D
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
Does not the same apply to the Jews, who also do not accept Jesus? Indeed they accept Him less than do the Muslims. While Muslims see Jesus as a Prophet of God, Jews see Him as just another man who claimed to be, but was not, the Messiah.
Christians seem to have no problem accepting that they and the Jews worship the same God. Looking at the attitudes to Jesus would place Islam between Christianity and Judaism. If Jews and Christians are worshipping the same God, then Muslims are too.
rossum
D
DasErlibnis
Guest
That’s not exactly a syllogism. The premises are false, and there is not a valid “therefore”.
"If the sky is blue, and Christians acknowledge it, but Jews don’t, and the Muslims see the surface of a lake reflecting the sky and say “that’s sky too”, what color were the bus driver’s shoes?
K
karaleigh
Guest
Jesus is one member of the Godhead. There are three unique characteristics of God…that is…I Am, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This phrase is foremost in the understanding of Christianity. ( :christmastree1: Have a blessed Jesus Birth Day!)
Not blasphemous, Jesus is also God, as man, in the flesh. As much as, the Holy Spirit is also God as well as Jesus. All three are one.
The Name’s Code clearly illustrates that Jesus is a major part in the creation of Christianity and Judaism. And, it is in my understand that the names in the Koran also reveal that Jesus as a major player in Islamic scripture.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Of course it’s NOT blasphemous, but it was to them. That’s the point. Not whether or not it was blasphemous of Jesus to say it, but that He did and they took it as blasphemy. So much so, that they wished to stone Him for saying it and Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
Re: Jesus’ position in islam
Jesus has no position in islam outside of “prophet”. In fact, islam totally denies the deity of Christ and in no way allows for the Trinity, and in fact certain hadith have Allah admonishing Christ for claiming He is the Son of God.
To continue the facade that Jesus has a place in islam outside of purely insulting Him is disingenuous to the core.
However, in a manner of speaking, I have to agree with this Surah. In fact, Allah is not God, and thus, Christ is not Allah. At least they got the gist of it right, despite their semantic protestations on the contrary, and their complete lack of understanding on basically anything else theological.
Edit to add:
Re: the Godhead. It is not the “I AM, the Son,…” it is “The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost”.
“I AM” is GOD. How God chooses to manifest Himself, using Trinitarian constructs, is another thing entirely. It is not incorrect for Jesus to refer to Himself as “I AM” because “I AM” indicates his status as God, which, He is- God the Son. But Jesus is not saying “Ani El-Abba” (I am the Father), rather, “Ani Hu” which is “I AM”. And guess what, He IS.
D
DasErlibnis
Guest
Not exactly true… They believe in a Messiah, Son of God, they just don’t believe Jesus did enough to fulfill that role, and so don’t believe that God has given a Son yet, and are thus unable to accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
But the case isn’t that they believe in OUR God, but that we believe in THEIR God. Regarding the Mohammedans, they usurped the Jewish God, YHWH, and arbitrarily applied their own attributes based on arrogance, pride, ego, vanity, et al.
T
tomarin
Guest
I don’t think it’s such a big deal. You don’t have to agree with another group on all points or even many points (cf Judaism) to believe you worship the same god.
R
rossum
Guest
You are incorrect. The Messiah the Jews expect is not the Son of God, but a man. An extraordinary man, who will do extraordinary things, but still a man.
The Jewish tradition of “The Messiah” has its foundation in numerous biblical references, and understands “The Messiah” to be a human being - without any overtone of deity or divinity - who will bring about certain changes in the world and fulfill certain criteria before he can be acknowledged as “The Messiah”. (emphasis added)
Source: Messiah : The Criteria.
Have you read the Qur’an? It opens, “In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful”. Is not the Christian God also compassionate and merciful?
I trust the Qur’an’s description of the Moslem God more than yours, given that you are not a Moslem.
rossum
K
karaleigh
Guest
In the name of the Father…the name is the great ‘I Am’. The Holy Ghost was the term used, for the Spirit, before the birth of Jesus. After His birth, the words are listed as the ‘Holy Spirit’. Some still do refer to the Holy Spirit as “Spirit” while others say “Ghost”. Some say it’s tic-for-tac, while others say there is a difference, such as, ligature religious thought…that is, comparing prophetic, histories, and red letter scripture with events in today’s world. Ligature believe it’s very important. Perhaps it’s a matter of which house, church or hall that is using the words, as well as, what the clergyman is. Even in Catholic congregations there are different schools of thought going on today.
Essentially, that is in ligature, Jesus was a man-God. Jesus was God All Mighty in the flesh and form of a man. God choose to live as a man for a period of time, some say 33 years, others say 44 years. As for blasphemy, I still say no! Jesus was a divine purpose made by God…the purpose was for God, named Jesus the Christ, to be on earth in the flesh and confronted by the men who stole the worship that God created(Genesis) . In defiance to God’s will, the worship of the great ‘I Am’ was stolen by both men and kings( Exodus - 1 Samuel). .
J
John_Paul_Jones
Guest
Do you apply this reasoning across the board?
Should you not then defer to the Christians that Jesus is the Son of God and the Saviour of Mankind? Especially believing the Early Christian who were Jewish like most of the writers of the NT: Matthew, Mark, John, Peter and Paul - and was indeed expected by Jewish people 2000 y/o.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Scriptural account:
John 1:19-28
They clearly expected Christ and the whole Magi procession about 30 years prior was no doubt still on the minds of these religious men. In fact, they were looking for the Messiah.
Here is the account of their admitting this concept as Messiah/Christ being the Son of God:
Mark 14: 60-64
There was a set way of determining things. John the Baptist sent a messenger to engage his own cousin, Jesus, in a game of crypto language. Certain scriptural passages had to be fulfilled, whether the people fulfilling them knew their place or not.
They were looking for a king, a man, yes, but not officially. Officially they were looking for Jesus. But they didn’t want Jesus. They rejected Him. He showed them their wickedness by mere words and presence. They wanted a political figure, but by no means was that what was specifically prophesied. Yes, He is to fulfill that role in a matter of time, but not at that point.
The entire point of Israel in being a powerhouse was to be a light until the world. They didn’t. They went political and self-serving; only giving lip service to God. The reason Talmudic law can enter into what most Westerners would know as “Shariah” style law, is because it is descended from the Pharisees. It’s manufactured by man, just as islam is. And oftentimes, with a little help from the Devil. It’s by no means the Judaism of Jesus’ day. They were basically in a man made religion within the facade of an established and legitimate construct. Some got it. Most didn’t. St. Paul got it, once he got an intervention so to speak.
R
rossum
Guest
Generally, though I would not, for example, take Fred Phelps of Westbobo’ Baptist as a typical Christian.
I defer to Christians in matters of Christian doctrine. I defer to Jews in matters of Jewish doctrine. We are discussing the modern CCC and its words about modern Muslims. I am using modern Jews’ attitude to the Messiah as an example of a non-Christian religion’s attitude to Jesus.
I am contracting modern Muslims’ attitude to Him (a genuine prophet of God) with modern Jews’ attitude (a false Messiah). In both cases He is seen as a man, not God.
Looked at objectively, the Muslim attitude is closer to the Christian attitude than the Jewish attitude. Jews do not see Jesus as one of God’s prophets.
rossum
A
arabic_catholic
Guest
if muslims says they worship one God who is the creator and professes the faith of Abraham (under this circumstances ) we have much in common , but if we dig deeply inside the teachings of the Islamic God in the Quran , and what mohammed said about him in Hadith , we know that we are not talking about the same God
D
DasErlibnis
Guest
Just quoting their alleged conclusions isn’t enough and it doesn’t follow logic. You must state premise, which in this case are very different. The Jews simply failed to recognize what they were actually looking for, but it isn’t based on a lie.
The Mohammedan image of a mere prophet is for totally different reasons. Basically, Islam was founded for the same reasons as Scientology and Mormon (not the sane, but an example of whyfore) - exploitation: because one man saw religions that claimed to worship the same God couldn’t get along and couldn’t agree, he decided to start his own. So, he started using the basic image of their religions, but creating a message that appealed to reason, that there cannot be more than one God, and delivering his newfound ideology (and that’s all Islam is, an ideology, because it is not historical, it is merely an invention) to people who were trapped in superstitions.
His uncle, whom raised mohammed and taught him everything, was a missionary to the Arabs who practiced those superstitions, but he was also a heretic. It’s easy to see why he both believe that Christ was a great prophet and also not God, because that was the Arian heresy that his uncle was teaching him. It’s easy to look at the feelings of the day, anti-semitism, and see why Mohammed did not think the Jews were worthy if the Messiah. It’s easy to see how mohammed found an opportunity to exploit Arab paganism, since their most popular god of all time, handed down to them from the Egyptians, was called Allah.
It would have sounded something lime this to them:
“Here is your God!” and “the REAL Allah is not this image, the REAL Allah is the invisible God of the Jews and Christians” but “the Jews are not worthy and the other Christians, other than my uncle, they got it all wrong” but you Arabs “you will be blessed, a blessed nation, you will inherit what they lost and what they got wrong” and “you shall be victorious” so “ARM yourselves with axes and whatever weapon you can find” such that “if anyone offends you, retribution is prescribed for you” until “you have subdued them all”
It was a message of empowerment. And it was very popular because the Arabs were nomads and had no real place to call their own. But at least they had their religion, and so mohammed was kicked out of town. But he stuck with it. Kind of like the ways gays say “who would choose this life for themselves, to be hated so much.” The Muslims were in exactly the same boat, they found Hope in being this “kind” of people because it gave them a sense of identity, a sense of I Am-ness, even though it was misguided and born out of rejection. And like the gays, rejection came first, it formed their identity and gave them something to cling to.
(Was Mohammed gay? Probably. Man-Love Thursdays was a popular then as it is now. You know what they say, “women are for making babies, men are for fun.”)
And while I find real plausibility in this ridiculous argument, I know I’m just making the story up because, like yours, well, I can. It doesn’t need truth when you have “truthiness”.
Ps. Yes man-love Thursdays is real, yes the saying regarding men and women is a true saying from Muslims in the middle east.
R
rossum
Guest
My premise is that the CCC is correct to say that the Moslems worship the same God as Christians, and Jews. The God of Abraham.
The Jewish attitude to Jesus is further from the Christian attitude, as I have demonstrated.
Hence we can see the the Moslem God is closer to the Christian God than the Jewish God.
Since everyone seems to agree the Jews and Christians worship the same God, therefore the Moslems also worship the same God. QED.
And the next time I want to learn what Christianity really says, I shall go to a Moslem website or an Atheist website. To put it politely, your sources here are biased, very obviously biased. They seem to on about the level of the “Catholics are cannibals” sites that you sometimes find.
rossum
J
jam070406
Guest
The Council of Vienna tells of a much different relationship then that of the modern CCC.
[25]. It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place, in the hearing of both Christians and Saracens and there make public declarations in his honour. There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. A great number of Saracens flock there quite openly from far and near. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated any further without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on catholic princes, one and all, who hold sovereignty over the said Saracens and in whose territory these practices occur, and we lay on them a pressing obligation under the divine judgment that, as true Catholics and zealous for the Christian faith, they give consideration to the disgrace heaped on both them and other Christians. They are to remove this offence altogether from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet. They shall also forbid anyone in their dominions to attempt in future the said pilgrimage or in any way give countenance to it. Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.
ewtn.com/library/councils/vienne.htm#03
(emphasis mine)
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Thank you for the boots-on-ground insight, brother in Christ.
Would you be willing to critique the positions of people such as myself and Das, etc so we might have a better understanding from the perspective of a Saudi who has knowledge of mohammed but believes in the Truth of Christ?
I read Arabic enough to identify words, etc, to do research, but I know there are intricacies which will escape me.
Thanks either way!
C
Contarini
Guest
Council of Vienne, not Vienna. Two completely different places.The Council of Vienna tells of a much different relationship then that of the modern CCC.
[25]. It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place, in the hearing of both Christians and Saracens and there make public declarations in his honour. There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. A great number of Saracens flock there quite openly from far and near. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated any further without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on catholic princes, one and all, who hold sovereignty over the said Saracens and in whose territory these practices occur, and we lay on them a pressing obligation under the divine judgment that, as true Catholics and zealous for the Christian faith, they give consideration to the disgrace heaped on both them and other Christians. They are to remove this offence altogether from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet. They shall also forbid anyone in their dominions to attempt in future the said pilgrimage or in any way give countenance to it. Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.
ewtn.com/library/councils/vienne.htm#03
(emphasis mine)
And the picture of Islam given in the text you cite is about as far away from the reality as Vienne from Vienna.
They thought Muslims adore Mohammed! And you seriously think modern Catholics are supposed to prefer this ignorance to the wisdom of the Catechism?
Councils are not infallible in their statements about the beliefs of other religions.
Edwin
J
jonbhorton
Guest
howmuslimspray.com/
They invoke mohammed quite a lot. They believe mohammed is the epitome of mankind. They place him in the same teaching role as Christ, demoting Christ to do so. They don’t direct their prayers to mohammed, but they are derived from mohammed, and he is their model for all, as Christ is for us. Hence, Mohammedanism.
The description given, particularly of the Saracen “saint”, leads me to believe they are describing the Shi’a branch which is analogous to the RCC in terms of Shi’a vs Sunni, i.e. the OG version.
Additionally, the text given doesn’t specifically deal with Mohammedanism as it does with imploring Christians to not give credence to it, particularly Catholic authority in the lands these things were taking place.
However, it is condemning of islam.
This council took place in the 1300’s. Much was certainly known and understood about mohammedanism by the Church, particularly men studious enough to be present and have a voice at a council called by the Pope himself.
You speak of realities, but provide descriptions of none.
Care to elaborate?
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Das is espousing mohammedan doctrine from their perspective.
The doctrine simply does not allow for Jesus Christ to be more than a mere prophet.
That you don’t like the truth of what mohammedanism professes cannot be helped.
Just because they profess the God of Abraham, doesn’t mean they actually follow or worship Him. The same holds, just because they profess the prophet status of Christ, doesn’t make their version so, or even remotely true. In fact, their entire narrative of Christ is skewed and not historical in the least, nor are their accounts of re-worded OT stories/events.
Jews historically reject Jesus as their Messiah because He wasn’t what they wanted.
muslims reject Jesus as the Messiah (though they often ascribe the title for apparently no reason or without understanding of its implication) for entirely different reasons, which Das explained.
He didn’t espouse anything non-muslim.
- Status