E
Eucharisted
Guest
According to Islam…
Jeuss is the Word
The Qu’ran is the Word
Jesus is equal to the Qu’ran
Mohammed is a Prophet
The New Testament prophecies his coming
Mohammed is equal to the New Testament
So Jesus is equal to a book, and Mohammed is equal to the New Covenant?
Okay. Let’s say that’s true. Jesus is called the Word because he was created by the word of Allah (Be), and this makes him equal to the word of Allah, and his miraculous conception is meant to show the divine origin of the word of Allah (the Qu’ran)? But if the Qu’ran is eternal, then could it be created, like Jesus was? His conception couldn’t show the divine origin of the Qu’ran, because the Qu’ran is eternal: if anything, the conception would show that the Qu’ran is not eternal, that is was created by Allah.
Actually, a created Qu’ran would fit in with the Islamic belief that before Allah created anything, only he existed; there wouldn’t have to be any idiotic fights over the eternal origins of the Qu’ran than.
Okay, now let’s say Mohammed is equal to the New Testament, i.e., the New Covenant. Yes, New Testament means New Covenant: “Testament” is an old English way of saying covenant. So Mohammed is equal to the New Covenant. This, in and of itself, makes no sense, unless Mohammed is a mediator between God and man in a way that surpasses Jesus’ own meditation (i.e., Jesus being God and man)? But that would be impossible.
Actually, Muslims translate “New Testament” literally, much like how some Protestants literally translate the Bible: they believe “New Testament” means New Revelation, so when they say Mohammed is eqaul to the New Testament, they mean he is a prophet, the last prophet, the one who gives the final revelation of Allah to man and who fulfills the prophecies of the New Testament (“spirit of truth”, “the prophet who is to come”, etc.).
This actually poses two problems, one of which I’ve already addressed: the fact that Testament means Covenant and the fact that Mohammed, even if he did claim to be a prophet, could not be a prophet according to Judaism, for one simple reason: He was not a Jew. Jesus was a Jew, so He could be a prophet. Isaiah was a Jew, so he could be a prophet. Moses was a Jew, so he could be a prophet. The office of prophet, in the Old and New Testaments, is based on Judaism, so if you aren’t a Jew, you’re not a prophet. Hence, Mohammed could not be a prophet, for the simple reason I’ve already given.
What’s even more interesting is that the Jewish standard of prophethood - one of the requirements being that a prophet must be a Jew - are completely thrown out the window when it comes to Mohammed, and this is for a single reason, one which Christians will be familar with: Mohammed came to be a prophet for everyone. Now, of this universal character, what biblical figure dose it resemble so closely? Oh, that’s right: Jesus! Yes, Mohammed actually put himself on the same level as Jesus and he made Jesus lower than himself.
Catholics, if you know your history, you’ll find a striking resemblance between this and a certain king who did not want to obey the Pope. I speak, of course, about King Henry VIII, who, when he didn’t get his annulment from the Pope, decided to become the “pope” (supreme head) of the Church of England. Funny how history works out, isn’t it?
So, Jesus is equal to a book, Mohammed is equal to a covenant, and Mohammed is an “unverisal” prophet who is greater than Jesus but less than God. So, I guess, Mohammed is greater than the Qu’ran? The prophet is greater than the word of Allah? Now, the only one who could be greater than the word of Allah is Allah himself, so unless Mohammed is a god…which brings us back to how Mohammed could be equal to the New Covenant (he’d have to be greater than the Hypostatic Union if he’s greater than Jesus)…But if Jesus is greater than Mohammed, this whole mess of greater and lower would be resolved, in a certain sense at least.
Jeuss is the Word
The Qu’ran is the Word
Jesus is equal to the Qu’ran
Mohammed is a Prophet
The New Testament prophecies his coming
Mohammed is equal to the New Testament
So Jesus is equal to a book, and Mohammed is equal to the New Covenant?
Okay. Let’s say that’s true. Jesus is called the Word because he was created by the word of Allah (Be), and this makes him equal to the word of Allah, and his miraculous conception is meant to show the divine origin of the word of Allah (the Qu’ran)? But if the Qu’ran is eternal, then could it be created, like Jesus was? His conception couldn’t show the divine origin of the Qu’ran, because the Qu’ran is eternal: if anything, the conception would show that the Qu’ran is not eternal, that is was created by Allah.
Actually, a created Qu’ran would fit in with the Islamic belief that before Allah created anything, only he existed; there wouldn’t have to be any idiotic fights over the eternal origins of the Qu’ran than.
Okay, now let’s say Mohammed is equal to the New Testament, i.e., the New Covenant. Yes, New Testament means New Covenant: “Testament” is an old English way of saying covenant. So Mohammed is equal to the New Covenant. This, in and of itself, makes no sense, unless Mohammed is a mediator between God and man in a way that surpasses Jesus’ own meditation (i.e., Jesus being God and man)? But that would be impossible.
Actually, Muslims translate “New Testament” literally, much like how some Protestants literally translate the Bible: they believe “New Testament” means New Revelation, so when they say Mohammed is eqaul to the New Testament, they mean he is a prophet, the last prophet, the one who gives the final revelation of Allah to man and who fulfills the prophecies of the New Testament (“spirit of truth”, “the prophet who is to come”, etc.).
This actually poses two problems, one of which I’ve already addressed: the fact that Testament means Covenant and the fact that Mohammed, even if he did claim to be a prophet, could not be a prophet according to Judaism, for one simple reason: He was not a Jew. Jesus was a Jew, so He could be a prophet. Isaiah was a Jew, so he could be a prophet. Moses was a Jew, so he could be a prophet. The office of prophet, in the Old and New Testaments, is based on Judaism, so if you aren’t a Jew, you’re not a prophet. Hence, Mohammed could not be a prophet, for the simple reason I’ve already given.
What’s even more interesting is that the Jewish standard of prophethood - one of the requirements being that a prophet must be a Jew - are completely thrown out the window when it comes to Mohammed, and this is for a single reason, one which Christians will be familar with: Mohammed came to be a prophet for everyone. Now, of this universal character, what biblical figure dose it resemble so closely? Oh, that’s right: Jesus! Yes, Mohammed actually put himself on the same level as Jesus and he made Jesus lower than himself.
Catholics, if you know your history, you’ll find a striking resemblance between this and a certain king who did not want to obey the Pope. I speak, of course, about King Henry VIII, who, when he didn’t get his annulment from the Pope, decided to become the “pope” (supreme head) of the Church of England. Funny how history works out, isn’t it?
So, Jesus is equal to a book, Mohammed is equal to a covenant, and Mohammed is an “unverisal” prophet who is greater than Jesus but less than God. So, I guess, Mohammed is greater than the Qu’ran? The prophet is greater than the word of Allah? Now, the only one who could be greater than the word of Allah is Allah himself, so unless Mohammed is a god…which brings us back to how Mohammed could be equal to the New Covenant (he’d have to be greater than the Hypostatic Union if he’s greater than Jesus)…But if Jesus is greater than Mohammed, this whole mess of greater and lower would be resolved, in a certain sense at least.
