F
ffg
Guest
Are you not the one looking for answers? You said the question still stands.I suggest you read through the thread again.
Good luck with your truth hunting.
Are you not the one looking for answers? You said the question still stands.I suggest you read through the thread again.
You weren’t the first to post what you posted, is all I meant.Are you not the one looking for answers?
Good luck with your truth hunting.
Well, consistency is good.You weren’t the first to post what you posted, is all I meant.
No, we do not.The Muslims and Jews believe in God and the Holy Spirit, that is two.
The Sharia Law only contradicts the Sabbath from the ten commandments. There was nothing evil in violating the Sabbath except disobedience to Allah, just as there is nothing evil today in consuming swine except disobedience to Allah. These are disciplinary laws, not moral laws, given by Allah to test our obedience towards Him. And Allah has the authority to abrogate any disciplinary law.You agree with the constant that God is unchangeable, is outside substance.
How can you explain then that Allah is giving Muhammed orders that contradict the 10 commandments that have been with the Jews since Moses? And we Christians also hold the commandments as well.
Allah is independent from His creation. If He were dependent, that would make Him contingent, and not necessary. I have already answered this before.And you cannot give us the reason why Allah created the world…why would he? What is the purpose of creation?..an enslavement?
Incorrect. Our Prophet (S) was asked questions, we have more information about Prophet Muhammad (S) and what he taught than any of the previous Prophets. There were many witnesses to his inimitable miracles, such as the splitting of the moon and the providing water with his finger tips.God revealing Himself to a gathering of people, not one human as Muhammed with no disciples, no witnesses, no questioning.
And yet they still decided to revise the Latin Vulgate according to modern textual criticism, and publish the Nova Vulgata. No matter, does the Vatican possess an entire corpus of all the verified traditions that can be traced back to Isa ibn Maryam and his disciples? Surely, they could have ended the schism (or at least diminished its effects) with the Eastern Churches long ago if they possessed such a corpus.The Catholic Church has the highest objective documentation of any institution in the world. The apostles exhorted, ‘Write it down!’. They said if all the information from the Vatican archives were put on computer, the information could go out into outer space…to the moon? I cannot remember…and back. We have 2,000 years of documented history.
The Septuagint is the Old Testament, not the New. Nonetheless, the Latin Vulgate (now the Nova Vulgata) is the official Bible of the Catholic Church; originally composed by Jerome, who believed that the Hebrew text more reliable than the Septuagint text.And the Church at the beginning utilized the Septuagint tradition of Scripture…the very one that Christ and His apostles used. What sources do you use?
The Catholic Church takes Truth and Faith very seriously and Jesus started a Church. The whole purpose is to evangelize proclaiming the Good News.It does not matter. In the early centuries of Christianity, Catholics weren’t the only ones who claimed to trace their teachings back to Isa ibn Maryam (AS) and his disciples; there were many other groups who claimed the same or similar things? How can you verify that it was the Catholics who were right in their claim?
In the early centuries of Islam however, as soon as there was division, men began to painstakingly make the effort to collect and write down the oral traditions, and verify their authenticity by examining the chain of narrators, investigating the biography of each narrator, etc.
Must thank you for bringing up Joachim of Fiore . Never heard of himSecondly, in the Middle Ages, Peter Lombard defined characteristics of the Divine Essence, but his definition was rejected by Joachim of Fiore, claiming that such a definition introduces a quarternity to the Trinity. The Church sided with Peter Lombard, but did any theologian actually answer Joachim of Fiore’s objection?
No offense, but I don’t think I’ll find my answers on this forum.Are there any questions that are still outstanding?
Thanks,
Relationships who also have distinct functions or roles?They are relationallly distinct. The Father is Father to the Son. Without the Son, He has no Fatherhood. The Son is the Son *of *the Father. Without the Father, He has no sonship. The Spirit is the spirit of the Father and of the Son. He is not Spirit in and of Himself, but only of them.
Thus, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are descriptions of relationships within the Trinity.
You might. We have some knowledgeable Catholics here. Be patient.No offense, but I don’t think I’ll find my answers on this forum.
Non taken, thanks.No offense, but I don’t think I’ll find my answers on this forum.
I think that would depend on the act.Relationships who also have distinct functions or roles?
since the Trinity seems to be your main focus,Three questions:
In Islam, it is said that Allah has an entity or essence, for all things that exist have an essence. However, it is not said that Allah has a substance, as substances and accidents are created. Why is it said in Christianity that God has a substance (ousia)?
Secondly, in the Middle Ages, Peter Lombard defined characteristics of the Divine Essence, but his definition was rejected by Joachim of Fiore, claiming that such a definition introduces a quarternity to*** the Trinity.*** The Church sided with Peter Lombard, but did any theologian actually answer Joachim of Fiore’s objection?
Third, since the Church affirms Divine Simplicity, how is this compatible with the Trinity? Even if the three persons are not considered parts of God, what kind of distinction is there between the three persons of the Trinity? Can there be a virtual distinction without falling into a heretical view of the Trinity, such as modalism? Or can there be formal or real distinction without contradicting Divine Simplicity?
They were living at a time when the concept of a spiritual God was still a mind-blowing concept. The surrounding tribes and nations followed stone, bronze, and golden gods - physical entities that they could see and touch, which they believed to have divine powers and personalities confined inside them. Their question would have been, what evidence do you have for a God that you can’t see?You make a fair point, but whilst the question of “why not then?” does not stand, the question of why the patriarchs, prophets, the believers among the children of Israel, etc. did not recognise the Trinity still does stand.