Mohammed the Prophet?

[Augustine3]

Muslims claim Mohammed is the last and final seal of the prophets. We as Christians obviously do not agree. I would like to get some feedback of why we disagree from all angles e.g. what the bible says, the credentials of Mohammed etc.

 

[Darryl1958]

To be the final seal on all prophets, Mohammed should have at least shown a greater awareness of what all preceding prophets had taught.

I just don’t see that kind of knowledge or consistency in Islam.

 

[johnnyjones]

Muslims claim Mohammed is the last and final seal of the prophets. We as Christians obviously do not agree. I would like to get some feedback of why we disagree from all angles e.g. what the bible says, the credentials of Mohammed etc.

There’s no mention of Mohammed in the Christian scriptures, basically end of story. In addition, from a Christian standpoint he must be considered a false prophet because he did not preach salvation through Christ.

 

[vskipper]

I am interested in the view points of this as a Muslim although I find the present answers a bit lacking in substance.

 

[Augustine3]

To be the final seal on all prophets, Mohammed should have at least shown a greater awareness of what all preceding prophets had taught.

I just don’t see that kind of knowledge or consistency in Islam.

Hi Darryl,

Can you please provide some examples?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Muhammad has no biblical credential, although muslims try to blaspheme the holy spirit in verses like John 14 by saying Muhammad is the comforter (apparently muhammad must have been 600 years old before he began his military and prophetic career).

But on a deeper level there is a fundamental divide betwene islam and Chrisitanity. Islam unlike Chrisitanity developed independantly on loose stories of the biblical prophets which came into arabia. Christianity was intimately familiar with its Judaistic heritage as is shown by the numerous references in the bible to the Old testament as well as the aposltes being devout believing Jews. So while there is also a disconnect between the strict judaism of today which has rejected CHrisitanity and the Christianity which has rejected Judaism, we can ground ourselves properly on the scriptures that came before as well as the judaic world view the new testament originated in. Muslims can’t do this because their predecessors were not Christians or jews, but Pagans and a reliance on stories that came their way that more often than not reflect an anacrhonism (IE the quran suggesting Pharoah crucified people and the Quran calling Mary a member of the trinity in Christian belief as well as the sister of Moses).

 

[MartinJordan]

Muhammad has no biblical credential, although muslims try to blaspheme the holy spirit in verses like John 14 by saying Muhammad is the comforter (apparently muhammad must have been 600 years old before he began his military and prophetic career).

But on a deeper level there is a fundamental divide betwene islam and Chrisitanity. Islam unlike Chrisitanity developed independantly on loose stories of the biblical prophets which came into arabia. Christianity was intimately familiar with its Judaistic heritage as is shown by the numerous references in the bible to the Old testament as well as the aposltes being devout believing Jews. So while there is also a disconnect between the strict judaism of today which has rejected CHrisitanity and the Christianity which has rejected Judaism, we can ground ourselves properly on the scriptures that came before as well as the judaic world view the new testament originated in. Muslims can’t do this because their predecessors were not Christians or jews, but Pagans and a reliance on stories that came their way that more often than not reflect an anacrhonism (IE the quran suggesting Pharoah crucified people and the Quran calling Mary a member of the trinity in Christian belief as well as the sister of Moses).

Eloquent and precise.

MJ

 

[Darryl1958]

To be the final seal on all prophets, Mohammed should have at least shown a greater awareness of what all preceding prophets had taught.

I just don’t see that kind of knowledge or consistency in Islam.

QUOTE=Augustine3;10346917]Hi Darryl,

Can you please provide some examples?

Take Jesus for example.
Where in the Qu’ran are the parables, for example, the Sermon on the Mount, the merciful attitude towards adulterous Samaritans and sinners, the anger at those who put their laws and rules and regulations over and above the humanity of others?

Instead the references to Jesus focus on his fashioning birds out of clay, his speaking from his cradle as a new-born, and the fact that he set down a table from heaven, and various other diverse and random miracles provided without any of the context that we are exposed to in the Bible.

So where is the context for these miracles? What is the point of him being born of a virgin, for example, .other than miracle for the sake of miracle? There is all the fantastic and the amazing, but devoid of any depth. There is none of that great Biblical struggle in which the disciple is involved in grasping to understand if there is a reason for that miracle in the first place.

Awareness is shown for sure of Jewish rumours that Jesus’s father was a Roman centurian rapist (Panthera) and his mother a whore —by extension of rape victims being labelled as such in those kind of societie—, which is denied by the Koran. But there is no real understanding or even curiousity shown of who Jesus’s real father would be, as a result of those exclusions.

Rather there is repeated denials. A lot of the verses on Jesus are polemics on who Jesus is not, not a son of a rapist and a whore as the Jews contend, not Divine as Christians contend, not killed on the cross, not resurrected therefore; but ascended, to come again and to die and be resurrected supposedly in the end times.
But again, to what point? God himself becomes vague and unexplainable in such a mish-mash of dodges around the orthodox Christian doctrine.

This is all very good as a political attempt to bring Jews and Christians and Ishmealis together around a common creed, with a little snip of Jewish attitudes here, a huge snip of the basic Christian message there, while all the time stroking the egos of Ismaeli Arabs as the ones in control.

The verse below is a good summary of what I am saying (note hyperlink embedded):

We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms.

We got all the names; the skeleton of the faith is presented, but where is the meat?
Where are the Psalms even?
Well, they are in the Bible of the Peoples of the Book, which has been rejected as unfitting reading for Muslims due to supposed corruption.

 

[smaneck]

Muslims claim Mohammed is the last and final seal of the prophets. We as Christians obviously do not agree.

You think there were prophets after Muhammad?

 

[smaneck]

Muhammad has no biblical credential, although muslims try to blaspheme the holy spirit in verses like John 14 by saying Muhammad is the comforter (apparently muhammad must have been 600 years old before he began his military and prophetic career).

You need to go back and read how Jesus defined blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. As to whether Muhammad was the Paraclete, he was certainly not the first figure in history to be associated with that prophecy. Not all early Christians were agreed that the Paraclete was the Holy Spirit.

a reliance on stories that came their way that more often than not reflect an anacrhonism (IE the quran suggesting Pharoah crucified people

Are you sure that he didn’t?

Assoc. Professor of New Testament and Archeology, Covenant Theological Seminary in Saint Louis, David Chapman writes:

“Studies often associate the inception of crucifixion in antiquity with the Persians; and indeed sources frequently testify to acts of suspension under Persian rule. However, it should be noted that: (1) This testimony is largely found in later Greek and Latin sources (thus stemming from a Hellenistic viewpoint of history), (2) as remarked in chapter one, the terminology employed by these sources is rarely sufficient in itself definitively to determine that “crucifixion” was employed as opposed some other form of suspension, and (3) other ancient peoples in Europe, Egypt, and Asia were said to crucify as well.” [3] (bold and underline emphasis added)

Noted Christian scholar and interpreter of the New Testament, William Barclay writes:

“The custom of crucifixion was widespread. We find it in Egypt, Phoenicia, Carthage, Persia, Assyria, Scythia and even India;”

and the Quran calling Mary a member of the trinity in Christian belief

That is probably because some Christians in Arabia at the time did consider Mary part of the Trinity.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

You need to go back and read how Jesus defined blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. As to whether Muhammad was the Paraclete, he was certainly not the first figure in history to be associated with that prophecy. Not all early Christians were agreed that the Paraclete was the Holy Spirit.

Are you sure that he didn’t?

Assoc. Professor of New Testament and Archeology, Covenant Theological Seminary in Saint Louis, David Chapman writes:

“Studies often associate the inception of crucifixion in antiquity with the Persians; and indeed sources frequently testify to acts of suspension under Persian rule. However, it should be noted that: (1) This testimony is largely found in later Greek and Latin sources (thus stemming from a Hellenistic viewpoint of history), (2) as remarked in chapter one, the terminology employed by these sources is rarely sufficient in itself definitively to determine that “crucifixion” was employed as opposed some other form of suspension, and (3) other ancient peoples in Europe, Egypt, and Asia were said to crucify as well.” [3] (bold and underline emphasis added)

Noted Christian scholar and interpreter of the New Testament, William Barclay writes:

“The custom of crucifixion was widespread. We find it in Egypt, Phoenicia, Carthage, Persia, Assyria, Scythia and even India;”

That is probably because some Christians in Arabia at the time did consider Mary part of the Trinity.

Smaneck I would ask that you provide a patristic that the paraclete was not the Holy spirit. But take in mind I don’t think the fathers were perfect, they could and did make mistakes. Iraneaus was wrong to say that Jesus lived to fifty. I think the context of John and what the paraclete can do excludes Muhammad. The Paraclete was to come to the apostles and Muhammad did not exist athtat time.

But I stand corrected on the practice of Egyptians crucifying. But I will say the idea that all Arabians or that the supposed Collyridian heresie was prominent and that we could call them Christians at all, is wrong. They were not in communion with the Nicene Christians and would have been condemned. IN fact they seem so insignificant we find little mention of them in history and the quranic author seems to respond to such a non-group so as to make it pointless.
But I will be back with a reference for the collyridians and what they believed.

 

[Augustine3]

Take Jesus for example.
Where in the Qu’ran are the parables, for example, the Sermon on the Mount, the merciful attitude towards adulterous Samaritans and sinners, the anger at those who put their laws and rules and regulations over and above the humanity of others?

Instead the references to Jesus focus on his fashioning birds out of clay, his speaking from his cradle as a new-born, and the fact that he set down a table from heaven, and various other diverse and random miracles provided without any of the context that we are exposed to in the Bible.

So where is the context for these miracles? What is the point of him being born of a virgin, for example, .other than miracle for the sake of miracle? There is all the fantastic and the amazing, but devoid of any depth. There is none of that great Biblical struggle in which the disciple is involved in grasping to understand if there is a reason for that miracle in the first place.

Awareness is shown for sure of Jewish rumours that Jesus’s father was a Roman centurian rapist (Panthera) and his mother a whore —by extension of rape victims being labelled as such in those kind of societie—, which is denied by the Koran. But there is no real understanding or even curiousity shown of who Jesus’s real father would be, as a result of those exclusions.

Rather there is repeated denials. A lot of the verses on Jesus are polemics on who Jesus is not, not a son of a rapist and a whore as the Jews contend, not Divine as Christians contend, not killed on the cross, not resurrected therefore; but ascended, to come again and to die and be resurrected supposedly in the end times.
But again, to what point? God himself becomes vague and unexplainable in such a mish-mash of dodges around the orthodox Christian doctrine.

This is all very good as a political attempt to bring Jews and Christians and Ishmealis together around a common creed, with a little snip of Jewish attitudes here, a huge snip of the basic Christian message there, while all the time stroking the egos of Ismaeli Arabs as the ones in control.

The verse below is a good summary of what I am saying (note hyperlink embedded):

We got all the names; the skeleton of the faith is presented, but where is the meat?
Where are the Psalms even?
Well, they are in the Bible of the Peoples of the Book, which has been rejected as unfitting reading for Muslims due to supposed corruption.

A very good response, thank you

 

[Augustine3]

That is probably because some Christians in Arabia at the time did consider Mary part of the Trinity.

Probably huh? So are we to base the Quran, the miraculous word of God on probably? Not for me thanks.

 

[smaneck]

Smaneck I would ask that you provide a patristic that the paraclete was not the Holy spirit

.

I don’t see why it would have to be a patristic.

I think the context of John and what the paraclete can do excludes Muhammad.

Here is the problem. In one of his epistles John refers to Jesus as the Comforter as well.

. But I will say the idea that all Arabians or that the supposed Collyridian heresie was prominent and that we could call them Christians at all, is wrong. They were not in communion with the Nicene Christians

Muhammad was not concerned with who was or was not Nicene.

IN fact they seem so insignificant we find little mention of them in history and the quranic author seems to respond to such a non-group so as to make it pointless.

Apparently they were not insignificant in Arabia.

 

[smaneck]

Instead the references to Jesus focus on his fashioning birds out of clay, his speaking from his cradle as a new-born, and the fact that he set down a table from heaven, and various other diverse and random miracles provided without any of the context that we are exposed to in the Bible.

So where is the context for these miracles? What is the point of him being born of a virgin, for example, .other than miracle for the sake of miracle?

If you had paid as much attention to what Jesus says as a babe in arms, as you did to the miracle itself, you might know the answer to that question. It is not fashioning birds out of clay which is important, it is breathing life into those birds. In Islam, Jesus is Ruh’u’llah, the Spirit or living-giving breath of God. The Table represents those teachings which you complain the Qur’an does not talk about.

Awareness is shown for sure of Jewish rumours that Jesus’s father was a Roman centurian rapist (Panthera)

There is no mention of that.

But there is no real understanding or even curiousity shown of who Jesus’s real father would be, as a result of those exclusions.

The Qur’an states very explicitly that God has only to say “Be and it is.” Positing that Jesus is ‘begotten’ by God is therefore unnecessary.

Rather there is repeated denials. A lot of the verses on Jesus are polemics on who Jesus is not, not a son of a rapist

Sorry, there is no mention of a rapist.

not killed on the cross, not resurrected therefore; but ascended, to come again and to die and be resurrected supposedly in the end times.

Actually, the reason Muslims accept that convoluted scenario, IMO, is because of their misunderstanding of the passage regarding Jesus’ crucifixion. They therefore have to explain what Jesus says as a babe-in-arms, “Blessed am I on the day of my birth, on the day of my death and on the day I come again.” Obviously his death was supposed to proceed his coming again, but Muslims did something else with it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Muslims claim Mohammed is the last and final seal of the prophets. We as Christians obviously do not agree. I would like to get some feedback of why we disagree from all angles e.g. what the bible says, the credentials of Mohammed etc.

What are the credentials of Mohammed? I know of no-one with the resume of Jesus Christ?

I see no comparison?

 

[Augustine3]

If you had paid as much attention to what Jesus says as a babe in arms, as you did to the miracle itself, you might know the answer to that question. It is not fashioning birds out of clay which is important, it is breathing life into those birds. In Islam, Jesus is Ruh’u’llah, the Spirit or living-giving breath of God. The Table represents those teachings which you complain the Qur’an does not talk about.

Mohammed is not the first person to proclaim this alleged miracle. This is also found in the infancy narrative of the gospel attributed to the apostle Thomas, chapter 2. The disturbing thing is this gospel was discovered to be a fraud written in the 2nd century well after the apostle Thomas’ death. Unless you can prove otherwise, we must conclude Mohammed burrowed this from a heretical source and claimed it to be the inspired word of God.

 

[Augustine3]

What are the credentials of Mohammed? I know of no-one with the resume of Jesus Christ?

I see no comparison?

In the Quran we are told of the miraculous splitting of the moon attributed to Mohammed. There are hundreds of miracles proclaimed in the hadiths. I know it’s tempting to discount the hadiths but if we did, we would have to discount the Church Father writings in order to avoid using a double standard…

 

[smaneck]

In the Quran we are told of the miraculous splitting of the moon attributed to Mohammed. There are hundreds of miracles proclaimed in the hadiths. I know it’s tempting to discount the hadiths but if we did, we would have to discount the Church Father writings in order to avoid using a double standard…

They are not at all equivalent. IMO what is needed is a new science of hadith, one which utilizes modern historical methods.

 

[smaneck]

Mohammed is not the first person to proclaim this alleged miracle. This is also found in the infancy narrative of the gospel attributed to the apostle Thomas, chapter 2. The disturbing thing is this gospel was discovered to be a fraud written in the 2nd century well after the apostle Thomas’ death.

I don’t find that at all disturbing. It only indicates that the story of the clay birds had long been part of the oral tradition regarding Christ. I also don’t think it matters much whether it really happened. The Qur’an uses these stories to make a point in the present.