Jesus Is A Human Being(disconnect Line& Read

[mulls]

amen!

[Winchester]

Ghandi was famous for saying something like "If all Christians really acted the way they were supposed to, then I would become one."

That makes no sense. If one bases one's choice of religion not on the religion itself, but upon the behaviour of its adherents, then one has chosen poorly. I am well aware our example turns people from Christianity, and thus, we should set a good example. However, if one knows the teachings of our religion and believes them to be true (as Ghandi's statement as written certainly implies), then it would only make good sense to adopt the religion. Using this philosophy, one could belong to no human group, since "all" adherents of any particular group are unlikely to behave properly.

That said, yes this is the debate forum, but no debate has been initiated. Ayed merely made some statements of dubious theological quality. That is not debate, and it's not even particularly good commentary, as it relies on assumptions about and misinterpretations of Christian theology.

[mulls]

it was off the top of my head, i probably screwed up the quote.

and what you said was right. i was merely trying to show evidence that setting an example, good or bad, will have an effect on people.

[Winchester]

I reckoned as much, but wanted to clarify/nitpick.

[Don John of Austria]

I see no reason we should not adress this Challenge to our Faith like we would any other.

[cmotherofpirl]

Agreed.

A challenge is simply an opportunity in disguise. :ph34r:

[Good Friday]

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee, and for those who do not have recourse to thee, especially the enemies of the Church and those recommended to thee. Amen.

Edited July 27, 2003 by Good Friday

[Don John of Austria]

Now ayed this is what I do not understand about your contentionwhy would Saint Paul wish to insult God Saint Paul had been an devoted Jew and had seen the early Christians as so vile that he had sought them out to persecute them for heresy. He was present at the Martyrdom of St. Stephen the first Christian martyr. Why would he so quickly change from one who loved God so zealously to one who wished to insult Him, that doesn't make sense.

That being siad we are left with certian options either Saint Paul lied about persecuting the early Christians to Christians, which really wouldn't make any sense "Look at me, I am a murderer follow my moral guidance" is not a real good way of convincing people of your trustworthiness./

option 2-- Paul went completly insane thought he saw Jesus and that Jesus spoke to Him, and what is more everyone who he preached to was equally insane because they thought things like healings and such where occuring.

option 3-- Paul did see a preternatural creature ( instead of a supernatural one) and was duped by that creature ( a demon or the like) into insulting God while believing he was serving Him.

or option 4 Paul really was struck by Christ and really did hear him speak and was not insulting God but serving him.

Now since Paul was brilliant and able to convert huge numbers of people the 1st option looks rather silly --- would Paul really make such a huge tactical mistake.

Option 2 is possible but unlikely as it realies on to many people being convinced by an insane person an believing things were happening that didn't happen.

option 3 is the only negative option that is really plausableand I could just as easily substitute Mohammed's name for Saint Pauls in there ( and in fact believe that that is exactly what happened to Mohammed), a it is just as plausable. ( really more so since the entity which appeared to Mohammed appeared as an angel ( which demons are) and not as something greater than that)

Or option 4 which is what Chistians believe-- Paul was both honest and correct about his experiance.

Now I am sure other options could be thought up but they will be basically variations on one of these things. unless of Course you are really going to Hold that someone devoted to God and spending his life in God's service rationally chose to attack him and that is simply nonsense--- That is well beyond suicide in its depravity. So much so that it leads us back to option 2 with just slight variation.

option 3 or 4 is all you can really in intelectual honestly accept, but as I said I could put mohammed in any of those options just as easily and he would fit just fine.

[ayed]

In the name of Allah , the Most merciful , the Most gracious

Chrysologus wrote:

“These are all quickly and easily refuted by stating that Christ is both fully God and fully man”.

My comment :Who refuted them? You or some christian preachers?yet, the conflict is this:

If consider Iesa(Jesus) a God , then how come he is a human at the same time? God’s attributes are definitely different from human being’s.It impossible to have a God and a human being in only one character. I agree with you that Iea(Jesus)(peace be upon him) is fully man NOT a God.

I agree with you that Iesa(Jesus) was a human being whom Allah(God) endowed him with miracles and Jesus(peace be upon him) was able to perform the mircles.

So, by this ability , it is not necessary to be a God.Jesus is as other messengers who perfoms miracles .

Benedict X :

"So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59)

my comment:

If we take for granted that Jesus(peace be upon him) a God, then why did he hide himself? not defend himself?Moreover, he went out of the temple!!Why did he escape? Is not he a Omnipowerful God to save himself as you consider him? Is not he able to resist against those who wanted to throw stones at him?So,being a mankind, he escaped .suppose that one of you have a strong bodyguard . All of a sudden, someone attacked your bodyguard and knocked him down. What is your feeling and eaction toward your guard? Won’t you fire him instantly?

So is the God in form of Jesus who escape. A God escapes nd unable to even defend himself is not a real God. So , Iesa(Jesus) is a human being and a messenger .

“So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was "in very nature God."

I wonder, Jesus himself chose to be born in human form,then this was a self-delivery. Iesa(Jesus)IS the Word of your and my God(Allah)who created him without father and his mother is Maryam(Mary)(peace be upon her).If Jesus(peace be upon him) was in accusative case.That is, was created then how could he chose to be born by himself and chose his form!!!

“born in human form”=”in very nature God”????

If we take fo granted that Iesa(Jesus) is a God, then read what did he say:

“I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

What is between the fisrt and the last? Is not it immortality?well, to be the first is to be eternal and before his Father. If Jesus was crucified , then who is the last? Is he who was crucified? OR the Creator of the crucified?

The unrefutable issue is that Iesa(Jesus) denies any God besides him. The question is :

What about the Father? Is not He Who Created Iesa(Jesus) out of His Holy Word”Be” and he was?

“"‘I am the Alpha and the Omega”Nothing new here because this phrase gives the idea of “the first and the last”

“(notice that the term "name" is singular, not plural)”

I disagree with you !! you may ask : why is so? I say:

When you address your audience ,don’t you say:”

In behalf of your name and mine , we welcome the boss of our company and the like.so, how many person do you have in audience? Only ONE? Of course more than that.

The term”name” here is instead of repetetion of the word”name”

It reads like this:

Instead of saying “

Babtizing them in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit”

He collected them in one word by saying:

“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The result is : the “name” in this case(in this postion) is a collective noun. It is singular and plurl at the same time. The tacit meaning is THREE and the explicit is one.

---------------------------------------------------

Ironmonk :

Please do not evade and digress off the talking topic. Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) is another issue. Kindly, do not mention him or call his names.

NOTICE: Please comment on the above remarks and elaborate on them . I do not need extensive texts . I want to discuss short clear points. I may copy such long texts and paste it here.No. We want typical debates.

Thank you all whom I mentioned their names or whom I did not.

Thanks

[hyperdulia again]

Come Holy Spirit!

Edited July 27, 2003 by hyperdulia again

[ironmonk]

ayed.

When discussing something, we must start at the beginning.

I did not call mohammed names, I simply stated facts.

You came here to us. To cover things you discuss adequately, we must start at the beginning.

Allah has brought you to this site for a reason. We worship the same God. God wants you to know the truth.

For the koran to be true, then the OT and NT must be false... but since the koran teaches that the OT and NT are true, then the koran must be false and the koran is it's own downfall. I don't know what happened to mohammed in the desert, except I do know that he did NOT see the Angel Gabriel, and he is not a prophet.

The NT is the fulfillment of the OT. Both clearly show that Jesus is the son of God. The koran denies this, therefore the koran is wrong.

We start in the beginning or we don't dialog. If we do not start in the beginning, then both sides can go back and forth forever on issues.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary,

ironmonk

[Anna]

ayed,

Several times you referred to our blessed Saint Paul as a "fabricator," yet you don't want us to comment on your Mohammed.

Practice what you preach, hon.

I don't mind debating Truths.

I simply think that someone who comes on with his first post saying, "I want to be convinced," and by his third post is quoting Protestants and hurling insults at one of our greatest saints, isn't here to be convinced or to dialogue.

Don't begin your posts with words of peace, then attack our beliefs. It's disingenuous.

Pax Christi. <><

Edited July 28, 2003 by Anna

[Don John of Austria]

Ayed- I am frankly disappointed by your lack of response to my post. Have you a response? Or are you simply conceding that Paul didn't Fabricate anything?

[Winchester]

I ask you ayed, why did God not destroy Satan and thus all evil in the world? Why doesn't God now destroy all who oppose Him? Is He not all-powerful?

God has a plan, Ayed, and His motivations and counsel are His own.

[Chrysologus]

Being that God is infinitely powerful, he can choose to take on a human body and soul if he wills. In all ways, he remains God, but he, in the second person of the Holy Trinity, is now also a man. It is, of course, a great mystery, incomprehensible to us, but that is its truth and beauty.

Jesus promised that he would found a church which would be indefectable and lead the world into all truth about his Father. Since you believe Jesus was a holy prophet, surely he didn't lie when he said this. So, how can you say that his church is wrong in identifying Jesus as God with his Father and the Holy Spirit? Why did God allow the church to mess up the true message of Islam and thus require correction from Mohammed?