Why do you believe what you believe?

[IgnatianPhilo]

Baha’u’llah has said -

“O brother, we should open our eyes, meditate upon His Word, and seek the sheltering shadow of the Manifestations of God, that perchance we may be warned by the unmistakable counsels of the Book, and give heed to the admonitions recorded in the holy Tablets; that we may not cavil at the Revealer of the verses, that we may resign ourselves wholly to His Cause, and embrace wholeheartedly His law, that haply we may enter the court of His mercy, and dwell upon the shore of His grace. He, verily, is merciful, and forgiving towards His servants” (“Kitab-i-Iqan” p. 217)

“The wine of renunciation must needs be quaffed, the lofty heights of detachment must needs be attained, and the meditation referred to in the words “One hour’s reflection is preferable to seventy years of pious worship” must needs be observed, so that the secret of the wretched behaviour of the people might be discovered, those people who, despite the love and yearning for truth which they profess, curse the followers of Truth when once He hath been made manifest…” (“Kitab-i-Iqan” [rev. ed.], (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1985), p. 238)

God Bless - Regards Tony

Having had my eyes opened by Jesus the true lord of Glory your prophet is found lacking in every field. Your prophet doesn’t even compare to the apostle Paul.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The CCC does not say we worship the same God, it says that Muslims profess to worship the same God. There is a difference.

Well I cannot see it. What does it mean for a Christian to profess the one God? it means to profess a trinity. For a muslim it means to profess a unitarian entity, a God who is one person in one essence. Are we professing the same God when in their profession they deny Jesus to be God? It doesn’t seem so to me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well I cannot see it. What does it mean for a Christian to profess the one God? it means to profess a trinity. For a muslim it means to profess a unitarian entity, a God who is one person in one essence. Are we professing the same God when in their profession they deny Jesus to be God? It doesn’t seem so to me.

Paul was worshipping one God imperfectly before his vision traveling to Damascus. He killed Christians. God was the same, Paul understood differently. God didn’t change, Paul did.

 

[tonyfish58]

Having had my eyes opened by Jesus the true lord of Glory your prophet is found lacking in every field. Your prophet doesn’t even compare to the apostle Paul.

Dear IgnatianPhilo, we all play our part in this world under the Bounty of God.

May your path bring you everything you wish and hope for and may Faith be your adorning.

Our paths have crossed at this time but we are taking a different direction and may we again meet at the Crossroads of Faith and Love for God some other time. I hope this is in this life, but if not I am sure our paths will meet again some time again.

In Gods Love & Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

Paul was worshipping one God imperfectly before his vision traveling to Damascus. He killed Christians. God was the same, Paul understood differently. God didn’t change, Paul did.

This is a good reflection, could/would you be able to expand/adapt those thoughts to included Other Faiths? Like Muhammad?

“God was the same”,“God didn’t change” is the meat of that explanation.

Regards Tony

 

[PRmerger]

It has been clarified that Christ’s ascension was a symbolic one? By who?

Servant19 is very uninformed regarding Church teaching. He believes that Pope (emeritus) B16’s book Jesus of Nazareth is a teaching of the magisterium.

Servant wrote:
“The book was written when he was the Pope. It is magesterial teaching.”

It is not. In fact, Pope B16 writes quite clearly that it is definitely NOT a teaching of the magisterium. In the forward to the book, the Holy Father states (bold mine): "It goes without saying that **this book in no way is an exercise of the magisterium **but is solely an expression of my personal search “for the face of the Lord (Psalm 27:8)”

It appears that he is unaware that the personal thoughts of a pope do not equal “a teaching of the magisterium”.

Secondly, in his book Jesus of Nazareth, Pope B16 does NOT state, at all, that the Ascension of Christ is symbolic.

That it was not a literal Ascension by Christ is never mentioned, not even once, by our theological giant, Pope B16.

 

[josie_L]

This is a good reflection, could/would you be able to expand/adapt those thoughts to included Other Faiths? Like Muhammad?

“God was the same”,“God didn’t change” is the meat of that explanation.

Regards Tony

But Paul changed.

 

[tonyfish58]

But Paul changed.

That is the Point It is us that has to change to find God as, God is always the same, God does not change, We have to.

To accept the Revelations of God after Christ, the change has to be as great as Paul!

Regards Tony

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Paul was worshipping one God imperfectly before his vision traveling to Damascus. He killed Christians. God was the same, Paul understood differently. God didn’t change, Paul did.

Absolutely but I do not see what that has to do with whether or not muslims worship the same God as Chrsitians.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

That is the Point It is us that has to change to find God as, God is always the same, God does not change, We have to.

To accept the Revelations of God after Christ, the change has to be as great as Paul!

Regards Tony

We must not accept false teachers like mirza Hussain and Muhammad.

 

[josie_L]

Absolutely but I do not see what that has to do with whether or not muslims worship the same God as Chrsitians.

I think what Gary is trying to say is that Muslims worship God imperfectly, i.e., since there ca n only be one God, and that God is the God of Abraham which they profess to worship, then they are worshiping He who is the Creator but in a faulty manner because they have an incorrect understanding of who He is (just like the Jews have an incorrect understanding of who He is when they rejected Christ). Both Jews and Muslims deny the Holy Trinity as revealed by Jesus Christ.

p.s. Muslims of today cannot be faulted per se for being raised and believing what they do about God (only God can judge the profundity of their ignorance), i.e., Muhammed however is an entirely different matter, i.e., he will be held accountable.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think what Gary is trying to say is that Muslims worship God imperfectly, i.e., since there ca n only be one God, and that God is the God of Abraham which they profess to worship, then they are worshiping He who is the Creator but in a faulty manner because they have an incorrect understanding of who He is (just like the Jews have an incorrect understanding of who He is when they rejected Christ). Both Jews and Muslims deny the Holy Trinity as revealed by Jesus Christ.

p.s. Muslims of today cannot be faulted per se for being raised and believing what they do about God (only God can judge the profundity of their ignorance), i.e., Muhammed however is an entirely different matter, i.e., he will be held accountable.

Its not imperfect if its utter rejection. In worshipping the unknwon God the greeks worshipped the true God imperfectly but that was only because they said nothing about this God. The muslims tell us things about their God and he is not Jesus Christ. Even if they concede the worship of the father alone (they never use the term father) thats like breaking apart God and the trinity cannot be broken. It must be worshipped wholly.

 

[josie_L]

That is the Point It is us that has to change to find God as, God is always the same, God does not change, We have to.

To accept the Revelations of God after Christ, the change has to be as great as Paul!

Regards Tony

What was revealed about God through Christ and proclaimed in the Bible was/is true in its entirety, i.e., to change one iota of it would contradict Jesus who is the actual Word of God, i.e., He is the Word of God (first Chapter of the gospel of John) as such He is divine. Jesus who is God cannot be wrong.

p.s. You cannot come 600 years later and demote Him because Muhammed said so.

 

[tonyfish58]

p.s. Muslims of today cannot be faulted per se for being raised and believing what they do about God (only God can judge the profundity of their ignorance), i.e., Muhammad however is an entirely different matter, i.e., he will be held accountable.

Have you ever considered that it could be the person who has not accepted Muhammad that may “be held accountable”.

Muhammad was who He said He was and His book the Koran the Testimony of God for that time. It could be that all we do will be weighed by that book! The book is its own Testimony, it is said

“And if you are in doubt as to which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a sura like it, and call on your helper, besides Allah, if you are truthful”. Sura 2:23

"Say: 'If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support. "Sura 17:88

This was from an Unlettered Man, how… By God!

Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

What was revealed about God through Christ and proclaimed in the Bible was/is true in its entirety, i.e., to change one iota of it would contradict Jesus who is the actual Word of God, i.e., He is the Word of God (first Chapter of the gospel of John) as such He is divine. Jesus who is God cannot be wrong.

p.s. You cannot come 600 years later and demote Him because Muhammed said so.

We in no way consider we are demoting Christ, quite the opposite in fact.

Just remember these are your accusations against us, they are not factual from our understanding. Also that is not factual is the altering of the book. We would argue we are giving the correct meaning and it may be the common understanding of the Bible that has been altered well before Muhammad came. In fact that is why God sent Muhammad!

It is just as plausible as what you say

Regards Tony

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

This was from an Unlettered Man, how… By God!

Regards Tony

The Oddyssy was recited and invented by men orally, people could remember and recite the entire thing. The ability to say words that others may or may not think are eloquent is no proof of divinity.

 

[josie_L]

Its not imperfect if its utter rejection. In worshipping the unknwon God the greeks worshipped the true God imperfectly but that was only because they said nothing about this God. The muslims tell us things about their God and he is not Jesus Christ. Even if they concede the worship of the father alone (they never use the term father) thats like breaking apart God and the trinity cannot be broken. It must be worshipped wholly.

I don’t think it’s an outright rejection, i.e., they profess to believe in the God of Abraham, i.e., they are attempting to worship the true God/Creator (the Greeks were polytheists), however, imperfectly.

p.s. What is your stance on Jews who also reject the Holy Trinity as revealed by Jesus Christ? What “god” are they worshiping?

p.p.s. Even if they worship only part of the Trinity, at least they acknowledge a part of it and deem it worthy of worship. They have not entirely rejected God, i.e., they need to be evangelized so that they may come to the full knowledge of the God they profess to believe in so they can worship Him perfectly.

 

[josie_L]

We in no way consider we are demoting Christ, quite the opposite in fact.

Just remember these are your accusations against us, they are not factual from our understanding. Also that is not factual is the altering of the book. We would argue we are giving the correct meaning and it may be the common understanding of the Bible that has been altered well before Muhammad came. In fact that is why God sent Muhammad!

It is just as plausible as what you say

Regards Tony

I’m saying your position is illogical, i.e., claiming at once to believe that through the Jews and the Christians is the first and second revelation, but then denying those revelations by invalidating what they actually say, as I said illogical and quite convenient, i.e., Muhammed could synthesize the two faiths to create what is now Islam, i.e., the "third’ revelation. Moreover, what proof do you have that God sent Muhammed except for Muhammed saying it was God who sent him (really)? I think I’ll stick to the more concise reporting and witnesses in the Bible (both old and new) that attest to Jesus’s divinity.

God bless!

 

[tonyfish58]

I’m saying your position is illogical, i.e., claiming at once to believe that through the Jews and the Christians is the first and second revelation, but then denying those revelations by invalidating what they actually say, as I said illogical and quite convenient, i.e., Muhammed could synthesize the two faiths to create what is now Islam, i.e., the "third’ revelation. Moreover, what proof do you have that God sent Muhammed except for Muhammed saying it was God who sent him (really)? I think I’ll stick to the more concise reporting and witnesses in the Bible (both old and new) that attest to Jesus’s divinity. God bless!

The question would be if I gave you those answers you asked, would have your mind already given the answer

Regards Tony

 

[josie_L]

The question would be if I gave you those answers you asked, would have your mind already given the answer

Regards Tony

Only because faith and reason should go hand in hand.