Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

[John_Paul_Jones]

The statement, “God does not sent prophets to teach against the truth of Jesus’ nature.” may not hold water for faiths that do not believe in the Trinity, and that includes many Christian faiths.

If there is a faith that does not hold the truth of the Blessed Trinity, it is so far removed from the Truth of Christianity it shouldn’t really be called considered part of it.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Is it OK with you if Muslims believe that Muhammad was a prophet? If Christians believing in the Trinity are tolerated by Muslims, why can’t Christians tolerate Muslims believing that Muhammad was a prophet?

Did I say they weren’t allowed to follow their religion? I am just saying why I won’t follow it. Also since I believe it false I would prefer people to leave it. Even then those who don’t should be allowed to practice their religion.

 

[jakasaki]

Is it OK with you if Muslims believe that Muhammad was a prophet? If Christians believing in the Trinity are tolerated by Muslims, why can’t Christians tolerate Muslims believing that Muhammad was a prophet?

I wasn’t aware that the Holy Trinity was “tolerated” by Muslims.

 

[nmgauss]

What do we know about Jesus? Here is what Karen Armstrong says in “A History of God”:
"We know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of his life was St. Mark’s Gospel, which was not written until about the year 70, some forty years after his death. By that time, historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements, which expressed the meaning Jesus had acquired for his followers. It is this meaning that St. Mark primarily conveys rather than a reliable straightforward portrayal.

Mark’s Gospel, which as the earliest is usually regarded as the most reliable, presents Jesus as a perfectly normal man, with a family that included brothers and sisters. No angels announced his birth or sang over his crib. He had not been marked out during his infancy or adolescence as remarkable in any way.

There has been much speculation about the exact nature of Jesus’ mission. Very few of his actual words seem to have been recorded in the Gospels, and much of their material has been affected by later developments in the churches that were founded by St. Paul after his death.

In St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is made to utter violent and rather unedifying diatribes against “the Scribes and Pharisees,” presenting them as worthless hypocrites. Apart from this being a libelous distortion of the facts and a flagrant breach of the charity that was supposed to characterize his mission, the bitter denunciation of the Pharisees is almost certainly inauthentic.

Luke, for example, gives the Pharisees a fairly good press in both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul would scarcely have flaunted his Pharisaic background if the Pharisees really had been the sworn enemies of Jesus who had hounded him to death.

The anti-Semitic tenor of Matthew’s Gospel reflects the tension between Jews and Christians during the 80s. The Gospels often show Jesus arguing with the Pharisees, but the discussion is either amicable or may reflect a disagreement with the more rigorous school of Shammai.

After his death, his followers decided that Jesus had been divine. This did not happen immediately; the doctrine that Jesus had been God in human form was not finalized until fourth century. The development of Christian belief in the Incarnation was gradual, complex process. Jesus himself certainly never claimed to be God."

 

[Reuben_J]

What do we know about Jesus? Here is what Karen Armstrong says in “A History of God”:
"We know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of his life was St. Mark’s Gospel, which was not written until about the year 70, some forty years after his death. By that time, historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements, which expressed the meaning Jesus had acquired for his followers. It is this meaning that St. Mark primarily conveys rather than a reliable straightforward portrayal.

Mark’s Gospel, which as the earliest is usually regarded as the most reliable, presents Jesus as a perfectly normal man, with a family that included brothers and sisters. No angels announced his birth or sang over his crib. He had not been marked out during his infancy or adolescence as remarkable in any way.

There has been much speculation about the exact nature of Jesus’ mission. Very few of his actual words seem to have been recorded in the Gospels, and much of their material has been affected by later developments in the churches that were founded by St. Paul after his death.

In St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is made to utter violent and rather unedifying diatribes against “the Scribes and Pharisees,” presenting them as worthless hypocrites. Apart from this being a libelous distortion of the facts and a flagrant breach of the charity that was supposed to characterize his mission, the bitter denunciation of the Pharisees is almost certainly inauthentic.

Luke, for example, gives the Pharisees a fairly good press in both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul would scarcely have flaunted his Pharisaic background if the Pharisees really had been the sworn enemies of Jesus who had hounded him to death.

The anti-Semitic tenor of Matthew’s Gospel reflects the tension between Jews and Christians during the 80s. The Gospels often show Jesus arguing with the Pharisees, but the discussion is either amicable or may reflect a disagreement with the more rigorous school of Shammai.

After his death, his followers decided that Jesus had been divine. This did not happen immediately; the doctrine that Jesus had been God in human form was not finalized until fourth century. The development of Christian belief in the Incarnation was gradual, complex process. Jesus himself certainly never claimed to be God."

Why is a history of ‘Jesus’ in a Mohammad thread?

It is not a good idea to quote Karen Amstrong; you only encourage Christians here to quote Robert Spencer in return.

 

[dronald]

What do we know about Jesus? Here is what Karen Armstrong says in “A History of God”:
"We know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of his life was St. Mark’s Gospel, which was not written until about the year 70, some forty years after his death. By that time, historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements, which expressed the meaning Jesus had acquired for his followers. It is this meaning that St. Mark primarily conveys rather than a reliable straightforward portrayal.

Mark’s Gospel, which as the earliest is usually regarded as the most reliable, presents Jesus as a perfectly normal man, with a family that included brothers and sisters. No angels announced his birth or sang over his crib. He had not been marked out during his infancy or adolescence as remarkable in any way.

There has been much speculation about the exact nature of Jesus’ mission. Very few of his actual words seem to have been recorded in the Gospels, and much of their material has been affected by later developments in the churches that were founded by St. Paul after his death.

In St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is made to utter violent and rather unedifying diatribes against “the Scribes and Pharisees,” presenting them as worthless hypocrites. Apart from this being a libelous distortion of the facts and a flagrant breach of the charity that was supposed to characterize his mission, the bitter denunciation of the Pharisees is almost certainly inauthentic.

Luke, for example, gives the Pharisees a fairly good press in both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul would scarcely have flaunted his Pharisaic background if the Pharisees really had been the sworn enemies of Jesus who had hounded him to death.

The anti-Semitic tenor of Matthew’s Gospel reflects the tension between Jews and Christians during the 80s. The Gospels often show Jesus arguing with the Pharisees, but the discussion is either amicable or may reflect a disagreement with the more rigorous school of Shammai.

After his death, his followers decided that Jesus had been divine. This did not happen immediately; the doctrine that Jesus had been God in human form was not finalized until fourth century. The development of Christian belief in the Incarnation was gradual, complex process. Jesus himself certainly never claimed to be God."

Interesting, can you then explain Matthew 28:19? Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Also stated in the didache chapter 7, written mid first century

7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.

Who copied who? It seems the Trinity has existed since the mid first century in the Gospel of Matthew and the Didache.

Why is a history of ‘Jesus’ in a Mohammad thread?

It is not a good idea to quote Karen Amstrong; you only encourage Christians here to quote Robert Spencer in return.

Ugh, forgive me. I’m derailing the thread by replying. I can’t help myself.

 

[MartinJordan]

Why is a history of ‘Jesus’ in a Mohammad thread?

It is not a good idea to quote Karen Amstrong; you only encourage Christians here to quote Robert Spencer in return.

Think of a word starting with T and ending with L

MJ

 

[Reuben_J]

Think of a word starting with T and ending with L

MJ

I know, MJ, I know. This is the thing we have to deal with and hopefully to save the thread before it is being closed.

 

[MartinJordan]

Ugh, forgive me. I’m derailing the thread by replying. I can’t help myself.

No worries

MJ

 

[nmgauss]

Why is a history of ‘Jesus’ in a Mohammad thread?

It is not a good idea to quote Karen Amstrong; you only encourage Christians here to quote Robert Spencer in return.

Robert Spencer is a hate monger. He writes books as an activist. Karen Armstrong has a long history of writing scholarly books on religion. Her credentials are impeccable.

 

[nmgauss]

Interesting, can you then explain Matthew 28:19? Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,.

Matthew wrote his Gospel during the feud between Jews and Christians.

Also stated in the didache chapter 7, written mid first century

7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.

The Didache is not scripture. It wasrejected as spurious and non-canonical by the Catholic Church.

Who copied who? It seems the Trinity has existed since the mid first century in the Gospel of Matthew and the Didache.
.

Just because it appeared in St. Matthew’s Gospel does not mean that it was accepted universally by the Church. The Gnostics, Marcion, and Arius had to get their views considered and debated until the Church finally rejected their ideas. In the Council of Nicaea fierce debates occurred even to the point of people being hit on the head.

 

[nmgauss]

In contrast to the paltry information on Jesus available to historians, writings on Muhammad are voluminous, The Quran, the Hadith, and the Sira provide biographers with ample material on which to base biographies of Muhammad. The Sira is quoted in A. Guillaume’s The Life of Muhammad. There is also Jabal Ad-Din Suyuti’s *al-itiqan fi’ulum al aq’ran *cited in Robinson’s Mohammed. Then there is Martin Lings Muhammad, His Life Based on the Earliest Sources.

 

[arabic_catholic]

What do we know about Jesus? Here is what Karen Armstrong says in “A History of God”:
"We know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of his life was St. Mark’s Gospel, which was not written until about the year 70, some forty years after his death. By that time, historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements, which expressed the meaning Jesus had acquired for his followers. It is this meaning that St. Mark primarily conveys rather than a reliable straightforward portrayal.

Mark’s Gospel, which as the earliest is usually regarded as the most reliable, presents Jesus as a perfectly normal man, with a family that included brothers and sisters. No angels announced his birth or sang over his crib. He had not been marked out during his infancy or adolescence as remarkable in any way.

There has been much speculation about the exact nature of Jesus’ mission. Very few of his actual words seem to have been recorded in the Gospels, and much of their material has been affected by later developments in the churches that were founded by St. Paul after his death.

In St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is made to utter violent and rather unedifying diatribes against “the Scribes and Pharisees,” presenting them as worthless hypocrites. Apart from this being a libelous distortion of the facts and a flagrant breach of the charity that was supposed to characterize his mission, the bitter denunciation of the Pharisees is almost certainly inauthentic.

Luke, for example, gives the Pharisees a fairly good press in both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul would scarcely have flaunted his Pharisaic background if the Pharisees really had been the sworn enemies of Jesus who had hounded him to death.

The anti-Semitic tenor of Matthew’s Gospel reflects the tension between Jews and Christians during the 80s. The Gospels often show Jesus arguing with the Pharisees, but the discussion is either amicable or may reflect a disagreement with the more rigorous school of Shammai.

After his death, his followers decided that Jesus had been divine. This did not happen immediately; the doctrine that Jesus had been God in human form was not finalized until fourth century. The development of Christian belief in the Incarnation was gradual, complex process. Jesus himself certainly never claimed to be God."

so basically you are telling me you are an ignorant , and have no clue with what you are engaging yourself into, therefore you keep repeating yourself ?

 

[arabic_catholic]

In contrast to the paltry information on Jesus available to historians, writings on Muhammad are voluminous, The Quran, the Hadith, and the Sira provide biographers with ample material on which to base biographies of Muhammad. The Sira is quoted in A. Guillaume’s The Life of Muhammad. There is also Jabal Ad-Din Suyuti’s *al-itiqan fi’ulum al aq’ran *cited in Robinson’s Mohammed. Then there is Martin Lings Muhammad, His Life Based on the Earliest Sources.

hmm let keep it with your first criteria … you said the gospels were written 40 years after Jesus and Muhammad “bioghraphies” were written 150 years - 200 years after his death … the Hadith was written between 200 to 270 years after muhammad , do you know when al sayuti lived ? that’s like writing the biography of muhammad at the time of the Renaissance ! plus its not about the Sira , its about the Quran ! you are not serious about what you are saying , aren’t you ?

 

[KyivAndrew]

Karen Armstrong has a long history of writing scholarly books on religion. Her credentials are impeccable.

Karen Armstrong is Not a New Testament scholar. (her doctorate was on Tennyson I believe) She obviously has an axe to grind and has a liberal view. On the historicity of Jesus Christ, why not read a world-renowned New Testament expert: E.P. Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus, or N.T. Wright.

 

[KyivAndrew]

How many wives did Muhammad have in total? What was the age of his youngest wife?
Did any other OT prophet have as many wives as Muhammad?

How many people did Muhammad personally kill? How many did he order killed? Women and children included?

 

[arabic_catholic]

Karen Armstrong is Not a New Testament scholar. (her doctorate was on Tennyson I believe) She obviously has an axe to grind and has a liberal view. On the historicity of Jesus Christ, why not read a world-renowned New Testament expert: E.P. Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus, or N.T. Wright.

My friend , you are doing him a great favor by discussing the issue of Jesus … he wanted to shift the argument to Jesus since he set himself up with the (40 years) argument so now his strategy is to not talk about muhammad no more …

 

[KyivAndrew]

My friend , you are doing him a great favor by discussing the issue of Jesus … he wanted to shift the argument to Jesus since he set himself up with the (40 years) argument so now his strategy is to not talk about muhammad no more …

Well, yes, thanks I understood that actually before posting that, hence, why in my post above I go directly back to the subject of Muhammad and his wives and wars. I want the thread to stay focused on Muhammad and not change it into an argument on the historicity of Jesus.

Please look at the questions I ask above re: Muhammad in post 223. These are the issues I wish to discuss.

 

[Reuben_J]

How many people did Muhammad personally kill? How many did he order killed? Women and children included?

I am not a good story teller but there was one incidence where group of men under the leadership of Kurz bin Jabir from amongst the kuffar came to Madinah and stole some camels from Muslims. Rasulullah, which was Mohammad, asked some Muslims to kill them but the kuffar managed to escape.

I mean camels were very important those days and one could get killed if one messed with the owner.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Here is a threa for Jesus’ historicity. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10778393#post10778393

On nmgauss post on the didache, it doesn’t matter if it is not regarded as inspired scripture. It is still from the first century. It is stil by Christians. And it still backs up Jesus’ divinity.