If Christians deny this, then they deny the worship and prayers directed to God by over a billion muslims.
That depends on the Christian. Some do. The majority, however, belong to churches that teach that God grants through Jesus to each person a conscience
and asks only that the person follow its guidance. In those churches, if Allah is the only light you know, and so you turn to him, then that is fine
with Jesus. Same with Krishna, or even atheist conceptions. Christians have killed each other over just this point, and even living Christians have
condemned other Chrisitans to hell for saying it.
It's hard to generalize, then. Well, not for you personally, but hard to generalize truthfully about.
It is not news to anybody participating in this thread that the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, and that Rabbinical Judaism stems from that.
Since Judaism historically has often existed in the absence of any central Temple, it is not at all obvious that Jews today aren't living
authentically under their Law, just as much as, say, David did.
In any case, Jesus did not predict that the Second Temple was going to persist indefinitely. Jesus' teachings about the Law were addressed to Jews. On
the few occasions where he spoke to Gentiles, he did not direct them to live according to the Law, and the Great Commission does not instruct his
apostles to place Gentiles under the Law, either. Thus, Christians and Muslims differ on whether the Law binds Gentiles, which difference is what
bears on the thread-title question.
I have no need for that, because the fact that he was human is undeniable.
Which works out nicely, because nobody has denied it. What has been denied is that being human excludes being God. Even then, nobody has denied that
being human excludes being the particular god Allah. Thus, the answer to the OP question is "No."
That verse, tells us that Jesus has not ascended to HIS God and OUR God, HIS Father and OUR Father.
You accomplished your reading by supplying punctuation that is not in the original, as everyone must, and yours denied that Jesus is quoting
1: 16. I assume it was simply a mistake, and not a deliberate lie, to present your choice
of punctuation as if it was literally
there in the original. Regardless, it is not in the original; every reader must choose.
And yes, nobody denies that Jesus is telling Mary that he is ascending to the
Father, his and hers alike.
(unless you do the same for Ruth, and I've never heard anyone ever call her the only begotten daughter of God).
That wasn't Jesus' purpose in quoting Ruth
, nor John's reason for including that bit of dialog in the scene. Jesus was a Jewish preacher. He
dispensed situationally appropriate citations of Jewish scripture as his job. The scene is a parting; Jesus never sees Mary again in John
scriptural allusion Jesus chooses is appropriate for a parting scene, a time of human emotional importance.
may be a cute call-back to when St. Patrick used it 1600 years ago, ...
There is no evidence that Patrick ever used any such story. Ireland was the first national scale conversion to Christianity without bloodshed on
either side. One factor in that success is the intuitive obviousness of the Trinitarian conception of God within the pre-existing religious thinking
of the Irish. It is regrettable that we have nobody on the board who presents Christianity from the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox position. There, too,
it is the intuitive appeal of the Trinitarian concept which dominates their acceptance of it.
Obviously, to share such intuition, it is necessary to discard the politically correct notion that Allah and the Trinity are both the same God.
Plainly that is a contradiction. There is no contradiction, however, between monotheism and a single God understood as the Trinity is understood. As
noted, the Irish already understood that before Jesus revealed it. It took the Incarnation of God in order for the Greeks and Romans to catch up.
edit on 26-3-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)