son, well that's another issue, but according to the Bible it doesn't mean real sonship.

What about Matt 17:5?

Matthew 17:5 Still of-Him talking, behold!, a cloud, bright, overshadows them. And behold!, a voice out of the cloud, saying, `This is the Son of Me, the Beloved, in whom I delight, be ye hearing Him!".

Acts 3:22 For Moses indeed toward the fathers saying: 'That a prophet to ye shall be raising up Lord, the God of ye out of the brothers of ye as Me. Of Him ye shall be hearing according to all as much as ever He should be speaking toward ye. [Deut 18]

Revelation 2:18 And to the messenger of the assembly in Thyatira, write! Now this is saying the Son of the GOD/YHWH, the One having the eyes of Him as flame of fire, and the feet of Him as to white copper.

Secundulus · Apr 27, 2008

MK11 said:
Theophilus of Antioch:said in his book "To Autolycus" Chapter 15 that the Tinity is "God, His word and His Wisdom"
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.ii.xv.html

I don't like responding to threads the length of dissertations so I'll respond to this one point you bring up to illustrate that your knowledge of Biblical literature is limited and prevents you from making sensible refutations to Bushmaster.

God, his word and his wisdom is exactly the same as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

"The Word became flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that he has from the Father as only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14, NJB)

"Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him, and him the Israelites obeyed, carrying out the order which Yahweh had given to Moses." (Deuteronomy 34:9, NJB)

"On him will rest the spirit of Yahweh, the spirit of wisdom and insight, the spirit of counsel and power, the spirit of knowledge and fear of Yahweh:" (Isaiah 11:2, NJB)

"And that is why the Wisdom of God said, "I will send them prophets and apostles; some they will slaughter and persecute," (Luke 11:49, NJB)

"but to those who have been called, whether they are Jews or Greeks, a Christ who is both the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:24, NJB)

TraderJack · Apr 27, 2008

bookmark

LittleLambofJesus · Apr 27, 2008

Bushmaster; Bible: Corruption or Authenticity?

For the sake of brother elwill, I preferred to copy Bushmaster's thread about Bible corruption and my reply to it in a new thread so as not to disperse the main thread.

Bushmaster said:
You are certainly making a mistake by introducing ridiculing elements and disregarding the historical evidence in its context. I mean, until you are so sure about your stuff, I would not recommend having a grin yet.

This week I will be busy somewhere else, carry the thread over here;

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/f14

In case anyone is wondering why BM isn't posting much I will repost the above post..................

Bushmaster: Corruption

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Senior Contributor

Regular Member

Regular Member

Veteran

Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Regular Member

Attachments

Veteran

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Similar threads