When Jesus' birth was announced, ... we see that the idea of God-man (or fully man / fully God) is only extracted by compositing various
The flip side of Christians not accepting Mohammed as Jesus' peer is that Christians accord the authors of their canonical books a status
functionally equivalent to the status which Islam accords a "prophet."
The Gospels do not present a complete record of Jesus' words and actions before and during his crucifixion. That event itself, of course, is doctrine
not because Jesus said "I was crucified," but rather because the Gospel authors (along with Paul and others in the canon) said he was crucified. A
statement by a Gospel author in a canonical book has the same authority in Christianity that a statement through Mohammed in the Koran has in
Obviously: you believe what you do about the crucifixion because of what the Koran says about it. A Christian believes what she believes about the
same event because of what the New Testament says about it. Parity and symmetry could not possibly be clearer.
Also, unlike in Islam, Jesus' Messianic mission hasn't ended yet for Christians. He is incarnate and available as a source of continuing
revelation, by hmself or through the Holy Spirit. A revelation received from and about him after the crucifixion would be as much "something Jesus
said" as anything he said before he was crucified. Such material in the canon would have the same authority as anything else there, like Jesus'
sayings made before or during his crucifixion.
So, within Christian thought, it is not Jesus, but canon authors, like that of John
, who would have the status of Mohammed. John
Jesus at the Creation in the opening verses - so John
records the revelation that Jesus is God - and John
says that this Logos
became man. The conclusion is inescapable: if John
1 is true, then Jesus is God, Jesus is man, and an early prophetic witness to Jesus'
ongoing situation and mission is John the Baptist.
That the author of John
lacks that status in Islam is unsurprising. However, he already had that status in Christianity centuries before
Mohammed came along. Mohammed's say-so presents no compelling reason why Christians should change their minds about the status of Gospel authors.
Mohammed asks Christians not only to demote Jesus, but also to demote men who seem no less qualified than Mohammed himself to speak on God's
There are other verses which Christians rely upon for their christology. For example, Jesus behaves like God (forgiving sins, especially). There's
nothing in Christianity that requires God to explain himself in words when his actions are those reserved to God alone. However, I am not a Christian
apologist, so I'll stick to my knitting, and just compare the two religious traditions, identifying the differences in their perspectives and how
that bears on questions that arise.
However, if Christians condemn Muslims as evil or misguided... Instead, they love and support the Jews and special plead for them saying they
will someday accept Jesus.
I am unsure that this reflects typical Christian thought. Belief in Jesus' divinity, and other things, is a matter of receiving a gift from God
according to many Christians. "Evil" might come because somebody hasn't received the gift (for example, you might kill somebody who believes
differently than you do - something all sides have in their history). But unbelief in itself? No, that may be unfortunate, but it isn't evil. Of
course, there is enough diversity among Christians that no doubt some will think about it the way you say.
Have you ever heard of a people (other than Christians) who adore those opposing the central figure of their religion?
No. But why should I think less of folks who love others, even loving those whom third parties identify as their enemies? The usual criticism I hear
of Chrisitan historical behavior is that some of them didn't love their actual enemies, contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Now, they're being
criticized for loving those with whom they, to their own satisfaction, have no quarrel.
As to the last block, while I appreciate that Messianic matters are not the only issue that divides the Abrahamic traditions, it is the only one that
would plausibly pit an observant modern Jew against teachings of Jesus personally, which was the subject which you raised, and I answered.
I think you'll find that I answered your question in the quote block you copied from my post.