If Islam didn't have Jesus as a prophet....

[MartinJordan]

It is doubtful that he did, and even more doubtful that he would have accepted their authority if he did know.

Therefore when he says he is the fulfillment of all God’s Prophets who came before him (which included Isa “Jesus”) should not have been taken seriously.

MJ

 

[Darryl1958]

If the argument is that Christianity has had a variety of influences, I would have to agree. Pope Benedict himself notes the influence of the Greek and reason in the Christianity that has emerged. It is truly the wisdom of the ages, developed throughout the ages.
‘Eclectic’ is not a criticism.

The source of Christianity and the Bible has never been stated to be a cave either.

Caves are not just not that eclectic.

The more that the sources of the Koran are noted to having been eclectic, the less that they take on the personality of that desert cave.

 

[smaneck]

Therefore when he says he is the fulfillment of all God’s Prophets who came before him (which included Isa “Jesus”) should not have been taken seriously.

I’m not sure what that has to do with accepting the institutional authority of the church.

 

[smaneck]

Caves are not just not that eclectic.

Ever hear of the Desert Fathers?

 

[Darryl1958]

Ever hear of the Desert Fathers?

Of course. They did not have the Bible dictated to them in their caves though, as far as I know.

 

[smaneck]

People were mostly illiterate back then. Whether the story is passed on orally, on papyrus or digitally, makes very little difference that I am aware of.

If it was passed on orally it wouldn’t matter whether they were illiterate.

One must not forget Indonesia either.

Huh?

How do you know what Jesus stressed? Is your interpretation of Christian Scripture the authorative one now?

Doesn’t have to be. I’m a Baha’i who believes in the independent investigation of truth and does not practice blind imitation. In other words, I read the Bible for myself.

I am aware of Muslims brushing their teeth a certain way, or setting the age for marriage of girls in a certain way, or doing a whole list of things in a certain way, because that is the way that Mohammed did it.

Yes, my father-in-law cleaned his teeth with a stick because that was the way the Prophet did it.

It just doesn’t seem that Isa plays that prominent a role in the lives of Muslims today, that’s all. Maybe there is a WWJD movement in Islam, but that would surprise me.

Would you really want them imitating the way Jesus cleaned his teeth? Jesus is held up as an exemplar of sainthood, however, especially among Sufis.

 

[MartinJordan]

I’m not sure what that has to do with accepting the institutional authority of the church.

How can a person be taken seriously if he rejects written testimonies and a book that was put together by the Church’s teaching Office? Especially when he comes 600 years later?

MJ

 

[smaneck]

smaneck;10338739:

I
It is important to keep the arguments straight. The event that I was talking about was the way that Arabs swept across the Middle East and developed an empire.

But that happened after Muhammad and the revelation of the Qur’an.

Suffice it to way that the Passion of Christ is different than that.

That of course is comparing apples to oranges. It is the Martyrdom of the Imam Husayn which to Shi’ite Muslims, at least, has the same significance as the Passion of Christ.
What happens when Arabs take over the Middle East and form an empire is closer to what Christianity experiences after Constantine’s conversion.

Not really. This is all based in the Septuagint Bible,

If by that you mean that the Septuagint Bible had translated the Hebrew word for young girls as virgin, yes that is true. But most Jews take this verse to be a reference to Hezekiah.

and what certain people well schooled in Judaism of that time expected.

Can you name some? Other than Christians, of course.

Allusions to Scripture permeate the whole of the Passion of Christ

If by that you mean Matthew attempts to connect virtually every event in Christ’s life to some verse in the Bible that much is true. But to a Jew nearly all of these allusions would seem strained. “Out of Egypt I have called my son” for instance is a reference to the Exodus. “Rachel crying for her children” is a reference to the Babylonian Captivity not some massacre of innocents for which we have no evidence ever took place.

Any influences of pagan or Zoroastrianism are through diffusion only. No idea or understanding emerges in an antiseptic bubble after all, but there will always be outside influences for any understanding that comes through the real world.

I agree. And the same thing is true of Jewish and Christian influences on Islam.

Satan plays a little more prominent role now as a force of evil, but here too the source is as much from certain Jewish groups coming to their own understanding that goes beyond what is revealed in Torah alone.

Yes, the Essenes were clearly dualistic in a rather gnostic way.

Maybe. The point I made above though is that whatever the outside influences come indirectly through the Jewish people themselves, and understood from their own particular point of view.

Yes, for the most part.

The Jewish Scriptures themselves point to the virgin birth motif.

Only when mistranslated into Greek.

Where did I criticize Islam at all?!!

Then I apologize for misunderstanding.

Be that as it may, most Muslims are now outside of the guidance of the Bible, because the general view is that the text itself is dangerous.

They have the guidance of their own scripture, but I’ll grant you the Qur’an would be much better understood if it were read with some knowledge of the stories as they appear in the Bible.

And indeed it would be, to the Muslim who rejects the divinity of Jesus. The logic of the story

Huh? I’m afraid your logic escapes me.

To read the story of the birth of Jesus to Mary in the Koran, and to read it in the earlier apocrypha is to note that it is the same story. This suggest to me that the better explanation is that what was apocrypha gradually became merged into a developing Koran, as the political need for a state religion arose.

What are you talking about? The Qur’an was revealed before the Arab conquests.

 

[smaneck]

How can a person be taken seriously if he rejects written testimonies and a book that was put together by the Church’s teaching Office? Especially when he comes 600 years later?

MJ

I think you are forgetting that Muhammad couldn’t read! But he certainly never rejected the Gospel. In fact, the Qur’an affirms it. As to the Bible being put together by the Church’s teaching Office, that was not a question which was even raised.

None of this precludes a person from believing in Christ. I was a Christian long before I became a Baha’i and being a Protestant I never heard of the “Church’s teaching Office.”

 

[MartinJordan]

I think you are forgetting that Muhammad couldn’t read! But he certainly never rejected the Gospel. In fact, the Qur’an affirms it. As to the Bible being put together by the Church’s teaching Office, that was not a question which was even raised.

None of this precludes a person from believing in Christ. I was a Christian long before I became a Baha’i and being a Protestant I never heard of the “Church’s teaching Office.”

Then more study would be helpful. Even some Catholics didn’t know that had a teaching office who taught by word, scripture and Tradition. That included me as a Baptized Catholic (1968)

Btw thanks for that little info. about yourself being a former Christian.

MJ

 

[smaneck]

Then more study would be helpful. Even some Catholics didn’t know that had a teaching office who taught by word, scripture and Tradition. That included me as a Baptized Catholic (1968)

I still don’t see how this is relevant to Muhammad or his claims.

 

[MartinJordan]

I still don’t see how this is relevant to Muhammad or his claims.

Im trying to see why this isn’t relevant according to you?

As a Christian I find his claims very dubious. After all, it is his claims vs Church of Christ (of which didn’t depend on the Bible alone) which existed long before his time.

MJ

 

[doormouse73]

Do you think Islam would have survived today?

I think not.

Simply because the Quran mentions him more than Mohammed.

MJ

MartinJordan i think the answer to your question lies in this video…

Top Muslim cleric says Islam would not exist if not for death of apostacy threat.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=917pAS-Ccjs

it has nothing to do with if Jesus was a prophet in islam… the Muslim cleric explains all.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think you are forgetting that Muhammad couldn’t read! But he certainly never rejected the Gospel. In fact, the Qur’an affirms it. As to the Bible being put together by the Church’s teaching Office, that was not a question which was even raised.

None of this precludes a person from believing in Christ. I was a Christian long before I became a Baha’i and being a Protestant I never heard of the “Church’s teaching Office.”

I often heard the argument about Mohammad being illiterate to booster his credential that he could not possibly come up with the Quran by himself and therefore it has to be divine in origin. Not that this got much to do with the topic, but how strong is the illiterate Muhammad argument? (It was later found out that he could read and write though he was not a very educated person.)

Most of the time information on religion were very often transmitted orally considering the level of literacy then and the availability of written materials and Mohammad could easily use the hearsay knowledge he obtained orally for his purpose. Which is why I think he did not get it right with what Christianity really taught.

It is interesting that you say that Mohammad did not reject the Gospel of his time but of course you being Bahai. The Muslims and Islam certainly do not concur but then again perhaps that was 18th century Muslims innovation as you said. But to me however, like you, I think it was more likely he accepted the Bible but wrongly understood by him, perhaps from poor advice by the people around him.

 

[MartinJordan]

I often heard the argument about Mohammad being illiterate to booster his credential that he could not possibly come up with the Quran by himself and therefore it has to be divine in origin. Not that this got much to do with the topic, but how strong is the illiterate Muhammad argument? (It was later found out that he could read and write though he was not a very educated person.)

Most of the time information on religion were very often transmitted orally considering the level of literacy then and the availability of written materials and Mohammad could easily use the hearsay knowledge he obtained orally for his purpose. Which is why I think he did not get it right with what Christianity really taught.

It is interesting that you say that Mohammad did not reject the Gospel of his time but of course you being Bahai. The Muslims and Islam certainly do not concur but then again perhaps that was 18th century Muslims innovation as you said. But to me however, like you, I think it was more likely he accepted the Bible but wrongly understood by him, perhaps from poor advice by the people around him.

Good and reasonable analysis.

MJ

 

[smaneck]

Im trying to see why this isn’t relevant according to you?

As a Christian I find his claims very dubious. After all, it is his claims vs Church of Christ (of which didn’t depend on the Bible alone) which existed long before his time.

MJ

If it is his claims vs. the church then any acknowledgement of the authority of Teaching Office would work against him, wouldn’t it?

 

[smaneck]

MartinJordan i think the answer to your question lies in this video…

Top Muslim cleric says Islam would not exist if not for death of apostacy threat.

Excuse me but for Catholic church to complain about Muslims executing apostates seems pretty hypocritical given its own long history of ‘relaxing the secular arm’ when it came to heretics and apostates. In any case, apostasy laws apply only to those who are already Muslims. It doesn’t help a religion attract converts which is how religions grow.

 

[smaneck]

I often heard the argument about Mohammad being illiterate to booster his credential that he could not possibly come up with the Quran by himself and therefore it has to be divine in origin. Not that this got much to do with the topic, but how strong is the illiterate Muhammad argument? (It was later found out that he could read and write though he was not a very educated person.)

Apparently he could by the time he died. But Arabic was only beginning to be a written language at the time. There were no books in Arabic until the Qur’an.

Most of the time information on religion were very often transmitted orally considering the level of literacy then]and the availability of written materials and Mohammad could easily use the hearsay knowledge he obtained orally for his purpose.

Of course. The reason Muslims regard the Qur’an as its own proof is not because it supposedly contains material Muhammad couldn’t have known about (it doesn’t) but because of its extraordinary beauty and its ability to penetrate men’s hearts, something that doesn’t come through in translation.

Which is why I think he did not get it right with what Christianity really taught.

I think what the Qur’an says about Christians (not Christianity) is an accurate reflection of what Christians around Arabia at the time believed.

It is interesting that you say that Mohammad did not reject the Gospel of his time but of course you being Bahai. The Muslims and Islam certainly do not concur

I didn’t say the “Gospel of his time” I said the Gospel. And I was speaking of what the Qur’an itself says about the Gospel.

but then again perhaps that was 18th century Muslims innovation as you said.

The notion of “corruption of the holy text” initially referred to interpretations but the idea that texts themselves were deliberately corrupted in order to leave out prophecies regarding Muhammad comes to be accepted by Muslims after the first few centuries and was not part of the 18th century innovations. Baha’u’llah, however, has this to say about it:

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? . . . Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!”
reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/ki-3.html

 

[doormouse73]

Excuse me but for Catholic church to complain about Muslims executing apostates seems pretty hypocritical given its own long history of ‘relaxing the secular arm’ when it came to heretics and apostates. In any case, apostasy laws apply only to those who are already Muslims. It doesn’t help a religion attract converts which is how religions grow.

why are you say excuse you ?

it was not me who is saying this,its a muslim cleric.its about islam not christianity.

my it it must have hit a nerve,i thought you was Baha’i religion not muslim?you seem to jump in there direction on this occasion when even i didnt say things of the sort it was a muslim.

 

[Darryl1958]

If it was passed on orally it wouldn’t matter whether they were illiterate.