GMOGMediaTV
GMOGMedia.tv
All of these Abrahamic religions are related to each other. Catholicism and Christianity follow the the same doctrine but their methologies and practices are different.
Religion/Spirituality Theism Discussion (Abrahamic Religions, Religious Philosophy, etc.)
- Thread starter Hip-Hop-Bulls
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christianity islam
All of these Abrahamic religions are related to each other. Catholicism and Christianity follow the the same doctrine but their methologies and practices are different.
I definitely agree with your 1st statement. But I think the distinction is Protestant and Catholic, because both are practicing what they believe to be Christianity. All denominations have different methods and practices.
I disagree.
GMOGMediaTV
GMOGMedia.tv
It doesn't really matter my dude. They are man made belief systems.
At what point do ya'll realize that the founding assumptions are based on shyt that just isn't true?
No matter how many similarities there are?
No matter how many similarities there are?
Greenstrings
All Star
At what point do you realise that they don't care?
i always looked at atheism leaning more toward every human story about god is definitely wrong, so the concept of god is probably bullshyt. no one knows whether god exists or not, if they claim that then theyre delusional or an idiot
He is wrong.
Islam came after Christianity and Judaism
Bro, Jesus' words weren't "Before Abraham, I AM in the mind of God". When David and Jeremiah state that God knew them in their mother's wombs, it is clear that they are communicating they were known in God's exhaustive knowledge and that He cares for them even though they (we) are insignificant. Jesus was communicating something completely different. What would have been the point of Jesus saying, "I was in the exhaustive knowledge of God before Abraham" when the Jews asked Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Is Jesus so dense to be stating the obvious? No, Jesus, the master of words and wit was undeniably saying that HE EXISTED before Abraham.. He WAS before Abraham (I AM). He was not communicating that God told Abraham about Jesus and thus His existence..
Regarding Melchizedek, He was indeed Christ, or better yet, a Christophany (preincarnate appearance of Christ). We're told that "He is the King of Righteousness, the King of Peace, He is without father or mother, He is without beginning of days or end of life, and that like the Son of God He remains a priest forever". What human could be the King of Righteousness? What human could be the King of Peace? These are not traits we humans could never attain. "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10) & "And the way of peace they have not known" (Romans 3:17). What human could have no father or mother, no genealogy? What human is without beginning of days or end of life? None other than Jesus Christ Himself, God revealed in flesh! Your noting of the word "like" is interesting. Daniel says that he saw "One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him." (Daniel 7:13-14). Was Daniel saying that he saw one similar to the Son of Man or that he saw THE Son of Man? Words aren't univocal, they're equivocal and they take on the meaning the author intends (context).
Remember, David prophetically speaking of Jesus says: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" (Psalms 110:4). Now how could Jesus be the priest forever and Melchizedek be the priest forever? We know that there cannot be two High Priests so logic tells us they are one in the same (Christophany). The office of high priest was to offer a sacrifice to (temporarily) atone for the sins of the people, but Jesus THE High Priest offered the ultimate sacrifice and lead the way to salvation through His crucifixion and resurrection.
*Quick word on Theophanies, Christophanies, and Angelophanies*
There are numerous examples of God visibly manifesting Himself in the Old Testament, or allowing angels to do so.
Please (re)visit my post about the Trinity if you have the time. Your statement is in error because you are making a category mistake. In terms of "being" you would be correct but we're not talking being, we're talking "personage". God is one in Being and has revealed Himself through the Scriptures as three in Person.
Muhammad and the Qur'an are VERY relevant here. You choose to deny God's revelation of Himself in the Trinity because Muhammad states in the Qur'an that only disbelievers and infidels say God is a third of the Trinity. (Sura 5:72-73) The only problem is that Muhammad misunderstood the Trinity and thus miscommunicated it. There is no third, there are no separate parts..
Appeal to ignorance?
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
Jesus took baths but He never said it
Jesus cut his toenails but He never said it
Jesus had a stepfather named Joseph but He never said it
Are we to assume that He never bathed, never cut His nails, and never had a stepfather simply because He never said those things?
If you believe statements on the list I provided can be meaningfully verbalized by just any prophet about themselves and are not words that can only be uttered by God, I believe you are sorely misguided.
(False) Presumption: Revelation is a dream of what Jesus might say in the future
..cont
Without a proper comprehension of God's Personage I understand why the things on this list would be problematic for you. Being fully God and fully man, Jesus voluntarily abstained from exercising certain attributes of His deity, but he did not divest himself of a single divine attribute. You don't think Jesus could have stopped His execution? Well He thought He could.. Remember when He said that He could call upon 12 legion of angels to stop it? But He allowed it all so that the Scriptures would be fulfilled (Matthew 26:52-54). All of what you perceive to be weaknesses of Jesus just goes to show us how gracious God is in that He would cloak Himself in human flesh. He emptied Himself and "made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2:7–8). He did all of this to be the ULTIMATE sacrifice for us and redeem us. Nothing we can do in and of ourselves can make us right with God.
All of the points you laid out can be attributed to these three things: You don't understand the nature of God's personages, you don't interpret the passages in light of their corresponding genres, or you just don't have a proper interpretation of the text.
Example:
Jesus didn't lie nor was He mistaken when He said that a mustard seed is the smallest seed on the earth. He was giving a parable which wasn't meant to be taken hyper-literally.. We know that an orchid seed is the smallest seed but it wouldn't have fit His simile of the Kingdom of God being like a full grown mustard seed which "has such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade". Orchids don't grow big branches and thus wouldn't have worked in His illustration. Again, "corresponding genres".
"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)
Jesus (God) took on the form of man, thus having needs and emotions like all humans. But with that said, He conquered sin by never sinning; not once. It isn't that God was somehow subdued and killed by the Jews and Roman soldiers, that would be absurd and is not what is being communicated. Instead He "laid down His life and took it up again", for us.
Good conversation bro. I appreciate your civility and respect although we intensely disagree.
Enjoy your evening!
Without a proper comprehension of God's Personage I understand why the things on this list would be problematic for you. Being fully God and fully man, Jesus voluntarily abstained from exercising certain attributes of His deity, but he did not divest himself of a single divine attribute. You don't think Jesus could have stopped His execution? Well He thought He could.. Remember when He said that He could call upon 12 legion of angels to stop it? But He allowed it all so that the Scriptures would be fulfilled (Matthew 26:52-54). All of what you perceive to be weaknesses of Jesus just goes to show us how gracious God is in that He would cloak Himself in human flesh. He emptied Himself and "made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2:7–8). He did all of this to be the ULTIMATE sacrifice for us and redeem us. Nothing we can do in and of ourselves can make us right with God.
All of the points you laid out can be attributed to these three things: You don't understand the nature of God's personages, you don't interpret the passages in light of their corresponding genres, or you just don't have a proper interpretation of the text.
Example:
Jesus didn't lie nor was He mistaken when He said that a mustard seed is the smallest seed on the earth. He was giving a parable which wasn't meant to be taken hyper-literally.. We know that an orchid seed is the smallest seed but it wouldn't have fit His simile of the Kingdom of God being like a full grown mustard seed which "has such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade". Orchids don't grow big branches and thus wouldn't have worked in His illustration. Again, "corresponding genres".
"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)
Jesus (God) took on the form of man, thus having needs and emotions like all humans. But with that said, He conquered sin by never sinning; not once. It isn't that God was somehow subdued and killed by the Jews and Roman soldiers, that would be absurd and is not what is being communicated. Instead He "laid down His life and took it up again", for us.
Good conversation bro. I appreciate your civility and respect although we intensely disagree.
Enjoy your evening!
the most interesting thing about christians debating muslims is that due to the debate over accepting christ, one half has to be right, and one half has to be wrong 
i mean we all know they're both wrong; this is assuming that that ridiculous narrative holds any weight
i mean we all know they're both wrong; this is assuming that that ridiculous narrative holds any weight
*praise break*
mark 15:12-13
12"And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?"
13 "And they cried out again, 'OOOOH, KILL EM!!! OOOOOOOOOH!!!!' "
mark 15:12-13
12"And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?"
13 "And they cried out again, 'OOOOH, KILL EM!!! OOOOOOOOOH!!!!' "
Thank you. Same to you.