MK11
Originally Posted by [B said:
Bushmaster[/B]
Sorry to break the news to you, but "according to you" doesn't mean much in this context. You can call it a donkey because according to you it has a tail and four legs, but it is a horse. The difference of your allegation and the actual approach does matter because Christian doctrine has always thought ONE God.
Which shows your ignorance in that view of what this prayer actually means and how it is conducted. It matters if what I practice is not worship because it would only reflect a Quranic misunderstanding. I have pointed you to a source thread about Blessed Theotokos that is going as of now under the title Pope baptizes prominent Italian muslim, go over there please and save me time.
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.
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.
MK11
Originally Posted by [B said:
Bushmaster[/B]
Interestingly, the original greek words for eternal life in this verse are the same with those found anywhere in the Scriptures where HE talks about KINGDOM of HEAVEN, or PARADISE where there is eternal life, it is quite interesting you go with this particular one because it includes that there is knowledge of God follows in eternal life. It concludes, Jesus Christ, whom Father sent, which hardly implies any Quranic approach to a human prophet. Christians always believed God sent His Son to our time and world.
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).
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 Chrysostoms homilies on what you think Scriptural tampering, why dont 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.
MK11
Originally Posted by [B said:
Bushmaster[/B]
Like I said, kid, your attitude is everything if you want a proper discussion and you are showing me signs that you are not interested in a professional exchange. Couple of things, you are not at a level to actually criticize the authenticity of a book by incomplete arguments that doesn't consider both sides of the story. You are doing too much assuming, I haven't even started yet. Again, we don't rely on single tiny bits and pieces of information solely, and again you don't call out what I consider evidence given "proper" criticism is not asserted. Last but not least, your Quranic message what Allah calls Christians doesn't interest me if you are with the intent of shoving an islamic understanding towards Christian history. Heresy, as within Islam, always existed, and this is not the fault you can lay on God, God promised His Spirit's guidance but He didn't suggest His spirit would override free will.
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.
The reason you dont see answers is that you create and follow polemics, and I feed you what you want. It is crystal clear that you want answers youd 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 others faith, no you didnt. Grab a mirror and look into it. World doesnt 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 doesnt mean it doesnt apply. Tough, like it or not, you dont 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 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.
MK11 said:
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.
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. 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
MK11 said:
Note: I was so late in my reply because I went to pray
Duly noted!
