Orthodox

As I understand Bahai do not see themselves as inovators but merely believing the original religion which was given before theirs as well. or something to that extent. So Here is my question, the church has had a consistent teaching, with its theology, from St Ignatius apostle of John to St Athanasius and has defined its doctrines clearly. So why do they not bare any similarity to the beliefs of the bahai?

jwiegley

Orthodox, in the same vein as your question I would have to ask that if those doctrines are so clear, why are there so many different understandings among Christians, having led to so many sects, some of whom find each other anathema.

My point is that humanity introduces its own ideas of Divine Truth. Yes, often that Truth is obscure to us; but our own efforts to clarify it sometimes achieve the opposite. How else could a Faith which has always taught love and brotherhood be used so vociferously as a means for war and division?

Livindesert

In Baha'i theology we are given more information about God when each manifestation appears. In the Baha'i belief it is sort of like a school. In a earlier grade such as Christianity you need to learn addition, Islam=multiplication ,Baha'i could be Algebra.

Or you could look at Judaism and how Christianity looks very very different theology wise from it and Islam different than Christianity, Or how Christianity is different from Buddhism.
Basically God is so big that when each manifestation appears more and more is revealed about him. Thus the later teachings clarify the earlier teachings just as Christianity reads the Jewish Torah in a different way than the Jewish people do and comes up with a more refined version on God so to dose Mohamed, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah refine the view of God.

Livindesert

The Eastern Orthodox believe they are the perfect and original church so they just view other Christian sects as leaving them. Similar to how Catholics view all other Christians to have split off of them.Just for some FYI.

Don't focus on the bad brought about by religion sometimes but look at the infinite good we are gaining from it.

We have to keep in mind that Christian's are our brothers. Yes a lot of western Baha'is have had bad blood toward Christianity due to bad church experiences but we must remember the love Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha have for our Christian brothers.

Orthodox

Such a view is schizophrenic, these people show no understanding of each other. Mohammad did not teach waht Christ taught that is Christ died for the sins of the world, which can be related in the bible. The problem is that the ideas of bahai no where appear in the fathers, the doctrines that bahai hold about Jesus do not appear within the fathers, the church or the bible (Unless you allagorize and metaphorically interpret every verse). But perhaps that doesn't bother the bahai, because you view it as Mohammad giving the next revelation and Baha'u'llah correcting it. Because as I see it the gospel is clear on this issue, does not need clarification, God came down as a man (john 1.1) and died for our sins so we may reach theosis. attain that unity with God.

So I must dissagree with your conclusion that each of these people brought better messages than the one before. Primarily because I see no consistency between them. Muhammad taught Christ did not died. Christ said he would die. Bahu'a'llah said Christ rose spiritually, Christ said he was no spirit when he appeared to the desciples. There is no consistency between these teachers.


The doctrines are clear, read the writings of the fathers, there is a clear consistency in their teachings. Be it on Jesus whom he was, whom mary was, how salvation and what is the afterlife and how worship should be done. Yes there have been those who have introduced new doctrines, and the church has rejected these men and women as heretics, like Arrius and Nestorius. There are many groups, yes, but these groups today, protestants, Catholics and the like, can not be found in the ancient faith of the fathers, which the orthodox have maintained. Rome added, Germany subtracted, Constantinople did neither.

Truth in the orthodox church has not been something man made, Christ promised the desciples the Holy spirit. And it is our understanding that the holy spirit was not limited to the desciples but came to the body of Christ and the desciples of those apostles of Christ, such as St Ignatius, whom clearly teaches the concept of the real presence in the eucharist, the divinity of Christ, his salvific death and others.

But maybe I will clarify my question, why is the ancient church so at odds with bahai today, if they are of the same source. And if truth is obscure, why does God give revelation? Should not God be clear and precise and consistent?

jwiegley

An excellent question, Orthodox, and one which I join you in pondering.

I wonder if God could even be clear enough for us. Human minds see so little of the whole picture, no matter how much we study. I mean, if I gave someone a seed, I could talk myself blue in the face trying to describe all the mysteries hidden in that seed, but it would do no good. My descriptions could only call to mind what that person already knew as familiar; I could never tell them about what they hadn't yet known. So instead I'd have to go the simpler route, and say, "Look, just plant it, care for it, and we'll see what happens." Yet doing that, they may think all the importance is in the planting and caring, and not in what will someday issue forth.

I think Truth may be something like that. It's not for us to know in its entirety yet, but God does tell us how to head in that direction.

The best answer I've ever read to your question, Orthodox, is given in Bahá’u’lláh's book, the Kitáb-i-Íqán. There He talks in great length about why religions seem to differ, and why religious history has repeated itself so often.

Lastly you should know that when I read from the Bible, I hear the words of my Lord and Savior. I do not consider it the book of another Faith, or another time. I read it as another Gospel of God's eternal Truth.

Orthodox

They certaintly don't seem to differ, they do differ, fundamentally. all religions do not have the same basic teaching. Nor do all holy books. The ancient greek religions basic principle was that there are gods, they do what they want, live with it. Christianity tells us that Christ died and rose physically from the dead for the remission of sins towards theosis. Islam denies the divine trinity and affirms tawhid. Bahai in my opinion does not understand waht the religions actually preach.

You see I think God has been clear with his revelation, with the bible in the church, which has interpreted the bible, chose it, wrote it and put it in canon. So I do think truth is something that can be known so I must fundamentally dissagree.

Also my question remains unanswered, why does the beliefs of the fathers not agree with bahai if they are of the same source? The fathers did not teach a spiritual ressurection, in fact no one did. lol

Sen McGlinn

"Muhammad taught Christ did not died. Christ said he would die. Bahu'a'llah said Christ rose spiritually, Christ said he was no spirit when he appeared to the desciples."

Muhammad did not teach that - it is one of several disputed interpretations, by Muslim scholars, of a single verse in the Quran, and the claim is not that Jesus never died, but rather that he did not die on the cross. The Quran contains other verses that do speak of Jesus' death and resurrection:



Among the explanations of the verses about the crucifixion is that "they" is the Jews who wanted to think they had killed him, but the Romans actually did the deed. Another is that it means someone else was substituted. Another is that Jesus swooned and was revived. And so on ... and one is that it was only the body of Jesus that died, and this was the Will of God although the people thought they had decided the matter themselves, and that God raised him.

=

The Christ that Paul encountered on the road to Damascus is a voice and a light, but the resurrected Christ in Luke is bodily:


My reading of the differences within the New Testament account is informed by source criticism. Paul's is the oldest of the resurrection narratives that have survived, and may well be his own account of his own experience. Matthew has a Jesus with feet, but no other physical characteristics - he just appears, in 28:9 and also later in Galilee

I put these in chronological order and see first of all a spiritual experience, and then more narratives being developed as the church argued about the nature of the risen Christ.

jwiegley

The book I mentioned is the best I can offer to that question, Orthodox. Other than that, if you know of Truth then please pray for me. I believe the prayers of a true believer are capable of great things. Yours, John

Orthodox

Im generally inclined as to agree with the islamic interpretation of such a verse, while not explisite, It seems to indicate that christ not killed. This is an omition if your interpretation were correct I don't think is justified, for the romans did do the deed literally, but the quran should have said this. Otherwise It leads to confusion.

Now I am inclined to agree with the islamic rendering of the verse you posted, that this speaks of Christ's second coming. Either way the quran seems vague and unclear on the exact details, which we should now get into. Muhammad certaintly denied the deity of Christ something that is taught within scripture, say John 1.1 and John 17:5, along with 2nd Phillipians, thus still denying a continuity between revelations.

Heh, its funny that you say the ressurected body of Christ is physical in luke, but not in the encounter between Paul and Jesus on Damascus. Luke wrote both books, apostles and gospels and obviously meant one thing, the explanation best is that this was a vision by Jesus given to Paul by Jesus. Not a physical appearance. I'm also glad you admit the ressurection was physical in Luke, but it is also physical in every other part of the New testamant. But before i get into that, the account Paul gives us is not his own account, let us read what he says.

1cor:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance. THis is an important note, which tells us Paul received this. This is why scholars date this verse or belief to five years after the ressurection because he received from the desciples in Jeruselum. Now omitions in the laying out of the gospels and what they reveal are not hints of ignorance or contradiction, but merely omition, something the authors left out because maybe they didn't see it as relevant. But both texts Mathew and Luke (and mark and John) are clear in that Jesus rose physically. Not spiritually. Christ is not a ghost, he eats food, invites thomas to touch him in John. Shows the desciples his wounds, his grave is found empty in Mark, there was no body, where did it go? The NT is clear Christ died physically. And the testimony of the fathers has maintained this truth and defended it. After all, St John wrote the gospel of John, are we to distrust St Ignatius who was a desciple of John? Or St Clement? Or St Papias? Or any of the other apostolic fathers? No I dont think so.

So I will ask my question again, why is there such a difference in doctrine and beliefs between the fathers of the church and modern bahai if they came from the same source?

Your not the only one who likes Criticism of the bible

Orthodox

I will chekc out that source, and send you a Pm about my comments about it. Thank you for the reference.

(as an extra note)

I just want to say thank you to those who want to engage with what I say, its been a great discussion thus far.

Livindesert

Yes I actually do allagorize the Bible :cool When I read the Gospels I see that all accounts of the resurrection are different (number of angels, women were their etc..) It is also interesting that the Romans are said to be on watch for Christians trying to make it look like Christ rose from the dead when the Christians themselves were suppose to have thought Chrst died and would not resurrect at that point. Thus to me the whole account seems to be a allegorical telling of a spiritual event.

But that is just my opinion

Orthodox

The whole account does not bare marks of allegory, that is an interpretation foreign to the church. Its what the gnostics did to some extent, thye claimed a sacred knowledge the church revealed to them. Now are teh gospels exactly the same in the details they list? No, but are they contradictory? No. Omition is not contradiction, Mark omits the ending of the gospel how Christ appeared to his desciples. and other gospels might omit the number of women at the tomb. But the story is the same. These stories are not allegorical, the gospels are works of History, not fictional allegory. Or else we must believe that Jesus did not truely exist, he is but an Idea that the gospel writers came up with. This is the consequence of the view that the gospels are allegory. Perhaps I should interpret the words of the Bab purely allegorically, so as to make them orthodox in nature. One can do that, I just have to ignore what the text says.

Also the romans were watching out for the desciples because they did not want anyone to steal the body and then claim christ has risen fulfilling what Jesus said.

Also I will repeat my question. Why do the fathers of the church contradict Bahai if they are from the same source. Why are they so different?

Livindesert

C. THE RESURRECTION
1. Who found the empty tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."

b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."

c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.

d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.
2. Who did they find at the tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).

b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.

c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.

d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.
3. Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?

a. According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone."

b. According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples."

c. According to Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest."

d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.
V. THE ASCENSION

According to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.

According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection.



All this to me seems to say it was a allegorical spiritual event.

Livindesert

The Christian revelation was for a different time. The world and mankind is different today thus man requires prodding from God in a new direction.

Also remember Buddhism,Hinduism,Christianty, Judaism, Islam, and Babism is all from God which goes to show how big God is as he is so big different parts of him appear contradictory but are not in actuality.

Also you can interpret the Bab however you want at the end of the day we are all part of the same religion anyways

cire perdue

The differences of World Religions occurs because the degree of spiritual knowledge that is revealed by those Founders is in proportion to the capacity of the people to understand it at that time. It elevated them spiritually, it is "ahead" of them so they grow into it. When that growth is reached and begins to decline another Founder is sent by God. The truths of God's love for man do not change, there are basic ideas that are continual. The truth of the Ten Commandments is still true.

Orthodox

Okay, as for those verses provided, the book does say Mary Magdellen went alone, it is mere omition, not contradiction or spiritual allegory. Once again the books of the NT don't bare the sign they were created for such a purpose. Or else I would have to take the entire NT as this way. The Nt was written as a historical document sir.

Now, I don't view those religions from God, especially a religion (budhism) which tells us God isn't important in the grand scheme of things. and that is my point. We cannot be apart of the same religion, for if you were would you sing the divine liturgy? We are not of the same religion, our religions fundamentally contradict, Im sorry to say this, but this is just how it is.

And cire, you claim that it is revelation at different times to different people. But that doesn't answer my question the Christianity of the fathers (which they got from the desciples) Contradicts the view points of bahai. Why is this? If we are truely of the same source why do we contradict?

jwiegley

Orothodox, we are saying that many points of scripture are to be taken allegorically; that they conflict only if read literally. Since you are asserting that their literal nature is an unquestioned truth, no argument we make can ever be reconciled with your premises. So there is really nothing further to say.

The earth turns around the Sun, although the opposite appears to be true. If the Sun's motion is taken as an unquestioned fact (and it was, by millions), how can the Earth's motion ever be argued by words alone? For centuries people debated this point. It really wasn't until the age of spacecraft that it became obvious which point of view was correct.

How much less can we reach agreement on such matters in the spiritual realm! If you believe so certainly what you believe, and if those beliefs by their very nature contradict the fundamentals of our own, what can we even attempt to discuss?

I think it better that we both try to espouse our principles as fully as possible, to aid and assist each other in the true spirit of religion, and labor for the salvation of humanity. If there can't be agreement, there can still be brotherhood. I'm not asking you to see things as I do.

arthra

Now, I don't view those religions from God, especially a religion (budhism) which tells us God isn't important in the grand scheme of things.

Actually I think you may have misunderstand Buddhism ..

It is more from the what is called via negativa or Neti Neti "Not so not so.." in the Sanskrit that the Buddha approached the Absolute..

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_negativa


He does not endorse materialism but He also does not endorse the theocratic systems that were around when He was alive..so His position at the time would be closer to agnosticism but for a reason.. Had He aligned Himself with any of the schools around at the time His teaching would have been received as yet another system or school.

His main teachings were directed at the Brahmin caste and the caste system itself.. much in the same way that the teachings of Jesus did not endorse the Pharisees and religious establishment of His time..

The Buddha opposed caste..the authority of the Vedas .. animal sacrifices enjoined by the priests and so on.

Many Buddhists have also recognized the Faith in countries like Vietnam, Mongolia and Nepal.

:wink

Orthodox

Even if the scriptures do contradict, that is no reason to assume metaphore. The Gospels were not written within conjunction with each other they were written in different geological locations. So you cannot merely assume that. Now, what is my premise for knowing that the gospels are to be taken literally? There are many things to discuss, let us consider the nature of the gospels, they are not written as some sort of symbolic book but bare marks of historicity to them. They mention specific people or times that people existed. Also the fathers of the church whom came from the desciples do not regard these works or the mentions of a ressurection as metaphorical.

But I would like to examine the bahai premise. You claim because it contradicts it must be metaphore. Let us assume this and apply this other historical texts. Not all historical texts agree on the events of what has happened. Some do contradict, therefore it is merely a metaphore these historians spoke. This premise I feel falls flat from my initial perspective or needs to be built up more

And you ask what we can attempt to discuss, we can attempt to discuss what is reality and what is hitorical. For instance I see a discrepancy between baha'u'llahs teaching and that of the church fathers. There can be nothing gained if just say nothing and admit we have differences, we should compare and contrast, that is how we have the many things we have today. Things don't get better without realising their faults.

Now as to do with buhda, the point is he never told us that God is the most important thing, the thing most important as I understand Budhism is to avoid suffering. God is not important to doing this. Though if you can give me an early Buddhist text that speaks of this that is realiable I would love to see it.

Also it was actually Gallileo who made us sure of the orbit of the earth around the sun. He essentially proved it.

So I will repeat my unanswered question, why do the fathers and early church contradict bahai if they are of the same source?

jwiegley

I appreciate your tenacity, Orthodox. I'm sure there are parts of the Bible which are fully historical, but not having been there, I cannot say which.

The idea that parts of Divine Revelation are intended as allegory is taught by Bahá’u’lláh. It is primarily my faith in Him that causes me to accept this, not because I myself know for a fact which parts are historical and which are not. So I cannot debate the historicity of the Bible with you, I can only put forth the principles that were given to me (much as you are putting forth the principles of your church fathers). I know it seems "obvious" what is true and what isn't in this case -- the disciples clearly state they saw Christ after His death -- but we both know that common sense and the obvious are often far from it.

I did find one link for you which expresses our viewpoint more clearly, though I doubt it can satisfy your original question:

Resurrection of Christ and the Bible

Lastly, I do not believe that the teachings of the church fathers and of Bahá’u’lláh come from the same Source. I believe that Christ and Bahá’u’lláh are of the same Source. Many afterward were guided by the Holy Spirit, there is no doubt, but I would not go so far as assigning equal veracity to Bahá’u’lláh and the Orthodox church on individual points of doctrine.

Orthodox

Well you see it is common sense the desciples claimed to see Christ, the text is ambigious. They saw Christ he rose into heaven, the text does not say what bahai says by any stretch of the imagination.

Alright Thank you for being the firs to answer my question

But there are problems with your answer. If there were many who were guided after Christ inbetween the time of muhammad and Jesus where are they? Why did their teaching not become dominant? After all Christ promises his church will not fall to the gates of Hades, are we to make that promise in vain by not trusting in the church Christ promised to protect?

One other thing, I never said all the bible is to be interpreted literally, we are to look at the text and how the church understood it. Revelation obviously is not completely literal due to the consistent use of imagery within it. It is not comparable to that of the historical gospels which bare no signs of not being literal.

Livindesert

Actually they do have information that I consider historical. Just as I pointed out some parts of them to me appear to be relating to a spiritual allegories.I can agree to disagree with you but I have.

Depends on the text but I already gave my view of that plus in my opinion on this specific set of texts. I can agree to disagree with you

I see evolution where you see discrepancies it just depends on ones opinion which we are each free to hold.

To achieve this you have to get out of the western theological mindset and get into a eastern theological mindset. I had my own experience with this visiting Buddhist temples in Korea while studying Buddhism.
We actually just had a Buddhist confess his faith in Baha'u'llah the other week. I am currently also studying a great theological work on the sutras called "Buddha Maitrya-Amitabha Has Appeared" great book so far I am doing my own study on it.

Orthodox

There is no evolution, just discrepencies, religions all over the world contradict as do the texts. The fathers teach a physical ressurection and real presence within the eucharist and trinity. Bahai teaches a spiritual one and no encounter with the desciples and warps the trinity into an idea the fathers never contemplated (I have seen Bahu'a'llahs interpretation of trinity, and can't help but think he missed the point of the trinity). These are not evolutions, they are descrepencies. The

Lol, its funny that you tell me to get out of the western mindset when my religion is maintained in the east. It is based on the revelation of God, and there is a mysticism in the divine eucharist and practice of orthodoxy not known in the west. Though western logic is great for rational discussion.

But I want to ask my question again. If there were many who were guided after Christ in between the time of Muhammad and Jesus where are they? Why did their teaching not become dominant? After all Christ promises his church will not fall to the gates of Hades, are we to make that promise in vain by not trusting in the church Christ promised to protect?

Livindesert

Muhammad is one of the the refreshers of religion that dose protect and continue "the church" aka the religion of God of which all all good flows from. Religion in the earthly sense follows the cycle of life Birth, growth, decline, death. Even religions conforms to this part of God's law. Even the Baha'i faith will eventually become a old faith and will be replaced when the next manifestation appear in around 850ish years.

But it is no big deal if you believe in Eastern Orthodoxy because to me you are still following the teachings and religion of God and are a brother in faith.

Livindesert

West as compared to Buddhism but yes east in regards to Catholicism.

jwiegley

That's the best counter question I could expect to hear. Indeed, one could even say that the Church itself is the greatest proof of Christ's resurrection, since although He lived only three and a half years, even until the present day the major branches of the Church continue to influence mankind more than any government or king ever has. The effect of Christ's life and teachings has never abated, and this proves to me that He never truly died on the cross.

But if the nature of the Church is thus Divine, how could it have fractured? If its origin is holy, shouldn't there be a single, true derivation, guarded from error and a protection for the faithful until the time of Muhammad?

How do you yourself answer this question? I assure you, the followers of most every Christian sect believe in the rightness of their church. That's why they chose names like "orthodox" and "catholic".

Orthodox

Muhammad had no claim to the church, the church at the time rejected Muhammad. Perhaps our understanding of church is different, here is the understanding of the fathers. That the church is body of Christ, that Christ married to and protected, it has bishops which maintain its truth and give us the truth that the disciples had. Heck St John Damascene Bishop of Antioch or Jeruselum I believe tells us that Muhammad was wrong and a false prophet. And its intersting you mention religion follows a pattern, let me assure you the orthodox church has never died.

It is interesting you say I am a brother in faith. Not to sound as if I don't appreciate teh gesture, I do, it shows your love towards me and anyone else who believes in a God. But we do not have a common belief, our beliefs contradict, so how can we be brothers? You would not uphold the divine liturgy like I would, I would maintain the bab or Bahu'a'llah as a prophet. So how are we brothers in faith? I ask this sincerely.

Livindesert

Actually a lot can be gained. We avoid strife and conflict which then can lead to physical aggression and war. We no longer demonize people but just see each other as brothers who differ in opinion. It is a radically new way to love other people. Love and understanding is something the world really dose need right now.

Livindesert

Because you are a follower of the religion of God even if we disagree in opinion and details of theology.

Orthodox

Excellent point, the church has not fractured. But people have broken away and formed their own church. Also the titles of Orthodox and catholic can be both applied to the Eastern Orthodox church, They are simply given to distinguish the different groups. And if you want to defend the rightness of the other churches over orthodoxy, that is fine, I think you will find that the orthodox emerges on top of the dialogue, it has the strongest claims and its doctrines are internally consistent with the fathers, and the bible as well as history. For the church did remain from the desciples to Muhammad, simply read Ignatius, Iranaes, St John Chystostum, St Athanasius, St Basil to St John they all speak of the church as a continuing thing, not something that died with the apostles. Nor some invisible state of being.

Also when you say Christ didn't die ont he cross do you mean literally?

Orthodox

People have had heated discussion before. We don't see William lane Craig out on vandetta to kill Christopher Hitchens or any of the others he has debated. Nor of james white, Sami Zatari, and the thousand of other people. In fact some of the greatest discussions have happened between friends, GK Chesterton a Roman Catholic whom I greatly admire was a friend with a famous atheist and they remained friends to death having heated discussions about the essential truth s of the universe.

We are civil here, so I don't think your argument applies.

Livindesert

You are correct that the Church is alive and its lifeline runs through Christianity,to Islam,to Babism, to The Baha'i Faith In our opinion anyways.

Orthodox

So orthodoxy is the religion of God? So would you sing the hymn of the divine litrugy, it being of God?

Orthodox

No it hasn't, it couldn't have, the church Christ established rejected muhammad and the Bab and Bahai. Thats not possible.

Livindesert

I have seen much hate on different web forums by those influenced by Hitchens and Chesteron. Anytime anyone is portrayed as "the enemy" it creates unneeded disunity. The path for the future lies in the unity of humanity.

Livindesert

Just as the Jews rejected Christ so did the Christians reject Muhammad. Islam rejected the Bab, some Babis rejected Baha'u'llah and in the future some Baha'i will reject the next manifestation. This is all a part of the life cycle of the Church of the one religion of God.

Orthodox

Theirs already disunity that is why people debate and dialogue so as to resolve the issue. The fathers of the eccumenical church did not kill each other when they debated on the trinity. And though St Nickolas did slap Arrius for his blatent heresy, he was expelled from the assembly and spent the night repenting and was visited by Christ.

Debate can lead to strife, it can lead to heat. But unless you feel you are not strong enough or that I am not strong enough and that neither of us can keep a civil tongue your argument is invalid as then it could not apply. I always try to keep civil in debate, I have gotten out of hand and later apologized, I am human it happens, hower that is not a good enough excuse to get rid of such a valuable tool.

But we aren't even debating we are dialoging.

jwiegley

I mean His Reality did not die; that His body expired on the cross, but this did not curtail His Church or His sovereignty.

I think we have danced around these points most equitably, and I bow to your consistency and candor, Orthodox. I'm afraid I have nothing more to offer this discussion, but I have enoyed it on an intellectual level. Peace be upon you!

Orthodox

We rejected muhammad because he did not teach what Christ taught. lol. The fact is he was still rejected by the PHYSICAL church Christ established with the apostles and the bishops protecting and guiding it. The church isn't an invisible body of all people on earth, that would mean the body is fractered and beyond any repair. Because islam and Christianity aren't the same religion.