Mohammed the Prophet?

[vskipper]

I’m afraid I don’t understand the contention. The “he” there is John the Baptist, and John the Baptist was talking about himself there, not Jesus.

If you’re implying that the prophet and Messiah are two separate people, I again invite you to read the passage from Acts I cited in my earlier post, where Peter clearly identifies the prophet and Messiah as the same person.

Which have already been addressed, as I went to them in my earlier post. If you desire honest discussion over these things, we can’t just repeat arguments without addressing counterarguments.

Did you read Leviticus 16? And how do you respond to the passages where Christ clearly speaks of his death, and especially of his death being a sacrifice for atonement?

Now I really wonder about the individuals posting on this. I compliment you and say that you have strong arguments worthy of thinking upon in address to the difference between Paul and Jesus and the contention of the holy spirit and you still don’t get it. Either you are really slow or English is not your primary language. In either case can we have someone else step up who can perhaps better explain to him so that I can answer without having to repeat myself even when I agree on certain items?

 

[Bezant]

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.

He was born too late.

All this fuss about whether not he had a revelation, the demonic/angelic origin of that revelation, the truth of his message, his conduct, blah-blah-blah…are irrelevant side issues. It wouldn’t make a difference if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation came out of his mouth.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Now I really wonder about the individuals posting on this. I compliment you and say that you have strong arguments worthy of thinking upon in address to the difference between Paul and Jesus and the contention of the holy spirit and you still don’t get it. Either you are really slow or English is not your primary language.

Ad hominem attacks are not a response.

If I’m wrong or I don’t “get it,” please demonstrate how.

 

[JillianRose]

Genesis 22
Exodus 3:4
Numbers 22:38

I don’t get your post. ALL prove God personally chose his prophets he did not originally send a angel to the prophets… He went to them himself.

 

[smaneck]

Just because he claimed he is a prophet, to Catholics that does not mean anything.

I realize that. Since Muhammad did not believe in Catholicism it is unlikely that Catholics as Catholics are going to believe in Muhammad.

He had to be convinced from his wife that the angel Gabriel came to him as a messenger of God.

He is not the only Prophet with difficulties accepting the Revelation He had been given. I see Gabriel merely as symbol of the Holy Spirit. However, according to the Bible, angels were sent to Abraham. There are also references to angels appearing to prophets Zechariah 4, Daniel 10; Ezekial. 40; Zechariah. 4:1-7.

I am telling you from ALL CHRISTIAN/CATHOLIC doctrine GOD NEVER SENT ANGELS TO PROPHETS.

Tell that to Zechariah.

We do not account as Catholics, books besides our Bible and 2000 year old tradition as authority from God.

I realize that. Jews stop with the revelation of Tanakh. Christians stop with Jesus. Muslims stop with Muhammad. No religion wants to be superseded.

What I did not do a great job in explaining to you in my original post is, you can not quote a book that has no authority over Christians. We do believe Muslims worship the same God, however, since they do not acknowledge Jesus Christ

Actually they do acknowledge Jesus Christ. It is Christians who don’t acknowledge Muhamad.

It would be like me going on a Muslim web site and trying to quote the Bible. It has NO authority over them.

But if they had a thread an ongoing thread on Christianity it would be perfectly appropriate for you to do so, don’t you agree? At least if they allow Christians to post at all.
I once tried to post on a Muslim website but they moderated every post and didn’t allow ones up they disagreed with.

 

[smaneck]

He was born too late.

From the Christians perspective that is the real issue, isn’t it? You have closed your canon and are no longer open to divine interference.

Of course, the same thing is true of Islam. As I mentioned in my earlier post, no religion wants to be superseded.

 

[Augustine3]

John 1:19-21

He said no to all THREE. Notice there were three mentioned not two. The word messiah was used separately. So, I ask again who was the prophet?

Hi vskipper,

According to Origen the Jews had erred when they assumed “The Prophet” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15 was a different person to the Messiah.

While I appreciate your asking for explanations on certain verses, I don’t think much can be gained because it’s obvious you have your personal interpretations firmly rooted and unless someone can give you a more sound explanation your position will remain as it is. Both sides firmly believe their interpretations are correct and it may lead to “we agree to disagree” Perhaps what is needed is a different approach. I would encourage you to start a new thread to examine the credentials of the Catholic Church i.e. how and where she got her authority, testimonies, early history, sacred tradition, the apostolic succession etc.

All the best

 

[smaneck]

Hi vskipper,

According to Origen the Jews had erred when they assumed “The Prophet” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15 was a different person to the Messiah.

We might consider the possibility that Deuteronomy 18:5 refers both to Jesus and Muhammad. Most scholars would agree that Isaiah 9 “unto us a child is born” originally referred to Hezekiah. That doesn’t mean Christians were wrong to apply these verses to Jesus at a later age.

 

[Augustine3]

We might consider the possibility that Deuteronomy 18:5 refers both to Jesus and Muhammad. Most scholars would agree that Isaiah 9 “unto us a child is born” originally referred to Hezekiah. That doesn’t mean Christians were wrong to apply these verses to Jesus at a later age.

It’s a plausible thought and certainly worth considering. In order for us to analyse whether Mohammed is “the prophet” we need to examine his credentials. Perhaps you can share with us why you believe Mohammed is a prophet?

 

[Bezant]

From the Christians perspective that is the real issue, isn’t it? You have closed your canon and are no longer open to divine interference.

For prophecy, yes; God may reach out to mankind directly (e.g., Our Lady of Fatima) but these private revelations don’t add new material to the canon.

 

[smaneck]

It’s a plausible thought and certainly worth considering. In order for us to analyse whether Mohammed is “the prophet” we need to examine his credentials. Perhaps you can share with us why you believe Mohammed is a prophet?

All I can tell you is why I believe Muhammad is a Messenger of God. It is because when I read the Qur’an I can hear the voice of God. Obviously that will not be evidence for you if you can’t hear it.

 

[SteveVH]

From the Christians perspective that is the real issue, isn’t it? You have closed your canon and are no longer open to divine interference.

Divine interference? I have never thought of God as “interfering” in our lives. Interesting take. The canon is closed because the fulness of God’s revelation to mankind was realized in Jesus Christ. There is nothing more to be relvealed. Christ is God’s only Word, he has no other. So it is not a decision by the Church to no longer be “open” to revelation, it is the fact that we have already received the fulness of revelation in Jesus Christ. There is nothing left to be revealed.

 

[Augustine3]

All I can tell you is why I believe Muhammad is a Messenger of God. It is because when I read the Qur’an I can hear the voice of God. Obviously that will not be evidence for you if you can’t hear it.

Many people read the book of Mormon and to them they hear the word of God and so believe John Smith is a prophet. What’s the difference?

 

[Reuben_J]

Divine interference? I have never thought of God as “interfering” in our lives. Interesting take. The canon is closed because the fulness of God’s revelation to mankind was realized in Jesus Christ. There is nothing more to be relvealed. Christ is God’s only Word, he has no other. So it is not a decision by the Church to no longer be “open” to revelation, it is the fact that we have already received the fulness of revelation in Jesus Christ. There is nothing left to be revealed.

Exactly. What is new in Islam that is not covered sufficiently by the message of the Gospel?

 

[SteveVH]

Exactly. What is new in Islam that is not covered sufficiently by the message of the Gospel?

What is new in Islam is a refutation of the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the central message of the Gospel.

 

[smaneck]

Divine interference? I have never thought of God as “interfering” in our lives. Interesting take.

I was being a tad bit sarcastic.

There is a story that was once told to me by an Orthodox Jew. It seems that a group of Jews had gathered together and was arguing about a passage in the Talmud. As tempers and voices rose there was suddenly heard the voice of God from heaven saying, “Thus and such is the truth.” The Jews present protested, “You have already given us the Torah. It is for us to decide now what it means, You have no right to interfere.” Now the Jew who told me this tale said it with pride and could not quite understand my discomfort with it, but it seems to me it touches the very heart of the problem. The Qur’an says, "The Jews say that the Hand of God is tied up. Tied up are their own hands for what they have said. But the Hands of God are outstretched. (5:67)

Now there is nothing at all unusually or especially perverse about the attitude of some Jews in this regard, beyond the perversity which seems to exist in all men. One of the greatest Muslim philosophers of the twentieth century, Muhammad Iqbal, sometimes regarded as the father of Pakistan, insisted on the Muslim doctrine of the Finality of Prophethood on the basis that man; having now reached the level of maturity, had no need for anymore divine interference! Having contained revelation, having mastered it and placed it under our control, having squeezed it neatly into our categories, the last thing we want is to having it burst forth unpredictably once again. Thus the pattern repeats itself again and again. “And Joseph came to you aforetime with clear tokens, but ye ceased not to doubt of the message with which He came to you, until, when He died, ye said, 'God will by no means raise up a Messenger after Him.” (Qur’an 40:36).

The canon is closed because the fulness of God’s revelation to mankind was realized in Jesus Christ. There is nothing more to be relvealed.

Yes, Muslims say similar things about Muhammad and the Qur’an.

Baha’is have a very different take on the nature of revelation. We believe God reveals Himself in accordance with the capacity and needs of the time. Personally I believe that all claims to exclusivity or finality have wound their roots around the life of the spirit becoming the greatest single factor in suffocating impulses to unity and in promoting hatred and violence.

 

[Augustine3]

All I can tell you is why I believe Muhammad is a Messenger of God. It is because when I read the Qur’an I can hear the voice of God. Obviously that will not be evidence for you if you can’t hear it.

Does Mohammed have any other credentials?

 

[smaneck]

Does Mohammed have any other credentials?

I personally think there are only three ‘credentials’ that truly qualify someone as what Baha’is call a Manifestation of God. The first is their own Person, the second is the Word which they reveal and the third is the potency of their Revelation. Unfortunately it is very difficult to examine the Personhood of Muhammad today since we depend on oral traditions which were not written down until two or three centuries later. We do of course, have the Word revealed through him in the Qur’an. As for the potency of the Revelation, I think the history and very existence of Islam are ample evidence of that.
I personally regard such things as miracles and fulfilling prophecies as secondary at best. A miracle can be evidence only for those who witness it first hand whereas prophecies are always subject to interpretation. The exception to this, of course, is the miracle of the Qur’an which is directly accessible to all who hear it. As St. Paul put it, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”

 

[Augustine3]

I personally think there are only three ‘credentials’ that truly qualify someone as what Baha’is call a Manifestation of God. The first is their own Person, the second is the Word which they reveal and the third is the potency of their Revelation. Unfortunately it is very difficult to examine the Personhood of Muhammad today since we depend on oral traditions which were not written down until two or three centuries later. We do of course, have the Word revealed through him in the Qur’an. As for the potency of the Revelation, I think the history and very existence of Islam are ample evidence of that.
I personally regard such things as miracles and fulfilling prophecies as secondary at best. A miracle can be evidence only for those who witness it first hand whereas prophecies are always subject to interpretation. The exception to this, of course, is the miracle of the Qur’an which is directly accessible to all who hear it. As St. Paul put it, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”

Thank you.

I’ll leave this with the readers in this thread to conclude whether or not these credentials are enough to believe if Muhammad is a prophet.

 

[Augustine3]

I personally regard such things as miracles and fulfilling prophecies as secondary at best. A miracle can be evidence only for those who witness it first hand whereas prophecies are always subject to interpretation. The exception to this, of course, is the miracle of the Qur’an which is directly accessible to all who hear it. As St. Paul put it, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”

Question – when was the earliest strong hadith recorded testifying to Muhammad’s miracle/s?