No, out of the blue, unless there was some PMing going on behind the scenes.
Thoughts on Incarnation
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
Well your experience, you can't speak for everyone, and it's clearly not the case for many.
I would have thought a message with no experiential reference would fall on deaf ears.
A hypothesis, certainly.
How do you respond to the similar hypothesis regarding the 'authorised' version of the Quran?
an argument might be that the New Testament has four Gospels, four experiences, four interpretations ... plus the letters of Paul, a fifth ... plus Hebrews, a sixth ... Revelations, another ... Islam has but one official version of its truth.
Yet many would declare the a faith in Islam suspicious and illogical – that an angel showed a book written by God to an illiterate man? All based on the account of that man? There were no corroborating witnesses? His own family refused to believe him?
I would suggest that religious appeal transcends logic.
Indeed, even in mundane affairs we sometimes meet events, people that upset the (logical) pattern of the world as we saw it; that's how we grow and move on. Logic is fluid and organic.
Remember, 'logic' is a system dependent on certain a priori principles.
That's not Christian doctrine.
Rather, it's a doctrine that explains Jesus's revelation of His Divine Nature.
Yes, there were those who claimed Jesus did not die on the cross. Obviously a version of this account was the one Mohammed favoured.
Jerusalem is a long way from Mecca in space and time.
The Ethiopian Church believes in the death and resurrection, so I fail to see what point you're trying to make.
What bearing?
No .. it does not .. any more than Christianity has.
That's ridiculous
Clearly, some of "his own family" DID believe him. Many people denied him, just as in the case of Jesus.
I'm sure that many Christians and Jews would argue it to be "suspicious and illogical", but for entirely different reasons.
I would say that the main reasons would be that they are already in a tribe/nation with its own beliefs, and would rather
stay as they are.
Clearly
Particularly for adults..
Obviously. Almighty God is associated with the mystery of the number 3, it would appear.
To you, it might mean that.
To me, it means that that is exactly what happened.
Muhammad, peace be with him, did not write it.
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
- Deuteronomy 18:18 -
I would have thought that it was obvious. Pontious Pilate did not want to execute Jesus, and very likely did not.
However, he had to be seen to be taking action so as to appease the community leaders of the temple.
I thought that we have already discussed that. If one "comes to the table" with strong beliefs
[ mainly driven by the Gospel of John ], one will see Paul's writings in that light.
Furthermore, he was only human, and did not even know Jesus.
..so was he a prophet?
No, he was divinely inspired .. and blessed with faith .. but not faultless.
Last edited:
I was referring to the hypothesis you offered.
The idea that an angel showed a man a book written by God? Where's the 'reality of experience' of that in our lives?That's ridiculous
I', not trying to argue here, just pointing out that what you find illogical, irrational, etc., in Christianity, can be said of Islam.
Well quite, my point entirely.Clearly
Whereas, in reality, the mystery of the number three is that Creation is the work of the Blessed Trinity.
I know. I'm not disputing that. You accept your sources. Others do not, that's all I'm saying, and not are they 'logically' obliged to — they don't accept the premise of Islamic Revelation.
OK. Just for the heck of it ... what happened next?
Regardless, you cannot disprove the Gospel of John, so there's no substance to your argument.
He knew Him in spirit, and believed in the flesh.
Paul was in no doubt that Jesus was crucified, died and resurrected, and he was close to events.
Same here?
While I agree with a great deal of what @PricelessPearl says, this is a shade too far.
The Bible is a collection of many genres: Some of it history, some allegory, some dream, some vision, some revelation, some hymns, some poetry ...
That's not what happened, of course..
No, I don't agree.
I said:
"It is necessary to pin down what Jesus "IS", and declare all other beliefs to be heresy"
Why? Why does it threaten others to believe something different from them? Why do we have to enforce
a belief on others, and persecute them even to the point of death, for not conforming?
That is suspicious because it is a continuation of Romans persecuting people for non-conformation..
..not "very Christian", I would have thought
Furthermore, it is not logical for a man to pray to himself [ as God ]. It is only logical to you,
because that is your faith, and it has been justified by your peers and you endorse it.
I know I keep on harping on about Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, but I think that it is
very relevant. We are no longer living in the middle ages.
We have a great deal more knowledge at our disposal.
Those clever scientists thought that it was illogical and suspicious .. and so do I.
You may say that "they were freaks" or it has no bearing on the truth etc, but I have to disagree.
People often call me a freak. It doesn't concern me. I know what I am
very relevant. We are no longer living in the middle ages.
We have a great deal more knowledge at our disposal.
Those clever scientists thought that it was illogical and suspicious .. and so do I.
You may say that "they were freaks" or it has no bearing on the truth etc, but I have to disagree.
People often call me a freak. It doesn't concern me. I know what I am
You say this:
Where today are Christians enforcing and persecuting others even to the point of death?
Is there a religion now in the 21st Century that has states imposing medieval punishments for apostasy and so on -- whether rightly or wrongly by their scripture?
Then with a straight face you say this:
Do you not see the contradiction?
Where today are Christians enforcing and persecuting others even to the point of death?
Is there a religion now in the 21st Century that has states imposing medieval punishments for apostasy and so on -- whether rightly or wrongly by their scripture?
Why does it threaten you. It is always you personally bringing your war to the Christians here. Are they not quite happy to let you get on with believing what you want to believe?
Last edited:
OK, but in principle your belief says :This is what happened" – it is your conviction, but it is neither logical nor irrefutable.
Human nature – it happens in religion, politics, in all manner of dialogue. It happens between Catholic and Protestant, between Shia and Sunni ...
No .. I do NOT see the contradiction, at all.
Nicene Christianity was established in that way i.e. forcing people to conform
What is happening today is neither here nor there .. people just accept what they are raised with,
and fear change and loss of privilege and wealth.
I think that Almighty God expects more from us. He expects us to question our faith,
WHATEVER it may be.
I think it is
Anyway, I was determined not to get involved in this again ...
Indeed, it IS human nature. It is about the nature of the life of this world. It is about power and wealth.
It is about which tribe you belong to etc.
Jesus taught us not to follow that stuff. He taught we have to make sacrifices, and follow truth.
Truth does not include persecuting others without good reason.
eg. it does not include threatening people with death for not believing in the "state religion"
..in this case, Nicene Christianity. [ and the burning of Origen's books ]
Any religion that establishes itself in that way is not acceptable.
You surely allege that Islam established itself like that, but it is not true.
That is "false history" yet again
Last edited:
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,346
- Reaction score
- 575
- Points
- 108
Not everybody reads it that way, however.
For example, what if you insert a period between sarka (σάρκα) and ho (ὁ) and have two sentences instead of two clauses? Problem solved.
Last edited:
Well Newton "... allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul, a personal devil and literal demons." (wiki) .... so I wonder what a Moslem would make of that?
And how, as a Moslem, do you regard Einstein's view of "the word of God" is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible (and by the same principle the Quran) a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish"? The same Einstein disliked mysticism, could not conceive of a God who punished and rewarded people, indeed he distanced himself from the idea of a personal God, be It Jewish, Christian or Moslem.
I find it this line of reasoning rather disingenuous.
Faced with the prospect of "(taking) a hard right, (driving) through the guard rails, (diving) off the cliff and (landing) us back into the middle of the difference of opinion that has been raging between you folks" (apologies to @RabbiO ) I refuse to take the bait.