The titles of Jesus in Islam.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

With that same reasoning you illigitimize your own Quran, a book that came 600 years after the fact, not based on any teachings of Christ's own Apostles.

The Koran was a separate revelation... to a different people. Jesus himself said his mission was to the Israelites.
If the Muslims were supposed to be Christian, then God would have replaced Arabias polytheism and idolatry with Christianity... instead of Islam.

The truth is many muslims claim to "love" Jesus and "believe" in him, but they put a man, one Muhammad above the King himself.

Absolutely false.
Mohammad refused to be placed above even Moses. He even rebuked a muslim for arguing with a Jew saying Mohammad is superior to Moses. Bet your sources didn't teach you that.

Muslims only have a special reverence for Mohammad because he was the prophet who brought the message of the Koran, which is the scripture of Muslims.

Your reason for rejecting Mohammad is because you falsely perceive him as a nasty man... by your reasoning the atheists are also justified in rejecting God because they perceive God to be nasty.... and you too should reject God for all the violence, genocide, infanticide, rape in the Old Testament which you keep quoting from.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

You just cannot let go of your fabricated religion to see the truth, and your book of lies is what confuses you.

Your interpretation of the bible is NOT necessarily the truth. It may be what is confusing you, but its not the truth.

In fact, to further demonstrate how truly confused you are... just re-read your own thread which you had made earlier, where you said the 99 attributes of God as taught by Mohammad.... actually points to Jesus.

Seriously? You believe Mohammad was an evil man. Yet, you believe the 99 attributes as taught by Mohammad actually points to Jesus?

reply to post by Deetermined

So, have you ever asked yourself, "who are the Pharisees"?

What do you make of these verses?

Those verses are the thoughts of a man who "thought" he too had the holy spirit.

I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
-1Corinthians 7:40

I said many Christians are like Pharisees, because of how they wave about their doctrines believing they are the authority on the matter... much like how the Pharisees waved about their self-righteousness and their authority on the law.

reply to post by eight bits

There are almost two billion Christians, Scorpie. You need some basis to distinguish between fringe Christian views and things that most Chrisitans believe.

Yes, unfortunately its impossible to know what every single one of those 2 billion to identify what Christians believe about Islamic teachings on Jesus.

The second best thing we can do is to assess Christian literature on the subject. This is easily available on various Christian websites and forums etc.
The vast majority of them try and discount the fact that Islam identifies Jesus as the messiah.
The same also glorify the same people who identify the same Jesus as a false messiah.

If you didn't know or refuse to believe Jews hold a very negative view of Jesus and that many Christians are vocal about their support for Israel... a country full of Jews who hold negative views of Jesus then I cant help you.

Then if that's the case, perhaps you would give an example of "many" Christians "supporting" people who call Mary a whore.

Its not my responsibility to educate people who don't have a grasp on these matters. At best, I can only give you a method of finding out for yourself.

First, run searches on Christian websites / literature and see how many of them are vocally supportive Jews.Then factor in the number of Christians who are influenced by these pro-Jewish literature.

Then educate yourselves on the Jewish position of Jesus and his mother... and read what lies in their "holy" books. I do not wish to repeat the insults that the Jews heap on Jesus here, I'll leave that to you to find out.

As to false prophet, my understanding is that many Jews believe that Jesus was a fine Second-temple Jew,

Then your understanding is way off.
Jesus is absolutely incompatible with the religion of the Jews. The reason is because Jesus was the messiah and Jews believe he isn't. They cannot even acknowledge him as a prophet.

No, you showed me a verse where the speaker says that God is not a man who speaks falsely. The speaker goes on to suggest that God doesn't experience regret (over what he promises to do, presumably).

Going by the narrative, the speaker simply repeated the message which was put into him by God.

I think that difference between us on this point is discussable, since a goal of this thread is to urge Christians to embrace Muslims and reject Jews, based on the other two religions' (or their adherents') different attitudes towards Jesus.

I'd like to see that, but I'm afraid it will never happen.
The Christians, who support the Jesus-insulting Jews seem to be far too deceived to make that change and align themselves with the Muslims who revere Jesus. But we can hope, I guess.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


There's nothing like printing half of a Bible verse to mislead, is there?

Why don't you go back and read it in context.

Here are some other verses in that chapter to help you.

1 Corinthians 7:7

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

Paul's talking about the seven gifts of the Spirit and which one he thinks he is gifted with. This has nothing to do with whether or not he ever questioned him being filled with the Holy Spirit.

reply to post by Deetermined

Paul's talking about the seven gifts of the Spirit and which one he thinks he is gifted with. This has nothing to do with whether or not he ever questioned him being filled with the Holy Spirit.

It still doesn't change the fact that Paul "thought" he had with the Holy spirit. He was unsure.
At best, Paul's epistles only contained his ideas about the new religious movement centered around Jesus which had just emerged.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


If Paul didn't have the Holy Spirit, he would not have been able to perform miracles.

If Peter didn't think Paul was authentic, he wouldn't have traveled with Paul to preach the gospel and stand up for Paul in front of all the other disciples.

reply to post by Deetermined

If Peter didn't think Paul was authentic, he wouldn't have traveled with Paul to preach the gospel and stand up for Paul in front of all the other disciples.

Just because Peter traveled with Paul doesn't mean Paul was a true apostle.
Peter was an apostle, yes. But Peter is also shown to be imperfect...(denial of Jesus thrice.) So Peter could have made a mistake by associating with Paul.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


The truth is, the reason Paul's writing were made part of the Bible is because they did not contradict the teachings of Jesus at all, regardless of how much people don't like what he had to say.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Your reason for rejecting Mohammad is because you falsely perceive him as a nasty man..

You and I both know that the reason Christians reject Mohammad is because he contradicted what Jesus taught about himself.

Scorpie

If I may address a few points you have made to others since our last exchange.

Your reason for rejecting Mohammad is because you falsely perceive him as a nasty man...

No, I reject him because what he proposes is that I believe stories which I find incredible. Granted, many people who make such proposals, like L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, are often unattractive in other ways, too. Mohammed would not be an exception to that.

1Corinthians 7:40

This discusses choices that different people make about married life. Paul is open to a variety of approaches, including the one he himself chose. It is not the only place in his letters where Paul distinguishes between what he has received in revelation and what he thinks and does personally. What was your concern about this verse?

By the way, there are some ironies as we turn to Paul. His story is precisely Mohammed's story: that he received a revelation from God. Of course, I advocate for neither. However, how somebody would choose between their teachings, if the person did choose one, is an interesting aspect of the problem between us, even if not completely within the announced topic. As far as that goes, another irony is that of the New Testament writers, Paul stays much closer to what will become an Islamic view of Jesus than what became the orthodox teaching.

That said, thank you for your reply. On points there that we haven't already fully exchanged views:

The second best thing we can do is to assess Christian literature on the subject.

It's probably fully the best a living person can actually do. But trawling websites, especially websites chosen for focusing on a peripheral concern of Christianity at large, is not a sound or scholarly way to proceed. The foundational Christian literature was finished long before Mohammed was born. For an orthodox Christian of the Seventh Century or later, Mohammed presented no new issues so unlike what had been already addressed in the centuries before him.

If you didn't know or refuse to believe Jews hold a very negative view of Jesus and that many Christians are vocal about their support for Israel... a country full of Jews who hold negative views of Jesus then I cant help you.

Then we are in agreement that your views about Jews are unhelpful. However, you are perhaps the last person who should presume to malign anybody else's research into Jewish opinions about a concern which is peripheral to their religion.

reply to post by eight bits

No, I reject him because what he proposes is that I believe stories which I find incredible. Granted, many people who make such proposals, like L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, are often unattractive in other ways, too. Mohammed would not be an exception to that.

Mohammad was no Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith.
Of course, I cant convince you about about Mohammads achievements... unparalleled by any biblical prophets. No other prophet in history
the finer, spiritual truths of Islam, but today, Islam stands as a world religion.... and neither can I convince you

It's probably fully the best a living person can actually do. But trawling websites, especially websites chosen for focusing on a peripheral concern of Christianity at large, is not a sound or scholarly way to proceed.

If websites and literature are insufficient, then nothing stops you from doing your own scholarly research? That is if you are truly looking for an answer.
My stance is that Christians tend to discount / deny Islam's honoring of Jesus as messiah. I would truly be surprised and happy if the number of Christians who discount or deny Islam's honoring of Jesus are in the minority. Unfortunarely, Christians are of the belief that Islam is a false religion because they stop short of seeing Jesus as God.

Then we are in agreement that your views about Jews are unhelpful.

I don't get it. The Jews are theologically opposed to Jesus. I could post tons of material that prove this... but it seems you have no use for links and videos.

reply to post by Deetermined

The truth is, the reason Paul's writing were made part of the Bible is because they did not contradict the teachings of Jesus at all, regardless of how much people don't like what he had to say.

But Paul indeed contradicts Jesus in so many ways. In fact, Paul contradicts the Old Testament prophets and God Himself.

Originally posted by godlover25
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Islam is very confused,

If Islam is correct, than Judaism and Christianity are both false religions, and Islam is based on the revelations of Judaism and Christianity and relies on them being true,

Islam is a self negating religion,

If Islam's roots are false, then Islam must bear false fruit,

If Islams roots are true, than Islam is incorrect in its doctrines,

So what's going on here?

Have the Muslims been duped?

your asumption is based on that either judaism is true or christianity is true, both cant be true but both can have some wrongs and islam corrects those wrongs. You ofcourse wouldnt agree to that, but if christians leave the idea of Jesus pbuh as god then they have a very islamic belief and the if jews accept him as Christ then they too.
A verse is Qur'an addresses both, as they claim the other have nothing to stand upon and yet both read the same scripture, have they no sense?

Scorpie

If websites and literature are insufficient, then nothing stops you from doing your own scholarly research?

Indeed, I continue researching today, just as I have done for years.

My stance is that Christians tend to discount / deny Islam's honoring of Jesus as messiah.

If they deny it, then they err. They do discount it, because being a man who is God is better than being a man who is not God. That sounds like a defensible position to me. I understand that you would disagree, probably because it is possible to be a man, but impossible, in your view, to be both God and a man. As we've discussed, Christians don't share your opinion about that.

And of course Christians think that Islam is a false religion. Islam teaches different things than Christianity teaches. You can't both be right. Surprise, surprise, you both think that it's the other guy who has it wrong.

I don't get it. The Jews are theologically opposed to Jesus.

No, typical religious Jews are opposed to Gentile theologies based on the proposition that Jesus is the Jews' Messiah, a position held by both Islam and Christianity. Jews wouldn't have any reason, based on their own religion, to pick a fight with Jesus himself, more so than with many other Jewish teachers. It is a religion of debates, after all. Disagreement, or only partial agreement, isn't such a big deal in Judaism. The losing view is often transmitted along with the winning one in rabbinical discourses. This, too, is something I admire.

reply to post by eight bits

No, typical religious Jews are opposed to Gentile theologies based on the proposition that Jesus is the Jews' Messiah, a position held by both Islam and Christianity. Jews wouldn't have any reason, based on their own religion, to pick a fight with Jesus himself, more so than with many other Jewish teachers. It is a religion of debates, after all. Disagreement, or only partial agreement, isn't such a big deal in Judaism. The losing view is often transmitted along with the winning one in rabbinical discourses. This, too, is something I admire.

so the jews tried to kill him just because they dint like the way he debated?

so the jews tried to kill him just because they dint like the way he debated?

Some Second-Temple Jews tried to kill Jesus, while others followed him. The remark you quoted uses the present tense. There are no Second-Temple Jews in the present, and there haven't been any for about 1900 years. Conversely, the Jewish religion of the present didn't exist in Jesus' day.

If your point is that rabbinical (modern) Judaism is less rock 'em sock 'em than the Second Temple variety was, then I won't dispute it. But to paraphrase the Bard, if Second-Temple Jews killed Jesus, then it was a grievous fault, and grievously have Second-Temple Jews answered it.

reply to post by eight bits


so you mean to say that the jews NOW accept him as Messiah? I hope. And if they do what they call themselves? Jews or Christians?

reply to post by eight bits

If they deny it, then they err. They do discount it, because being a man who is God is better than being a man who is not God. That sounds like a defensible position to me. I understand that you would disagree, probably because it is possible to be a man, but impossible, in your view, to be both God and a man. As we've discussed, Christians don't share your opinion about that.

I actually got my view from the bible itself. When Jesus' birth was announced, the angel never told Mary she was going to give birth to God. The idea of Jesus being God is never directly addressed. If Jesus was indeed God, he would have said so, wouldn't he? Instead we see that the idea of God-man (or fully man / fully God) is only extracted by compositing various verses.

And of course Christians think that Islam is a false religion. Islam teaches different things than Christianity teaches. You can't both be right. Surprise, surprise, you both think that it's the other guy who has it wrong.

Islam acknowledges that the Christian religion is right in many aspects, but makes a huge mistake when it comes to its deification of Jesus. Christianity dismisses all of Islam as a lie... a product of Mohammads imagination or a false teaching inspired by Satan.

Now I am not saying Christians should force themselves to follow Mohammad or accept that Islam is the true religion. After all, its only natural for people to stick to the religion they have been raised in and stay away from the rest.

However, if Christians condemn Muslims as evil or misguided because they believe Jesus is not God, then by the same reasoning they should also condemn Jews and Israel as evil and misguided because they outright reject Jesus as a messiah and call him a false prophet. Instead, they love and support the Jews and special plead for them saying they will someday accept Jesus.

See, the question of the messiah is kind of a big deal to christians. With this regard...
Muslims, who believe Jesus is the messiah = the enemies who will be destroyed towards the end.
Jews, who reject Jesus as the messiah = the good guys who will be redeemed towards the end.

Have you ever heard of a people (other than Christians) who adore those opposing the central figure of their religion?

typical religious Jews are opposed to Gentile theologies based on the proposition that Jesus is the Jews' Messiah, a position held by both Islam and Christianity. Jews wouldn't have any reason, based on their own religion, to pick a fight with Jesus himself, more so than with many other Jewish teachers.

Ever noticed how Jewish counter-missionary efforts are directed exclusively towards Christians and NOT Muslims?

Its because Jesus' status as messiah is not the only issue. The Jews are also opposed towards the Christian definition of God, as being a trinity(which Jesus is part of) or that Jesus is God himself. With this regard, Jews lean closer to Islam, because the muslims concept of God is identical to their own.

As for picking a fight with Jesus himself, you will find Jews who do so on the extreme end of the spectrum... such as the ones who believe Jesus is in the afterlife being boiled in excrement. At best, a polite jews may simply dismiss Jesus as a confused young man who thought he was the messiah.

Scorpie

When Jesus' birth was announced, ... we see that the idea of God-man (or fully man / fully God) is only extracted by compositing various verses.

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 Islam.

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 places 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 behalf.

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.

logical7

I think you'll find that I answered your question in the quote block you copied from my post.