Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

[rain_bow]

There’s an old American saying… it goes like this…

…" a busy bee is a happy bee…"

It’s good to be busy…

Nice saying thanks.So buddy please pray that I can be happy always .

Now… back to Uthmam… yes he did burn all of the early copies of the koran - makes you go… hmmmmm… I wonder why he did that…

very easy, maybe it contains such verses, and after reading it, even moderate muslims who are actually the real problem( because they wash peoples brain softly ), would leave islam, and islam would fall .

PS. Well Buddy Its time to sleep. see you again tomorrow. Good night to you pam and to all folks

 

[rain_bow]

Please prove your statment. Do you have references?

His only reference is his emotion, i guess.

 

[rain_bow]

Well the modern church, Vatican 2 states, that we do worship the God of Abraham… But before that, they taught us, that we dont worship the same God as the infidels

Who are infidels?

 

[gerhardc]

and pardon me for saying this - there is such a word that is called Constitutional law and as I’m sure you’ve heard of Tort laws as well as Law and commerce those areas that govern outside the scope of religion, … With this being said - religious laws, and the implication of the word of God cannot be amended or legislated against by judges or governments - that being, dietary laws and how can certain religions practice them outside of the home (at least,ended up in our jurisdiction - as a respect to both religions under this heading “respect for religious rights”) - and then prayer times, how can each person respect the need for those persons (when required) to set up a place within the work environment for a private place for all three religions (again, respect for religious tolerance and under the heading of respect of religious “rights” - so can we have make that determination of what religion worships the same God - in the area - likeness, we also know that there are Shabbat laws as well as Passover … We (as Christians) had at one time rested on Sunday’s to spend time worshiping God and enjoying the leisure time with our families - … Also, from what I understood - if we did have to work, we need a special dispensation, In the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, a dispensation is the suspension …

So now and with all due respect for personhood and the laws that govern each religious affiliation - it is under the title “Love thy neighbor as yourself” - it is a **law **and one that hinges on the prophets. Now if the Government can not delegate or amend what is the word of God - and those that I’ve listed - religiously speaking, then how can anyone dictate/ or interpret which religion worships the same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - in order, for us to make that determination, it would have to be based on our interpretation - alone. Still respectively! Yes, I believe - that there are no laws that govern all aspects - religious and governmental issues at the same time, some laws that are outside the scope of the government and those within religion.

Now you say, how does this fit in with the title to this thread “Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?” - and Love thy neighbor as yourself

There appears to be little understanding of the difference between a Law - civil or religious - and a godly truth. "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Luke 11:23). is a universal truth. It is something you believe to be true, or it is something that you believe to be false. I happen to believe that it is true.

***“He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” ***(1 John 5:12) is a universal truth. It is something you believe to be true, or it is something that you believe to be false. I happen to believe that it is true.

"I and My Father are one" (John 10:30) is a universal truth. It is something you believe to be true, or it is something that you believe to be false. I happen to believe that it is true.

Why the willed unbelief?

 

[Marcarios]

Marybeloved
New Member

What exactly do the Greek philosophers have to do with the Holy Eucharist? And how does the doctrine of transubstantiation take away from its mystery? Could you please point to a church teaching that describes “how” exactly the bread and wine become Christ? Thanks.

Mary yes, the point is that the Greek Philosophers should have nothing to do with the Church’s understanding and intrepretation of the Holy Eucharist. Tertullian once stated “What does Athens have to do with Jeruselem?”. In other words The Churches Apostolic Tradition, Authority, and Holy Scripture is enough. In The Middle Ages the Scholastics sought the answers to the Mysteries of Faith via the reasoning of the ancient Greek Philosophers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism.

The Problem is using human reason to speculate on the nature of the how and why the mystery takes place. human reason is both finite and flawed to ascertain that which is a “mystery” Speculation then leads to false assumptions which can lead to false answers.

 

[Marcarios]

In The Case of Islam and what the Gospels say about who Christ is (God and Man) and what the Church has always taught. The Church teaches that God became man, Islam denies this period. in Islam the word of God became the Koran , a book. Muslims do not believe in the redemptive attributes to God whatsoever. As someone on this thread has stated, “Islam denies the Crucifixion” as well as other key doctrines of Orthodox Faith.

The Arians in their time denied the teachings of the Church on the matter, and held that Christ was just a mere creature. Its not logical to say that Arians worshipped God . How is that they did ? This was shown in two ways at the Council of Nicea. the miracle of St Spyridon when he held up the earth before the council and out of one end came out fire and the other end water , demonstrating the nature of who God is (Trinity) . There was also the vision of St Nicholas of Myra.

St Nicholas had a vision of Christ who’s garment was torn to shreds (like the Church had been thanks to the Arian Heresy) . St Nicholas was confirmed in Faith by God when he struck Arias in the face for his posionious spewing of false doctrine, and how God told the Bishops at the Council that He gave permission to St Nicholas to do so , as they were wrong to rebuke him for his actions. These two miracles confirmed the teaching of the Council on thet matter, and gave it the authority to do so

The Arians were extremely violent (like the fanaticism that Islam inspires) . It is of course Interesting that Arianism spread into Arabia…the birthplace of Islam. How was it possible then to reason the same argument that is being reasoned now concerning the worship of God ? Who is this same God then that is spoken of? The answer I think lies in this parallel.

 

[MorningSong51]

Who are infidels?

LOL…What is the difference between Kafir and Munafiq

 

[MorningSong51]

PS. Well Buddy Its time to sleep. see you again tomorrow. Good night to you pam and to all folks

Good night Rain_bow!

 

[MorningSong51]

There appears to be little understanding of the difference between a Law - civil or religious - and a godly truth. "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Luke 11:23). is a universal truth. It is something you believe to be true, or it is something that you believe to be false. I happen to believe that it is true.

***“He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” ***(1 John 5:12) is a universal truth. It is something you believe to be true, or it is something that you believe to be false. I happen to believe that it is true.

"I and My Father are one" (John 10:30) is a universal truth. It is something you believe to be true, or it is something that you believe to be false. I happen to believe that it is true.

Why the willed unbelief?

Hi Gerhardc;

I enjoy writing to you about scripture and also looking up some passages that the Apostle Paul preached because I know that he answers the question about the law. It is both fascinating and also (and I think) a miracle for me - reading what he has to say, almost as if he is addressing each area that I’m learning. We then grow together in thought - I’ll look up something about a particular subject and its there in scripture. Not that it is a negative thing but a positive one. The scripture gives me more of an explanation - which kind of puts me in an awe, such a overwhelming feeling of reverence, for both the Apostle Paul and how he helps one to think! - I can’t say enough.

Let me kind of give you an example, and hopefully this will answer you’re question. 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Love Fulfills the Law

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

---

 

[MorningSong51]

continue:

In Genesis chapter 9, God instituted the death penalty (verse 6). Some would argue that capital punishment, though practiced in the Old Testament economy, surely can find no place in our age. But the words of our Lord Jesus Himself vindicate this responsibility of government:

Pilate therefore said to Him, “You do not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?” Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:10-11).

When our Lord stood before Pilate He expressly stated that the power of death was within the authority of civil government. Indeed, this authority was granted ‘from above.’

The real issue behind the matter of capital punishment is the character of God. Those who reject the possibility of civil government taking the life of a human being try to convince us either “that the God of the Old Testament is not the same as in the New Testament, or that God has somehow changed. But God is unchanging and He hates sin. His holiness demands a payment for sin, and in this life human government has been charged with the responsibility of avenging evil (v. 4).

This is listed under Christian obligation, an appropriate title because if you read the prior chapter it tells - 9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

These chapters in Romans 12 & 13 are difficult to take - in spite of, the news recently from the Middle East but again, what happens if we strike back and hurt those that are innocent to the fact? We then will sin - and that isn’t what we want.

 

[MorningSong51]

There appears to be little understanding of the difference between a Law - civil or religious - and a godly truth. "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Luke 11:23). is a universal truth. It is something you believe to be true, or it is something that you believe to be false. I happen to believe that it is true.

***“He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” ***(1 John 5:12) is a universal truth. It is something you believe to be true, or it is something that you believe to be false. I happen to believe that it is true.

"I and My Father are one" (John 10:30) is a universal truth. It is something you believe to be true, or it is something that you believe to be false. I happen to believe that it is true.

Why the willed unbelief?

There is no willed unbelief - you either believe or you don’t. Which I believe - in order to (at least for me) understand how the Apostles were addressing the people, I felt, you had to know something about it. When I started reading scripture, I had no idea what half of it was about. Pulling scripture apart, helped me to communicate - kind of from silence. I had to really make the attempt to read outside the perimeters of my faith. This took me over 10 years to do, off and on. I could walk away from it for awhile but then something inside of me wanted to return back and then I started all over again, but then were times that I was so frustrated - just outright, confused. I remember a priest from our church said, “I put the bible on the altar and ask the God to teach me!” - from Moses perspective, it was the same feelings - you know the phrase, open my mouth so that my proclaim your word, God has to open our heart and soul to “hear” his word! From my stand point, I can believe - but does God’s word sink in! I can start to relate to the frustration of everyone else, even within scripture, we can co-understand (?) co-relate (?) co-frustrate (?) it is in the asking that we receive, isn’t it? In that sincere love, in that moment of when God reaches us and we reach back. Then we understand; Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” - that this “indwelling” takes a life time, as he knows that we are humans reaching up to him.

 

[gerhardc]

There is no willed unbelief - you either believe or you don’t. Which I believe - in order to (at least for me) understand how the Apostles were addressing the people, I felt, you had to know something about it. When I started reading scripture, I had no idea what half of it was about. Pulling scripture apart, helped me to communicate - kind of from silence. I had to really make the attempt to read outside the perimeters of my faith. This took me over 10 years to do, off and on. …

From my stand point, I can believe - but does God’s word sink in! I can start to relate to the frustration of everyone else, even within scripture, we can co-understand (?) co-relate (?) co-frustrate (?) it is in the asking that we receive, isn’t it? In that sincere love, in that moment of when God reaches us and we reach back. Then we understand; Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” - that this “indwelling” takes a life time, as he knows that we are humans reaching up to him.

I enjoy discussing matters with you too Mary. And I enjoy searching God’s word - the Bible - to grow in truth, because: ***"you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” ***(John 8:32). Amongst other things Jesus came to “set the captives free” (Luke 4:18). *Freedom *is a ‘big deal’ for Jesus and it comes through His truth (refer John 8:32). Nonetheless, the point is God’s truth makes you free. And we find the said truth in His word - refer John 17:17 - "your word is truth".

Moses, Paul, Peter, … all those through whom the Spirit spoke to make up what we know as the Bible, amongst other things, gave us regulations, laws and things to commit to, like “love your neighbour as yourself” and many others. These are commandments and they bind followers of Jesus to His character, hence John’s assertion: "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." (1 John 2:3). Some *believe *that they can know Him without knowing His word. From the verse quoted above, sadly, it is clear that these people are believing a falsehood. Some even *teach *that you can know Him without knowing His word, such teaching being contrary to Scripture notwithstanding. Clearly, their problem is not with me or any other person who assert the truth of 1 John 2:3 - their problem is with the Bible and its Author.

James calls His word the law of liberty. Why? Because "he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." (James 1:25). In the end we will all be judged by Jesus, who is the word made flesh: "So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty." (James 2:12).

What we in the passages see is that apart from exhortations, corrections, *rebuke *and law, the Bible conveys God’s truth. Whereas Law speaks to obedience, Truth speaks to faith. Faith in Jesus should mean faith in His word. Saying that you believe in Jesus but cannot find yourself to believe His word is deceiving yourself. Faith in Jesus is faith in the truth of His word.

That’s why verses like Luke 11:23, 1 John 5:12 and John 10:30 need to be looked at. They convey an absolute truth. They are not law. They are not to be looked at to **obey **(like a law). They are to be looked at to **believe **(they convey truth). This is where faith in Jesus and His word comes in - either you believe the following, or do do not:

• “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Luke 11:23)
• “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (1 John 5:12)
• “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30)

Muslims do not believe the above verses are true. From what I can ascertain, you and others here are in agreement with them. Because, if you believed that the above verses are true, and need no special, beyond any human comprehension interpretation, you will believe that Christians and Muslims do not serve the same God. A child can understand that.

Gerhard

 

[rain_bow]

LOL…What is the difference between Kafir and Munafiq

I always thought that Muslims use the term. however no one is infidel

 

[rain_bow]

Good night Rain_bow!

Good afternoon

 

[schaick]

I’m understanding your post completely - but now do you understand what it must have been like for Jewish and Christians (and I want to say Orthodox - perhaps Catholics) to live underneath Islamic law? - and in some places they still do. All based on “love thy neighbor as yourself” - so what is love in this case and who is thy neighbor - and what do you consider “yourself” - the command is based upon whatever freedoms that you are entitled to under the law of the land…give the stranger the same freedoms as yourself - and is based on Exodus 22:21 “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.” - In Psalms 119, it is expressed "I am a stranger in the earth - A wayfaring man; a pilgrim; a so-journer; a man whose permanent home is not in this world. The word is applicable to one who belongs to another country, and who is now merely passing through a foreign land, or sojourning there for a time. Compare the notes at Hebrews 11:13. The home of the child of God is heaven. Here he is in a strange - a foreign - land. He is to abide here but for a little time, and then to pass on to his eternal habitation.

This is how the non-muslims can live in peace with Muslims:
fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

**It is in the Pact of Umar that we as infidels are not supposed to be allowed to read the moslem texts. **
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.”

from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

 

[schaick]

LOL…What is the difference between Kafir and Munafiq

kafir = non-believer
munafiq = hypocrite keeps disbelief secret

 

[Marybeloved]

Marybeloved
New Member

What exactly do the Greek philosophers have to do with the Holy Eucharist? And how does the doctrine of transubstantiation take away from its mystery? Could you please point to a church teaching that describes “how” exactly the bread and wine become Christ? Thanks.

Mary yes, the point is that the Greek Philosophers should have nothing to do with the Church’s understanding and intrepretation of the Holy Eucharist. Tertullian once stated “What does Athens have to do with Jeruselem?”. In other words The Churches Apostolic Tradition, Authority, and Holy Scripture is enough. In The Middle Ages the Scholastics sought the answers to the Mysteries of Faith via the reasoning of the ancient Greek Philosophers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism.

The Problem is using human reason to speculate on the nature of the how and why the mystery takes place. human reason is both finite and flawed to ascertain that which is a “mystery” Speculation then leads to false assumptions which can lead to false answers.

Hallo Macarios,

As far as I know, the doctrine of transubstantiation was defined due to objections to the the teaching of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist- That is people said, it’s only symbolic and for the purpose of remembering, The bread does not really become Christ, it evidently remains what it was- bread and wine. The Church, in the doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that:

1. Accidents are retained-that is, what our senses perceive is bread and wine (that is, the taste, the smell, the touch/feel of it etc- remain the same after consecration) This is obvious to anyone who has ever partaken of the Blessed Eucharist
2. The Substance changes- That is, despite what the senses perceive, in reality, the bread and wine are Christ himself, not bread and wine- This is the teaching of christ and all the apostolic Churches for 2,000 years.

The doctrine of transubstantiation does not attempt to define/explain, how the bread becomes Christ- That remains always always a mystery- we just accept on faith alone that it does become Christ, regardless of what our senses tell us. It was taught because people said, *“But it still looks like, tastes like, feels like bread- how can you believe it’s Christ?” *To which the Church replied, “Those are mere accidents- the substance of the bread (that is, what it really is) is no longer bread but Christ. This is what Christ (and the Church) tells us and we believe him!”

I don’t know what you meant to critique, but this doctrine of the Church is a bad example used by people who don’t know what the doctrine really teaches- The mystery (how God does this- make bread the body of christ) is retained, always. No one knows how, we accept that he does it because he tells us- period.

 

[gerhardc]

Transubstantiation, … This is the teaching of christ

I will be happy to receive verses from the Bible that actually states that the bread we use today becomes the actual body of Christ. If reference is made to “This is My body”, then it is clear that He spoke about the bread He used at that moment, not the bread we use today.

That said, the point I wish to make is not around transubstantiation but around unbelief.

… the doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that:

1. Accidents are retained-that is, what our senses perceive is bread and wine (that is, the taste, the smell, the touch/feel of it etc- remain the same after consecration) This is obvious to anyone who has ever partaken of the Blessed Eucharist
2. The Substance changes- That is, despite what the senses perceive, in reality, the bread and wine are Christ himself, not bread and wine- This is the teaching of christ and all the apostolic Churches for 2,000 years.

The doctrine of transubstantiation does not attempt to define/explain, how the bread becomes Christ- That remains always always a mystery- we just accept on faith alone that it does become Christ, regardless of what our senses tell us.

Above we find an explanation of a controversial issue - transubstantiation. Whether or not it is a correct teaching is not the issue here. However, what it demonstrates is that people can believe things that are taught but which are not expressed as such in the Bible. In this case it is that the bread we use in remembering Jesus today actually changes into His body, whether or not we taste or smell or see it that way. “It is a matter of faith”.

Refer Luke’s words: "And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” (Luke 22:19). The Bible does not actually say anything about bread becoming Jesus’ body, etc. It only says that we use the bread & wine as a symbol in remembrance of Him. I say again, this, however, is not the subject of the debate.

The point is that people can believe what is not expressed in words in the Bible. But what is expressly stated in the Bible, that they cannot believe. Instead, for these verses, alternative meanings are conjured up and explanations given to reject the literal meaning thereof. That is called unbelief. The verse "God is love" is received as a literal meaning but the verse "He who is not with Me is against Me" somehow gets to mean something else.

Alternatively people feel perfectly ‘qualified’ to understand the meaning of John 3:16 or 1 John 4:8 ("God is love") but somehow feel inadequately prepared or qualified or experienced to understand "He who is not with Me is against Me".

That is called selective perception or, in a spiritual sense, unbelief. "And He marveled because of their unbelief."

What we know about the Bible is that it is something to be desired like a baby desires milk: "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby" (1 Peter 2:2). Yet, supposedly devout Christians desire the arguments and philosophies of mere men more than that of the Bible. They desire what not what is profitable. What in fact is profitable is the Holy Scriptures, which we believe (or not believe) is the word of God to men: “and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

And so, we have a choice to believe or to cast aside the following:

• “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Luke 11:23)
• “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (1 John 5:12)
• “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30)

If you actually believe the above you will know that Muslims and true Christians do not serve the same person. This **truth **has absolutely nothing to do with the **commandment **to “love they neighbour”. Nothing whatsoever. The verses above are **truth **given by God. We choose to **believe **it or to cast it aside. The choice is yours.

 

[Marybeloved]

I will be happy to receive verses from the Bible that actually states that the bread we use today becomes the actual body of Christ. If reference is made to “This is My body”, then it is clear that He spoke about the bread He used at that moment, not the bread we use today.

That said, the point I wish to make is not around transubstantiation but around unbelief.

Above we find an explanation of a controversial issue - transubstantiation. Whether or not it is a correct teaching is not the issue here. However, what it demonstrates is that people can believe things that are taught but which are not expressed as such in the Bible. In this case it is that the bread we use in remembering Jesus today actually changes into His body, whether or not we taste or smell or see it that way. “It is a matter of faith”.

Refer Luke’s words: "And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” (Luke 22:19). The Bible does not actually say anything about bread becoming Jesus’ body, etc. It only says that we use the bread & wine as a symbol in remembrance of Him. I say again, this, however, is not the subject of the debate.

The point is that people can believe what is not expressed in words in the Bible. But what is expressly stated in the Bible, that they cannot believe. Instead, for these verses, alternative meanings are conjured up and explanations given to reject the literal meaning thereof. That is called unbelief. The verse "God is love" is received as a literal meaning but the verse "He who is not with Me is against Me" somehow gets to mean something else.

Alternatively people feel perfectly ‘qualified’ to understand the meaning of John 3:16 or 1 John 4:8 ("God is love") but somehow feel inadequately prepared or qualified or experienced to understand "He who is not with Me is against Me".

That is called selective perception or, in a spiritual sense, unbelief. "And He marveled because of their unbelief."

What we know about the Bible is that it is something to be desired like a baby desires milk: "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby" (1 Peter 2:2). Yet, supposedly devout Christians desire the arguments and philosophies of mere men more than that of the Bible. They desire what not what is profitable. What in fact is profitable is the Holy Scriptures, which we believe (or not believe) is the word of God to men: "and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

And so, we have a choice to believe or to cast aside the following:

• “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Luke 11:23)
• “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (1 John 5:12)
• “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30)

If you actually believe the above you will know that Muslims and true Christians do not serve the same person. This **truth **has absolutely nothing to do with the **commandment **to “love they neighbour”. Nothing whatsoever. The verses above are **truth **given by God. We choose to **believe **it or to cast it aside. The choice is yours.

Gerhad, I’m not about to debate the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist with you here. This was the unanimous belief in all Christendom for 1500 years until the Protestants came along, threw away centuries of tradition and interpretation and brought in novelties that had hitherto been completely unheard of in Christendom, such as denial of the real presence, salvation by faith alone, sola scriptura etc. I’m sure there are many many threads on this site that discuss this and give apologetics for the bread becoming Christ, or you could start a fresh one where people will be more than happy to give you all the scriptural verses and early christian sayings that showed that from the beginning no christian had understood the Eucharist as being anything other than Christ himself, until protestantism came along 1500 years later.

My comment was directed at Macarios suggesting that the Greek philosophers influenced the Church teaching on transubstantiation, a common criticism especially from Eastern Christians that is never founded on fact. As you have proven here, Macarios will see that it was heresies arising in the West that denied the truth about the Eucharist that prompted the Catholic Church to clarify the doctrine as explained in my previous post. The East never had to deal with such heresies, that’s why they retained the simple belief “The Eucharist is Christ” without explaining it further, unlike the Western Church.

Peace.

 

[MorningSong51]

I always thought that Muslims use the term. however no one is infidel

:twocents:

**
INFIDEL:**

Dubius in fide infidelis es

An unfaithful person, an unbeliever, just is a person who does not have faith, who does not believe. To doubt is to not believe.

---

KAFIR - ARABIC COGNATE KAFARA

the Muslim word “Kafir” used as Infidel is absolutely not true - One who disbelieves (Kazeb) or rejects (Kaffer) in the existence of God Or "God’s Laws.

Can this word be used differently???

However, The word kāfir is the active participle of the root K-F-R “to cover”, which is true - according to Genesis 6:14 and Genesis 11:3

So were have I seen this active participle root K-F-R…let me see!

teshuvah (repentance) and kapparah (acquittal) man puts a protective covering between himself and the punishment for his sin. According to Rashi, the words “kapparah” (acquittal) and “kofer” (indemnity payment) are derived from the same Hebrew root "kfr”] and have a common signification.

"kafara" ~ the root verb ~ means “he hid (something)” and “he covered (something)” or “He hid (something) by covering it up.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

The usual word for “pitch” is hemar (rnj), such as in Genesis 11:3. We are told in 6:14 that Noah was to cover the ark with a substance called “pitch.”However, in 6:14, the word “pitch” in Hebrew is the term kofer (rpuf). When compared with similar words in other ancient Semitic languages, kofer should most likely be rendered as “pitch,” or a substance that is a combination of pitch and asphalt. Many scholars agree that this word is associated with the root k-f-r (r-p-f). From this same root we have the word that is sometimes translated “to atone.” It might be possible to see a connection between the
two ideas in that the ark was covered with a waterproof covering and, in atonement, our sins are also covered.

Noah was also told to put a window in the ark. The Hebrew word used here, tsohar (rvum), is an unusual word for window. In 8:6, the usual word for “window,” chalon (iukj) however, does appear. Knowing this, we are then tempted to translate rvm as roof. If we do so, we then run into the same problem, for the usual word for roof is gag (dd). It seems that the word “tsohar” is related to the word for “noon”— the time of day when the sun shines the brightest. Hence, some commentators, like Eli Munk, relate the word to “shining,” or “brightness.” Therefore, what the Lord apparently instructed Noah to build on top of the ark was a skylight to let brightness into the ark.
LINK