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

Everything posted by Maranatha!

  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.
  16. If you mean do Christians believe that they are exclusive the recipients of God's only revelation, then yes. The Bible is God's word revealed through the Prophets and Apostles not sent but guided by men who God moved through the Holy Spirit.
  17. Thought Muslims would like to know what Christians think of Jesus Christ. Unequaled Greatness of Jesus Christ- Art Azurdia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chfxr6kK7as
  18. And in the book of Revelation John bowed in worship to an Angel and the Angel stopped him: 8I,(U) John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them,(V) I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, 9(W) but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant[d] with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those(X) who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Revelation 22 The angels bow to Adam, and Adam (John) bows to angels but God alone is to be worshipped. Therefore, the angels were commiting idolatry in bowing to Adam as Adam almost did to the angels except in this instance the angel corrects John and tells him to worship God. Islam is so man centered it has failed to recognize the proper place of God in this majestic plan, He is not only the beginning, but the means and the end of all things. All of what happens in existence is about God for God and to God.
  19. I for the life of me did not know that one had to possess exhaustive knowledge of all things divine in order to partake of fellowship with the God of the universe. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is not made up, its deduced from the Bible. So, to ask questions that suggest that we can modify what we've formulated is nonsensical. Why not 100? Because that is not in the Bible. Duh. This is silly. Smiley, its the strawman of the century by Muslims to actually argue in this manner. This is the most perverse objection to the Christian doctrine because it misrepresents it, as a former Christian I'd expect you to have the integrity of rightly representing the Christian Trinity. To see an answer to this abused, and beaten objection go here http://aversebaptist.wordpress.com/2008/05...mic-apologia-2/ If you would stop assuming your Islamic monad, you'd be able to understand that an argument of 'necessity' only makes sense if the said 'necessities' did not exist at one point. Yet this isn't the Christian position on the Trinity, which therefore defeats the argument. It would be as if one asked "Well God needs nothing to exist, not even himself because if God needed himself to exist then God wouldn't be God". Of course that objection is stupid, considering that God exists because he's God. Therefore, the Trinity exists because The Trinity is the Trinity. You're right. You don't. I guess you weren't catechized well in your old pop-Evangelical church. Now if you could all move and come up with real objections, I'd appreciate it. But simply saying "Christian monotheism is not Islamic monotheism! Its wrong! Bwahaha!" Establishes nothing.
  20. Okay, can one then stop assuming the divine monad that is the Islamic God? Afterall, Christians don't divide the Trinity if God is still one.
  21. No. Its not. afterall, he's assuming what he needs to prove, if by divided he means we divided God into multiplicity, then thats not the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. So, that he's not attacking our beloved doctrine.
  22. I'm a Christian. Okay. Do you have an argument? This is simply an assertion. god DOES exist. There. What is religion? Is it a belief about reality? If that is the definition of religion, then you're religious therefore you're religion is false. Which means you are stuck in a mire of skpeticism, which makes you absurd. Congratulations your worldview is boiled down to stupidity. Is that statement true? Not an argument. These are not arguments, they are assertions.
  23. Of course God is the Lord of Hosts, and he was a War God. He was a God of war, love and many things. He's the God of this world as well. The Bible certainly begins with "In the beginning God..." so, if anything while God acknowledge the existence of others 'gods' it doesn't mean that they are by nature God in the same sense that God is God (by this I mean the most Holy Trinity), if anything they were false god, perhaps demons or wicked spirits. Also, the principle of the 1st commandment is idolatry not simply of gods, but egos, and things. You worship God alone...not yourself or your family, or your children etc. Tell that to the Quranites who believe that the Shahadah is blasphemy.
  • Create New...