How do other religions view Jesus?

[dronald]

Why not it shall be Messenger of God instead of Son of God? All prophet mentioned that meaning.

Either way it doesn’t matter for you, as you don’t believe the words are true. And if you do accept the truth of the text you would also accept Jesus saying “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail.”

Do you believe Jesus built His Church? Do you believe in Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Jesus certainly commanded us to do so.

 

[hasantas]

Either way it doesn’t matter for you, as you don’t believe the words are true. And if you do accept the truth of the text you would also accept Jesus saying “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail.”

Do you believe Jesus built His Church? Do you believe in Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Jesus certainly commanded us to do so.

I believe in Jesus and in Bible with no doubt. But ı have some problems with some doctrines which occured in Church tradition. I cannot trust and believe that Holy Spirit allways command and lead Church. Because people in Church are not prophets so they may make mistake easily and there are many samples. But that does not mean that Church allways do wrong things.

 

[SteveVH]

Adam is not Son of Man! The interpretation of “Son of God” is divine nature of Jesus and “Son of man” human nature of Jesus ofcourse according to Trinity!

Did I say that Adam was the Son of Man? I said Adam was a man who brought sin into the world with all of its consequences. Therefore it would take a “son of man” to make reparation.

Why not it shall be Messenger of God instead of Son of God? All prophet mentioned that meaning.

Because there are many “messengers” of God, including prophets and angels. Jesus was not just a “messenger of God”, he truly is the “Son of the Living God” as Peter professed. He is distinguished from all other “messengers” or “prophets” because he is God, not a creation of God.

 

[hasantas]

Did I say that Adam was the Son of Man? I said Adam was a man who brought sin into the world with all of its consequences. Therefore it would take a “son of man” to make reparation.

 

[SteveVH]

Sorry! İt is difficult sometimes for me to understand in English exactly.

Not a problem. I think you are doing fine.

You mean Jesus was a man (at least with His human nature) to make reparation.

To make reparation for the sin of Adam, a man, justice required that such reparation come from man. Since there was no man who was completely holy and without sin, and therefore there was no man who could make an unblemished sacrifice, God himself became a man and suffered and died in order to pay the wages of human sin.

But I do not believe in that Jesus has a divine nature(except prophethood).

That is your prerogative.

The thought of paying for Adam’s fault is Church’s doctrine.

Yes, it is.

Jesus never claimed such thing.

*"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"* (John 5:12-17)

Jesus was a man because He was sent for men(humanbeing). If Jesus were an angel or a god then there would not be any mean in His teaching because standarts would be differents.

Jesus is not an angel, nor is he “a god”. He is the one, true God, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Except some terms in Gospels like “Son of God did or said that” do you have any evidence which prove divinity of Jesus to be Son of God?

We have the words and life of Jesus Christ given to us by witnesses; people that walked and lived with him. Those people, first hand witnesses, believed and taught that Jesus was the Son of God. Peter confessed that Jesus was “The son of the living God” and Jesus told him that his Father in heaven had revealed this to him. Not sure what evidence you are looking for.

Christianity has a good power and effect but because of such doctrine faith of most people are weak and uncertain in Christianic society and that is worrisome.

Do you find the Christians on this forum to be weak and uncertain in their faith?

 

[meltzerboy]

Not a problem. I think you are doing fine.

To make reparation for the sin of Adam, a man, justice required that such reparation come from man. Since there was no man who was completely holy and without sin, and therefore there was no man who could make an unblemished sacrifice, God himself became a man and suffered and died in order to pay the wages of human sin.

That is your prerogative.

Yes, it is.

*"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"* (John 5:12-17)

Jesus is not an angel, nor is he “a god”. He is the one, true God, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

We have the words and life of Jesus Christ given to us by witnesses; people that walked and lived with him. Those people, first hand witnesses, believed and taught that Jesus was the Son of God. Peter confessed that Jesus was “The son of the living God” and Jesus told him that his Father in heaven had revealed this to him. Not sure what evidence you are looking for.

Do you find the Christians on this forum to be weak and uncertain in their faith?

When you say that “G-d Himself became a man and suffered and died in order to pay the wages of human sin,” am I correct in assuming you mean the wages of ORIGINAL human sin? Otherwise, wouldn’t that mean the Sacraments–including baptism, the Eucharist, and confession–combined with works are unnecessary?

One more question, and a hugely hypothetical one. If Adam had not sinned by disobeying G-d and instead used his free will to resist temptation, would G-d have taken human form in the Person of Christ and come to Earth? If not, I suppose you still believe the Trinity would have existed, but what would be the purpose of Jesus?

 

[Razanir]

When you say that “G-d Himself became a man and suffered and died in order to pay the wages of human sin,” am I correct in assuming you mean the wages of ORIGINAL human sin? Otherwise, wouldn’t that mean the Sacraments–including baptism, the Eucharist, and confession–combined with works are unnecessary?

I’ll answer this by comparing it to Levitical sacrifices. Under Mosaic Law, sacrifices were offered for the forgiveness and remission of sins. With two catches.

1. The person offering the sacrifice had to be repentant. We see throughout the Bible that God only appreciates the offerings of the just. (For instance, Psalm 51)
2. The sacrifices were finite. They were made of earthly things. Thus, they could only work on a finite number of sins.

But then God descended from Heaven and was incarnate as a man. He then offered himself up as a sacrifice. Most notably as in infinite sacrifice. So by the sacrifice of the divine Paschal Lamb, sins were forgiven as with the sacrifices in the temple. But, because it was God being sacrificed, it was infinitely powerful, so to speak, and able to forgive all sins. Thus opening the gates of Heaven, abolishing the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, and all that stuff.

Then from there, God chose to have said forgiveness and grace be dispensed through the Sacraments. This all, of course, being some form of analogy, since we can’t really accurately speak of God in human terms (beyond everything that he did while incarnate).

 

[meltzerboy]

I’ll answer this by comparing it to Levitical sacrifices. Under Mosaic Law, sacrifices were offered for the forgiveness and remission of sins. With two catches.

1. The person offering the sacrifice had to be repentant. We see throughout the Bible that God only appreciates the offerings of the just. (For instance, Psalm 51)
2. The sacrifices were finite. They were made of earthly things. Thus, they could only work on a finite number of sins.

But then God descended from Heaven and was incarnate as a man. He then offered himself up as a sacrifice. Most notably as in infinite sacrifice. So by the sacrifice of the divine Paschal Lamb, sins were forgiven as with the sacrifices in the temple. But, because it was God being sacrificed, it was infinitely powerful, so to speak, and able to forgive all sins. Thus opening the gates of Heaven, abolishing the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, and all that stuff.

Then from there, God chose to have said forgiveness and grace be dispensed through the Sacraments. This all, of course, being some form of analogy, since we can’t really accurately speak of God in human terms (beyond everything that he did while incarnate).

Thank you for the explanation.

 

[hasantas]

Tomake reparation for the sin of Adam, a man, justice required that such reparation come from there was no man who could make an unblemished sacrifice, God himself became a man and suffered and died in order to pay the wages of human sin.man. Since there was no man who was completely holy and without sin, and therefore

 

[SteveVH]

When you say that “G-d Himself became a man and suffered and died in order to pay the wages of human sin,” am I correct in assuming you mean the wages of ORIGINAL human sin? Otherwise, wouldn’t that mean the Sacraments–including baptism, the Eucharist, and confession–combined with works are unnecessary?

This comes down to the difference between “redemption” and “salvation”. Christ died, once, for all, to pay the wages of all sin in human history. Original sin is different in that it is really a lack of something, rather than the presence of something. It is a lack of eternal life; God told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they would surely die. In the Hebrew (and you can verify this) the term is translated as you will surely “die, die”. He was speaking of a spiritual death in addition to physical death entering into history. This is why we believe that we must be Baptized, which is an infusion of God’s life, through the Holy Spirit, once again into the human soul. We become spiritually alive. And this can only be accomplished because of our redemption brought about by Jesus Christ.

We can, however, lose the grace received in Baptism by committing mortal sin. So, even though we have been redeemed, the price has been paid, if we lose the life given to us in Baptism we are dead, and therefore not saved. That is why Jesus gave us the sacraments; channels of grace, so that we might repent and receive his grace and his life once again and be saved. He waits and looks down the road for our return to Him, waiting to forgive us and embrace us once again. But if we don’t come home, we will be left outside of the family of God, by our own choice.

One more question, and a hugely hypothetical one. If Adam had not sinned by disobeying G-d and instead used his free will to resist temptation, would G-d have taken human form in the Person of Christ and come to Earth? If not, I suppose you still believe the Trinity would have existed, but what would be the purpose of Jesus?

As you know, in Genesis, God promised to send a Savior. This was in response to the sin of Adam and Eve and the entire purpose, therefore, for the second Person of the Trinity becoming incarnate in the Person of Jesus. He came to save us from our sins.

So, hypothetically, if Adam and Eve had maintained their trust in God, rather than doubting him, and resisted the temptation of the serpent, Jesus would have no reason to become man. If there had been no “original sin” we would be walking with God in the cool of the evening, just as did Adam and Eve, which, from the Catholic perspective, would mean that we would be walking with the second Person of the Trinity as well.

We had separated ourselves from God through sin. Jesus came to bring about the union of man with God. If there was never a separation there would be no need to once again unite us.

Peace.

Steve

 

[meltzerboy]

This comes down to the difference between “redemption” and “salvation”. Christ died, once, for all, to pay the wages of all sin in human history. Original sin is different in that it is really a lack of something, rather than the presence of something. It is a lack of eternal life; God told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they would surely die. In the Hebrew (and you can verify this) the term is translated as you will surely “die, die”. He was speaking of a spiritual death in addition to physical death entering into history. This is why we believe that we must be Baptized, which is an infusion of God’s life, through the Holy Spirit, once again into the human soul. We become spiritually alive. And this can only be accomplished because of our redemption brought about by Jesus Christ.

We can, however, lose the grace received in Baptism by committing mortal sin. So, even though we have been redeemed, the price has been paid, if we lose the life given to us in Baptism we are dead, and therefore not saved. That is why Jesus gave us the sacraments; channels of grace, so that we might repent and receive his grace and his life once again and be saved. He waits and looks down the road for our return to Him, waiting to forgive us and embrace us once again. But if we don’t come home, we will be left outside of the family of God, by our own choice.

As you know, in Genesis, God promised to send a Savior. This was in response to the sin of Adam and Eve and the entire purpose, therefore, for the second Person of the Trinity becoming incarnate in the Person of Jesus. He came to save us from our sins.

So, hypothetically, if Adam and Eve had maintained their trust in God, rather than doubting him, and resisted the temptation of the serpent, Jesus would have no reason to become man. If there had been no “original sin” we would be walking with God in the cool of the evening, just as did Adam and Eve, which, from the Catholic perspective, would mean that we would be walking with the second Person of the Trinity as well.

We had separated ourselves from God through sin. Jesus came to bring about the union of man with God. If there was never a separation there would be no need to once again unite us.

Peace.

Steve

Thank you for this information, Steve.

 

[SteveVH]

If God himself became man and paid for sin of man then the person who paid for sin is not a man although you claim that He has a human nature. Because the divine nature which is in human nature would suffer so there is no mean to say Son has a human nature.

We believe that Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity, humbled himself and became man without giving up his divinity in any way. We believe that Jesus was truly human in all ways but sin. That is why he could suffer, and even die. His divinity was hidden in his humanity.

It is not an easy thing to understand or even grasp, and, truly, there is no one who understands this mystery completely. We believe it because it has been revealed to us.

I am not sure if I understand your comment that “Because the divine nature which is in human nature would suffer…”. Do you believe that human beings naturally have a divine nature as well as a human nature?

And also ıf God want to forgive man but God have not to pain and suffer. God can do that in a very easy way so there is no need for a very complicated way.

God’s justice, which is perfect justice, required reparation for the sin of man. Man was incapable of making reparation. So God, out of nothing but love, gave his own life. God can do anything he wants. We believe this is the way he did it because we believe the words of Jesus and his Apostles.

And also suffer and pain come from inability. There is no way which goes in inability for God so there is no way for God to suffer even some claim that God incarnated.

Yes, isn’t amazing that a God who has no need to suffer, would love us, his creatures, so much that he would suffer and even die so that we might live with him for eternity. This has nothing at all to do with God’s inability to protect himself from suffering. He voluntarily suffered for us, even when he didn’t have to. Amazing love…

Is the text above from John 5:12-17?

Yes, that is why you will see (John 5:12-17) after the quote.

nor is he “a god”. He is the one, true God, ??? Hımmm… he is not god but one(?) true god with other gods(!)

There is only one God, therefore Jesus is not some other god. He is the one, true God, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity.

“…believed and taught that Jesus was the Son of God”? I think that people believed that Jesus is Messenger of God. That doctrine emerged for about 300 years after Jesus.

I don’t know where you acquired your beliefs but the Church has believed and taught that Jesus is the Son of God since the beginning. You will have to provide evidence if you think otherwise.

A friendly attention: Claiming that Jesus is Son of God is a very important perhaps a mortal responsibility.

Absolutely. And claiming that he is not is just as important and may have mortal consequences.

Because if Jesus is not Son of God then there is very big accountability for subject of the claim. Because there is a probability for rejection of such a faith. But most of them do not know the fact so ı wish God will accept their faith.

Very true. In fact, if Jesus is not the Son of God then he is a liar and a con-artist and has pulled off the biggest fraud in human history. If he is not the Son of God then our faith is destroyed, completely and utterly.

And if Jesus is the Son of God then that is most responsibility assert because that claim has to be proved very obviously.

Do you place the same criteria on the claims of Muhammad. Do his claims have to be proven very obviously?

We have the word of witnesses to Christ’s life, death and resurrection. It is on that basis that we conclude that Jesus was, indeed, who he claimed to be. From there we walk by faith.

Such important issue could not be placed on the shaky ground. There must be many certain statement and evidences in Bible.

Well, there are.

But the most important issue reference on a mystery! Very dangerous!!!

Mysteries are not, necessarily, dangerous. It only means that we cannot fully grasp something. When speaking of God, it is not unreasonable to assume that there will be some things about Him that are beyond our grasp and are, therefore, a mystery.

Peace.

Steve

 

[dronald]

I believe in Jesus and in Bible with no doubt. But ı have some problems with some doctrines which occured in Church tradition. I cannot trust and believe that Holy Spirit allways command and lead Church. Because people in Church are not prophets so they may make mistake easily and there are many samples. But that does not mean that Church allways do wrong things.

So you believe the Bible. Wonderful.

Jesus commanded you to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Bible. When do you plan on doing so?

Also, you haven’t explained why Jesus said He will be sitting on the right hand of power coming in the clouds of Heaven?

 

[MartinJordan]

Mysteries are not, necessarily, dangerous. It only means that we cannot fully grasp something. When speaking of God, it is not unreasonable to assume that there will be some things about Him that are beyond our grasp and are, therefore, a mystery.

Peace.

Steve

If Islam thinks mysteries are dangerous, they missed the point ALL TOGETHER about what has been taught for 2 millenium!

MJ

 

[hasantas]

Jesus commanded you to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Bible. When do you plan on doing so?

 

[otterman]

hasantas:

As a Muslim you have to believe that Jesus was not created in the same way as any human being, according to the Quran Jesus was created supernaturally, but born to a human mother.
This means Jesus was no normal human being, he had no natural father, only a supernatural Father, the same Father Jesus prays to whilst on earth, and taught His followers to do the same, by teaching them the prayer called the Our Father.
This is why Christians can, and do call Jesus the “Son” of God, because this is how the Incarnation can be understood.

The Quran distorts the person of Jesus, allowing Muslims like you to mis understand what Christians actually believe.

The Quran rejects the idea that Jesus is divine, as well as not being put to death by crucifixion.

The crucifixion of Jesus is shown to be an historical fact, throughout various Non Christian documents, the most compelling of which is taken from the writings of Lucian of Samosata:

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified
sage, and live after his laws.{27}
probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources/

However, Chrsitians have the N.T.for evidence of Jesus’ crucifixion, which confirms history.
Mark 14:67-64 reports the trial of Jesus before the high priest.

61 But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.”

The answer Jesus gave the high priest, provided the evidence he needed to condemn Jesus to death, because Jesus claimed to be God. You may claim that the N.T.has been changed, since it was written. But this cannot be the case, for several reasons.

It is self evident that neither the O.T.or N.T.could have been changed at any point, as both had been written down, and sent to different parts of the world, by the time the Quran was around. It is not physically possible either of them could have been changed by anyone, without recalling every copy.

The Quran confirms the Gospel and previous scriptures in 5.46-48,as well as telling Muslims to ask those who have been reading the Book from Lord, if they have any doubts in 10.94
It would be no use to Muslims asking Jews and Christians anything if their scriptures had been changed, as it would lead Muslims away from the truth which the Quran allegedly reveals.

 

[dronald]

Some prophet had a religion and some not. I believe in all prophets so ı believe in Mohammed and He came with a religion. All prophets are equal as it mentioned in Quran. I accepted Islam so ı do not have to accede and obey in other religion. If ı were not Muslim why not!

So Muhammad then preached practices contrary to Jesus?

Frankly ı do not know exact meaning. Sometimes we need more knowledge to comment a verse. Perhaps that verse related to other verses and ı have not a good degree in Gospels. But ı would comment in that way:

Jesus must talk about afterlife perhaps for judgement day. We know Jesus will come back on earth again but ı think Jesus does not mean that because when this will be happening that men will be death. Jesus mean “i will have a high position beside God and you will see and verify what ı claim now”. Because that men did not believe in Jesus and they tought that Jesus was a crazy(never!)

The reason I ask is that you quoted it. If you quote a passage I can only assume you understand the passage that you’re quoting; otherwise I assume you’re grabbing stuff off the internet and have not actually read the Bible.

Jesus was quoting Daniel 7:13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

And also Psalm 110:
1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool. "

2 The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies!

3 Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, { Or b on the day you lead your forces b } in holy garments;4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. "

5 The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.

6 He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs { Or b the head b } over the wide earth.

7 He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.​

This is Jesus Christ. Our Jesus Christ, not yours. He is the Lord of David, the Son of David. He will be given all glory and an everlasting kingdom that will not pass away. Much of this has happened and He will come to judge the world one day.

The Qur’an quotes none of this because the Qur’an is not divinely inspired. Jesus in the Gospel quotes the Old Testament while Muhammad never quotes it once.

 

[hasantas]

So Muhammad then preached practices contrary to Jesus?

 

[dronald]

dronald;12311189:

No! But worships and practises may be different in different religions and also it can be different in different sects in the same religion. God does not want to us to practice the same religion. Are the practices in Judaism and Christianity same? There are some same worships in all religions but maybe in different ways forexample Salat, fast. Quran explains:

1. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; Al-Maida(5):48

A cloud was above Mohammed to protect him from Sun. Islam spread to all world and it will stay untill the end of the world. Mohmmed is lord of earth and lord of life to come.​

Why yours? Have you any blood bond? You can have Jesus with faith and Muslims faith is more true about Jesus so Jesus is closer to Muslims more than others. And did Jesus judge the world while He was on earth? He was a prophet not a God!

Quran is words of Allah not Mohammed! When Quran explain some things which are in previous scripture then you claim that Mohammed took from Torah and Bible! İn the fact there are some things in Quran which were also in previous scriptures and there are more in Quran.

You reject a right scripture and prophet because of they do not refuse but intend to correct some issues in your religion. And these issues(trinity, crucifixion, original sin etc) do not sustain in Gospels but rather in a tradition which formed by humanbeing. Muslims do not reject Jesus and Bible so Muslims have not a mortal responsibility but some Christians are so bold to ignore the facts. Christians have not to refuse Islam because of some issues. And Christian have not to be Islam but Christian have to check somethings. İsn’t there any fact in Islamic claims? There may be some issues in Islam which you do not understand exactly but there are many facts. So it is not use to refuse Islam boldly. If a Muslim refuse Jesus or Moses then his faith is not valid. And also that is same for others.

My goodness hasantas. You do not refute anything but rather live on faith that the Qur’an must be true. Therefore there’s nothing to discuss.

But I do have one last question. You say the crucifixion and resurrection are based on tradition. Then why is it that they are found in the Gospel?

 

[otterman]

dronald;12311189:

No! But worships and practises may be different in different religions and also it can be different in different sects in the same religion. God does not want to us to practice the same religion. Are the practices in Judaism and Christianity same? There are some same worships in all religions but maybe in different ways forexample Salat, fast. Quran explains:

1. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; Al-Maida(5):48

A cloud was above Mohammed to protect him from Sun. Islam spread to all world and it will stay untill the end of the world. Mohmmed is lord of earth and lord of life to come.​

Why yours? Have you any blood bond? You can have Jesus with faith and Muslims faith is more true about Jesus so Jesus is closer to Muslims more than others. And did Jesus judge the world while He was on earth? He was a prophet not a God!

Quran is words of Allah not Mohammed! When Quran explain some things which are in previous scripture then you claim that Mohammed took from Torah and Bible! İn the fact there are some things in Quran which were also in previous scriptures and there are more in Quran.

You reject a right scripture and prophet because of they do not refuse but intend to correct some issues in your religion. And these issues(trinity, crucifixion, original sin etc) do not sustain in Gospels but rather in a tradition which formed by humanbeing. Muslims do not reject Jesus and Bible so Muslims have not a mortal responsibility but some Christians are so bold to ignore the facts. Christians have not to refuse Islam because of some issues. And Christian have not to be Islam but Christian have to check somethings. İsn’t there any fact in Islamic claims? There may be some issues in Islam which you do not understand exactly but there are many facts. So it is not use to refuse Islam boldly. If a Muslim refuse Jesus or Moses then his faith is not valid. And also that is same for others.

The Quran is wrong when it claims Jesus was not crucified, there is ample historical evidence to prove that He was, shown in Non Christian documents.

Muslims may not reject Jesus and the Bible, but they do reject what both say because of what they have been given to believe. It is Muslims, not Christians who are mis guided, by all the mis information given to them.

As pointed out, nothing in the Bible could have been changed, its scriptures and teachings had reached into many parts of the world for centuries, and if it had, why would Muslims be told to ask Christians and Jews anything if their books were corrupted?

The central teachings of Christianity have never changed, which are, Jesus is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity,He was crucified in atonement for mankind’s sins, and was resurrected on the third day.