Truth and Salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Katie_Kilbane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks Della,
No, not the Apostles Creed or indeed any of the creeds of which there are several, including the Nicene Creed which was formulated much earlier than Trent, in the 4th century. I am referring to the NT writings of the Apostles.
Yes -the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, Athanesian (sp?) Creed - I am familiar with them. I like learning about the historical context in which they were written or finalized. Historical evidences are not as easily discredited as say - supernatural evidences or scholarly evidences.

Could you kindly refer me to the NT writings of all of the apostles that speak about the divinity of Jesus:
Jesus is the Son of God, who is and was divine before and after his conception in the Virgin Mary’s womb. All the Apostles taught the same thing.
.
Thank you.

 
Our minds tell us the child is separate and unique from the parent. But it is not rational to think God exits as men do nor to place our human conception of other human beings on God.

What we can know about God is revealed to us by Him through His prophets and then finally through Him.

Psalm 2:7 and 2:12

I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, "You are my son; today I have become your father.

Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Proverbs 30:4

Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Whose hands have gathered up the wind? Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is the name of his son? Surely you know!

Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

John 10:30

I and the Father are one."

John 17:5

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Zechariah 12:10

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

After this we realize Jesus was pierced on the Cross, established fact. He appeared to His disciples in particular Thomas who touched the wounds where He had been pierced by the soldier.

Yes God has revealed Himself to us in the most Holy Trinity. The One God the God of Abraham.

May our Lord and Savoir Jesus Christ be Blessed forever!

Peace
 
Thanks Della,

Yes -the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, Athanesian (sp?) Creed - I am familiar with them. I like learning about the historical context in which they were written or finalized. Historical evidences are not as easily discredited as say - supernatural evidences or scholarly evidences.
Yes, historical evidence is important. It’s why the NT writers often cited historical persons/events to give context to what they were relating.
Could you kindly refer me to the NT writings of all of the apostles that speak about the divinity of Jesus.
Thank you–
No, and I’ll tell you why. 🙂 Firstly, because such statements are not always explicitly made in the NT (because it was already believed), but rather the belief was the springboard for explaining God’s will for us.

Secondly, it would be more beneficial for you to research this for yourself. Anyone can look for any topic in the Bible by using a simple word search such as this: quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/simple.html.

And thirdly, because the Bible is not the sole foundation of Christian belief and practice. It is a part of Sacred Tradition which includes oral teachings, the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the sensus fidei, the belief of all the faithful in union with the Magisterium (which is all the bishops in union with the pope).

The Bible supports all the Church teaches, but it does not necessarily state doctrine/dogma explicitly. Why? Because it is not a book of theology. It consists of various writings about God interacting with man. and does contain theological concepts, but it is so much more than that. The Bible is very useful and we revere it as God’s holy word, but it is not an authority. God gave authority to men to decide matters of faith and morals, especially when Christ, the Word of God (note the capitalization) established his Church on the Apostles. We are not “people of the book” we are people of Christ, in and through the Apostles.
 
Proud Ex catholic banner? Sorry that you see it that way. Since I refused your invitation to empty my heart and open it for a new understanding of Catholicism, you start to belittle me with sarcasm and accusations. No problem. This is a Catholics forum and not a Muslims forum so I uderstand that my views will not always be welcome here.

I think for the most part I have been respectful - not insulted Catholic beliefs, simply stated why Muslims believe what they believe and why I am convinved that Islam is the truth while striving to follow the command of my Creator:

***And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.” (Quran 29:46)

So Augustine - can I ask you how you reconcile the “sons of God” and “begotten son of God?”

Thank you, Katie
Can I interject here, even though I’m not Catholic? I don’t want to comment on the questions posed to Augustine (since I’m not him, and they don’t interest me anyway), but I do think that this post illustrates something very interesting about Muslim-Christian relations, particularly as concerns the passages in the Qur’an that appear to positively appraise Christians. (It is also something I have noticed that has strong parallels in Orthodox-Catholic relations, though I’ll leave it to the reader to see where those are, as that is technically outside of the scope of the thread.)

As in the above passage, there are other parts of the Qur’an that claim to reference the Christians of Muhammad’s day and region. One of my favorites is 5:82 (Surat al-Maidah), which says in part that those who are “nearest in love” to the Muslims are the Christians, “because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.” (Yusuf Ali translation)

I highlight this because there are many subsequent Muslims who have therefore made the claim that the “original” or true Christians were those who followed Muhammad, while the rest of Christianity was polluted (by Paul, by Constantine, by Nicaea…take your pick). Therefore the best “Christians” are actually Muslims, and there are none proclaiming themselves today to be Christians who fit the description provided in Surat al-Maidah.

Existing as I do in the native Middle Eastern Church of monastic tradition par excellence (Christian monasticism having begun in Egypt), it is easy enough to find legions of Coptic Orthodox people both inside and outside of the monasteries who by their embrace of Christianity itself have renounced the world and are not arrogant. So that’s neither here nor there, i.e., it doesn’t mean anything to me to have the Qur’an affirm that we are closest to Muslims by virtue of having renounced the world and being humble, as we as a Church (and not only in Egypt) had done that centuries before Muhammad or the Qur’an ever existed (not because we’re so great, but because both of these things are foundational principles of Christianity itself; “take up your cross and follow Me”). But at the same time, I suspect that it means a lot to Muslims that their book says this. It is, after all, a positive thing to say, and provides a sort of Qur’anic basis for at least cordial relationships with Christians (or, perhaps, at least the Christians of Muhammad’s day, as the Qur’an reported their behavior and attitudes).

So I think there is a sense in which this most positive thing actually harms or makes more difficult Muslim-Christian relations, as it creates an atmosphere where positive reactions and relations of a very certain kind are perhaps expected and yet usually don’t materialize. They don’t materialize for several reasons, as illustrated very nicely by Katie and Augustine’s exchange:

(1) Muslims think they are being respectful in calling people to the “right path” (Islam);
(2) Muslims think that Christians should feel close(r) to them by virtue of the fact that the Qur’an says this or that nice thing about Christians, Jesus, the Theotokos, etc. (or for other reasons)
(3) Points 1 and 2 don’t matter, because Christians who are convinced of their religion only see how Islam denies core doctrines of Christianity, and hence is unacceptable and false (and vice versa, for that matter; Christians attempting to convert Muslims often make similar mistakes, e.g. comparing Muhammad to Jesus and then wondering why this displeases and turns off Muslims).

(cont’d. below)
 
I don’t know…I think if my holy book had said this or that about particular people and the people themselves protested for various reasons, I would think that those people are misguided and must be wrong in some ways. After all, it’s not my book that is wrong. That is not possible. It is the word of God. 🙂 And in that, Muslims are at a disadvantage on a purely historical level, even disregarding all their errors in theology – notwithstanding the Islamic theological belief in the preexistence and eternity of the Qur’an that places it outside of time, based on the available manuscripts, it is indisputable that the Bible predates the Qur’an, whether you believe it to be corrupted or not. So the fact that for the entire 2000 year history of Christianity, there was never a single apostle, church father, patriarch, or other figure who ever aligned with the Muslim belief regarding Muhammad (or his coming predicted in Biblical passages regarding the Paraclete, or any other point of modern Islamic apologetics), it does create a problem that can only be rectified by saying that everyone else is wrong, that a man who came ~600 years later corrected all the wrongness, and that therefore he’s the one we should all be following. But, of course, from the Christian point of view this can’t make sense, as we do not judge the past retroactively by later supposed revelations (or else we wouldn’t have much of a religion, would we?). At best the Christian must regard the Islamic religion in a manner similar to how most orthodox Muslims regard groups like the Ahmadiyya: They come later in the name of the same prophets and God, but they contradict what has already been laid down (there there would be no prophets after Muhammad; cf. that there would be no true revelations from God after the death of the apostles), and hence must be rejected on that account, irrespective of the violence that does to their historical narrative or all the seemingly nice things they or their book has to say about us.
 
Yes, historical evidence is important. It’s why the NT writers often cited historical persons/events to give context to what they were relating.

No, and I’ll tell you why. 🙂 Firstly, because such statements are not always explicitly made in the NT (because it was already believed), but rather the belief was the springboard for explaining God’s will for us.

Secondly, it would be more beneficial for you to research this for yourself. Anyone can look for any topic in the Bible by using a simple word search such as this: quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/simple.html.

And thirdly, because the Bible is not the sole foundation of Christian belief and practice. It is a part of Sacred Tradition which includes oral teachings, the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the sensus fidei, the belief of all the faithful in union with the Magisterium (which is all the bishops in union with the pope).

The Bible supports all the Church teaches, but it does not necessarily state doctrine/dogma explicitly. Why? Because it is not a book of theology. It consists of various writings about God interacting with man. and does contain theological concepts, but it is so much more than that. The Bible is very useful and we revere it as God’s holy word, but it is not an authority. God gave authority to men to decide matters of faith and morals, especially when Christ, the Word of God (note the capitalization) established his Church on the Apostles. We are not “people of the book” we are people of Christ, in and through the Apostles.
Okay well thank you anyways. Yes It is no problem for me to do bible search. The rest of your reasons are a bit complicated to me but from what I gather is that although Catholics view the Bible as Gods holy word, they do not regard everything it contains as authoritative - rather what they consider as authoritative - as regards faith and morals - are the interpetations of biblical passages, oral traditions and early church writings produced by different men whom they believe were/are approved by God.

I am grateful that in my religion there is great and grave importance laid on the chain of narration - not only regarding the preservation of the Qur’aan and how to properly recite it (in Arabic) but in the acceptance or rejection of oral traditions and the transmission of knowledge. This is something that I have not seen in any other religion. In Islam the saying is: The Truth is not known by Men, Men are known by the Truth.

 
Are you telling me (as Augustine did), to empty my heart of the “wrong understandings” you say I have so I can open it to a new understanding ? How can you prove that my understandings are wrong? Who are you to say that they are?

So by saying that I have some knowledge of Catholic rites and rituals, this is laying a foundation of false understanding? I have asked away, and the answers were not satisfying! So I asked the same elsewhere and found the satisfying answers in Islam. That simple.

Sure, as I mentioned elsewhere, I resource the catechism.

Anyways, thanks for your advice but I find it misguided so I will kindly refuse.

I’m not the one that needs to prove your level of understanding, you are already doing so with your words and actions.

As I said earlier, a lot of us looked elsewhere and found “satisfying answers”, the key is that it’s not about “satisfying answers” it’s about what is real and true.

God Bless.
 
I’m not the one that needs to prove your level of understanding, you are already doing so with your words and actions.

As I said earlier, a lot of us looked elsewhere and found “satisfying answers”, the key is that it’s not about “satisfying answers” it’s about what is real and true.

.
Um okay - that is your opinion based on your beliefs.

Let me rephrase then: I asked elsewhere and found the answers that satisifed **my heart **because they were/are real and true.

 
Um okay - that is your opinion based on your beliefs.

Let me rephrase then: I asked elsewhere and found the answers that satisifed **my heart **because they were/are real and true.

My first line of my last post is based on your words in this thread and your action of leaving the Catholic Church.

It’s uncommon to understand the Catholic Church, most Catholics don’t understand Her teachings. Expecting non-Catholics to know is beyond reasonable expectation.

What’s awesome is the work of God and how powerful he is, even when we think we are satisfied, He keeps trying to pull us closer to Him.

God Bless.
 
That’s not what the Bible says, and that’s not what happened with the first Christians.

We must believe Jesus is God, and be baptized. By doing so, we become part of the Body of Christ, and become part of the family of God. (For those who are ignorant of this, God can choose to save them if they follow Him as they know how to).

After baptism, we must follow His Commandments, and take up our cross daily. The Bible gives us great knowledge about God, but Christ never commanded us to read, but He did command us to follow Him, and obey His commandments.
Not sure what you think the Bible says or doesn’t say, but…

2.James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

If you don’t believe Jesus paid our sin debt on the cross, read Hebrews.

If you don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then none of this matters! But you may want to check your Catholic teaching. They say the Bible is the Word of God.

Salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ.
 
What is the difference between a demon who believes in God and a Christian who believes in God?

What is the difference between a demon who belives in Christ (because they do you know 🙂 ) and a Christian who believes in Christ?

.
2.James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.


One follows God, the other doesn’t.

One follows Christ, the other doesn’t.
 
It’s uncommon to understand the Catholic Church, most Catholics don’t understand Her teachings. Expecting non-Catholics to know is beyond reasonable expectation…
So most Catholics believe in teachings that they can’t understand. Okay thanks for your reply.

I have a few more questions that I posted in a New Thread
 
So most Catholics believe in teachings that they can’t understand. Okay thanks for your reply.

I have a few more questions that I posted in a New Thread
No. Most Catholics don’t understand the teachings, it’s not a secret, there are many polls.

What is it 30% of Catholics go to Mass weekly?

They would be knocking down the doors of the Church to get in at all hours of the day, if they understood Jesus is present there.

Confession lines would go for hours, if the Graces provided were understood.

Mass would be requested to be longer, so as to appreciate each moment.
 
Proud Ex catholic banner? Sorry that you see it that way. Since I refused your invitation to empty my heart and open it for a new understanding of Catholicism, you start to belittle me with sarcasm and accusations. No problem. This is a Catholics forum and not a Muslims forum so I uderstand that my views will not always be welcome here.

I think for the most part I have been respectful - not insulted Catholic beliefs, simply stated why Muslims believe what they believe and why I am convinved that Islam is the truth while striving to follow the command of my Creator:

***And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.” (Quran 29:46)

So Augustine - can I ask you how you reconcile the “sons of God” and “begotten son of God?”

Thank you, Katie
Sorry Katie, I have reread my posts and saw how rude I was. I sincerely apologize.

To answer your question, please read this link below taken from the Catholic encyclopedia

newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm
 
2.James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.


One follows God, the other doesn’t.

One follows Christ, the other doesn’t.
Yes, we already established THAT friend 🙂

But what’s the DIFFERENCE, to an objective observer?

If an atheist was to look at two people, one that follows Christ and the other that is a demon, what DIFERENCES would he see?

.
 
The Bible supports all the Church teaches, but it does not necessarily state doctrine/dogma explicitly. Why? Because it is not a book of theology. It consists of various writings about God interacting with man. and does contain theological concepts, but it is so much more than that. The Bible is very useful and we revere it as God’s holy word, but it is not an authority. God gave authority to men to decide matters of faith and morals, especially when Christ, the Word of God (note the capitalization) established his Church on the Apostles. We are not “people of the book” we are people of Christ, in and through the Apostles.
Muslim apologists commonly ask Christians to put forward Old or New Testament passages in support of their beliefs. The implication is that, if this request cannot be met satisfactorily, Christians cannot find support for their doctrines even in their own holy book and are following the corrupt innovations of, for instance, the Council of Nicea (Dzheremi may have had such in mind earlier).

But Islam does not have as strong a foundation in its primary-source documents as some of its adherents would have us believe. I highly recommend the articles “Open Challenge to All Muslims”, “Some More Open Challenges For Muslims”, and “My Challenge to a Muslim Dawagandist”. Even more devastating to the credibility of Islam’s holy book is “Challenging Muslims regarding the Quran’s teaching on the Trinity”.

(Please forgive the author if his titles sound too polemical; the content is very much worthwhile.)
 
Can I interject here, even though I’m not Catholic? I don’t want to comment on the questions posed to Augustine (since I’m not him, and they don’t interest me anyway), but I do think that this post illustrates something very interesting about Muslim-Christian relations, particularly as concerns the passages in the Qur’an that appear to positively appraise Christians. (It is also something I have noticed that has strong parallels in Orthodox-Catholic relations, though I’ll leave it to the reader to see where those are, as that is technically outside of the scope of the thread.)

As in the above passage, there are other parts of the Qur’an that claim to reference the Christians of Muhammad’s day and region. One of my favorites is 5:82 (Surat al-Maidah), which says in part that those who are “nearest in love” to the Muslims are the Christians, “because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.” (Yusuf Ali translation)

I highlight this because there are many subsequent Muslims who have therefore made the claim that the “original” or true Christians were those who followed Muhammad, while the rest of Christianity was polluted (by Paul, by Constantine, by Nicaea…take your pick). Therefore the best “Christians” are actually Muslims, and there are none proclaiming themselves today to be Christians who fit the description provided in Surat al-Maidah.

Existing as I do in the native Middle Eastern Church of monastic tradition par excellence (Christian monasticism having begun in Egypt), it is easy enough to find legions of Coptic Orthodox people both inside and outside of the monasteries who by their embrace of Christianity itself have renounced the world and are not arrogant. So that’s neither here nor there, i.e., it doesn’t mean anything to me to have the Qur’an affirm that we are closest to Muslims by virtue of having renounced the world and being humble, as we as a Church (and not only in Egypt) had done that centuries before Muhammad or the Qur’an ever existed (not because we’re so great, but because both of these things are foundational principles of Christianity itself; “take up your cross and follow Me”). But at the same time, I suspect that it means a lot to Muslims that their book says this. It is, after all, a positive thing to say, and provides a sort of Qur’anic basis for at least cordial relationships with Christians (or, perhaps, at least the Christians of Muhammad’s day, as the Qur’an reported their behavior and attitudes).

So I think there is a sense in which this most positive thing actually harms or makes more difficult Muslim-Christian relations, as it creates an atmosphere where positive reactions and relations of a very certain kind are perhaps expected and yet usually don’t materialize.
For Muslim-Christian dialogue to be conducted honestly, it’s vital that we not forget the negative passages in the Qur’an about Christians and their faith.

In this area, I highly recommend these articles: “The Quranic View of Christians : Fellow Believers or Unbelieving Polytheists?” and “Are Jews and Christians Mushriks according to the Quran? A rebuttal to Dr. Jamal Badawi”.
 
Yes, certainly. I agree, but something in Katie’s post made me think about how difficult it has been for me to interact with Muslims (which I do a lot more now than I even did before when I was living in a city where the second-largest foreign population was Saudis), as even the things that they take as positives and reasons that we should be close are not necessarily so from the Christian perspective, leaving a lot of ‘born Muslims’ (people without exposure to Christianity in their own countries, i.e., not Katie) feeling kind of hurt or confused as to why the world isn’t the way the Qur’an makes it seem like it should be, which is at the heart of a lot of Muslim approaches to Christianity which amount to “the Qur’an says this about your people, but you don’t seem to back it up in your actions or arguments, therefore the Christians mentioned in the Qur’an are the real Christians (and they just happen to recognize Muhammad as a true prophet, according to that same Qur’an – surprise, surprise), where you and other modern Christians have been deceived.”

That’s basically what 99.999% of Muslims who have ever posted here have said in one way or another, and I don’t think they really understand why it has no traction. It’s not enough to say that you think you’ve been respectful of Catholic beliefs, at least not if you want to know why your attempts at dawah are meeting with what may sometimes seem like rude replies.

So I agree with you, but my post was meant to address something else. 🙂
 
No. Most Catholics don’t understand the teachings, it’s not a secret, there are many polls.

What is it 30% of Catholics go to Mass weekly?

They would be knocking down the doors of the Church to get in at all hours of the day, if they understood Jesus is present there.

Confession lines would go for hours, if the Graces provided were understood.

Mass would be requested to be longer, so as to appreciate each moment.
Are you saying that 70 % percent of Catholics don’t go to Mass weekly becuase they don’t understand church teachings? So they are more or less Catholic because of family tradition and identity (like I was)… thanks for the statistic, I will look into it further.

Well since this thread topic is “Truth and Salvation” I wanted to ask how do Catholics interpret the following verses and how do these verses support their church teachings?
The Narrow Door
22 Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”
He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’
26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’
27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”
I took it from new revised standard version of the bible.

thank you.​

 
Yes, certainly. I agree, but something in Katie’s post made me think about how difficult it has been for me to interact with Muslims (which I do a lot more now than I even did before when I was living in a city where the second-largest foreign population was Saudis), as even the things that they take as positives and reasons that we should be close are not necessarily so from the Christian perspective, leaving a lot of ‘born Muslims’ (people without exposure to Christianity in their own countries, i.e., not Katie) feeling kind of hurt or confused as to why the world isn’t the way the Qur’an makes it seem like it should be, which is at the heart of a lot of Muslim approaches to Christianity which amount to “the Qur’an says this about your people, but you don’t seem to back it up in your actions or arguments, therefore the Christians mentioned in the Qur’an are the real Christians (and they just happen to recognize Muhammad as a true prophet, according to that same Qur’an – surprise, surprise), where you and other modern Christians have been deceived.”

That’s basically what 99.999% of Muslims who have ever posted here have said in one way or another, and I don’t think they really understand why it has no traction. It’s not enough to say that you think you’ve been respectful of Catholic beliefs, at least not if you want to know why your attempts at dawah are meeting with what may sometimes seem like rude replies.

So I agree with you, but my post was meant to address something else. 🙂
Right. I understand what you were saying. 🙂 The reason for my post was to make sure that everyone reading would have a complete picture of how the Qur’an portrays persons and matters Christian. (The world cannot be left unaware of the reality of the situation, which is light years away from what Muslim apologists–Jamal Badawi and surely others–wish us to consider it to be.)

Talking to Muslims is difficult, but I would counsel the following to any courageous soul interested in this noble endeavour: make sure to point out the gaping holes in Islam and refuse to let one’s interlocutors play games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top