For non-Christians who respect Jesus as just a prophet

[hamba2han]

Yes, but it would appear you still have the same issue of authority. All these other sources you refer to also have to be interpreted by an authoritative head. The is no one head of the Muslim faith like what the Catholic Church has in the Pope, is there?

Islam has over a billion individual ‘Popes’ whereas Christianity has only room for one.

Those who are complaining about Osama bin Ladin and various other “evil mullahs” hijacking Islam need to remember that it is not easy at all to hijack a faith that has over a billion Popes.

 

[tm30]

Islam has over a billion individual ‘Popes’ whereas Christianity has only room for one.

Those who are complaining about Osama bin Ladin and various other “evil mullahs” hijacking Islam need to remember that it is not easy at all to hijack a faith that has over a billion Popes.

A billion popes? LOL! You’re just another Protestant sect. Islam is so fractured in its beliefs, it’s not worth arguing about here.

 

[Antwill]

Islam has over a billion individual ‘Popes’ whereas Christianity has only room for one.

Those who are complaining about Osama bin Ladin and various other “evil mullahs” hijacking Islam need to remember that it is not easy at all to hijack a faith that has over a billion Popes.

Unfortunately, only Catholics (and not even many of them, sadly) recognize the Pope as the final authority, Christ’s vicar on earth.

Muslims have the same issue the protestant Christians do when it comes to authority. You have no one who can difinitively say what is the truth when it comes to your faith. Consequently, many have good basis to argue that the Muslim faith has been largely “hijacked” in the sense that those who advocate terrorist tactics and killing in the name of “Allah” are what seems to be the face of mainstream Islam anymore. I am still greatly troubled by the defeaning silence of self described peaceful Muslim clerics after the 9/11 attacks and in the face of the continued Islamic Facist terroist attacks.

 

[Peregrino]

As a Catholic I have struggled with the concept of Jesus as God. I have struggled with the discrepancies between the Jesus of the Catholic Faith and the Historical Jesus. I still struggle with this issue.

Unlike the synoptic Gosples (Mark, Matthew and Luke), the Gospel of John contains sayings where Jesus is described as or claims to be God. The problem is, this Gospel of John was probably the last Gospel written. Mark is accepted as being the first and is generally accepted to have been written around 30 years after Jesus’ death. Why would the earlier 3 Gospels not explicitly state, and hammer home, an important fact like Jesus is God if these writers and the communities that used these texts believed this fact? I still can’t answer this question in an acceptably Catholic way, other than to say that it is an article of faith.

The relativism/absolutism argument is rearing its ugly head. Sadly, the only way us Catholics resolve this issue is to claim the authority of the Church, its foundation on Jesus and thus its foundation on God. This is a great argument as long as you ascribe to the necessary beliefs. This argument however is incredibly unpalatable if you don’t believe the requisite things and tends to produce much inter-faith strife. It also doesn’t lend itself well to dialogue. lol

I wonder if there is a way we Catholics can keep our articles of faith and recognize that other significant faith traditions like Islam (which reveres Jesus and Mary to the degree we do, absent the divinity issue) have value as pathways to God and individual holiness?

 

[Jerusha]

I wonder if there is a way we Catholics can keep our articles of faith and recognize that other significant faith traditions like Islam (which reveres Jesus and Mary to the degree we do, absent the divinity issue) have value as pathways to God and individual holiness?

I think the key principle in this is balance. To listen to their criticisms of us, and respond to them, either changing, or refuting them, as appropriate, rather than regarding others as always being wrong, should be a guiding principle.

Again, there has to be balance between “one Pope” versus a “billion popes”-- one, misinterpreted, leads to worship of a highly respected human being, and slavish unthinking followng of his guidance. There is diversity in Catholicism. That is why it is Catholic (Universal), not Italian, or German, or whatever. Contrast that with the fragmentation of Islam, everyone following sacred writings but interpreting them in their own way.

Peregrino, I like your sig.

 

[Antwill]

I wonder if there is a way we Catholics can keep our articles of faith and recognize that other significant faith traditions like Islam (which reveres Jesus and Mary to the degree we do, absent the divinity issue) have value as pathways to God and individual holiness?

The Church allows that their are ways to God without being Catholic. Most other faith traditions have some truth, but it is only the Catholic faith that has the fullness of truth.

 

[hamba2han]

Contrast that with the fragmentation of Islam, everyone following sacred writings but interpreting them in their own way.

Think of the Qur’an as the map to guide us in the journey of life and think of the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the legend by which to correctly read this map.

The Prophet (pbuh) did not really need to “explain” every aspect of the Qur’an because his companions as well as his family members used to watch him really closely in practically everything he did.

The hadeeth of Ayesha (ra) states that – “He (pbuh) was a living Qur’an”… and this means that his way of teaching the others was to act and live according to the Qur’an and then others would watch him and do the same.

Just as we should never be foolish enough to try to read a map without referring to the accompanying legend, then only a fool will attempt to interpret the Qur’an in a way which is different than how the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself followed the teachings of the Qur’an.

And so, it is the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is the ultimate authority on the Qur’an and it is his Sunnah that Muslims refer to in oder to get the most accurate interpretation of the Qur’an possible.

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in his Final Sermon said:

"I leave behind two things, if you hold fast unto them you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah."

After the Prophet completed this Sermon near the summit of Arafat, the revelation came down:

**“This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My Grace upon you, and have chosen Islam for you as your religion.” **… (Al Qur’an: Al-Maeda :3)

Bearing in mind that Islam is the finished product to cap all that has been revealed since the dawn of humankind, then to say that what the Creator Himself has deemed a perfect religion would need to be interpreted differently in order to suit the changing times, simply does not make much sense at all.

After all, if the needs and desires of His creations have not changed one iota since 1,400 years ago, then is there a valid reason why the divine Laws that the Creator has commanded His creations to obey back then need to be interpreted differently today?

 

[Antwill]

Think of the Qur’an as the map to guide us in the journey of life and think of the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the legend by which to correctly read this map.

The Prophet (pbuh) did not really need to “explain” every aspect of the Qur’an because his companions as well as his family members used to watch him really closely in practically everything he did.

The hadeeth of Ayesha (ra) states that – “He (pbuh) was a living Qur’an”… and this means that his way of teaching the others was to act and live according to the Qur’an and then others would watch him and do the same.

Just as we should never be foolish enough to try to read a map without referring to the accompanying legend, then only a fool will attempt to interpret the Qur’an in a way which is different than how the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself followed the teachings of the Qur’an.

And so, it is the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is the ultimate authority on the Qur’an and it is his Sunnah that Muslims refer to in oder to get the most accurate interpretation of the Qur’an possible.

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in his Final Sermon said:

"I leave behind two things, if you hold fast unto them you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah."

After the Prophet completed this Sermon near the summit of Arafat, the revelation came down:

**“This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My Grace upon you, and have chosen Islam for you as your religion.” **… (Al Qur’an: Al-Maeda :3)

Bearing in mind that Islam is the finished product to cap all that has been revealed since the dawn of humankind, then to say that what the Creator Himself has deemed a perfect religion would need to be interpreted differently in order to suit the changing times, simply does not make much sense at all.

After all, if the needs and desires of His creations have not changed one iota since 1,400 years ago, then is there a valid reason why the divine Laws that the Creator has commanded His creations to obey back then need to be interpreted differently today?

This is all fine and good, but who is to say how Muhammad would have interpreted the things you speak of? Obviously, there are many divisions in Islam. The fighting between these divisions is responsible for much of the death and destruction in Iraq. Again, I’m sure members of both sides would say they are justified in killing the other because their interpretation of the quran and his sunnah justifies it. WHO’S GOT THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION? (the ALL CAPS isn’t meant to be taken as yelling, just emphasis). How do you know who has the right interpretation?

There are, of course, divisions in Catholicism. There are dissenters within the Church. But at the end of the day, we can go to our ultimate authority (the Pope and the Magisterium) to settle who is right. Christ established a *living authority *to settle these things in the Pope. Muslims do not have that.

Muslims have the same issue that protestants do - they have to rely on their own individual interpretations of a written work or works to try to figure out what the ultimate truth is.

As for “changing with the times” so to speak. The Catholic Church has not changed any of their dogmatic teachings in 2,000 years.

 

[hamba2han]

WHO’S GOT THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION? (the ALL CAPS isn’t meant to be taken as yelling, just emphasis). How do you know who has the right interpretation?

The Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the only interpretation of the Qur’an acceptable to Allah.

Like I said, Islam has over a billion ‘Popes’ who follow (or at least who should follow) both the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

 

[Booklover]

Islam has over a billion individual ‘Popes’ whereas Christianity has only room for one.

Those who are complaining about Osama bin Ladin and various other “evil mullahs” hijacking Islam need to remember that it is not easy at all to hijack a faith that has over a billion Popes.

Yes, and they’re all willing to kill anyone who does agree with its evil creed!

Vickie

 

[Antwill]

The Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the only interpretation of the Qur’an acceptable to Allah.

Like I said, Islam has over a billion ‘Popes’ who follow (or at least who should follow) both the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

But who’s interpretation of the sunnah do you follow? Surely, there is disagreement as to what Muhammad said in the sunnah.

I guess the straight forward question would be - who is the one LIVING authority to Muslims?

 

[Booklover]

Bearing in mind that Islam is the finished product to cap all that has been revealed since the dawn of humankind, then to say that what the Creator Himself has deemed a perfect religion would need to be interpreted differently in order to suit the changing times, simply does not make much sense at all.

If Islam is the “perfect” religion why is it that Muslim countries are among the most backward countries on the planet? Can you explain that?

How can this “complete way of life” as you call it be so inefficient?

The answer is Islam, a violent cult, that has never left the 7th century!

Vickie

 

[hamba2han]

But who’s interpretation of the sunnah do you follow? Surely, there is disagreement as to what Muhammad said in the sunnah.

I guess the straight forward question would be - who is the one LIVING authority to Muslims?

The ultimate authority in Islam is the Qur’an and Sunnah and there is no other “authority”, whether living or not, which can overrule or contradict the Qur’an and Sunnah.

In Islam, there is no clergy as the imams are not a religious authority. The “living authority” are the ‘Fuqaha’ which in Arabic means people who have studied Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence).

However, their “authority” is to give their interpretation on minor issues because there are no conflicting opinions among them on major issues.

For example, while there are no conflicting opinions at all on the necessity of performing the 5 daily prayers, minor differences in opinions do exist with regard to the best mannerism that should be followed during the prayers.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I think this thread is taking a turn that is going to get it closed. It started off as a good discussion. Let’s not ruin it.

I think the short answer for Muslims is simply “The quran doesn’t say Jesus said He was God, therefore, we don’t believe He ever said it”. Fair enough, they have what they believe is the Word of God. Christians obviously disagree that the quran comes from God.

Since that is pretty much cut and dried, perhaps we could hear from a few more non Christian and non Muslim folks who believe Jesus was a great man/prophet only and why they respect Him? Not to be unwelcoming to Muslims, but I think they have made their position pretty clear.

 

[Antwill]

The ultimate authority in Islam is the Qur’an and Sunnah and there is no other “authority”, whether living or not, which can overrule or contradict the Qur’an and Sunnah.

In Islam, there is no clergy as the imams are not a religious authority. The “living authority” are the ‘Fuqaha’ which in Arabic means people who have studied Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence).

However, their “authority” is to give their interpretation on minor issues because there are no conflicting opinions among them on major issues.

For example, while there are no conflicting opinions at all on the necessity of performing the 5 daily prayers, minor differences in opinions do exist with regard to the best mannerism that should be followed during the prayers.

Fair enough, but there are disagreements on when it is okay to wage “jihad” and if it is okay to commit terrorist acts like those on 9/11. I would say that those are pretty major (not minor)issues. Compared to whether it is okay to be a suicide bomber and kill innocent civilians or not, prayer 5 times a day seems a bit less major, don’t you think?

Again, there are some Muslims that say it is okay to do those things and some that do not. This shows that what the quran and sunnah say are obviously up to debate. That is why it is necessary to have a final, living authority.

For example, say that there are two pro-life Catholics. However, one thinks that it is justifiable to kill abortion doctors because that will save babies and cites “an eye for an eye” in the Bible. Another does not support this and quotes “Thou Shall Not Murder” from the Bible. As Catholics, we can go to the Pope and the Magisterium to determine the Church’s stance on that issue (of course, it is never acceptable to murder an abortion doctor or anyone else, for that matter).

You do not have that authority in Islam. Given the disparity of views among Muslims (who all claim to be going by quran and sunnah) in regard to “jihad” etc., it is obvious that one side is twisting those writings in a wrong way. Without that final living authority, how do you know what side is right?

We can continue to go back and forth, but I don’t see that it will serve any purpose. Ultimately, without a final living authority, Muslims are faced with the same problem that Bible only protestants have when it comes to knowing the real truth of what their faith teaches.

 

[Peregrino]

The Church allows that their are ways to God without being Catholic. Most other faith traditions have some truth, but it is only the Catholic faith that has the fullness of truth.

My friend I have to disagree with one point you have made. It is true that the Catholic faith has the fullness of truth. However, I believe that any faith that observes the two great commandments (love God with all your strength and love your neighbor like yourself) also contains the fullness of truth.

Ultimately the authority issue boils down to the opinion of one person: the individual who at that moment is reading the scriptures or the individual appointed to interpret them with “authority”. It may be a Muslim in Iran or a Pope speaking ex cathedra about faith and morals. That individual may rely on 2000 years of church history or the hadith, either way both will say that they are doing and speaking God’s will. Arguing this issue will only produce, well, arguments.

 

[Antwill]

My friend I have to disagree with one point you have made. It is true that the Catholic faith has the fullness of truth. However, I believe that any faith that observes the two great commandments (love God with all your strength and love your neighbor like yourself) also contains the fullness of truth.

Feel free to disagree with me, but you are more or less disagreeing with the Catholic Church, as well. Plus, you’ve got a bit of the ol’ essential vs. non-esstential doctrine debate in that statement.

Ultimately the authority issue boils down to the opinion of one person: the individual who at that moment is reading the scriptures or the individual appointed to interpret them with “authority”. It may be a Muslim in Iran or a Pope speaking ex cathedra about faith and morals. That individual may rely on 2000 years of church history or the hadith, either way both will say that they are doing and speaking God’s will. Arguing this issue will only produce, well, arguments.

Your argument that authority boils down to one’s own opinion is just more relativism. As a Catholic, I believe that the Church has the full, ultimate TRUTH that God revealed to man.

I believe you are Catholic, too, correct? Do you believe that the Catholic Church holds the ultimate truth as revealed by God? From your statement, it would seem that you feel every faith is just as good as another as long as one follows the two great commandments.

God Bless.

 

[Peregrino]

Your argument that authority boils down to one’s own opinion is just more relativism. As a Catholic, I believe that the Church has the full, ultimate TRUTH that God revealed to man.

I believe you are Catholic, too, correct? Do you believe that the Catholic Church holds the ultimate truth as revealed by God? From your statement, it would seem that you feel every faith is just as good as another as long as one follows the two great commandments.

God Bless.

The problem is, some feel Islam is the ultimate truth, while others believe that Catholicism is the ultimate. Still yet, others believe that Bahaism or HInduism or Judaism or Mormonism or whatever-ism contains the ultimate truth and expression of God’s will for mankind. Now the common Catholic reasoning is to say that there can be only one truth and fundamentally the Bible says that the Church has cornered the market, via its “inheritance” from Jesus.

Well, this is one person’s religious conviction over the other. Everyone feels they have cornered the market. What is the point of fighting about it? If a person can get to heaven via the two great commandments we should cheer them on, not condemn them for lack of conformity to our world view.

All the bantering about “fullness of truth” or “fullness of faith” comes across to me as frankly a sales pitch. I know several Hindus who are extremely holy people, I know several Christians who are not. Sure, my identity is tied up as a Catholic but this does not mean that I have the only way to heaven.

This also doesn’t equate to relativism. I like to think of it as different solutions to a math problem. Some people solve problems graphically and geometrically, others with algebra, still others do so intuitively. The answer is the goal, not the method or path used to get there. The different faith traditions are these methods. God, being omnipotent, is surely capable of manifesting himself to different people in different ways, as well as providing different solutions. It is only humans who have the audacity to say that their “method” is the only method. The loving Father is not going to condemn some to a “half-life” of the faith while the other “select” live in the the land of milk and honey called “the fullness of the faith”.

Perhaps the only “absolutisms” we can definitively ascribe to are the two great commandments. Everything else will result in strife and partisanship between religious traditions who say that they and only they have the “real revelation” or the “Truth”.

Sorry to be long winded. God Bless.

 

[Antwill]

This also doesn’t equate to relativism. I like to think of it as different solutions to a math problem. Some people solve problems graphically and geometrically, others with algebra, still others do so intuitively. The answer is the goal, not the method or path used to get there. The different faith traditions are these methods. God, being omnipotent, is surely capable of manifesting himself to different people in different ways, as well as providing different solutions. It is only humans who have the audacity to say that their “method” is the only method. The loving Father is not going to condemn some to a “half-life” of the faith while the other “select” live in the the land of milk and honey called “the fullness of the faith”.

**rel·a·tiv·ism (rěl’ə-tĭ-vĭz’əm)
n. Philosophy
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them. **

No offense, but what you’re saying sure sounds like relativism to me.

But I can agree with you, as the Church does, that God is not going to condemn anyone simply because they are not Catholic. Where we part company is in your thinking that those who simply follow the two great commandments have the fullness of truth. That I can’t buy.

 

[Renton405]

Jesus (pbuh) NEVER claimed to be God… Period!

As for the Pope, I meant – would Catholics choose a greater sinner than themselves to be their Pope?

If so, then why on earth would they do this??

Before Abraham , I AM