Jesus - Islam Perspective

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
BodyG:

You never responded. There is ONLY ONE who can say “I AM” that is, the one who is. By definition this is so. Interestingly, if you interested in the logic of this, which should already be obvious, you can always read C.S. Lewis treating of this topic.

None of your quotes goes against the interpretation given by Christians. YOU have to explain why he says I AM who I am. And if you call John a liar or other parts (or any) of the Bible made up, then why even bother asking questions about the Bible? You already have your answer.

You probably aren’t aware that the Bible was written in Greek, and the Old Testament was translated into Greek by Jews ~300 years before Christ for Hellenic Jews (The Septuagint, where we get the titles of the Old Testament such as “Genesis” which in Hebrew is called “In the beginning” … etc)

NO YOU CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT HE IS NOT DIVINE.

Answer my questions, who can forgive sins but God alone and

WHO CAN SAY ‘I AM’?

Only God.

That he is completely human, completely divine has been a stumbling block for people since the beginning. It’s not like it’s anything new. He is the Son of Man, yes, he is the suffering servant, he is the perfect image of God, he is the only path that humans have for redemption BECAUSE he is human and perfectly obedient to God his Father. He shares in everything we have, assuming humanity in its totality, and healing the broken relationship that we have through his obedience, as I have said.

Indeed, there is only one who is Good. He was with God before all the ages, the whole story of creation is about him, through him, for him, in Him, etc.

He was God and nothing in the gospels contradict this, I state adamantly again. That he is also one of the persons of God is ALSO the story.

What you have to explain is what YOU have ducked. How does he forgive sins (and why are the Jews saying only God can do this, the point of the story) and how does HE say “Ego eimi o wn”? I AM WHO I AM?

ONLY GOD can say this.

Until you answer these questions, there is no point to proceed. And if you can’t, why do you continue to protest? You have your answer.[/quote]

Did you really just presume I didn’t know the language that the bible was written in? Okay.

Let’s stop here. I’ve already stated I have no interest in participating any longer. I appreciate your effort, respect your right to believe what you choose, but I do not share those beliefs as taught by your Church. No further dialogue will move our respective positions an inch. Thanks. [/quote]

Yes, as I said, you cannot answer the questions.

You ask a lot of questions, which is fine, but then when one presents what you apparently don’t want to hear (or can’t be countered) you refuse to answer.

Sounds like you had your mind made up the whole time.

At least be honest about it and cop to it.

Your not answering honest and straightforward questions has nothing to do with me or my beliefs. As I’ve proved, it has to do with you.

What ever happened to honesty and REALLY trying to find the truth? I thought that was the point of your original post. Sadly, it was not.

Best wishes.

162

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
BodyG:

You never responded. There is ONLY ONE who can say “I AM” that is, the one who is. By definition this is so. Interestingly, if you interested in the logic of this, which should already be obvious, you can always read C.S. Lewis treating of this topic.

None of your quotes goes against the interpretation given by Christians. YOU have to explain why he says I AM who I am. And if you call John a liar or other parts (or any) of the Bible made up, then why even bother asking questions about the Bible? You already have your answer.

You probably aren’t aware that the Bible was written in Greek, and the Old Testament was translated into Greek by Jews ~300 years before Christ for Hellenic Jews (The Septuagint, where we get the titles of the Old Testament such as “Genesis” which in Hebrew is called “In the beginning” … etc)

NO YOU CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT HE IS NOT DIVINE.

Answer my questions, who can forgive sins but God alone and

WHO CAN SAY ‘I AM’?

Only God.

That he is completely human, completely divine has been a stumbling block for people since the beginning. It’s not like it’s anything new. He is the Son of Man, yes, he is the suffering servant, he is the perfect image of God, he is the only path that humans have for redemption BECAUSE he is human and perfectly obedient to God his Father. He shares in everything we have, assuming humanity in its totality, and healing the broken relationship that we have through his obedience, as I have said.

Indeed, there is only one who is Good. He was with God before all the ages, the whole story of creation is about him, through him, for him, in Him, etc.

He was God and nothing in the gospels contradict this, I state adamantly again. That he is also one of the persons of God is ALSO the story.

What you have to explain is what YOU have ducked. How does he forgive sins (and why are the Jews saying only God can do this, the point of the story) and how does HE say “Ego eimi o wn”? I AM WHO I AM?

ONLY GOD can say this.

Until you answer these questions, there is no point to proceed. And if you can’t, why do you continue to protest? You have your answer.[/quote]

Did you really just presume I didn’t know the language that the bible was written in? Okay.

Let’s stop here. I’ve already stated I have no interest in participating any longer. I appreciate your effort, respect your right to believe what you choose, but I do not share those beliefs as taught by your Church. No further dialogue will move our respective positions an inch. Thanks. [/quote]

Yes, as I said, you cannot answer the questions.

You ask a lot of questions, which is fine, but then when one presents what you apparently don’t want to hear (or can’t be countered) you refuse to answer.

Sounds like you had your mind made up the whole time.

At least be honest about it and cop to it.

Your not answering honest and straightforward questions has nothing to do with me or my beliefs. As I’ve proved, it has to do with you.

What ever happened to honesty and REALLY trying to find the truth? I thought that was the point of your original post. Sadly, it was not.

Best wishes.[/quote]

I can answer the questions, but the debate is circular. I’m sorry that I see where our respective positions end. I don’t need to engage in the actual exercise to get there. Some great chess players know check mate before it happens. I see the stalemate. It’s no fun playing to a stalemate.

163

Oh, and Lean and Mean, I am rather skeptical about the translations, transliterations, and yes, the authorship of various books in the bible, as well as those left out of the canon - in addition to the “inspired” actions of the Church. Is that enough of an admission for you? There you have it. But it doesn’t change the fact that I was looking to discuss the original reference as well as the dozen or so contradictory scriptures I quoted.

As I said in my prior post, stale mate in 20 moves.

Best wishes to you too.

164

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[
That the Bishops of the Catholic Church wrote the books in the Bible. Then later canonized it around 400 A.D.

[/quote]

I suggest you revisit this claim starting with:

The list was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church.

http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1l.htm

Your claim above is patently false and intentionally misleading. Or, you simply misspoke.[/quote]

Actually it’s not, from the website, “written by an apostle or someone who was reporting the words of an apostle.” An Apostle is an ordained Bishop. That is why Bishops in the Catholic Church have the powers and authority that comes with Apostolic (see the word Apostle in there) succession, or the powers and authority that Jesus ordained the Apostles. Apostolic succession means that they can trace their ordination to the original Apostles.

Apostles were Bishops. They have the powers of Bishops, they did what Bishops do, they had authority as Bishops do.

Walk like a duck, talk like a duck, look like a duck, it’s a duck.

“The list was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church.”

I’m not sure how it is false or misleading. [/quote]

My answer to that is simply:

http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-pro-tradition-refuted-succession-2-timothy-2-2.htm

See, even claimed (self serving) apostolic succession is disputed? Do you see where we keep going with this??

165

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
“St. Faustus, a fifth century bishop writes, “Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since–as already it has been often proved–these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of lot, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them.””[/quote]

Um…he’s talking about corrupted manuscripts, not what the faithful use. Lol. [/quote]

The Church’s corrupted manuscripts. LOL

166

More for Chris:

http://www.bible.ca/cath-overview-false-teaching.htm

167

More:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzevk9mh/enddaysdeliverance/id14.html

http://www.hissheep.org/catholic/a_list_of_catholic_teachings.html

http://www.bible.ca/cath-apostolic-succession.htm

Chris, are you getting my point? There are only about 5 million google hits for “false catholic doctrine”. I am not trying to change your mind, or win a debate. What I’m telling you is that any discussion about scripture that circles back to your Church teachings and doctrines will be refuted by me. It’s circular and ultimately pointless. It’s two kids needling back and forth saying “yes it is”, “no it’s not”, “yes it is”, no it’s not".

A few important points here:

If apostolic succession is a false doctrine of your Church, can you admit the other doctrines and dogma created by your Church are potentially false too?

If I believe that the apostolic succession claimed by your Church is false, and I do, what purpose would there be for a discussion of scripture, when your ultimate arguing point will be “because the Church said so”?

If I believe that the trinity was invented by your Church, and I reject the doctrines of your Church as stated above, shouldn’t we limit our discussion of Jesus’ divinity to scripture?

If we limit the discussion to scripture, do you admit that the scripture is conflicting and perhaps irreconcilable without the doctrine of the trinity?

If you do not admit the scripture is conflicting, then simply rebut the dozen or more scriptures that I can raise WITHOUT appealing to the authority of your Church which I reject. If you cannot do that, what is the point of the discussion?

Read the following carefully:

I am not attacking your Church here so it does not require defending. I simply do not accept its doctrines, teachings and dogma. I believe your Church is a man made institution, of men, for men. That is my personal belief. I respect your right to your beliefs. If I respect your right to believe, then your beliefs require no defense. If however, we are discussing scripture, we should be able to contain ourselves to scripture, and not appeal to a disputed authority - not only disputed by me, but disputed by many - including CHRISTIANS.

I am completely uninterested in a debate about the Catholic Church. I so strongly reject it’s “authority” that any discussion whatsoever would be fruitless. I did not start a thread saying “let’s debate Catholicism”.

168

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:More for Chris:http://www.bible.ca/cath-overview-false-teaching.htm[/quote]Just can’t escape the dispensationalists. Hardcore Arminian dispensationalists this time. Lord help us. That site is well meaning and does have some good stuff, but wouldn’t be my pick for truth about catholicism. You won’t surprise Chris or any other knowledgeable Catholic with this. They have an answer satisfactory to themselves for absolutely everything. Yes, just like me.

169

Lemme ask, what exactly DOES TheBodyGuard believe?

170

And what of the Reformation? If your Church’s claim to apostolic succession is indeed true, and that the Church is “inspired” by the Holy Spirit, why would there ever be need for “reformation”? Reformation by it’s very nature is changing that which came prior. If that which came prior were false, then by association, either the Holy Spirit was wrong (I think we can agree that’s impossible) or, the Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit.

It’s interesting that the doctrine of the trinity was invented at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The trinity was not written about or taught prior to that in early Church writings. Emperor Constantine presided. He was not a Pope.

I admit that early Christians believed that Jesus was divine in “some way”, but it was not clear whether he was equal to, or less than the Father. The council of Nicea conveniently settled an issue that was “so clear” as Sloth repeated.

171

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:More for Chris:http://www.bible.ca/cath-overview-false-teaching.htm[/quote]Just can’t escape the dispensationalists. Hardcore Arminian dispensationalists this time. Lord help us. That site is well meaning and does have some good stuff, but wouldn’t be my pick for truth about catholicism. You won’t surprise Chris or any other knowledgeable Catholic with this. They have an answer satisfactory to themselves for absolutely everything. Yes, just like me.
[/quote]

I just picked one random. There are 5 million hits for “false catholic doctrine”. Would you like me to reference them all?

172

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:More for Chris:http://www.bible.ca/cath-overview-false-teaching.htm[/quote]Just can’t escape the dispensationalists. Hardcore Arminian dispensationalists this time. Lord help us. That site is well meaning and does have some good stuff, but wouldn’t be my pick for truth about catholicism. You won’t surprise Chris or any other knowledgeable Catholic with this. They have an answer satisfactory to themselves for absolutely everything. Yes, just like me.
[/quote]

I just picked one random. There are 5 million hits for “false catholic doctrine”. Would you like me to reference them all?[/quote]I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but nobody on this site hates the Catholic church more than I do for a cloud piercing mountain of reasons ranging from the simply biblical to the foundational and epistemological (also biblical). My point is that you could find a biblical prophecy wherein God Himself plainly declares the address of the vatican, the number of stolen bricks in her edifice and naming the pope by name, birthday and DNA as abominations in His sight and they will find a way around it. The scriptures carry no weight whatsoever unless predigested and spoon fed by their own “magesterium”.

173

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Lemme ask, what exactly DOES TheBodyGuard believe?[/quote]

I believe in what you call “God”.

I believe God has inspired men throughout the ages and that those teachings have been preserved in one manner or the other and that the “godliness” of those teachings is apparent, based on their fruit, whether they be recorded by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, etc. I do not believe that any religion has a claim to the “truth”. The “truth” is that which is good. All that is good must have come from God if he exists.

The “competition for truth” among our modern religions are clearly a creation of man, not God. The insertion of “false doctrines” and deception and such into scripture is man’s contractual disclaimer to protect his intellectual creation - his religion. That which is good is of “God” - period. No one, no Church, owns that “divine property”.

I don’t believe in a God as represented by the OT, with the floods, jealousy, etc. I don’t believe a perfect being is capable of being angry or jealous - all human frailties and emotions. Remove the myth, the old pagan beliefs, the pomp, the ceremony, the “doctrines” - remove the chafe and what you have left is the kernel, and it is good and surely came from “God”. All else came from man.

I believe man corrupted these teachings, created doctrines and Churches much the same way he drew arbitrary lines on a map - self-interest, nationalism, tribalism, etc.

I believe Jesus was a prophet, a teacher, and inspired because his message was Good.

I do not believe he was Divine. I do not believe he claimed to be Divine. I do not believe he was God. If he were God, he would have simply said so and acted accordingly. The virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection after 3 days all have their roots in pagan beliefs that preceded Jesus’ time. These are NOT original concepts. They were almost certainly infused to the later story of Jesus to convert pagans and comport with their beliefs. They are an embellishment. God, who is perfect, has no need for human ceremony, myth and allegory.

I believe much of formal religion carries with it old myths, pagan beliefs and practices, and embellishments along with lots of allegory - all man’s creation. Remove it all, and you’re left with “good” and that’s where God is.

I simply believe in God.

I think you believe in God, but have entrusted your faith to man and his institutions.

These are some of the things I believe and my search for Truth is never ending.

174

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:More for Chris:http://www.bible.ca/cath-overview-false-teaching.htm[/quote]Just can’t escape the dispensationalists. Hardcore Arminian dispensationalists this time. Lord help us. That site is well meaning and does have some good stuff, but wouldn’t be my pick for truth about catholicism. You won’t surprise Chris or any other knowledgeable Catholic with this. They have an answer satisfactory to themselves for absolutely everything. Yes, just like me.
[/quote]

I just picked one random. There are 5 million hits for “false catholic doctrine”. Would you like me to reference them all?[/quote]I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but nobody on this site hates the Catholic church more than I do for a cloud piercing mountain of reasons ranging from the simply biblical to the foundational and epistemological (also biblical). My point is that you could find a biblical prophecy wherein God Himself plainly declares the address of the vatican, the number of stolen bricks in her edifice and naming the pope by name, birthday and DNA as abominations in His sight and they will find a way around it. The scriptures carry no weight whatsoever unless predigested and spoon fed by their own “magesterium”.
[/quote]

Then we don’t need to have that discussion :slight_smile: I’m not here to refute Catholicism. My only point is that that which they rest their arguments upon is disputed. No more, no less.

175

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Then we don’t need to have that discussion :slight_smile: I’m not here to refute Catholicism. My only point is that that which they rest their arguments upon is disputed. No more, no less. [/quote]Could you name for me just one “undisputed” belief about absolutely ANYTHING of consequence. I and millions of others dispute every single syllable you said you believe, probably including that Jesus was “good” by your defintion of “good”. You could have just said you were a unitarian universalist and saved a lot of typing =] Disputation only proves, as does every other fact of existence, that the biblical living triune God is true and every man left to himself, including me is a liar. Do yourself a favor and concentrate on epistomology friend. Everything else flows from there. There are 2 kinds. The Christian kind and all the rest.

176

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Then we don’t need to have that discussion :slight_smile: I’m not here to refute Catholicism. My only point is that that which they rest their arguments upon is disputed. No more, no less. [/quote]Could you name for me just one “undisputed” belief about absolutely ANYTHING of consequence. I and millions of others dispute every single syllable you said you believe, probably including that Jesus was “good” by your defintion of “good”. You could have just said you were a unitarian universalist and saved a lot of typing =] Disputation only proves, as does every other fact of existence, that the biblical living triune God is true and every man left to himself, including me is a liar. Do yourself a favor and concentrate on epistomology friend. Everything else flows from there. There are 2 kinds. The Christian kind and all the rest.
[/quote]

LOL says you.

177

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Then we don’t need to have that discussion :slight_smile: I’m not here to refute Catholicism. My only point is that that which they rest their arguments upon is disputed. No more, no less. [/quote]Could you name for me just one “undisputed” belief about absolutely ANYTHING of consequence. I and millions of others dispute every single syllable you said you believe, probably including that Jesus was “good” by your defintion of “good”. You could have just said you were a unitarian universalist and saved a lot of typing =] Disputation only proves, as does every other fact of existence, that the biblical living triune God is true and every man left to himself, including me is a liar. Do yourself a favor and concentrate on epistomology friend. Everything else flows from there. There are 2 kinds. The Christian kind and all the rest.
[/quote]

You know something? I almost let it pass but I have to point out your dismissive attempt to label me.

“Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion with Jewish-Christian roots. It has no creed. It affirms the worth of human beings, advocates freedom of belief and the search for advancing truth, and tries to provide a warm, open, supportive community for people who believe that ethical living is the supreme witness of religion.”

Not that I find the above repugnant. I think it’s a far better message than the current “we’re right and you’re wrong because we believe it” state of affairs in existence now. But first I’d point out that I don’t identify per se with either Christianity or Judaism. If you did your homework, you’d soon learn that both traditions are rich with those that preceded them. They are not original.

If it’s good, I think it came from God.

If it’s confusing, tortured, conflicting, dividing, disputed, misleading, coercive, threatening, nonsensical, whimsical, jealous, angry, etc., it came from man.

178

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< If it’s good, I think it came from God. >>>[/quote]Like I say. Epistemology my friend. I let God define “good” for me. Also, you may be surprised at the research I’ve done.

179

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

If it’s good, who cares where it camefrom.

If it’s confusing, tortured, conflicting, dividing, disputed, misleading, coercive, threatening, nonsensical, whimsical, jealous, angry, etc., its just business as usual. [/quote]

Fixed

180

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< If it’s good, I think it came from God. >>>[/quote]Like I say. Epistemology my friend. I let God define “good” for me. Also, you may be surprised at the research I’ve done.
[/quote]

We can go in circles for twenty more pages for all I care. You asked me what I believed, I told you, hence the personal “I think”. God has defined “good” for me, and I intrinsically know it when I see it, thanks to God.

Conversely, I’d argue that you let men-with-motives define for you what is “good” and “God”.

See how this works?