Posted on 02/07/2005 9:05:30 AM PST by skellmeyer
Roughly half of America dislike everything George Bush says, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t the President of the United States. This is a point too few people keep in mind. Take, for instance, the example of Stas, a very nice Orthodox man, who read my recent piece on concerning the Muslim reporter who implicitly threatened to kill me and nuke America. He thought the piece excellent except for my statement that the Pope was the head of Christianity: “As for the Pope, 1 billion various protestants and 300 million Orthodox don't follow his words and that's half of Christianity.” To keep things honest, a Mormon and a Protestant also voiced essentially this disagreement.
I could have pointed out, as I do here, that his statement proves nothing about either the Pope or the President, but I demurred. Instead, I merely pointed out that there are no major theological differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, apart from a minor theological point concerning the generation of the Holy Spirit and his aforementioned quibble concerning the Pope. He insisted I was wrong, and in attempting to demonstrate his case, he inadvertently made a connection between Orthodoxy and Islam that I had read about, but never really seen in action before.
(Excerpt) Read more at bridegroompress.com ...
LoL....
You misunderestimate me..
Not really.
The Pope is no St. Peter nor is he worthy of being called his successor. The entire structure is built on political power and has nothing to do with St. Peter.
That's the same kind of national pride the Jews had in the early church. But they had far better justifcation; we worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Where does God identify himself by reference to the ancestors of the Greeks?
Lastly, the New Testament is written to highlight that it is the bridge to the rest of the world via the Greeks.
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." KJV
You said Islam believes in Sola Scriptura. I pointed out non-Koranic authorities within Islam. (Of course, the actual doctrine of Sola Scriptura means the Bible by "Scriptura", so if the Muslims ever started believing in it, they'd be Christians).
Then you start talking about the priesthood of the believer. That's a different subject.
There is no priesthood in Islam - only religious scholars and prayer leaders
Yes. That's why they have no priesthood of the believer. You have to have some concept of what a priest is before you can say that every believer is one.
- sort of like in Judaism.
I wonder if you ever read those books of the Bible near the beginning. I'm thinking especially of the third and fifth. You know, the stuff that wasn't written in Greek (don't worry, they translated it a long time ago), with all the rules about sacrifices and leprosy and suchlike. Lots of references to priests. That was a hereditary priesthood. They're still around. Lots of them have the surname Cohen. There's not much for them to do these days but they do exist and IIRC have a few ceremonial functions in synagogues.
Sola Scriptura just means you follow the written word of teh Bible as your only authority. No holy men or priests or even saints. Sounds a lot like Islam's basics.
I think this is an attempted answer to the question of where God identifies Himself by reference to the ancestors of the Greeks. I wasn't asking about what language the New Testament was written in. I was asking where God calls Himself the "God of [whoever the relevant people would be]" as he told Moses, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."
Come on. Show me.
I predict the best you can do is Romans 3:29. But that's a different kind of thing and, needless to say, hardly gives the Greeks any high status.
Lastly, the New Testament is written to highlight that it is the bridge to the rest of the world via the Greeks.
So I guess Zechariah 8:23 should be changed to read Greek instead of Jew, eh?
Do you seriously think the New Testament was written in Greek to give ethnic Greeks an advantage over everyone else?
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." KJV
Interesting you would quote that. Your whole point is claiming a privileged status precisely because you're Greek. But if there is no Greek, that goes out the window.
I do not claim a privileged status for any people - only that if you want accuracy, correct historical Christianity - go to the Greeks.
1) Islam doesn't follow the Bible at all. They follow the Koran. That's because they aren't Christians. If they did start following the written word of the Bible, they'd become Christians.
2) As I've already pointed out, Islam does have other authorities, such as the Hadith. Get your facts right before you try this stuff.
3) As I've already noted, we hold to the priesthood of the believer. So not only do we have priests, we are priests. Likewise with saints. Paul addresses epistles to saints because saints aren't some special class of believer, but believers as such. It should be likewise with holy men, since we are called to be holy.
You should try reading that a few more times to see if you can figure out what's wrong with it.
Sola Scripura - follow the Bible or the Koran or the Vedas only. I thought you were bright enough to get that. What I wrote was an example.
Calling it an example in one way to wiggle out.
Regardless, the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is about the Bible, not whatever uninspired scribblings the unregenerate mistake for Scripture. But yes, I will admit it's possible for other religions to have equivalent doctrines. Karaites are Jews who do. I'm pretty sure all Sikhs do. But I don't know of any Muslims at all who hold a doctrine functionally equivalent to Sola Scriptura. They might exist, but I haven't heard of them. Certainly mainstream Muslims and even Wahhabis hold to the Hadith.
Let us make a list of some similarities SOME Protestants have with Islam.
Sola Scriptura - only the Koran serves a sa basis for the faith - tradition holds no weight.
No clergy - no authority exists between man and his relationship to God.
No icons - some Protestant sects don't even allow crosses.
No saints.
No alcohol.
Similarity to young adult baptism in some Protestant sects and young adult male circumcision in Islam
For some Protestant's Sunday's are not held to be the Lord's day.
No dancing or secular singing for some Protestant sects.
No Holy Eucharist
De-emphasis on the Holy Trinity
"Islam preaches SOLA SCRIPTURA."
I'm not jumping in your discussion with k2blader but if you are going to make a statement, make sure you know what you are talking about.
Islam does not preach SOLA SCRIPTURA. They teach the Koran and the Hadiths (some are given more importance than others). The Hadiths were written by others(including Mohammed's child-wife) that included new rules and such that Mohammed supposedly said, liked, disapproved of, etc. The Prostetant church does not resemble this arrangement at all. Hadiths would be closer to your Traditions.
According to this site, there are 10,000 Hadiths and second only to the Koran.
http://www.islam-online.net/English/introducingislam/Prophet/Said/article01.shtml
Thus Protestant Sola Scriptura is in line with Islamic theology.
De-emphasis on the Holy Trinity
You are simply a liar.
Repent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.