Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

[jakasaki]

Ask a question about Islams Muhammad and you get pages of pages of derailment regarding Jesus/Bible and overwhelmingly on Baha teachings!

This tread has become a joke!

OY VEY!!!

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Sorry, I tried to maintain the subject
on Muhammad while debating the
Baha’i who supported him.

 

[dronald]

Ask a question about Islams Muhammad and you get pages of pages of derailment regarding Jesus/Bible and overwhelmingly on Baha teachings!

This tread has become a joke!

OY VEY!!!

I actually commented on this a while back stating that I think we need to make it clear early that the thread was for Muslims if we only want to hear an Islamic opinion.

Baha’i are very different than Muslims in their beliefs regarding Jesus. Idk what the intent of the OP was, but I would assume it’s for Muslims. Although, the Muslims have sort of disappeared from CAF.

 

[arthra]

Is it possible that Muhammad was a prophet of God? Can the belief in Jesus as our savoir and Muhammad as a prophet coincide? I don’t know much about Islam, but I’m quite curious about it.

All you have to do is read the Qur’an…Surih 'Ali Imran

---

3:40 Remember when the angel said,

"O Mary! Verily God announceth to thee
the Word from Him: His name shall be, Messiah Jesus the son of Mary,
illustrious in this world, and in the next, and one of those who have near
access to God;

And He shall speak to men alike when in the cradle and when grown up;
And he shall be one of the just."

She said, “How, O my Lord! shall I have a son, when man hath not touched
me?” He said, "Thus: God will create why He will; When He decreeth a thing,
He only saith, ‘Be,’ and it is.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignatian and Tony. Hi

Let me recount a story.

You have a child. He is sick, you keep giving the child homeopathic remedies, and refuse to let him see a qualified and competent doctor.

The child gets sicker, you try an alternative mixture of homeopathics.

The child nears death, you give the best homeopathic remedies that you can possibly find.

Is this love?

The doctor down the road could have saved the poor kids life with a simple course of antibiotics.

Closing your eyes to all else but homeopathics is “silly” as Judas put it…

ted.com/talks/ernesto_sirolli_want_to_help_someone_shut_up_and_listen.html
(this is a man who is not a Baha’i but is implementing very basic Baha’i principles)

(please notice the flat-out use of the word “FAILED” in the video)

Of course I’m emotional, I can see people dying in Australia due to what can only be called institutional racism, and all we care about is if you go to Hell or not?
I wonder whats happening in tyrannical countries…so called “free” Australia…

Put my soul in Hell for ever, and eternity and beyond for the sake of the futures of all these children

.

So in otherwords you didn’t think. Please do so in the future.

 

[TheSufi]

In light of the REAL Scriptures, the Bible, Old/New Testament,
[/RIGHT]

On the topic of real scripture, I do not consider the books of paul, to be real scripture. I question whether the words of the disciples of Jesus should be considered scripture. It seem to me, that only the words of Jesus or Prophets should be scripture.

 

[dronald]

On the topic of real scripture, I do not consider the books of paul, to be real scripture. I question whether the words of the disciples of Jesus should be considered scripture. It seem to me, that only the words of Jesus or Prophets should be scripture.

What about His words on the cross or after the Resurrection? Should we count those?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

On the topic of real scripture, I do not consider the books of paul, to be real scripture.

Peter considered them (I’d call letters, not books) as Scripture, and Peter was an Apostle of Jesus, knew him, was taught by him, but oh wait…

I question whether the words of the disciples of Jesus should be considered scripture.

No reason then we should trust Muhammad , as he is even less reliable than the
Apostles, seeing he is a 6th-7th century man trying to talk about Jesus who was
born in around the first century. The Apostles knew Jesus, knew Jesus far better
than Muhammad,and they believed Paul as well. Why would Paul start by killing
off many early Christians then suddenly support Christianity? Answer: JESUS !!!

It seem to me, that only the words of Jesus or Prophets should be scripture.

Is God not powerful enough or even smart enough to have that happen if
that is what he wanted? We Christians certainly believe God is powerful
and even smart, and that’s why we fervently trust the Bible so much, be-
cause it is God-Breathed.

 

[TheSufi]

Peter considered them (I’d call letters, not books) as Scripture, and Peter was an Apostle of Jesus, knew him, was taught by him, but oh wait…

The disciples of any Prophet are subject to errors and mistakes.

No reason then we should trust Muhammad , as he is even less reliable than the
Apostles, seeing he is a 6th-7th century man trying to talk about Jesus who was
born in around the first century. The Apostles knew Jesus, knew Jesus far better
than Muhammad,and they believed Paul as well. Why would Paul start by killing
off many early Christians then suddenly support Christianity? Answer: JESUS !!!

Paul never knew Jesus and people can lie about visions.

Paul said, For if the truth of God, hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory: why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
ROMANS 3:7

Paul is an untrustworthy narrator.

Is God not powerful enough or even smart enough to have that happen if
that is what he wanted? We Christians certainly believe God is powerful
and even smart, and that’s why we fervently trust the Bible so much, be-
cause it is God-Breathed.

ok

 

[TheSufi]

What about His words on the cross or after the Resurrection? Should we count those?

While I personally consider much of the Gospels to be accurate (my personal opinion). It is not something that I can prove, by Islamic standards, in order words the Gospels are very much like hadiths. And most authentic hadith do not carry the weight of scripture.

 

[dronald]

The disciples of any Prophet are subject to errors and mistakes.

Paul never knew Jesus and people can lie about visions.

Paul said, **For if the truth of God, hath more abounded through my lie **unto his glory: why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
ROMANS 3:7

Paul is an untrustworthy narrator.

ok

I just cringed…

Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us?** ( I speak in a human way. )**

6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world?

7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

8 And why not do evil that good may come? – as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

 

[TheSufi]

I just cringed…

So how we feel about each others statements is about the same.

 

[dronald]

While I personally consider much of the Gospels to be accurate (my personal opinion). It is not something that I can prove, by Islamic standards, in order words the Gospels are very much like hadiths. And most authentic hadith do not carry the weight of scripture.

Textual criticism has proven that the Gospels are authentic to the originals, all containing the Resurrected words of Jesus. I’m not sure what “Islamic standards” are, but historical standards prove that a man name Jesus did die on that cross, and our inspired text’s also claim so.

I’m not arguing, I’m just saying that if we apply historical methods to the life of Jesus all the earliest attests claim that He died and rose again. And no doubt the disciples as well.

 

[dronald]

So how we feel about each others statements is about the same.

Only because you didn’t read what it actually says…

 

[TheSufi]

Textual criticism has proven that the Gospels are authentic to the originals, all containing the Resurrected words of Jesus. I’m not sure what “Islamic standards” are, but historical standards prove that a man name Jesus did die on that cross, and our inspired text’s also claim so.

I’m not arguing, I’m just saying that if we apply historical methods to the life of Jesus all the earliest attests claim that He died and rose again. And no doubt the disciples as well.

Everybody have different standards for what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
I believe Islamic standards are stricter than Christian standards.

I am not saying Christian standards are necessarily wrong.

Every historian doesn’t use the same standard. This is why some people have written books about Jesus not being a historical, while others have written books about how Jesus is historical.

Nothing is ever black and white.

 

[TheSufi]

Only because you didn’t read what it actually says…

We don’t ever read the same thing the same way. We have two different world views and backgrounds. It is silly to expect everyone to see things from your point of view. Even if a person see things from your perspective, it doesn’t mean they will accept your conclusion because we have to different world views and background.

 

[dronald]

Everybody have different standards for what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
I believe Islamic standards are stricter than Christian standards.

I am not saying Christian standards are necessarily wrong.

Every historian doesn’t use the same standard. This is why some people have written books about Jesus not being a historical, while others have written books about how Jesus is historical.

Nothing is ever black and white.

No doubt books have been made to counter claim, but all historians now recant those ideas. We now have far too much evidence for the claims of Christianity and many of them are being made by non-Christians. Bart Erman is a perfect example, and even the Muslim Reza Aslan has said now, “the only historical certainty we can have about Jesus is his crucifixion.” it’s a widespread belief that everyone has to accept to be taken seriously based on evidence. Here is some light reading for you:

"Although there is disagreement about issues such as the calling of disciples, the agreement on crucifixion is very widespread, and most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable.[23][59][60][61] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now “firmly established” that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[24]Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[60]John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[23]John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[61] Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.[62]

Although scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it, e.g. both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion, but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion, and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a Christian story.[63]Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but provides his own explanation and background for it."

 

[dronald]

We don’t ever read the same thing the same way. We have two different world views and backgrounds. It is silly to expect everyone to see things from your point of view. Even if a person see things from your perspective, it doesn’t mean they will accept your conclusion because we have to different world views and background.

Sure! But you didn’t even read what Paul wrote and then you accused him of permitting lying.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The disciples of any Prophet are subject to errors and mistakes.

Right, and the project of compiling the Qur’an, about a generation after Muhammad
died, in which Muslims went all over collecting the orally transmitted recitations of
Muhammad and wrote them all down in a book known as the Qur’an is FAR more
reliable than the testimonies of the Apostles WHO KNEW JESUS.

Paul never knew Jesus and people can lie about visions.

Paul said, **For if the truth of God, hath more abounded through my lie **unto his glory: why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
ROMANS 3:7

Paul is an untrustworthy narrator.

Jesus came to Paul
and taught him ever-
ything!
Again, we have Paul, a faithful Jew, who out of his Judaism went murdering so many
Christians who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, suddenly converted to becom–
ing a Christian, preaching Jesus Christ and him crucified, as Son of the Living God.
You cannot explain such a radical change.

And on Romans 3:7, I refer you to dronald’s
answer, you know the one (Thanks dronald!).
Muslims are not good at the New Testament in Context, are they?
(Not me so much either,
but I’m only a revert)

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Everybody have different standards for what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
I believe Islamic standards are stricter than Christian standards.

Yes, SO strict, you deny the testimo-
ny of the Apostles who knew Jesus in
favor of that from a false prophet.
:newidea:MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

I am not saying Christian standards are necessarily wrong.

Every historian doesn’t use the same standard. This is why some people have written books about Jesus not being a historical, while others have written books about how Jesus is historical.

Nothing is ever black and white.

But you use the standard that denies the resurrection, despite even the Jewish
historian Josephus making record of such an event, not following the Apostles’
testimony? Nope, listen to the man who *just said *he heard Jibril.