For non-Christians who respect Jesus as just a prophet

[Renton405]

There are a few differences to note when comparing Jesus in the bible to Muhammad (pbuh&hf) in the Quran

In the Quran God speaks about the prophet Muhammad only in the 2nd and 3rd person masculine pronouns. This is how the Quran flows, and you will find Muhammad is referred to as a prophet in the 2nd and 3rd person masculine pronouns.

In the Bible Jesus sometimes speaks in the first person narrative, if he speaks in the first person about himself, things he did or words he imparted, then why didn’t he claim to be God.

Out of humbleness… Christ didn’t tell people his divinity right away because he knew they wouldn’t believe it. Thats why he called himself Son of Man… But deep down, he truely was the Son of God…

Those who see the Son see the Father. Because the Father is in the Son and the son in the Father…

Light from Light, begotton , not made… Jesus’s spirit is the same spirit as the Father…the only difference is the relation between them and the flesh that covers him(the second of the trinity)… But both Jesus and the Father are eternal, Christ came from eternity because he was generated from the Father, not made…

 

[Ahimsa]

Before Abraham , I AM

That’s perfectly compatible with Arianism.

 

[Renton405]

Apart from the Qur’an, Muslims also follow the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) of which the Hadiths are an integral part of.

The Hadiths are a very important source of guidance for Muslims and there is in fact a Science of Hadith specifically meant to authenticate the many hadiths that exists and to classify them according to the authenticity and reliability of the sources.

Hadiths would generally fall into four broad categories i.e. strong, good, weak and fabricated.

The text of the Bible when placed in comparison with the Hadiths would be classified as either weak or fabricated according to this Science of Hadith.

Science…like dunking a fly into your water and food after it touches it?? One wing contains a poison and the other a cure…

Yet scientists found nothing in the wings…

 

[Renton405]

That’s perfectly compatible with Arianism.

Arians deny Jesus divinity. They believe he was created… the above verse does not suggest that at all…In fact the verse actually goes against Arianism…

Before Abraham , I AM… shows that Jesus was with the Father at all times, for eternity… it shows he came from God because he was with God before Abraham…

Your interperatation is incorrect…are you sure you meant what you were thinking?

 

[Renton405]

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?

Hmmm. Iran is waiting for the Madhi to come…

Any Popes marry six year olds??

 

[Antwill]

Hmmm. Iran is waiting for the Madhi to come…

Any Popes marry six year olds??

I have not idea what you are talking about.

 

[Renton405]

I have not idea what you are talking about.

you dont think the madhi will be a pope like figure?? the caliphs??

 

[Antwill]

you dont think the madhi will be a pope like figure?? the caliphs??

I don’t think anything about the madhi, as I am not Muslim.

 

[Ahimsa]

Arians deny Jesus divinity. They believe he was created… the above verse does not suggest that at all…In fact the verse actually goes against Arianism…

Before Abraham , I AM… shows that Jesus was with the Father at all times, for eternity… it shows he came from God because he was with God before Abraham…

Your interperatation is incorrect…are you sure you meant what you were thinking?

Arians see Jesus as existing before time began. Jesus, for them, was created outside of time. Thus, to say “Before Abraham, I am” would be compatible with Arianism, since “I am” refers, at the very least, to an extra-temporal reality.

 

[Peregrino]

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

Your “solution” to the relativist dilemma, i.e. “my (the church’s) position is superior and yours is inferior” is unhelpful because it perpetuates relativist dialague and debate. The other side will say that same thing and no progress is made. I recognize that there are absolute moral values, as generic as “the good”, if you will, the problem is how do we prove these things? Appealing to the Church’s “authority” to lay down the law on everyone else’s religion is no answer at all if you are concerned with inter-religious dialogue. If your mindset is “my way or the highway” we have nothing to discuss.

I am proposing that we trust in God enough to recognize the validity and equality of all faith traditions and look to the common values we share with others. To do otherwise is no better than partisanship and nationalism given that we cannot “prove” in any empirical manner the superior “validity” of our faith tradition over others. Sadly, it has been this misguided mindset that has led to religious bloodshed throughout the world. We are all one people under God.

 

[dolphinlove]

What i dont understand is, since muslims claim that Jesus is just a prophet, they also believe he was of a virgin birth…
How can they explain the virgin birth since they dont believe he is the son of God?
And dont give me the same answer i always hear about Adam and Eve not having a mother or father… And they should be God’s as well etc…

I guess my question is just not worth answering…

 

[Ahimsa]

I guess my question is just not worth answering…

From the Muslim perspective, the Virgin Birth is a miracle, not different in essence from the Old Testament miracles.

 

[Antwill]

Your “solution” to the relativist dilemma, i.e. “my (the church’s) position is superior and yours is inferior” is unhelpful because it perpetuates relativist dialague and debate. The other side will say that same thing and no progress is made. I recognize that there are absolute moral values, as generic as “the good”, if you will, the problem is how do we prove these things? Appealing to the Church’s “authority” to lay down the law on everyone else’s religion is no answer at all if you are concerned with inter-religious dialogue. If your mindset is “my way or the highway” we have nothing to discuss.

I never said that the Church should “lay down the law” to all other religions. God is love and the Church represents God, so to persecute others simply because they aren’t Catholic would go against God’s law. The Church simply stands up for the truth as it has been revealed to her and attempts to defend the natural law. The old saying of “you’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything” applies to this situation. If they accept the teachings of the Church, wonderful. If not, you shouldn’t expect the Church to say “okay, your beliefs are just as good anyway.”

As far as no progress being made - I would argue that is not true. Many protestants have converted to the Catholic faith when it was explained to them. This, of course, should be done in a loving manner. But it would appear that you hold the flawed idea of ecumenism that became prevalent after Vatican II - one faith is as good as another. There is no need for anyone to convert to Catholicism because they have enough truth right where they are. The Church has never taught that. Although one doesn’t necessarily need to be in the Catholic Church to be saved, the Church has all the means to salvation, where other faiths do not.

Plus, there have been advances made with other traditions. Popes John Paul and Benedict have reached out to the Orthodox and that schism is closer to being resolved, there have been whole Anglican communities that have come back into the fold, and a few years ago, the Lutherans signed a document about a theological issue (the issue escapes me right now) that basically agreed with the Catholic position. You see, the Church is in dialogue in all of this, but is not willing to compromise the truth as it has been revealed to her.

I guess if you see standing up for the truth in a loving, yet uncompromising manner as “my way or the highway” so be it.

I am proposing that we trust in God enough to recognize the validity and equality of all faith traditions and look to the common values we share with others. To do otherwise is no better than partisanship and nationalism given that we cannot “prove” in any empirical manner the superior “validity” of our faith tradition over others. Sadly, it has been this misguided mindset that has led to religious bloodshed throughout the world. We are all one people under God.

So Mormonism, JWs, Uncle Joe’s made up church, and any other religion that denies the divinity of Christ are equally valid in your eyes? That, my friend, is relativism at its best (or worst). God has said that not all faiths are equally valid. He established one church.

 

[Peregrino]

So Mormonism, JWs, Uncle Joe’s made up church, and any other religion that denies the divinity of Christ are equally valid in your eyes? That, my friend, is relativism at its best (or worst). God has said that not all faiths are equally valid. He established one church.

There is one absolute truth: God. There are many ways of seeing that truth. What you are calling relativism are simply different paths to the same goal, God. The path is not the truth, the goal is. Where you and I differ is that you call the path the truth and I call God the truth.

You are saying that the existence of different paths ultimately boils down to relativism. I disagree. If there is no God, then relativism rules, i.e. there is no ontological foundation for morality etc. If there is a God, then there is an absolute truth, irrespective of the path we take to the truth.

The absolute nature of truth is not dependent upon the means by which we perceive (religion) that truth (the truth is “true” whether you perceive it or not). If you believe that the way truth is perceived (belief system) effects the nature of the truth itself then you are subscribing to relativism.

There is no way to prove, objectively, that our way of seeing the truth (catholicism) is any better than say, Jainism, Zorastrianism, or Judaism. They will naturally say the same thing. I can say that my car is better than your car and you might disagree. What we CAN agree on possibly is a criteria on what makes one car better than another, hence my emphasis on seeking commonalities rather than differences (I personally believe that this criteria consists of the two great commandments). Perhaps it is these commonalities which point us most accurately in the direction of the absolute truth: God.

I apologize if my previous post offended you as it seems that you reacted strongly, that was not my intention. God Bless.

 

[Antwill]

There is one absolute truth: God. There are many ways of seeing that truth. What you are calling relativism are simply different paths to the same goal, God. The path is not the truth, the goal is. Where you and I differ is that you call the path the truth and I call God the truth.

You are saying that the existence of different paths ultimately boils down to relativism. I disagree. If there is no God, then relativism rules, i.e. there is no ontological foundation for morality etc. If there is a God, then there is an absolute truth, irrespective of the path we take to the truth.

The absolute nature of truth is not dependent upon the means by which we perceive (religion) that truth (the truth is “true” whether you perceive it or not). If you believe that the way truth is perceived (belief system) effects the nature of the truth itself then you are subscribing to relativism.

There is no way to prove, objectively, that our way of seeing the truth (catholicism) is any better than say, Jainism, Zorastrianism, or Judaism. They will naturally say the same thing. I can say that my car is better than your car and you might disagree. What we CAN agree on possibly is a criteria on what makes one car better than another, hence my emphasis on seeking commonalities rather than differences (I personally believe that this criteria consists of the two great commandments). Perhaps it is these commonalities which point us most accurately in the direction of the absolute truth: God.

I apologize if my previous post offended you as it seems that you reacted strongly, that was not my intention. God Bless.

I was not offended at all by your post; I was just enthusiastically defending my position.

To me, one of the fatal flaws to your argument is your supposed assumption that all different faiths are worshipping the same God. That is not the case. Is the “god” that supposedly condoned the actions of the 9/11 attackers the same God Catholics worship? Are the pagan gods Zeus, Apollo, etc. equal to the Christian God?

Plus, I have yet to say that non-Catholics can not receive salvation. You seem to misunderstand my position on this. I believe that the Catholic Church holds the FULLNESS of the truth, not that one has to be in full communion with her to receive salvation. I, too, think that God is the truth, but I also believe that He has provided one completely “true” path to the means of salvation - the Catholic Church.

Again, I am not saying a good Jew, Muslim, or whatever else can’t make it to heaven. I am simply saying that I believe that the Catholic Faith is the one true faith. Can I empirically prove this? Not completely, but there is compelling historical and scriptural evidence to support my belief.

In the end, I think a lot of it comes down to grace. I have been graced to be born into the Catholic Church and graced to fully believe what she teaches. When asked what I believe and why, I will defend the Catholic position as best I can. I would never tell someone that they are damned due to their religion or lack thereof; that is God’s domain only. However, I also will not pretend that I believe all faith traditions are the same and equally equipped to help one achieve salvation. If I thought that, I think I would probably leave the Church to join a faith that was easier to live by. Being truly Catholic takes sacrifice and hardwork (not that other faiths don’t, but there are faith traditions that are much more permissive in certain areas). But I have come to realize that it is following the teachings of the Church that lead to ultimate freedom.

God Bless.

 

[Peregrino]

To me, one of the fatal flaws to your argument is your supposed assumption that all different faiths are worshipping the same God. That is not the case. Is the “god” that supposedly condoned the actions of the 9/11 attackers the same God Catholics worship? Are the pagan gods Zeus, Apollo, etc. equal to the Christian God?

Plus, I have yet to say that non-Catholics can not receive salvation. You seem to misunderstand my position on this. I believe that the Catholic Church holds the FULLNESS of the truth, not that one has to be in full communion with her to receive salvation. I, too, think that God is the truth, but I also believe that He has provided one completely “true” path to the means of salvation - the Catholic Church.

I believe that there is one God and one God only. I am not sure if you are suggesting the existence of pantheon of gods with the Christian God at the head. If you aren’t then you must be saying that other faiths are worshipping nothing at all. If the latter is your position, I disagree for reasons I have stated earlier.

I never said nor got the impression that you believed that salvation is beyond people of other faiths. To the contrary, I commend you on your charity in this regard.

Personally, I see little difference between “God condoning the actions of the 9/11 attackers” and God sanctioning, via a pope, the crusades, executions etc. These are all horrible acts and do not square with the two great commandments. I think that all faith traditions, due to cultures and individuals, distort the truth as they attempt to transmit it. These distortions result in internal contradictions in all faiths. The truth, “the absolute”, is always the same, however sometimes things are lost in translation.

I think we both differ on the degree to which the multitude of faiths contain “the truth”. Though I am a Catholic, I am not willing to claim that the Church (nor other faith tradition) is the only tradition that does.

Thanks for the awesome dialogue.

 

[Antwill]

I believe that there is one God and one God only. I am not sure if you are suggesting the existence of pantheon of gods with the Christian God at the head. If you aren’t then you must be saying that other faiths are worshipping nothing at all. If the latter is your position, I disagree for reasons I have stated earlier.

I never said nor got the impression that you believed that salvation is beyond people of other faiths. To the contrary, I commend you on your charity in this regard.

Personally, I see little difference between “God condoning the actions of the 9/11 attackers” and God sanctioning, via a pope, the crusades, executions etc. These are all horrible acts and do not square with the two great commandments. I think that all faith traditions, due to cultures and individuals, distort the truth as they attempt to transmit it. These distortions result in internal contradictions in all faiths. The truth, “the absolute”, is always the same, however sometimes things are lost in translation.

I think we both differ on the degree to which the multitude of faiths contain “the truth”. Though I am a Catholic, I am not willing to claim that the Church (nor other faith tradition) is the only tradition that does.

Thanks for the awesome dialogue.

Thanks to you, too.

I also will grant that most if not all faiths have some truth, just not the fullness that the Church has. I would agree that that seems to be the major difference between us.

God Bless.

 

[dessert]

Hi
Please prove the above from OTBible or from plain words of mouth
of Jesus left by him written by him or authenticated by him before he departed from Galilee alogwith his mother Mary in search of lost ten tribes of the house of Israel scattered and settled in the East. Jesus joined them and they accepted him as the people of Nineveh accepted Jonah after his episode of the whale. So Jesus’ Sign of Jonah was fullfilled like this in a marvellous way ,not the way, in my opinion, Catholics hold as a misception for centuries.
Thanks

The problem here with some of my Christian friends is that they don’t let God speak for Himself. If they would have done it they would find a straight passage from the OTBible on every important issue, if Bible is a living book that answers every rational/reasonable/logical questions, of course we are not discussing here pure Mathematics or Physics, and we are mostly concerned with the every day moral, Spiritual and religious issues, and a religious worthwhile book must resolve such issues, if it is truthful to its purpose. When they don’t get support from the Bible, they think they are wiser than God, so they try filling the void by putting words into God’s mouth first for the Claim and then for the Reason which is usually not found there. One is hence left wondering if the Christian God is living and All-Wise.

If Muslim is descendant of Abraham and Jew is descendant of Abraham, then they are cousins?

Dessert

 

[dessert]

Here is a good article I think rather fair, called The Legacy of Abraham
from the Time Archives
sunday Sept 22,2002
by David Van Biema if this site does not work go to time archives or wikipedia and to Abraham down to the time archives source
Time in partnership with CNN
The Legacy of Abraham

time.com/time/magazine/article09171,353560,00.html

search name of article and sorted by relevance page 1

Dessert

 

[paarsurrey]

If Muslim is descendant of Abraham and Jew is descendant of Abraham, then they are cousins?
Dessert

Hi
All those who live on this planet earth are brothers/sisters/cousins/friends in humanity, are proginy of Adam and Eve.
Thanks