Here’s one example:
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9)
And then this interesting passage:
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? [Psalm 82:6] If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken — what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:34-36)
[Uh-huh.]
Angua, that is surat an-nisaa’(IV),59
You who believe! Obey God and obey the apostle and those in authority from among you. If you quarrel with each other bring it before God and the apostle, if you believe in God and the last day; that is better for you and a better ending.
Comments
Obey Allah:
By pointing you to Al Qur’an and its commands and - according the commentators - to the Hadith.
Obey the Prophet:
A case of refusal to accept the sentence of the Prophet is delivered by the record of a dispute between a Jew and a Muslim. The Prophet judged in favour of the Jew and the Muslim, enraged, refused to accept the ordeal of the Prophet and brought the case before ‘Umar. ‘Umar, who was informed about the decision of the Prophet, entered his house, took his sword and decapitated the Muslim. (It is said that this incident gave him the nickname al-Farûq.)
Obey the apostle and those in authority from among you. If you quarrel with each other bring it before God and the apostle…:
Thus was put an end to certain conflicts that could rise during military expeditions between the commander in chief and his subordinates.
One such case cited (among others) in the comments is the case of ‘Amir b.Yasser, a compagnon of the Prophet, who opposed himself against the execution of a Bedouin who had only recently converted and who’s execution was ordered by the commander Khalid b. Walîd. Their conflict was brought before the Prophet who ruled that ‘Amir was right, but nevertheless reprimanded him for lack of discipline and overruling the decision of his commander.
In case you prefer to read Tafsîr from Shia scholars - who are for you of course the most trustworthy – a little list of the most important:
Al Hasan-l-‘Askari (died 868AD) Tafsîr (incomplete)
Al kûfi ibn ‘Ayysha (9the cent.AD) (Tafsîr)
Al Qummi ‘Ali (end 9the cent.AD) (Tafsîr)
‘Abu Ja’far-t-Tûsî (1067AD) At-Tabyîn
‘Abu ‘Ali-t-Tabarsi (died 1143AD) Majmû-l-Bayan
Hasunama Zayn-l-Abadïn (1909AD): Al Qur’ân-l-Majîd.
Jawâd Muhammed-n-Nasafi (died 1934AD) Tafsîr ‘Allâ-r-Rahmân
And yes, I’m aware of it that you likely would be informed about the history of Shia doctrine (more so then I am since it was not really an issue in my study and I never went much further into it then what was required by my curriculum) yet the information in your post was not correct in that you mentioned only the reasoning which became part of the points made for maintaining and defending the division.
Salaam. A
Here’s a little more information.
The text translated “His only begotten son” is, in Greek, “ton huion [autou] ton monogene.” “Autou” (“his”) is found in some very good early manuscripts, but not in others; modern critical texts put it in the footnotes, but it seems implied in any event. With regard to “only begotten”; that would be “monogene”. There’s no textual problem here; it seems to be present in all the manuscripts. The problem might be translation; you could read “only” or “unique”, rather than specifically “only begotten.” Nevertheless, John 3.16 rather clearly claims something more than “a pious man.” Uniqueness is emphasized.
I don’t think the claim that Christianity had “primarily left the Holy Lands soon after Jesus’ death” could be substantiated. Granted, with the Jewish revolt in the 60’s, and Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem, there was rather a lot of upheaval; and the surviving church in Palestine may well have been mostly Gentile.
Nevertheless, Eusebius attempted to trace a succession of Jewish Christian bishops in Jerusalem up to the time of its destruction, and a succession of Gentile Christian bishops afterwards. The accuracy of lists of bishops is questionable; but it’s clear that in the early 300’s Eusebius at least thought there’d been Christians in Palestine all along.
And I’d say he was right. In 216 A.D. Origen (probably the greatest scholar in the early Church) went from Alexandria to Caesarea (on the coast of Palestine), the center of a cluster of well-established churches; after some bumps in the road, Origen founded a theological school there which was influential for many decades. One of his achievements was the collation of the Hexapla, a six-column version of the Hebrew Old Testament (including the Hebrew text, a transliteration, and several translations); in this work Origen specifically addressed points where the Greek and Hebrew texts diverged, and one of his primary purposes was discussion with Jews regarding Christian claims about Jesus.
So there just wasn’t any real interruption of Christian contact with the “Holy Lands,” as far as I can see; and some rather competent scholars worked to keep in contact with what remained of the Hebrew tradition.