Hi everyone,

The nature of Christ, according to the RC teaching, is both human and divine- two natures, one person. You're spot on, Philo when you say that we learn about the Divinity through the Humanity.
Just as it was through the Disobedience of a man that humanity lost original privileges, it was through the Obedience of a Man- who is also Divine and therefore infinitely capeable of Atoning- that we were Redeemed.
At the same time as being Divine, Christ has a human body and soul. He is "a man like us in all things but sin". There are two basic faculties of the soul- the intellect and the will. Christ, being "perfectus deus, perfectus homo", has a human intellect and a human will (And a human body and Divinity). (The Humanity and the Divinity of Christ are in "Hypostatic Union", forming one Person). His entire life He spent "growing in wisdom and in favour with God"- His human will conforming to His Divine Will- but His human personality is not oppressed, but we can see His human compassion at the wedding feast at Cana leading to His first public miracle(Jn:2).
You are right, there are natural, human inclinations to prefer alternative choices, "not my will be done but yours"- but it is precisely through this obedience that we were Redeemed. Great stuff.
Sorry it's a bit long but realistically, there are so many things to know about Christ, in fact "if all were written down, the world itself would not hold the books recording them." (Last sentence in John)

We being human cannot perecive the divine nature of God apart from material reality, the eternal nature of God is revealed in his handiwork [Rom 1: 20]. God is other than spatial but in manifest to us in the spatial. Jesus is the chosen Christ through whom God revealed His salvation and character. Love is a spiritual reality, and we learn of God's love by the sacrifice of love shown by Christ Jesus atoning for sin that nailed him to the cross.

Well said Jose.. !
Not exactly what Philo was saying :) but I believe it is what he 'should' be saying...
Philo, I understand your points, but I think you make an error in seeking to relate all the teaching about Christ into 'one' direction, and limiting his Divinity by His humanity. This was in fact an early point of contention in the church, but I don't want to argue all that history now, specially seeing as the topic is about Muslims fitting all.

TURKEY and the EU.
Turkish muslims generally are less 'fundamental' or extreme in their Islam, but the point in history which I've made repeated mention of in these forums, (no one else seems to think it matters) which was the Seige of Vienna, in 1680ish... is the VERY thing which is causing opposition to Turkey's membership in the EU TODAY !

The amazing and to me, irrational thing is how historically ignorant or 'denialist' people far away can call the Austrians 'xenophobic' simply because they have suspicions about a country which tried to enslave them in recent memory not once but a number of times.

Its hardly 'xenophobic' for Aussie WW2 diggers who suffered under Japanese cruelty to have grave reservations about close ties with Japan, if anything it is abundantly realistic.

The real problem is 'irrational' xenophobia, whereas much of it has a sound historical or dogmatic basis. (i.e. in the dogma of a particular race-Nazism)

So, while its not correct to say "All Muslims" are this way or that, it is nevertheless accurate to claim "All Muslims can be assessed on the basis of Islam". So, if Islam has inherent problems or threatening aspects, it would not be irrational xenophobia to have a worry or 2 about them.

David, your comment makes sense, that if there are inherent problems or threatening aspects then concern would be reasonable. I don't know Islamic doctrines very well, are there any stand-out inherent problems?
(By the way, Philo if you'd like to send me an email joseph_howard@hotmail.com I'd be happy to discuss the idea of God, the Trinity, etc with you)

Boaz, sometimes I wonder where you get this stuff from.

>>Turkish muslims generally are less 'fundamental' or extreme in their Islam, but the point in history which I've made repeated mention of in these forums, (no one else seems to think it matters) which was the Seige of Vienna, in 1680ish... is the VERY thing which is causing opposition to Turkey's membership in the EU TODAY !<<

The reason "no one else seems to think it matters", dear Boaz, is because it doesn't.

We all know that European memories are long - ask an Irishman about the Battle of the Boyne - but to consider that the Ottoman Empire's various campaigns into sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe have any relevance to whether Turkey is admitted to twentyfirst century EU is nonsense.

Cyprus alone is a thousand times more relevant. Twentieth century Armenian history has some bearing on the discussions, but that is about as much as history-as-history will contribute to the debate. The rest of the considerations will be utterly bureaucratic, in that the greatest impact in joining the EU is having your legal system and economy become subservient to the EU.

The machinations that will be interesting to the rest of the world will include the efforts required by Turkey to come to terms with some of the cultural issues, and in this context their being a Muslim nation will of course be central. And very, very interesting.

I personally don't believe that Turkey should pay the price required, or be comfortable with the compromises and concessions that Germany and France in particular will demand. But I am equally sure that money will eventually talk loudest, much to the future despair of the Turkish people.

But Vienna? The sieges (the first in 1529, by the way, the last in 1683) have absolutely no context here, and it is mischievous to suggest they have.

Talking of them though reminds me of one aspect that has always puzzled me - the role that the 20,000 christians played in the 1529 siege, as members of Sultan Suleiman's janissary corps. Care to comment?

Jose, probably the simplest way to see such 'stand out' issues re Islam is do a search on the post history in this forum on myself and John Kactuz, both have contributed to that theme.

My main concerns are in the area of the actions and behavior of the founder, and how this relfects on his legitimacy as a messenger of God, when compared to say John the baptist and our Lord.

The problem arises when you have the Islamic council of Vic claiming that it promotes Islam based on the Quran and 'as practiced' by Mohamed, so, you look through Islamic sources on his 'practice' and note reports of a) Murder b) Torture c) Gratuitous Sexual gratification d) Genocide of Jews e) Attacks/theft on others property, etc...makes one have serious reservations about 'as practiced by' in the mission statement of a local Islamic body.

Some web searches will reveal a lot of propoganda, but if you sift through the unneccessary expletives and adjectives of the authors, you can actually evaluate information objectively. "Answering Islam" is quite a good site, well referenced and sourced.

Philo, you seem to have the view that Jesus was conceived 'naturally' as in a human father. I reject this on the basis of scripture. Mary was a virgin, clearly stated mate. See commentary on Luke 1:18 I think and that area.
Cheers all