Bushmaster: Corruption

[HumbleSiPilot77]

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,

Why do you keep lying and lying, misrepresenting my words? Is that so common among muslims? I told you again and again, the reason I referred you is not that I wanted anyone else refute you, I wanted more traffic on that website. I told you that I would refute your nonsense myself. Bu yet, even after explaining this to you twice, you parrot the same thing, you must be delusional somehow.

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,

First of all, you didn't ask any questions, you came up with answers that we supposedly need. Everyone I saw over there seemed to engage you in different aspects of your posts which you responded in a same feeble manner.

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

You need to stop speculating and settle down the arrogance issues of your own. I have responded to your original post in consecutive 6 lengthy posts, and I have not been able to check back again. This doesn't mean your pathetic arguments are being ignored. You have a whole a lot of people who brought decent arguments you never touched, noone is complaining but you. That speaks volumes. Yes, sure I have had psychological problems with muslims, every apostate has, muslims encourage terror, violence, deny human rights, destroy anything that is not related to Islam...

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Originally Posted by Bushmaster
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xxxxi, p.387.

Thanks, now my question is : Is it so easy for people to remove scriptures when they don't meet their egos? Where is God's order not to add or diminish? Where is the threat in Revelation which you kept talking about:

Show me a major religion, sect, denomination that survived and excelled Christian orthodoxy in their mischief. The warning in Revelations stand and those who disregarded it are existent in the pages of history and ideology.

Originally Posted by Bushmaster
Why would anybody dare to add or remove portions of Scripture, when faced with the warning in Rev 22:18-19: ‘If anybody adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anybody takes words away from this book of prophecy God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city....’

If someone tried to do this with the Quran, hundreds of Muslim children will stop him saying: "You are a liar", not that it will be that case that there is a diversity between Christians till now among this story.

While certainly what muslim “children would do doesn’t interest me, second part of your sentence is broken, your meaning is clouded, fix it. “that it will be that case that” …

Originally Posted by Bushmaster
And?
Are you committed to what the didascalia orders you?

Do you have a beard because Muhammad supposedly had one? Well, try that in the United States military. While not obsolete in theology and teaching, Didache and Didiascalia Apostolorum was composed in between 2-4th centuries. Some life aspects do not apply anymore. We don’t use candles to light up our churches, we use electricity. Further most important decisive line comes from Lord’s teaching and mentality regarding our position in life.

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left him, and went their way.
(Mat 22:17-22 KJVR)

God willing, will pursue a career becoming a priest later in life, therefore I will be out of secular circles and responsibilities. Is that any clearer for you?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

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?

Oh really, who spoke to Joseph Smith, Who spoke to Baha’u’llah? Chinese whispers?

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.

Unfounded, unsubstantiated hollow talk. When did this happen? By whom? How, where? We are historically pinpoint these incidents and leave them out, Church always has because the doctrine was established before scribes. It seems like you wish to conform your beliefs to non-historical era in Church’s succession. That is what Quran essentially does, reinvents history without ANY external evidence.

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.

So Allah chooses our religion which he finally perfected after several failures. Yes partially correct, he chose it before I was born but I left it for the TRUE GOD. Unlike Islam, this message of Christ spread with peace under persecution, to the people of all, what part of Roman Empire was the lost tribe of Israel, you historically challenged troll. Read, that is if you can, because you only read what suits your agenda.
Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
(Mat 26:13 KJVR)

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Mat 28:18-20 KJVR)

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
(Mar 16:15 KJVR)

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.

Yes, here is the fate of those Toms, Dicks and Muhammads according to Scriptures;
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel (Quran) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, (Islam’s Gibreel) preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Muhammad and his gibreel)
(Gal 1:6-9 KJVR)

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.

Is this your comeback? I want to make sure because 6 year-olds can comeback better than this. It was the Son’s human nature that died on the Cross. At no point in time, or out of time, He became incapable. That was Allah who could not preserve his words according to his own testimony. You got it all twisted unfortunately, you must be confused while looking to get laid by finding religion.

Originally Posted by Bushmaster
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.

I heard the last million times, you quoted from CCEL and it is not coming from you. In all technicalities, IT IS COMING FROM YOU, because it has YOUR TWIST to it. You skim through these CCEL pages NOT being concerned with, comprehending only what is apparent or obvious to yourself only; and not deep or penetrating intellectually. You amuse us that you think you found something. You never did, you will never. I read the book. That is why I challenged you to come to the Orthodox Forum, but that must have brought your memories of relationships with a certain fowl species that caused deaths by avian flu mainly in Far East. You think by just copying and pasting you are contributing to something? You are not even capable of reading about what you use as a source. Go back and read what I replied to Erfan, seems like you conveniently skipped that post, just like the list of prominent Islamic apostates, who held doctorates. Burgon quotes the fathers himself, he uses the same COLLECTED Biblical manuscript text as the Orthodox Church does, and then accuses them of mischief? No, the only mischief is here in your agenda. I have deeply searched Burgon’s society website also. His and his followers extensively rely on Orthodox Fathers. So it is apparent that without reading the proper context, you make yourself another example for everyone that one should come here prepared… You are so old news, if you noticed, you keep repeating the same old message that has been refuted a million times already. You bore me.

Originally Posted by Bushmaster
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.

I am not interested what reasons you accept or not. I am not out there to convince you. I have my own crowd where I proved more than enough that I was a Muslim; you are in such self denial that your religion is so perfect that it cannot be abandoned. Newsflash, it can be. And oh, prominent Muslims who left Islam provide one name challenge… yes, I gave you a full post with names, you ignored it. Play three monkeys, it is good for you. When you were too drunk to spin discs in night clubs I was learning Islam’s history. God wrestling with a man is not an isolated example of anthropomorphism. It doesn’t end there. And get the story right for once, God didn’t lose, He dislocated Jacob’s thigh to test his willingness. You have been explained a million times. Why do you ask questions if you are not going to listen to answers? Go ask your Arabic teacher what Bi-la kaifa means. It means “without asking HOW” it is an Islamic theological argument that anthropomorphic concepts of Allah should not be questioned. How often do you read your Quran where it says Allah has a face, has hands???
I know how the Islamic Allah robot is, unknown, not personal or spiritual, transcendent, emotionless, distant, wrathful, not active in human history, not Holy or Righteous in the sense of loathing and separating Himself from sin, lies and deceives if need be, has no feelings or affections for any creature, not thought of as binding Himself by covenant to do certain things for man. Go ahead trust your uncertain life with him. I am certainly not interested in your misguided comparison of True God’s loving nature and Allah’s mechanical nature. As long as you close your eyes and ears and scream LA LA LA to our theology, I can only laugh at your childish remarks about my God. If Allah can say be and anything happens, I will ask him to fix you. Let’s see if that is going to work.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Sorry Bushmaster, I have just seen your message

Sure, speculate your butt off, throw bunch of ad homs in there, and then apologize because you failed to follow the thread properly? You are just another troll like that yaqov character who is sucking up to you right now as he can't properly argue theology and biblical exegesis... Don't worry, as long as my time permits, it is my priority to take care of you and the likes of you.

 

[MK11]

Why do you keep lying and lying, misrepresenting my words? Is that so common among muslims? I told you again and again, the reason I referred you is not that I wanted anyone else refute you, I wanted more traffic on that website. I told you that I would refute your nonsense myself. Bu yet, even after explaining this to you twice, you parrot the same thing, you must be delusional somehow.

Well, till now I couldn't understand what you mean, even in your statement, you said you wanted somebody else refute me, and then you came back and said that you'll refute me yourself. You wanted more traffic on that website? Well, after what I saw, that site is a very dump one, where no one wants to listen and full of insults and interference of moderators, actually I prefer much to stay in that forum after I saw the other forum, since I haven't gained from the other forum except insults and treating Muslims as their slaves. So I am sorry, I won't continue in that website, if you'll reply my message there, copy it here and reply it here.

 

[MK11]

First of all, you didn't ask any questions, you came up with answers that we supposedly need. Everyone I saw over there seemed to engage you in different aspects of your posts which you responded in a same feeble manner.

All of them tried to prove the Bible through the Quran, and forgot about the Christian part in my message, as if their only evidence for the Bible is the Quran, I kept on telling them so, and all ignores me, and at the same time, I answered their questions about the Quran in the Bible.

You need to stop speculating and settle down the arrogance issues of your own. I have responded to your original post in consecutive 6 lengthy posts, and I have not been able to check back again. This doesn't mean your pathetic arguments are being ignored. You have a whole a lot of people who brought decent arguments you never touched, noone is complaining but you. That speaks volumes. Yes, sure I have had psychological problems with muslims, every apostate has, muslims encourage terror, violence, deny human rights, destroy anything that is not related to Islam...

What arrogance you are talking about? When I see you online on the other forum, then I see you sharing everyday on that forum, what impression would you think I would get? Especially when no one on the other forum (whom you wanted traffic on it) answered my concerns, you are the only one trying to, so what traffic are you talking about? So you really have a psychological problem about Islam? This really seems to me for a guy who is working in US air force in Iraq. But if you have that problem about Islam, read the OT, and compare Islam with that, you'll see that Islam is a very merciful religion.

Sure, speculate your butt off, throw bunch of ad homs in there, and then apologize because you failed to follow the thread properly? You are just another troll like that yaqov character who is sucking up to you right now as he can't properly argue theology and biblical exegesis... Don't worry, as long as my time permits, it is my priority to take care of you and the likes of you.

What are you saying? I followed the thread the day after I replied you, and I didn't find any reply, then I was busy with the other site. It's not my problem that your responses are late.

 

[MK11]

Show me a major religion, sect, denomination that survived and excelled Christian orthodoxy in their mischief. The warning in Revelations stand and those who disregarded it are existent in the pages of history and ideology.

Well, look at the Protestants who deny the second canonical books, the diversity in the NT canon among the church fathers, isn't this adding and eliminating from the book, the Protestants are growing today, the church fathers are considered orthodoxy. Look also at those who still deny pericrope adultera, 1John5:7 and Mark 16:9-20. Many Christians believe so.

While certainly what muslim “children would do doesn’t interest me, second part of your sentence is broken, your meaning is clouded, fix it. “that it will be that case that” …

Of course they don't interest you because your book wasn't preserved as the Quran, as for the second part of the sentence. The case is that the act of these heretics Augustine is talking about still causes a lot of diversity about the authenticity of these verses, and still many Christians deny it. This couldn't be done in the Quran that some one adds or eliminates from it, and no one discovers that except so lately that still many Muslims don't believe in these verses.

Do you have a beard because Muhammad supposedly had one? Well, try that in the United States military. While not obsolete in theology and teaching, Didache and Didiascalia Apostolorum was composed in between 2-4th centuries. Some life aspects do not apply anymore. We don’t use candles to light up our churches, we use electricity. Further most important decisive line comes from Lord’s teaching and mentality regarding our position in life.

I myself have a beard, and I will shave it when I will be introduced to the military service because I will be forced to do that, and if this is your case it's ok, but this is not the case with most Christians who have no problem having a beard, still the question is present, do you wear gold, does your wife cover her head? As for the didascalia and didache, what is your proof that they only apply to their time? The example of candle and electricity is irrelevant to having a beard or wearing gold or covering woman's head, for the former represents technology, the latter represents customs, you actually remind me of what some ignorant Muslims say for this is what they exactly say. Look at the way the didascalia talks about those who don't have a beard or wear gold, and you'd certainly know what I am talking about. I actually don't know why Christians always abstain from their scriptures, they abstained from the OT, now they abstain from their tradition, may be they will abstain from the NT tomorrow.

 

[MK11]

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

lol

 

[MK11]

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)

Well, Church Fathers usually attribute wisdom to the son not the holy spirit, the footnote on what Justin says tells:
585 [An eminent authority says, “It is certain, that, according to the notions of Theophilus, God, His Word, and His wisdom constitute a Trinity; and it should seem a Trinity of persons.” He notes that the title σοφία, is here assigned to the Holy Spirit, although he himself elsewhere gives this title to the Son (book ii. cap. x., supra), as is more usual with the Fathers.” Consult Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 157. Ed. 1853.]
So they said that he meant by wisdom the holy spirit , but they came back and said that he attributed it to the son, when we look at Chapter 10, we will find that he said:
God, then, having His own Word internalwithin His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called “governing principle” [ἁρκή], because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.ii.x.html
So according to Theophilus, still the son is the spirit of God and at the same time his wisdom, which is quite weird.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

love

Originally Posted by Bushmaster
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.

NO, it is not a different issue!!! Don’t give me one of your insulting twisting, no one here is a flaming moron who didn’t study religion. Don’t insult no one’s intelligence. To begin with, first, pay attention to the context of responses that are given to you. There is nothing I wrote that suggests I connected Burgon to anthropomorphism arguments. You accused Orthodox Church of corruption based on what you copied and pasted about Burgon. Knowing the depth of the issue and Burgon’s deep faith in the preservation of texts in Textus Receptus, I challenged you to come to Orthodox Forums @ The Ancient Way of CF. There are some Justin Martyr’s over there who can have you listen to the crushing sound of your arguments. What do I expect? You ignored it.

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.

Liar, at least don’t lie about Christian Scriptures because you don’t read and understand it right, and read them correctly in their context. Let’s forget about the FACT that you have been answered AT LENGTH over at your Ancient faiths threads.
Here is the verse; And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
(Gen 32:25 KJVR)

Technically speaking there is no winner, Jacob stands strong, but God prevails anyway, because He in all His might is capable of eliminating Jacob. Refer to Christ’s words; Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? Further, what is the lesson Moses trying to explain to us? You don’t care about that though do you? What was the success of the engagement? Jacob kept his ground; though the struggle continued long, the angel, prevailed not against him (Gen_32:25), that is, this discouragement did not shake his faith, nor silence his prayer. It was not in own strength that he wrestled, nor by his own strength that he prevailed, but in and by strength derived from Heaven. That of Job illustrates this (Job_23:6), Will he plead against me with his great power? No (had the angel done so, Jacob had been crushed), but he will put strength in me; and by that strength Jacob had power over the angel, Hos_12:4. Note that we cannot prevail with God but in his own strength. It is his Spirit that intercedes in us, and helps our infirmities, Rom_8:26. The angel put out Jacob's thigh, to show him what he could do, and that it was God he was wrestling with, for no man could disjoint his thigh with a touch. Some think that Jacob felt little or no pain from this hurt; it is probable that he did not, for he did not so much as halt till the struggle was over (Gen_32:31), and, if so, this was an evidence of a divine touch indeed, which wounded and healed at the same time. Jacob prevailed, and yet had his thigh put out. Note, Wrestling believers may obtain glorious victories, and yet come off with broken bones; for when they are weak then are they strong, weak in themselves, but strong in Christ, 2Co_12:10. Note how Jacob also asks God for His Blessing and at the end of his perseverance receives his reward; Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. Jacob finished; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

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.

What you think is wrong, and disregards the importance of God taking action actively in human history. Though, it is amusing to read this above explain-it-away-without-knowing stuff. Hah, bi la kaifa is the utmost Islamic theological stance to disprove your nonsense you keep babbling. Quran talks about Allah’s face, because it means it is his face but anthropomorphism is frowned upon in Islam, they take a shortcut to say it is a mystery, without answering how, bi la kaifa for you… As long as it exists in Quran, you have no room arguing against Christian position, not with this childish runaround stuff anyway. If Allah doesn’t need a face why does Quran says he has a face or hands, or he shows emotions, or he has a throne? I am glad you can fit your Allah in 114 chapters of poetic Arabic. Oh you got issues with God repenting, you may want to read it in its language and context, Genesis 6:6 merely implies Lord’s resentment of man’s wickedness, because of the wickedness of man, the wickedness of his heart, and the wickedness of his life and conversation, which was so general, and increased to such a degree, that it was intolerable; wherefore God could have wished, as it were, that he had never made him, since he proved so bad; not that repentance, properly speaking, can fall upon God, for he never changes his mind or alters his purposes, though he sometimes changes the course and dispensations of his providence. This is speaking by an anthropopathy, after the manner of men, because God determined to do, and did something similar to men, when they repent of anything: as a potter, when he has formed a vessel that does not please him, and he repents that he has made it, he takes it and breaks it in pieces; and so God, because of man's wickedness, and to show his aversion to it, repented of his making him; that is, he resolved within himself to destroy him, as in the next verse, which explains this… The Hebrew word “repent” there means; sigh, breathe strongly, pity…
Note, this above exegetical understanding of Scripture is not meant for yaqov whatsoever. He will ignore it and plow through threads with his misguided islamic analysis. It is meant for readers who use common sense and actually read responses for their value, and context.

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.

The FACT that you are a liar is known not only to me but to about 7 other members of this forum who had the unfortunate opportunity to observe you and your manners and debating skills. While it is proven that you lie your butt off when cornered, why would anyone believe what you have to say about where you are from? You can’t even speak the language you claim as your native language.

And on the issue of Knowing me as we say in London you knopw sweet F.A about.what do you know about me?

Is this another example of you mastering English language by creating word salads?

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.

I do know a lot about you, and mind you I do have counter-insurgency connections, you have a popular name within the intelligence community, so it doesn’t matter what your identity claims as citizenship. They can snatch you regardless where you are for questioning, thanks to your “Brit” Muslims. Ask OxyHydro how the FBI rewarded his anti-American, pro-911 stance on this forum. You belong to a religion that is hijacked by terrorism and no matter you attack others, it doesn’t change the fact

You know sod all.

Sod: Someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male)

Take it easy yaqov, you didn’t make to your male houris yet…

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

Salams bro?!?! Is that the muslim DJ talk, bro? What do you consider an insult yaqov? Do you consider your lying an insult? Do you consider your usage of profanity against others an insult? Do you consider misrepresenting people’s words and misquoting their works an insult? Do you consider ignoring explanations given to you an insult? Can we say we are on the fair side that we learnt how to live with your thick head that doesn’t realize intelligent debate actually requires knowledge and intelligence and ignoring arguments do not make them disappear? Welcome aboard MK11, we have been just expecting yaqov to get off …

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Originally Posted by Bushmaster
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.

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.

I asked the question so you grasp our mindset in this practice; I didn’t ask you what your Islamic doctrine teaches you. That has no bearing on us, our faith, our practices, our church and most importantly, our faith had been in practice for more than 500 years before the founder of religion was even born. Your rejection based on his confusions and your reasoning by what Quran didn’t address what pagans used as terms for intercessors doesn’t make the practice invalid, most importantly doesn’t tell us anything about afterlife. We are not your pagan Arabs who pray to and worship idols either, get your definitions straight. You have a weak faulty reasoning by comparing us, Christians, who base their theology on valid teachings of Christ, to the pagan Arabs who were polytheists, who believed in a leader God and minions concepts.

Originally Posted by Bushmaster
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?

So it doesn’t mean real Sonship huh? When Christ calls the Blessed One HIS FATHER, it means He is His father. There is no fake sonship here, no metaphorical expression.
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: … (Mar 14:61-62 KJVR)

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
(Mat 16:15-16 KJVR)

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
(Mat 3:17 KJVR)

And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
(Mat 8:29 KJVR) (Supernatural recognition of Christ by the evil)

While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
(Mat 17:5 KJVR)

For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
(2Pe 1:17 KJVR)

The rest of your response is quite honestly irrelevant bickering and whining for Christian doctrine not being what you want it to be. Excuse me to correct you, but you are using “but” and “that” conjunctions to introduce a subordinate clause way too much, I don’t understand your meaning. What about Nicene Creed? You need to realize, at least attempt to come to terms with the reality that Christianity, its doctrine and teachings, Jesus Christ, His nature and His relationship to God the Father, all these issues are not based on an isolated off-context verse, in this case St. John 17:3. I have already given you the explanation of this verse. If there isn’t anything in this prayer of Christ, that would be SEGREGATION. Do you know what that word means?

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
(Joh 17:5 KJVR)

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
(Joh 17:11 KJVR)

What about Holy Spirit? Before this prayer, Christ already informed His disciples of the coming of Comforter, so what about it? What is your gripe here, because St. John 17 does not mean Holy Spirit, He is off the picture?

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?

It doesn’t have to; you are interpreting biblical archaeology on superficial grounds. These fragments are very important for dating of actual circulation within Church, that is number one. The style, grammar and usage of words on the fragments give important clues to the contexts they once belonged. So, while conclusive evidence is the manuscripts themselves, these are their building blocks.

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.

Dude… The oldest vellum manuscripts are the three great uncial codices of the Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Alexandrinus. These major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus is in the Vatican Library, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus are both in the British Museum. I won’t need to ask you anything, nor I need to show you any evidence because we believe in the conclusive evidence of Church testimony. We don’t get saved because we dug out fragments; our evidence is the faith that saints delivered through the Church Christ established himself. If you choose Islam because you have faith in the physical object that sits Topkapi, that more power to you. You have to refute the extensive Holy Tradition which unceasingly continued through Church’s life, where Gospel traveled through words if not written. There is no disconnection in Church history, these fragments are only testifying to the truth we already have. By asserting suspicion, you are only conjecturing on this base yourself. This fragment can not be evidence to an existing Gospel. Really? What do you have that it doesn’t? I didn’t see that yet, but conjecture

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?

People you talk about are the creators of heresy. Those separate themselves from the faithful crowd because they pick and choose according to themselves, not God. Heresy means any religious doctrine opposed to the dogma of a particular church, especially a doctrine held by a person professing faith in the teachings of that church. The term originally meant a belief that one arrived at by oneself (Greek hairesis, “choosing for oneself&#8221 and is used to denote sectarianism in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St. Paul. In later Christian writings, the term is used in the shameful sense of a belief held in opposition to the teaching of the church. I just gave you an example. Spirit is not the guide dog for the blind. I also gave you examples of Church guidelines and requirements as to how they determined what a heresy was. I am a Christian and I have the guidance of the Spirit, yet I pray to God for guidance, because the flesh is tempting. I have the Spirit’s discernment, yet I am not perfect and I can make judgmental mistakes. I have the Spirit, yet I can choose to kill someone, because I have the freewill to do so. Without the Spirit, you will not understand whatever Christian are telling you…

It's ok let's see: That's enough for now, if you like more about Church Fathers, I can give you.

Excuse me what are you telling me here? What do I have to see? I can only see Tertullian, a Roman father, fell into heresy, sadly… He had written so many good works, and I pray for his soul. Lord have mercy on Him.

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

Hey I got some salami for you, no salams for me? It is interesting to note that you both use Philip Schaff, who was a staunch critic of the Apostolic church, because of his protestant upbringing, and education. Does this make him right about the Apostolic Church? You then should accept my testimony of Islam, because I know it as much as Schaff knows Apostolic Church. When we listen to a shia here, sunnis go berserk, they pull their swords and bomb vests out, you find our critical approach to him somewhat excessive? Why don’t you take heed in my advice and bring me a similar argument from goarch.org???? You can’t! Because you think search function of CCEL works better for you, just type in “corruption” and copy paste the results here. How come you never listen to the advice of Anglian about Schaff? CCEL contains most Christianity related documents, that is why it is called a library, it doesn’t teach a doctrine. You can find rejected non-canonized apocryphal work there, too, so? What does that mean? They were truthful and doctrinal? I guess they don’t teach you how to utilize critical thinking in your comparative religion classes, unless you go to one of the Saudi sponsored terrorist breeding madrasas… So keep yacking about things we don’t want to hear, yet you scream and yell when I truly engage you with my former muslim knowledge. At least, we can show you ground for the reasons why we can’t take someone’s particular work as basis, which most of the time is logical and proper. But you can’t even do that, yet continue to argue with your 6 year old mentality, if we don’t accept something, we must be calling that thing a “doo-doo”… Typical yaqovical nonsense wasting our time…

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Listen MK11, Ibn Taymiya, or whatever you wish to call yourself. As you continue to bicker and complain about late posts and etc, but consider yourself excused because you have to brag about your prayer times, I have got news for you. Starting May 1, I will be relocated at my job, I won't be posting often at all. I will carry over my initial response to you regarding this OP from CARM to here, and note that I saw you attempted to take stab at it. Feel free to carry over that too. I have never seen another unprofessional internet wannabe debater who complained so much about his environment, be a man, suck it up, drink water, drive on. Maybe military will humble you.

This is what is going to happen. I will try to make time to oversee your posts, but I will not tie up my entire time answering them. You will not complain about not getting attention, I have a life unlike yours I have to lead in a combat zone. I might here and there respond to small sections if and/or when I see necessary, I will not be hearing complaints on that also. If you still want to argue your points and if you, at least claim, you are learning something unlike yaqov, then you are welcome to stay. If not, I don't tolerate arrogance and misrepresentation. Once you are answered, I will not hear interpretations over my answer, nor speculations as how my answer should have been! You can pick other forums like Catholic Answers, some other Christian to deal with your dissertations, long threads... If you have honest questions where you will listen to answers instead of answering them yourself, we have answers.

 

[yaqovzadeek]

Hey I got some salami for you, no salams for me? It is interesting to note that you both use Philip Schaff, who was a staunch critic of the Apostolic church, because of his protestant upbringing, and education. Does this make him right about the Apostolic Church? You then should accept my testimony of Islam, because I know it as much as Schaff knows Apostolic Church. When we listen to a shia here, sunnis go berserk, they pull their swords and bomb vests out, you find our critical approach to him somewhat excessive? Why don’t you take heed in my advice and bring me a similar argument from goarch.org???? You can’t! Because you think search function of CCEL works better for you, just type in “corruption” and copy paste the results here. How come you never listen to the advice of Anglian about Schaff? CCEL contains most Christianity related documents, that is why it is called a library, it doesn’t teach a doctrine. You can find rejected non-canonized apocryphal work there, too, so? What does that mean? They were truthful and doctrinal? I guess they don’t teach you how to utilize critical thinking in your comparative religion classes, unless you go to one of the Saudi sponsored terrorist breeding madrasas… So keep yacking about things we don’t want to hear, yet you scream and yell when I truly engage you with my former muslim knowledge. At least, we can show you ground for the reasons why we can’t take someone’s particular work as basis, which most of the time is logical and proper. But you can’t even do that, yet continue to argue with your 6 year old mentality, if we don’t accept something, we must be calling that thing a “doo-doo”… Typical yaqovical nonsense wasting our time…

I think first of all it was you and secendulus who recommended ccel.org so why just suddenly has it been a no go. I have been a member of ccel.org from before I even joined CF.I have many of the Books that I downloaded and it happens that many of them are written by Philip Schaff and many other authors. Even if he is a Protestant that is no skin of my nose.When you recommended ccel you should have thought that it contains non catholic stuff.Now I don't need to have in my collection books only approved by you. That is arrogance at its best I mean if i discuss with protestants too do I not use their sources because you say so.
If you wanted me to use only catholic sources of ccel.org.You should name some may be I can download (if I don't have them already) and have a look through .However i am sure if I find something in them you don't like they will soon become no go too.

the shia sunni comparison does not fit here. Catholicism and protestantism are denoms from the same sect,They beleive in generally the same thing.
However it is a known fact that shia is not a math-hab(denomination) as its core belief is way out of Islam.

Major sunni scholars deny that shia are muslims.However no major or minor Christian scholars of Catholicism nor protestantism had ever branded each other as non Christians.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I think first of all it was you and secendulus who recommended ccel.org so why just suddenly has it been a no go.

You think? Did we also recommend you to be a member of CCEL before you joined CF and in turn encountered us for the first time? Your time machine is broken yaqov.

I have been a member of ccel.org from before I even joined CF.I have many of the Books that I downloaded and it happens that many of them are written by Philip Schaff and many other authors. Even if he is a Protestant that is no skin of my nose.When you recommended ccel you should have thought that it contains non catholic stuff.

Wow, it is a library. So in this same mentality I can find the words of early fathers who would disagree with Schaff then what do you do? Do you know what library means?

Now I don't need to have in my collection books only approved by you. That is arrogance at its best I mean if i discuss with protestants too do I not use their sources because you say so.

Here is the proof of your hypocrisy. Talk to a Protestant please and use protestant sources against Apostolic Church, and then use that same source to refute Protestants position in regards to Christ’s divinity. Oh, you can’t use Schaff now, can you? No, this time you would try to find a different source that would fit your agenda, typical hypocrisy in your arguments, we are used to it. I am even tired of repeating your unchanging behavior to you despite your thick head.

If you wanted me to use only catholic sources of ccel.org.You should name some may be I can download (if I don't have them already) and have a look through .However i am sure if I find something in them you don't like they will soon become no go too.

Wow, does that mean you are only picking on issues we really can refute? I think that is what we do, you try to refute Christian faith by twisting its own tenets towards it, and then hope to prove Islam to us? You are pathetic. Whatever source you use, it doesn’t matter, you should first establish why Schaff is right over the Apostolic Church first. Schaff had a theological viewpoint which was not only Protestant, but actively anti-Catholic. There are times when he discourses at length against Catholicism, using polemic and derogatory language entirely inappropriate for either a scholar or a clergyman. It is the presence of this abusive and pejorative language which, at times, greatly reduces the value of his work. You do not realize that? Of course not, because you seek one and only one thing, arguments AGAINST Christianity which we cannot answer. It eats you inside that you cannot overcome Christian defense against your treachery. St. John of Damascus, who refuted the Muhammadan plague in 8th century, prays for us. As long as Christ keeps life in this body, your deceptive, dishonest tactics shall be answered.

the shia sunni comparison does not fit here. Catholicism and protestantism are denoms from the same sect,They beleive in generally the same thing.
However it is a known fact that shia is not a math-hab(denomination) as its core belief is way out of Islam.

Another troubled definition, mezhep, mazhab, mathhab means SECT in my native language, so what is sect in your Arabic? When there is no reference to the definition of denomination… So tell me, what sect are Catholicism and Protestantism denominations under that they generally believe the same thing?

Major sunni scholars deny that shia are muslims.However no major or minor Christian scholars of Catholicism nor protestantism had ever branded each other as non Christians.

No wonder Iraq cannot unite because of this problem, why don’t you tell Iranians that they are not muslims. That would be a funny picture to watch. Though your people usually kill over sects! Shiite are not muslims, why because they don’t follow your prophet? They don’t follow your book? Which one? You are correct if we have theologically fell apart, we still worship the same God, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Lord JESUS CHRIST and He prayed for our unity. Under Him, we are one and we ascribe ALL GLORY to Him as He will come to judge us. Not for some basic political reason, we don’t kill our own brothers and reject them to our faith.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Well, till now I couldn't understand what you mean, even in your statement, you said you wanted somebody else refute me, and then you came back and said that you'll refute me yourself.

It is clearly a misunderstanding, refer to my post where I said “here are the reasons to avoid certain speculations” It beats me why you would not understand. Anyway, it seems that this particular incident has turned into a beating the dead horse race.

You wanted more traffic on that website? Well, after what I saw, that site is a very dump one, where no one wants to listen and full of insults and interference of moderators, actually I prefer much to stay in that forum after I saw the other forum, since I haven't gained from the other forum except insults and treating Muslims as their slaves. So I am sorry, I won't continue in that website, if you'll reply my message there, copy it here and reply it here.

Do not accuse others for your shortcomings; you are now being clearly judgmental. You could have answered each and every concern of theirs except the few confrontational ones, which I, too, avoid. This was your call. I am sure you have learnt a lesson that what it feels like when we repeat information to the likes of yaqov and he keeps parroting the same old story back to us, “no one wants to listen” I told you that I will carry my responses back to here, so no need to apologize, in your mentality we should actually leave Christian Forums for the likes of yaqov who keeps wasting our time.

All of them tried to prove the Bible through the Quran, and forgot about the Christian part in my message, as if their only evidence for the Bible is the Quran, I kept on telling them so, and all ignores me, and at the same time, I answered their questions about the Quran in the Bible.

Actually you commit the same mistake but in the opposite corner, you try to prove a point to me by using Islamic teachings, hadith or Quran which is totally irrelevant, why did this bother you then? I keep telling you, too, but you keep plowing through. I am sure if you answered their questions they responded back to you. It is an aggressive crowd and it should have been an eye opener for you. There are all kinds of arguments out there. Not only yours.

What arrogance you are talking about? When I see you online on the other forum, then I see you sharing everyday on that forum, what impression would you think I would get?

Your arrogance and mockery!!! If you want to professionally tackle your concerns, you don’t show signs of mockery, showing your contempt by derision! But what doesn’t seem to make sense to you must be relayed down by this same contempt, I didn’t forget your nonsensical remark about when you should get baptized, or which denomination, which clearly disregarded the teachings of Scriptures and indicated your mockery of things you didn’t understand fully!

Especially when no one on the other forum (whom you wanted traffic on it) answered my concerns, you are the only one trying to, so what traffic are you talking about?

That particular thread has how many responses that kicked off by your original posting? That is the answer to your question. Further, you need to realize something very simple about public forums, this is not a live debate being moderated real-time. People have no obligation to stick to the entire context of your postings, they can pick and choose whatever they want to address, or they can speak of their minds about something else that is related to the topic. You can’t control this.

So you really have a psychological problem about Islam?

I picked that word specifically for you to understand what you actually said... You didn’t probably mean it that way by trying to attempt at a personal slander indicating mental inefficiency, but what you said was technically correct. If anyone has any problems with Islam, it is under a large spectrum of psychological issues. That relates to mental or emotional matters, rather than physical. No one has physical concerns to leave Islam, but emotional and spiritual concerns.

This really seems to me for a guy who is working in US air force in Iraq.

Please do not speculate, I never told you I am AF.

But if you have that problem about Islam, read the OT, and compare Islam with that, you'll see that Islam is a very merciful religion.

Why, of course, as soon as you show me the New Testament of Quran/Islam, I will finish reading the violent OT.

What are you saying? I followed the thread the day after I replied you, and I didn't find any reply, then I was busy with the other site. It's not my problem that your responses are late.

Your problem is your mouth and your premature judgment on individuals of this forum. It is life that can throw us many things we have to deal with, and we prioritize our workload, instead of accusing me, you should have checked if you had been replied or not, the fault is on you for not utilizing common sense and then trying to shift blame, don’t ever do that.

Well, look at the Protestants who deny the second canonical books, the diversity in the NT canon among the church fathers, isn't this adding and eliminating from the book, the Protestants are growing today, the church fathers are considered orthodoxy. Look also at those who still deny pericrope adultera, 1John5:7 and Mark 16:9-20. Many Christians believe so

Second canonical books?!?!? Are you talking about the Apocrypha that is still included in the bible but in a different section? As you know, this is OT related and Apostolic Churches did not commit this act, Martin Luther did in 16th century. However how is this a mischief that created a different religion? Orthodox adhere to Septuagint which we call the Greek OT predates the OT being used in those churches. Diversity for the canon? There was no canon for about 120 years after Church was established, how did Church survive? What did they teach? Church taught Christ and His teachings. It was not until a heretic came along and tried to create a list of books concerning his own agenda then Church took action and determined a canon, which essentially means, measuring stick. All is done under the guidance of the Spirit. For Jesus and his followers, the Law, Prophets, and Writings of Judaism were “Holy Scriptures.” Interpretation of these writings was, however, governed by the work, words, and person of Jesus as he was understood by his followers. The apostles who preserved the words and deeds of Jesus and who continued his mission were regarded as having special authority. St. Paul, for instance, expected his letters to be read aloud in churches and even exchanged among the churches (see Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:26) we still do this TODAY. Our liturgy was written by St. Chrysostom in 4th century and we still use it. Church fathers were Orthodox, maybe you should drop by an apostolic church nearby, and we consider Copts of Apostolic origin where they still adhere to the teachings of the Fathers. Those who deny those biblical verses are only exceptions to this, those who do not adhere to the rich history of the church and her teachings. But we don’t judge them as you muslims call shia non muslim. And your issue is not even scriptural but political. You don’t measure up to us to have a concern here. I ask my question again, which of these issues you raised caused a major religion, sect, and denomination that survived and excelled Christian orthodoxy in a documented mischief?? The warning in Revelations still stand and those who disregarded it are existent in the pages of history and ideology. Canon of the Bible is the work of Holy Spirit through the Church of Christ.

Of course they don't interest you because your book wasn't preserved as the Quran, as for the second part of the sentence. The case is that the act of these heretics Augustine is talking about still causes a lot of diversity about the authenticity of these verses, and still many Christians deny it. This couldn't be done in the Quran that some one adds or eliminates from it, and no one discovers that except so lately that still many Muslims don't believe in these verses.

It doesn’t interest me because you muslims have already been told by Secundulus and Anglian that our faith and practices do not rely on one book only, we follow the living faith of the Church that Christ established, Bible is not the only source of my faith, the living testimony of the Church, her saints and martyrs is, Bible is only a part of this. My book actually still survives in its original state despite the numerous heretical groups and their attempts to shift the focus to a different theology. Quran was protected by man and force, Bible made it by its word. Refer to your satanic verses controversy, 19’ers etc.

I myself have a beard, and I will shave it when I will be introduced to the military service because I will be forced to do that, and if this is your case it's ok, but this is not the case with most Christians who have no problem having a beard, still the question is present, do you wear gold, does your wife cover her head?

You are speaking of ignorance, you have not been in an Orthodox before, have you? Have you not seen Orthodox women going to Church with their heads covered? Have you not seen them not wearing gold? Almost all Orthodox I know who do not have a secular reason such as the military have beards, but this comes from the heart as it was told, it is a practice of selflessness, not paying attention to the cares of the world, we don’t imitate no prophet. So basically you are in no position to judge a person of Didascalia when they don’t even know about it. Also you should bear in mind is that, this is Christ’s living Church and He guides it, not a written document, Church has used dispensation under many clauses, and continues to do so.

As for the didascalia and didache, what is your proof that they only apply to their time?

Again, I didn’t say that specifically, I merely suggested we are in a different era now, I made sure you understand our faith is the same but out lives out there is not! I said, while it theologically applies, so where do you get the word I said they don’t apply no more?

The example of candle and electricity is irrelevant to having a beard or wearing gold or covering woman's head, for the former represents technology, the latter represents customs,

Tell me why customs play a role in my salvation, why do I need a beard to be saved and go to Heaven? Candle example was an obvious one, times have changed. It is relevant, the practice of the church didn’t change but our lives and how we live our lives changed. So when the documents teaching did not directly apply, Church brought canons, but yet canons are subject to the interpretation of the Bishops under the guidance of the Spirit. It is God leading the Church, not man or a written document. For you, you don’t step outside Quran. Maybe you can tell me why music and art is considered haram in certain location when you believe in the same Quran.

you actually remind me of what some ignorant Muslims say for this is what they exactly say.

Broken sentence buddy broken, your meaning is lost.

Look at the way the didascalia talks about those who don't have a beard or wear gold, and you'd certainly know what I am talking about.

Is it condemning them to hell? Come talk to me then…

I actually don't know why Christians always abstain from their scriptures, they abstained from the OT, now they abstain from their tradition, may be they will abstain from the NT tomorrow.

Try to learn of the Apostolic Church if you feel Christians abstain from their faith. Why does Quran abrogate its verses? Are you abstaining from killing pagans when the holy months are out? Church never abstained from the holy faith that was delivered by Apostles to Christians. We never abstained from Scriptures, Tradition or practices. You may be focusing on the wrong crowd, that certainly no one’s fault.

 

[MK11]

Bushmaster
First of all, I am sorry for being busy last days, then I had some problems sith my internet connection, that made me reply late. Besides, I must admit that I started in a somehow agressive way, and this was actually a fault of mine, but your opening post provoked me some way, I should have reacted in a decent way without mockery. I don't say that to please you, but this was actually a fault of mine, and I must admit that. Also concerning asking you for replies, it may have been the case that there was some fault of mine that I questioned you about it in a bit agressive way, but still most of the fault is on you, that you gave me that impression, and didn't give any excuse. For example, I usually excuse either before or after I reply late, so you also must admit your fault, but I see that all you are doing is that you blame me, as if you don't want to appear that you made a mistake, I myself have no problem to admit my mistake. Anyway, let's start.

I asked the question so you grasp our mindset in this practice; I didn’t ask you what your Islamic doctrine teaches you. That has no bearing on us, our faith, our practices, our church and most importantly, our faith had been in practice for more than 500 years before the founder of religion was even born. Your rejection based on his confusions and your reasoning by what Quran didn’t address what pagans used as terms for intercessors doesn’t make the practice invalid, most importantly doesn’t tell us anything about afterlife. We are not your pagan Arabs who pray to and worship idols either, get your definitions straight. You have a weak faulty reasoning by comparing us, Christians, who base their theology on valid teachings of Christ, to the pagan Arabs who were polytheists, who believed in a leader God and minions concepts.

Bushmaster, what do you think about those who say:"O Mary, forgive me, or heal me,....etc."?

So it doesn’t mean real Sonship huh? When Christ calls the Blessed One HIS FATHER, it means He is His father. There is no fake sonship here, no metaphorical expression.

Well, I see that the Bible doesn't say this, you know that the Bible called many people as sons of God, besides, look at what the Bible says:

Joh 8:38 I speak the things which I have seen with my Father: and ye also do the things which ye heard from your father.
As we see here, he compares his sonship to the father to the sonship of the Jews in which he said in verse 44 that there father is the Satan, which is a metaphorical father, so if he really meant a real sonship, he wouldn't have compared his sonship to God to their sonship to the Satan.
Also another situation when he said to the Jews:"I and the Father are one", and the Jews accused him of blasphemy, as I said before, the script he quoted here tells that he didn't mean a literal divinity or literal sonship, but inferior one, look again at what he said:
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), Joh 10:36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
So he tells again that as the judges meant in Psalms 82:6 are called gods figuratively, why do you consider me blaspheming if I said that I am the son of God? This clearly means that this sonship of God is not literal, because in this case it will be a blasphemy, while Jesus is telling that he is not blaspheming, which clearly means that this sonship is not literal.

You need to realize, at least attempt to come to terms with the reality that Christianity, its doctrine and teachings, Jesus Christ, His nature and His relationship to God the Father, all these issues are not based on an isolated off-context verse, in this case St. John 17:3. I have already given you the explanation of this verse. If there isn’t anything in this prayer of Christ, that would be SEGREGATION. Do you know what that word means?

As for John 17:5, actually I see that this is not a proof that Jesus is God because he is eternal, because this language was present in the Bible, it only means that he was in God's foreknowledge, the same as what said concerning Jeremiah and Paul:Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
For John 17:11, I see that the verse answers itself, when he says:that they may be one, as we are. Of course no one says that the disciples are one bodyor that they form a 12nity with each other, so it's clearly metaphorical. Look even at the verse in John 10:30, and how he answered the Jews when they accused him of blasphemy. The Jews misunderstood what he said, and thought that he was saying that he was God, actually what the Jews said indicates that they understood from the scriptures that the Messiah is not God, so anyone who is saying that he is God is blaspheming, if they really misunderstood the scriptures, it should have been that Jesus answers their misconception by quoting a verse from the OT telling that the Messiah will be God (as Isa 9:6 which Christians use it to prove so), but the script he quoted proves the opposite, he referred to Psalms 82:6:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? ​

See, metaphorical godhead not real, this means that as you are called gods metaphorically, I am called son of God metaphorically.
Saying that he is in the Father and the Father is in him is not also a proof, as it only means that he has a good relationship with God since he is a prophet, and this language is very common:

Joh 14:20 In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
1Jo 2:24 As for you, let that abide in you which ye heard from the beginning. If that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father.
What do you think about that?​

What about Holy Spirit? Before this prayer, Christ already informed His disciples of the coming of Comforter, so what about it? What is your gripe here, because St. John 17 does not mean Holy Spirit, He is off the picture?

According to what Jesus said, yes, because if he kept on talking about him for 3 chapters, then he turns to pray, and begin talking about something else, this is a clear segregation between the eternal life and believing in the Holy Spirit, especially when he is not talking to the disciples as the case with the previous chapters, he is simply praying alone, so this clear segregation puts a question mark why didn't he mention the Holy Spirit in the eternal life.

It doesn’t have to; you are interpreting biblical archaeology on superficial grounds. These fragments are very important for dating of actual circulation within Church, that is number one. The style, grammar and usage of words on the fragments give important clues to the contexts they once belonged. So, while conclusive evidence is the manuscripts themselves, these are their building blocks.

So still they are not enough evidence, having building blocks alone can't tell us the pattern of the building, because they can be formulated in many ways. All the givens we have at 70 AD are very small fragments.

You have to refute the extensive Holy Tradition which unceasingly continued through Church’s life, where Gospel traveled through words if not written. There is no disconnection in Church history, these fragments are only testifying to the truth we already have.

You mean the quotes of Church Fathers? Well, I don't see much quotes have been taken from the NT by Church Fathers from the apostoloic age till Justin Martyr who died at about 150 AD, and how were these quotes performed? Were they only allusions or quoting the whole script? And how many father till Justin mention the name of the Gospel whether Matthew or Mark or Luke or John? According to what I saw through E-Sword, their quotes don't constitute more than 3% of the whole NT, and most of these quotes were allusions using a word or term used in the Gospel, the editor considers it a quote from the Gospel. And none of them mentioned the writers of the Gospels except Papias who mentioned Matthew and Mark, but it actually seems that Papias knew another Matthew than that one we know, for he mentioned the Hebrew Gospel which is not present at all now, and he mentions a totally different way of death of Judas than that mentioned in Matthew (than that mentioned in Acts

), he says:" Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; 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.

This fragment can not be evidence to an existing Gospel. Really? What do you have that it doesn’t? I didn’t see that yet, but conjecture

Well, you are the one who should give me the evidence that it does not the opposite, all the givens we have at 70 AD are some fragments, so you should prove to me that these fragments belong to the NT (I mean the 70 AD fragments), but 200 years gap is too long, stories about the Christ or the apostles have been distributed among people, and it could have been the case that every Gospel (either yours or others) took from different sources, as the case with Luke for example in the beginning of his gospel. Look for example at the story of the appearance of your Lord to James after the resurrection, adduced by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:7), it's present in the Gospel according to Hebrews.
http://studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T612

 

[MK11]

I am a Christian and I have the guidance of the Spirit, yet I pray to God for guidance, because the flesh is tempting. I have the Spirit’s discernment, yet I am not perfect and I can make judgmental mistakes. I have the Spirit, yet I can choose to kill someone, because I have the freewill to do so. Without the Spirit, you will not understand whatever Christian are telling you…

To kill is a sin, you commit the sin and you admit it's a sin, but if someone asked you, don't you know that killing is a sin? you answer him:"No killing is not a sin", then you begin to twist the scriptures or deny it. Then in that case it will be a heresy. Isn't it? In that case, you are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, since you have no excuse to say so as ignorance for example, because it is supposed that the spirit will guide you that killing is forbidden, but you will say it is not. That's what I mean, when some Church Fathers adopt opinions that don't agree with the Bible, if they were mistaken, the spirit should have guided them, but they still adopt their opinion and defend it, so they have no excuse to adopt these opinions.

Excuse me what are you telling me here? What do I have to see? I can only see Tertullian, a Roman father, fell into heresy, sadly… He had written so many good works, and I pray for his soul. Lord have mercy on Him.

What about Papias? Didn't he adopt an opinion violating the Bible? Didn't Irenaus violate the Church Tradition when he says that Jesus reached fifty years? What about Theophilus? You can see Secundulus reply and my answer to him about it. As for Origen, you may consider Schaff as a heretic, but he still tells that this is according to both Catholics and Protestants, and he gives examples of his heresies, so he has an argument.

Do not accuse others for your shortcomings; you are now being clearly judgmental. You could have answered each and every concern of theirs except the few confrontational ones, which I, too, avoid. This was your call. I am sure you have learnt a lesson that what it feels like when we repeat information to the likes of yaqov and he keeps parroting the same old story back to us, “no one wants to listen” I told you that I will carry my responses back to here, so no need to apologize, in your mentality we should actually leave Christian Forums for the likes of yaqov who keeps wasting our time.

Well, I objected on the insults made by members in that forum, and their treatment to Muslims as their slaves. Not only it is the case for repeating arguments. I didn't read your conversation with Brother yaqovzadeek, so I can't judge whether you are true or not, and I really doubt that, because you only say from your side.

That particular thread has how many responses that kicked off by your original posting? That is the answer to your question.

I couldn't understand your question.

Actually you commit the same mistake but in the opposite corner, you try to prove a point to me by using Islamic teachings, hadith or Quran which is totally irrelevant, why did this bother you then? I keep telling you, too, but you keep plowing through. I am sure if you answered their questions they responded back to you. It is an aggressive crowd and it should have been an eye opener for you. There are all kinds of arguments out there. Not only yours.

I want to prove what the Quran meant, since I am answering a question about the Quran, not that I try to prove a point through the Quran. As for that forum, I gave the link, anyone can go and judge whether I am right or not.

Second canonical books?!?!? Are you talking about the Apocrypha that is still included in the bible but in a different section? As you know, this is OT related and Apostolic Churches did not commit this act, Martin Luther did in 16th century. However how is this a mischief that created a different religion?

Yes, the Jews' denial of the Septuagint made the Protestants hold to the Tanakh only. The same case for the pericrope de adultera, heretics ommiting it from the early manuscripts made a mischief that many translations omit it now. So where is the Revelations' threat against the Protestants and the new translations because they ommited from the Bible?
Btw, does this mean that the writers of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are heretics? This is a clear indication of what Augustine says, and this leads to a serious problem with the Bible manuscripts and their writers.

Diversity for the canon? There was no canon for about 120 years after Church was established, how did Church survive? What did they teach? Church taught Christ and His teachings.

Sorry, do you mean that till 150AD, there was no Bible canons? Only teachings of the Christ? You mean the four Gospels only for example? Where were the Acts and other epistles? I really can't understand what you mean.

Please do not speculate, I never told you I am AF.

ok, but I saw your avatar and your profile, all indicate you are a pilot.

Why, of course, as soon as you show me the New Testament of Quran/Islam, I will finish reading the violent OT.

We don't need a new testament to reform the old testament. Islam is a moderate religion between absolute murder in the OT, and absolute humility in the NT. btw, why are you fighting in Iraq? didn't Jesus tell you to turn the other cheek and to put back your sword otherwise you'll be condemned?

You are speaking of ignorance, you have not been in an Orthodox before, have you? Have you not seen Orthodox women going to Church with their heads covered? Have you not seen them not wearing gold?

Well, first of all, did the didascalia restrict these acts with going to the church or for secular jobs? I myself see all Christians wearing gold, that I usually when I see a man wearing gold, I know that he is a Christian by 95%, and usually I find that they are Christians, the same with women not covering their heads , in an urban society, I nearly haven't seen a Christian woman covering her head, that we usually know when we see an old woman not covering her head that she is Christian. Not only that, but many Orthodox Christians in Egypt mock Muslims for having beards and covering their head.

Again, I didn’t say that specifically, I merely suggested we are in a different era now, I made sure you understand our faith is the same but out lives out there is not! I said, while it theologically applies, so where do you get the word I said they don’t apply no more?

Not much difference, where did the didascalia tell that these teachings depend on the era? Btw, do you suggest in things like these? On what basis do you give your suggestion? I don't mean to mock, but this word "suggest" is really weird.

Tell me why customs play a role in my salvation, why do I need a beard to be saved and go to Heaven?

Because this is what you Apostolic teachings tell you, aren't you supposed to abide to it? Don't you insist that tradition is a part of the scripture.

So when the documents teaching did not directly apply, Church brought canons, but yet canons are subject to the interpretation of the Bishops under the guidance of the Spirit. It is God leading the Church, not man or a written document.

And on what basis you know that the Bishops are really loyal in their decision and that he is really interpreting according to the guidance of the spirit, and if this is the case, then the door will be open for each one to say what he wants.

Is it condemning them to hell? Come talk to me then…

They are talking about them as if these are sins.
And thou shalt not destroy the hairs of thy beard [cf Lev 19.27], (p. 4) nor [[11]] alter the natural form of thy face and change it to other than God created it, because that thou desirest to please men. But if thou do these things, thy soul shall be deprived of life, and thou shalt be rejected before the Lord God.

Thou therefore that art a Christian, (p. 9) do not imitate such women; but if thou wouldst be a faithful woman, please thy husband only. And when thou walkest in the street, cover thy head with thy robe, that by reason of thy veil thy great beauty may be hidden. And adorn not thy natural face; but walk with downcast looks, being veiled.

nor shalt thou put upon thy fingers rings of gold device: for all these things are the wiles of harlotry, and every thing that thou dost apart from nature.

http://www.bombaxo.com/didascalia.html

Try to learn of the Apostolic Church if you feel Christians abstain from their faith. Why does Quran abrogate its verses? Are you abstaining from killing pagans when the holy months are out? Church never abstained from the holy faith that was delivered by Apostles to Christians. We never abstained from Scriptures, Tradition or practices. You may be focusing on the wrong crowd, that certainly no one’s fault.

When abrogation happens, it happens by a verse or a hadith, from God or his Prophet (Peace be upon him), not that we suggest that we are in a different era, this is a clear abstainment.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

It is ok, I don't mind if you are late, I am going to be busy myself this month if you have seen my other message. I will respond to this in due time... I agree that this conversation should continue civilly if possible. However I already warned you about something that continue in this post...

Examples;

it only means that he was in God's foreknowledge

metaphorical godhead not real, this means that as you are called gods metaphorically, I am called son of God metaphorically.

Are you actually trying to teach me my own faith through your interpretation? How did you like that guy over CARM who did his own arabic exegesis of Quran? You laughed at him. What you are doing is unacceptable. Your perception certainly doesn't matter compared the millennium old teachings of Church and it only causes me to waste my breath because you are not open to receive. I understand you might be concerned and ask a "how" question but trying to teach me what it says in my bible is quite arrogant. I rather have you edit your posts and indicate your concerns without lecturing me. Hope makes sense. Having said that I will answer your concerns in due time.

 

[MK11]

It is ok, I don't mind if you are late, I am going to be busy myself this month if you have seen my other message. I will respond to this in due time... I agree that this conversation should continue civilly if possible. However I already warned you about something that continue in this post...

Examples;

it only means that he was in God's foreknowledge

metaphorical godhead not real, this means that as you are called gods metaphorically, I am called son of God metaphorically.

Are you actually trying to teach me my own faith through your interpretation? How did you like that guy over CARM who did his own arabic exegesis of Quran? You laughed at him. What you are doing is unacceptable. Your perception certainly doesn't matter compared the millennium old teachings of Church and it only causes me to waste my breath because you are not open to receive. I understand you might be concerned and ask a "how" question but trying to teach me what it says in my bible is quite arrogant. I rather have you edit your posts and indicate your concerns without lecturing me. Hope makes sense. Having said that I will answer your concerns in due time.

I didn't mean it that way of lecturing you, why did you take it on yourself that way? It's ok, I will change it to a question. I have no problem about that.
You mean Apple pie? well, the case with that guy is that he is making exegesis on a wrong assumption based on his weakness in Arabic, the verse never said what he is assuming, so it is not the matter with his weak exegesis, it is the matter with his ignorance of Arabic that he can't recognize the difference between "solb", "salb" and "saleeb". And he was confused between "solb" and "salb" which gave that false exegesis, and that was all what I concentrated on when I talked to him, I didn't discuss him in his exegesis, because it's originally built on an error.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

MK11, I am around, just don't have time to get them answered at once. I will try my best when I get time. Stick around.