Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Islam Lacks a "rock of Peter"

Expand Messages
  • sarah
    Matthew, If disunity and warfare is due to lack of centralisation in Islam, then how do they explain the relatively peaceful Bhuddism and Hinduism? Even
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 18, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Matthew,
      If disunity and warfare is due to lack of centralisation in Islam, then how do they explain the relatively peaceful Bhuddism and Hinduism? Even Judaism? They have never been centralised either. Islam is a very war-orientated ideology and it's only logical that the problems must stem from that.
       
      Sarah
      Dolls and Cooperative Boardgames;
      http://www.geocities.com/harmonytoys/index.htm
    • DoctorStarman@aol.com
      In a message dated 2/16/2005 1:18:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... *******I think the rock on which the Christ was to build His church was not Peter
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 2/16/2005 1:18:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, tma4cbt@... writes:

        Maybe somebody can come forward and tell us what it is about the
        Petrine doctrine that made Jesus build his `church' there.  We can
        see distinctions unique to each gospel in the Bible.  What is unique
        about the gospel of Peter?  



        *******I think the "rock" on  which the Christ was to build His "church" was not Peter himself, but the spirit-realization Simon showed a moment before, when he said, You are the living Christ. That direct knowledge of the Christ was the 'Rock' (in Greek, petrus).
          And I agree that unfortunately Muhammed apparently bought into the false Gnostics' idea that Jesus didn't really die on the cross, etc.---- so that Islam leads people away from knowledge of the Christ as badly as orthodox Judaism does, making Jesus into a man or at best just one of the Prophets.
        -starman
        www.DrStarman.net
      • Mathew Morrell
        In the early Christian movement there were those who believed in Jesus as God , those who believed in Jesus as Prophet, and those who believed in Jesus as
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 6, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          In the early Christian movement there were those who believed
          in "Jesus as God", those who believed in "Jesus as Prophet," and
          those who believed in "Jesus as God and Man." There was much
          argument and debate over this issue, as to what was Jesus' true
          nature. Was Jesus mortal, was he God, or was Jesus God in flesh
          (the "living" Christ)? Islam and most Gnostics (even to this day)
          deny Jesus' divine nature, emphasizing instead his mortal role as
          teacher. Thankfully, the Church father's rejected the Islamic-
          Gnostic doctrines and later overcame the Monophysites, a counter-
          movement that rejected the reality and completeness of Jesus' human
          body, his consubstantiality with us. The chart below might help us
          grasp the differences in black and white terms.


          Nestorians: One person, two hypostases, two natures.
          Catholics: One person, one hypostasis, two natures.
          Monophysites: One person, one hypostasis, one nature.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.