Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Maranatha!

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. [edited - Blasphemy towards respected personalities of Islam on an Islamic site is a no-no. You've been banned]
  2. When the Son of God comes in judgment against the nations, he will espouse the faith once and for all entrusted to the Saints, that was not lost and whose God is not impotent to keep his Church.
  3. Okay, 'brother' lets talk about these 'verses'. Firstly, the verses are not contradictory or unbiblical in the sense that they do not represent a contrast or an anti-biblical position. So, to argue against a Christian world view on the basis that the text contains additions, or editions is not an attack on Christianity, but a caricature of the doctrine of inspiration that isn't taught by the church evangelical, and Reformed. Again, it doesn't follow that Christ came, was God incarnate God is a Trinity, God sent his son to die for a people because of minor additions of the resurrection, or interpretations of other texts, or perhaps oral traditions. In case you didn't know, the resurrection is still assumed in Mark, the passage in 1 John isn't necessary to establish the Trinity (since this addition can be traced to the 9th century, yet our holy doctrine has existed since the beginning of the church itself), the story of the prostitute is also considered an oral tradition by the church. Dan Wallace is a Textual Critic who has critiqued Bart Ehrman for his views http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtsWSOjHrr4 You're assuming I think these passages are the Word of God, what if I don't? Why is that you'd expect twenty first century standards of authorship for the Gospels written in the 1st century? Furthermore, its blatantly clear that you do not seek out to know the doctrine of inspiration, but holding to your own understanding which is not the one of the Christian church.I'm willing to explain, but I'm unwilling to waste time on someone who is lazy.
  4. Absolutely not. I'd never abandon my Christ for your prophet, my Trinity for your monad and my scriptures for you pamphlet.
  5. I'm not your brother, we adhere to two opposing religions. Lets avoid the ecumenism. We are at opposite ends in almost all things. Do you not understand what I just said? The Christians scriptures are not inspired because of the words, but the propositions therein. And, you should clarify 'God's word' since apparently you still assume your Islamic understanding. I can easily say "The Word of God" is the Bible.
  6. The fact is, that isn't new or unknown. The issue is not has the Bible 'changed' but what does this 'change' constitute? You're assuming your Islamic doctrine of inspiration and imposing it on the Christian doctrine of inspiration. You obviously don't understand the Christian doctrine of inspiration. The doctrine doesn't teach that the text of the New Testament and Old Testament lack error in manuscript or transmission and that therefore they are inspired. But, rather that the propositions (spoken, and written) are inspired. These oral propositions spoken by the Prophets, Apostles, and witnesses were inscripturated and form the only sufficient, and certain infallible rule for the Church of God-The Bible. Opposed to this is the Islamic fanstasy that God sent a book down. We don't believe that. Scripture was providentially revealed, and providentially identified by the church. You mock the sovereignty of God.
  7. No. Where is the theology? This is a love poem.
  8. Sir, you praise the devil and his angels. You preach no Gospel, and do not know the Son or His Father.
  9. I manage to offend some crybaby sometimes, anyway...I will post a response to what you've said on my blog. If you don't like what you hear you're free to comment on it, and if you'd' like I'll post it here for my Muslim friends. I think you are in drastic error, and I say these thing only because you've become hard hearted and I'm concerned for your soul. Its one thing to believe error, its another to teach error and you've done lots of teaching here.
  10. SoP I didn't withdraw anything. I'll debate you.
  11. Hello, I have to actually disagree with you Christian friends. I don't believe that we can seek God of our own will. The Bible teaches that the will of man is fallen and affected by sin. It teaches that all of mans aspects, the will, the intellect and the emotions are tainted by sin so that man is a slave to sin and dead in sin. We are dead in sin, at emnity with God and we do not seek him because of these very things. So, while one can honestly seek God as you have said the truth is it was God who was seeking him first. I hope that makes sense. If a man makes any step toward finding the true God it was only because the true God gave him the grace to seek him in the first place. Man alone with out any interaction from the divine will never find God. Christianity also emphasis the place of the intellect in reasoning. John 1:1 teaches us that Jesus Christ was the rational principle/logos or even logic of God that became flesh itself. Paul tells us that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and we are told the tear down arguments (which assumes counter arguments). So, there is no lack of demands made to Christians in their scriptures regarding thinking as is often asserted by Christians and Muslims as well. I would say that overall, there are diverging views. But, I also believe that one should begin with an anthropology. For example there are mostly four competing views of the doctrine of man in what I would call "Christendom". -Eastern Orthodox ------- Roman Catholicism ------- Arminianism ----- Calvinism- Eastern Orthodoxy, denies the fall of Adam as affecting his progeny, therefore the effects of sin on his posterity are not as tragic as they are for example in Calvinism. Roman Catholicism teaches that the fall of Adam made man sick in sin, and not necessarily dead in sin. Arminian Protestantism teaches that man is dead, BUT has a free will still. That the death of Christ somehow loosened the deadness of mans sin Calvinism affirms a doctrine of total depravity, and total inability, mans will is so fallen that only an act of grace can be shown to men. Man is dead in sin, and his will is bound to sin so that only GOd can free us from our love of sin by his grace through Christ. Now, why a doctrine of man needs a doctrine of how one reasons should be plain and simple, as a Calvinist, I would say that your reasoning will always fail in the spiritual dimension it will also fail in the ultimate sense because you are not reasoning along the assumptions of what the scriptures teach. Left alone you will not find God in that sense. I hope I make it clear, this doctrine is called the 'noetic' effects of sin on the mind. Sin affected our total composition so that nothing is left untouched. Does that make sense? Take Care -
  12. No. You're assuming what needs to be proven. Indeed, why is that God cannot communicate a message to men through fallible men? You're Islamic assumptions are being assumed. What does this mean? 'Christan scholars' ? Perhaps you should allow Christians to define who Christians are. When one denies the definition of the Bible the definition of Christian cannot exist.
  13. A basic understanding of depravity should clear it all up. Lots daughters wanted to have sex with him, so they got him drunk, ever been drunk? Before conversion I've been wasted, I've been blacked out, I didn't remember a thing. Lots daughters were evil, evil, evil and they wanted to commit an evil act with their father. So they did. Finally, who cares what Islamic tradition says. Who cares what the Christian tradition says in as much as its divorced from the time and Jewish oral traditions. Its irrelevant. Islamic tradition positing some novel idea is like Mormons inventing a tradition that said Lot did marry his daughters in order to have more wives. Its too far off, its too far from, and its mere conjecture.
  14. It wasn't Romans only who killed Jesus. The Jews did also.
  15. I've seen only one rational person here. Shiasoldier.
  • Create New...