Muslims in Balkan Should Promote Europe of Peace and Hope

[George S.]

The best interpretation is to let the bible interpret itself because thats god spsaking.

[George S.]

Spitfire the baptism isnt the thing that will save you.its gods grace.by jesus chrisy are you daved yhere is no other name either in hesven or under heaven.
So what it boils down is god has a big future for man and y
There is hope. Of faith in god.

[Risto the Great]

Risto the Great
I can't see how anything other than my interpretation can be used to define my interpretation!

haha, I see where you are coming from. But, if you are a Christian, I would think you would ultimately have to believe the Bible as your only source of proof as it relates to your faith.

Otherwise, your faith could comprise of all sorts of things like what the stari babi do with maslo and the evil eye etc.

Anyway, rest assured I have no desire to banish you to hell for your thoughts or interpretations.

[spitfire]

Spitfire the baptism isnt the thing that will save you.its gods grace.by jesus chrisy are you daved yhere is no other name either in hesven or under heaven.
So what it boils down is god has a big future for man and y
There is hope. Of faith in god.

I see that you abandoned protestantism for catholicism for now George. Notify me when you convert to orthodoxy again, so that we can talk.

Orthodox:
Salvation is "faith working through love" and should be seen as a life long process. The Ultimate aim of every Orthodox Christian is to obtain Theosis or union with God. This is done through living a holy life and seeking to draw closer to God.

Catholic:
Salvation is by grace, specifically sanctifying grace, which is given initially through Baptismal regeneration and then maintained through the Sacraments, which are 'channels of grace'.

[spitfire]

I honestly am not so sure.
The bit about later texts taking precedence over earlier texts in the Koran makes it a more aggressive religion in my limited mind.

It could be like this, but when you think of later texts such as the new testament over the old, this does not apply. The new testament is way more "moral" sort of speak.

To me it's all about how it suited the people in time. I think it makes more sense to the arabs when they read about the dessert in the Quran, palm trees etc. It also makes a lot of sense for the people living there, the system that the Quran suggests.

Let's not forget that Islam (which means religion of the one and only God) is also a political-economic-society-system. It's very clear in the Quran and to the muslims (this means the faithful who believe in the one and only God).

In this sense, it's all a matter of application, and how it suits certain needs in societies.

[makedonche]

haha, I see where you are coming from. But, if you are a Christian, I would think you would ultimately have to believe the Bible as your only source of proof as it relates to your faith.

Otherwise, your faith could comprise of all sorts of things like what the stari babi do with maslo and the evil eye etc.

Anyway, rest assured I have no desire to banish you to hell for your thoughts or interpretations.

RTG

Ok, so which version of the Bible should I use as my source to interpret the Trinity from?

[Philosopher]

RTG

Ok, so which version of the Bible should I use as my source to interpret the Trinity from?

If you are serious in this endeavor, then you should approach the subject with a little more gravity and sincerity. Otherwise, you are wasting your time.

The Trinity (and the Bible as a whole) is not something you can approach lightheartedly. The Trinity is a very complex subject. In its most elemental form, however, the Old and New Testaments teach a plurality of persons in one Godhead. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons, but One in Being.

You should the read article Vangelovski submitted in this thread explaining the Trinity as a start. But please do not end there. Your only source for accuracy and truth on this subject is the Bible, not in articles published on the World Wide Web.

[Risto the Great]

RTG

Ok, so which version of the Bible should I use as my source to interpret the Trinity from?

I think you might have me confused with Fr Vangelovski.
How the hell would I know?
Having said that, I believe that being a modern Christian means the Trinity is embraced. Modern Christians believe all of the bibles should be interpreted this way.

Why so hard to accept? I believe a whole slab of Europe believed in "Triglav" before the Christian God.

http://meettheslavs.com/triglav-three-headed-god/

Are you saying you don't believe Jesus is God or that you don't believe in the Holy Spirit? Which bit aren't you buying?

[Risto the Great]

It could be like this, but when you think of later texts such as the new testament over the old, this does not apply. The new testament is way more "moral" sort of speak.

Every Christian I know suggests the New Testament is the key and they tend to diminish some of the more "bizarre" stories in the Old Testament. So, in a sense, newer takes precedence over old again here. The difference being Newer appears to be more loving (supposedly). Whereas from what I've read about Islam, the earlier texts talk of love and later ones talk of how to deal with the infidels or whatever in less than savoury ways.

To me it's all about how it suited the people in time. I think it makes more sense to the arabs when they read about the dessert in the Quran, palm trees etc. It also makes a lot of sense for the people living there, the system that the Quran suggests.

Let's not forget that Islam (which means religion of the one and only God) is also a political-economic-society-system. It's very clear in the Quran and to the muslims (this means the faithful who believe in the one and only God).

In this sense, it's all a matter of application, and how it suits certain needs in societies.

I am still waiting for the NEWEST TESTAMENT where Jesus sends a Snapchat video to his 12 buddies and updates his Facebook profile to "resurrected".

[makedonche]

I think you might have me confused with Fr Vangelovski.
How the hell would I know?
Having said that, I believe that being a modern Christian means the Trinity is embraced. Modern Christians believe all of the bibles should be interpreted this way.

Why so hard to accept? I believe a whole slab of Europe believed in "Triglav" before the Christian God.

http://meettheslavs.com/triglav-three-headed-god/

Are you saying you don't believe Jesus is God or that you don't believe in the Holy Spirit? Which bit aren't you buying?

RTG
I am not saying any of those things, I merely said in the initial post that I was brought up to understand that Jesus was the son of God, therefore as such he couldn't be God himself, and there are different views and interpretations of this. Furthermore if the Bible is the only source, then why are there so many versions of the Bible? Which one do you believe? Who's interpretation is valid and who's isn't?

[makedonche]

If you are serious in this endeavor, then you should approach the subject with a little more gravity and sincerity. Otherwise, you are wasting your time.

The Trinity (and the Bible as a whole) is not something you can approach lightheartedly. The Trinity is a very complex subject. In its most elemental form, however, the Old and New Testaments teach a plurality of persons in one Godhead. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons, but One in Being.

You should the read article Vangelovski submitted in this thread explaining the Trinity as a start. But please do not end there. Your only source for accuracy and truth on this subject is the Bible, not in articles published on the World Wide Web.

Philosopher
I have approached the subject with sincerity and gravity and not lightheartedly as you imply.

The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons, but One in Being.

This part in itself is enough to cause doubt/confusion/different interpretations, don't you think?

[Risto the Great]

RTG
I am not saying any of those things, I merely said in the initial post that I was brought up to understand that Jesus was the son of God, therefore as such he couldn't be God himself, and there are different views and interpretations of this. Furthermore if the Bible is the only source, then why are there so many versions of the Bible? Which one do you believe? Who's interpretation is valid and who's isn't?

Well, I think you would have to learn the old languages of the Bible to be less confused. But if you are talking about the English versions, then you just have some relatively minor interpretations of text and/or less "ye" and "hath" in some of them.

The muslims seem to agree with your line of inquiry though:

http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-10-1.htm

My genuine question on this matter to Christians is the issue about Jesus on the cross. Modern Christian thought insists on the dual nature of Jesus (both human and God). That this dual nature or "Hypostatic union" always ensured Jesus was both fully God and fully human. Rest assured, it confuses the shit out of me. Jesus asked "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" How can you be fully God and say that?

If I was fully God ... I would be saying, "yeah, ok .... I am supposed to say this hurts". Who can hurt God? In other words, the greatest sacrifice (for all humanity) that we are told about, is difficult to comprehend when Jesus just flew away upon his resurrection. Not unlike a pretty cool video game when you know you will re-spawn. It definitely does my head in, but am not going to say others are crazy for believing what they believe about it.

The answers usually talk about the "mystery of our faith". So .... let us together proclaim the mystery of faith

[spitfire]

Every Christian I know suggests the New Testament is the key and they tend to diminish some of the more "bizarre" stories in the Old Testament. So, in a sense, newer takes precedence over old again here. The difference being Newer appears to be more loving (supposedly). Whereas from what I've read about Islam, the earlier texts talk of love and later ones talk of how to deal with the infidels or whatever in less than savoury ways.

Yes it does talk about the infidels but it also talks about a system for society. That's a breakthrough compared to the previous books.
There is a misunderstanding though about the infidels. In Mohammed's times the lesser jihad was happening, holy wars etc. From a point on the greater jihad was suppossed to be happening, which means now that everything is settled the muslims should fight within themself. They should conquer their soul.
This is avoided being talked about by the fundamentalist muslims. On purpose!

am still waiting for the NEWEST TESTAMENT where Jesus sends a Snapchat video to his 12 buddies and updates his Facebook profile to "resurrected".

Well, it was a good trick to differentiate from any other prophet. How do we make Jesus different from all those thousands of men that talked about the same thing at those times? We make him a God without inflicting on God's image.
Very clever indeed.

[George S.]

No comparison of jesus and mohamed.jesus is god.
The other thing mohamed is a person a human being.jesus was converted from man to god.that is our future.

[spitfire]

Here's ten Christ like figures that predate Jesus

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

Here's another comparson

http://irr.org/jesus-zoroaster-buddha-socrates-muhammad

That Zarathustra fella, very much like Jesus.