Muhammad was really a Christian...

[Ghosty]

according to critical study, the authorship of this gospel (as well as the other 3) is questionable and under debate. (read: and ). so given this fact, ignoring these “eye-witness” accounts doesn’t necessitate that we ignore the testimonies of jesus’ companions, especially if these doubts regarding the authors’ identities are substantiated. to quote what exoflare mentioned in another thread some time ago

You seem to be taking those “critical studies” for granted without exploring the actual methods used. For example, the reason that John is said by many critics to come after the destruction of the Temple is because it predicts the destruction of the Temple. That’s it. Those critical methods being cited are based on automatically rejecting anything miraculous, and the problem with that method when dealing with religious scriptures is obvious.

Before you cite such criticisms, you’d do well to study the actual methods they use, because those methods are entirely faulty. The article cites Baur for a late date of John, for example, but Baur’s late date is based entirely on a made up theory about conflicts within early Christianity of which there is absolutely no evidence. He made up an issue, and changed the dates of the Gospels to match it. You have to be very, very careful about the people you cite as support, because many of them are quacks.

deemed as heretics because they opposed the innovated beliefs of the constantian nicean council?

They were deemed heretics not by later councils, but by the Apostles and the people who knew the Apostles. Please read “Against Heresies” before throwing around such non-sense. Polycarp, a personal friend of John, called Marcion (one of the authors of the heresies you cite as support) “the son of Satan”. You’re talking about things you clearly don’t know enough about to make the claims that you do. I’m not saying this to be rude, I’m saying this to guide you to actually read some original sources like the writings of Polycarm and Irenaeus. You keep citing the Councils as if they’re what first addressed the heresies in question, when in fact the Councils were simply reaffirming what had been said by Polycarp two hundred years before. Those heresies were never, ever accepted by the Apostalic community; the Councils were simply a final nail in their coffins.

 

[krissyk]

aaaahh!! There is only one question I have for you–If you as a Muslim, think Christ was a “noble prophet” how do you explain him NOT just proclaming to BE a prophet? Either you think he was crazy or a liar, so how could you think a crazy man was a honorable prophet? It doesn’t make sense! It is so obvious, my friend, really it is, but I get the sense that if Christ came down before you, you would somehow explain it away–

 

[meedo]

No we dont see him as a crazy or Liar . Its i guess one of the christian theologians that said that if Jesus isnt God then he is eitrher liar or crazy.

Prophet dont need always state they are a prophet . I mean the normal mode for a person ios to eb ahuman bieng not to be the son of God . In my personal view. Jesus himself didnt say anything that proved his divinity .

I am still trying to see it from Jesus own words but the evidence that i posted in the verse above he clearly equates himself with his deciples .

His father is their father and his Gdo is their God.

This is in his own words , i dont see any reason to start even changing in the Tanach of the jews in order to force verses to refer to Jesus . He is saying it clear .

He never said he as God and he never said he should be worshipped .

He actually always did the opposite.

Thank yiu

 

[r.gonzales]

Ghosty:

You seem to be taking those “critical studies” for granted without exploring the actual methods used. For example, the reason that John is said by many critics to come after the destruction of the Temple is because it predicts the destruction of the Temple. That’s it.

apparently not. while the first article cited states:

The text provides strong evidence that it was written after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and after the break between Christian Jews and Pauline Christianity.

which could be taken to mean such, it also states:

Today, most critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50-70?) and culminating in the final edition (Gospel of John) around 95-100. This final date is assumed in large part because John 21, the so-called “appendix” to John, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the “beloved disciple,” probably the leader of the Johannine community that produced the gospel. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus’ followers, then a death around 90-100 is expected. This claim has been rejected by conservative scholars.

which suggests that the gospel was not entirely written by one man.

in the link contained in this passage regarding john 21, it states:

The text of the Gospel of John appears to reach a conclusion at the end of chapter 20, as the text summarises the many signs that Jesus performed for his followers, not all of which could be recorded in the Gospel…

The chapter does not fit in with the carefully planned scheme of the previous 20 chapters, which are otherwise balanced in style and discourse around a central chapter. It is thought that the chapter was added to explain the death of Peter, which was either an event not known about by the author, or that had not happened until some time after the original version of the Gospel was completed, or that the original author had not considered it important.

so it’s clear that their cricitisms are based upon other things besides the mere mention of events to come; things such as differences in litrary style and composion.

the first link also states:

The contemporary scholar of the Johannine community Raymond E. Brown identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus, a structured literary creation by “the evangelist,” which draws upon other sources, and the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979).

which is another indication that their criticisms are based upon more than just mere mention of events to come.

your downplaying of their methods of “critical study” is a good way to easily disregard any of their criticisms and theories regardless of how legitimate some of them might be.

Ghosty:

The article cites Baur for a late date of John, for example, but Baur’s late date is based entirely on a made up theory about conflicts within early Christianity of which there is absolutely no evidence. He made up an issue, and changed the dates of the Gospels to match it. You have to be very, very careful about the people you cite as support, because many of them are quacks.

the article cites baur as an example of those who’ve come to a later dating. it states:

F.C. Baur asserted a date as late as 160. Today, most critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50-70?) and culminating in the final edition (Gospel of John) around 95-100.

which suggests that baur’s proposed date is wrong. seems like you need to read a bit more carefully .

as for…

krissyk:

aaaahh!! There is only one question I have for you–If you as a Muslim, think Christ was a “noble prophet” how do you explain him NOT just proclaming to BE a prophet? Either you think he was crazy or a liar, so how could you think a crazy man was a honorable prophet? It doesn’t make sense! It is so obvious, my friend, really it is, but I get the sense that if Christ came down before you, you would somehow explain it away–

we muslims do not believe that everything reported of jesus’ statements as found in your bible are authentic. it’s as simple as that. we do not believe that jesus was a liar, on the contrary, we believe that he was a prophet sent by Allah to his people. this prophethood necessitates that jesus was truthful and infallible (in matters pertaining to religion), just as it does for all of Allah’s prophets and messengers. our contention lies in the corruption of your scriptures, which we believe to have taken place after jesus was taken by Allah.

 

[hawk]

r.gonzales:

our contention lies in the corruption of your scriptures, which we believe to have taken place after jesus was taken by Allah.

There is absolutely no proof of any corruption.

There still exist original manuscripts in many cases, and the NIV uses many of those original manuscripts, together with Strongs Concordance.

From where would you get the preposterous idea of corruption of the Bible?

 

[marwa]

Guys, I think he should have been a Christian.
Jesus is son of God, why would he send another prophet with a new religion?
It doesn’t make sense unless he was originally sent from God as a Christian and definitely for a reason which could be to encourage and attract the non believers in new regions to the love of God & Jesus.

 

[twiztedseraph]

meedo:

Umm, i think this is just oversimplification. Please remember that in the history of church itself there was Arius who didnt believe in any of the trinity stuff. The trinity was CHOSEN at teh counsel of Nicea about 300 years after Jesus. The choice was by MEN who came hundreds fo years after Jesus and the choice was under political influence . Jesus never proclaimed divinity and never proclaimed he is God and it really astonishes people how his references to be the son of God taken literally !!! TThis is a big mistake that Christians do and so did some of the jews at the time. true followers and deciples of Jesus never called him GOD !!! They called him Lord as in Master. There were many sons of God on the bible and there were many sons of man also which Jesus is also one of them by his own words.

I mean , to look into it objectively there is NOTHING that proves the Current christian creed even if we only look at the bible .

There is not single one verse in which Jesus proclaim he is a part of a trinity or God or devine or ask any body to worship him .

And then comes Paul !!! a staunch enemy that suddenly turned friend!!! God only knows what this man was about !!

I dont think there is a true creed that is suposed to be from God that can have around it all sorts of Mysteries and inconsistencies and suspicions. No wonder many people never ever udnerstand the trinity and thus never ever understand the creed on which their whole faith is based upon!!!

Some christians think muclims doesnt knwo much about christyianity .

Yes to an extent that is true . But the problem is that the very basic creed of christianity itself doesnt make sense to muslims so they feel they shouldnt go further.

I once asked myself a question? what does christianity offer me that Islam doesnt ? I honeslty didnt find any. Above that , islam is just plain simple and makes sense! Nearly same as Judaism ! . But as a muslim ofcourse i dont fall for the misconceptions about Islam . Many peopel accuse islam that its works is the one who gets people into heaven and stuff and as a knowledgable muslim i knwo that isnt true .

I am sorry of i upset any one i really wish i dont . But i mean i am really thinking and writing what i think . many peopel atack my faith which many insults at least i am not insulting here but merely questioning politely .

Thank you

Peace

So, can you eat your God in Islam? Can you have Him forgive your sins right infront of you? Are you able to point to a place and say “My God dwells there?” All this and more if you go Catholic.

 

[marwa]

Guys, I think he should have been a Christian.
Jesus is son of God, why would he send another prophet with a new religion?
It doesn’t make sense unless he was originally sent from God as a Christian and definitely for a reason which could be to encourage and attract the non believers in new regions to the love of God & Jesus.

 

[meedo]

"So, can you eat your God in Islam? Can you have Him forgive your sins right infront of you? Are you able to point to a place and say “My God dwells there?” All this and more if you go Catholic.
"

No we cant eat our God in Islam.

Yes we can have him forgive our sins infront of us by repenting and believing solidly in his mercy . In Islam God never lets you down if you haave faith in him.

No i am not able to point to a place and say my God dwelled there. But i am able to say that My God Knows everything and doesnt need to dwell in ordr for us to know him or for him to know us .

Thank you for your nice invitation for us to be catholic. I commend you for trying to share what you believe is Good with us. I also invite you to believe in the Lord of Moses and Jesus and Muhammed One God one Person exalted with no one like him and all powerful and merciful .

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

r.gonzales:

we muslims do not believe that everything reported of jesus’ statements as found in your bible are authentic. it’s as simple as that. we do not believe that jesus was a liar, on the contrary, we believe that he was a prophet sent by Allah to his people. this prophethood necessitates that jesus was truthful and infallible (in matters pertaining to religion), just as it does for all of Allah’s prophets and messengers. our contention lies in the corruption of your scriptures, which we believe to have taken place after jesus was taken by Allah.

Yes, and Muhammad was a Christian. Later followers of Muhammad changed the original message. His message was transformed into the Islam of today. This is true, honest.

See how silly that sounds. Why is it that you can use the genetic fallacy and we cannot?

There is valid historical evidence that supports the claims of Christianity. You choose to not see them because to do so would be to hold beliefs contrary to the teachings of the Qu’ran. It boils down to the genetic fallacy and circular reasoning.

Peace

 

[Ghosty]

Today, most critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50-70?) and culminating in the final edition (Gospel of John) around 95-100. This final date is assumed in large part because John 21, the so-called “appendix” to John, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the “beloved disciple,” probably the leader of the Johannine community that produced the gospel. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus’ followers, then a death around 90-100 is expected. This claim has been rejected by conservative scholars.

If you’re using that quote, you’re not very familiar with the Gospel of John and are just taking the article’s word for it. John’s death is not described or explained in John 21. Go ahead and read it yourself. That conclusion is based on false assumptions by scholars who had an agenda in dismissing the Gospel of John altogether. In fact, the chapter explicitely indicates that John is still alive, and is in fact the teller of the Gospel. Here’s the entirety of the chapter in question.

Honestly, r.gonzales, you’re going to have to do a lot better than this if you’re going to try and prove your points. You are relying on open-source encyclopedias that are presenting false information about texts that are readily available online. Do you think such things are going to convince those of us who have actually read the Gospels and know what they say? This stuff is obvious nonsense.

so it’s clear that their cricitisms are based upon other things besides the mere mention of events to come; things such as differences in litrary style and composion.

And if you knew about their reasons for saying this, you’d know that it’s based on unsubstantiated pressumptions about how the book should end, not on any actual indications that John was not the author of it. It is clearly an addition, true, but it is not clearly an addition after John’s death, nor is it clear that it was added after 70 A.D. It indicates the death of Peter, but Peter died before the destruction of the Temple, which still leaves the Gospel before 70 A.D.

The contemporary scholar of the Johannine community Raymond E. Brown identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus, a structured literary creation by “the evangelist,” which draws upon other sources, and the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979).

You must not know much about Fr. Raymond Brown if you’re citing this. As a Muslim you would not be pleased with his presumptions, and you likely wouldn’t be citing him if you knew the basis for his arguments. I won’t go into detail on this thread, because the poor man has been beaten beyond the grave, but I recommend you do a search with his name, on this forum and elsewhere, and read up on the problems with his methods. For the article to use him uncritically is a dead giveaway for those who know his work, even those who appreciate some of it.

your downplaying of their methods of “critical study” is a good way to easily disregard any of their criticisms and theories regardless of how legitimate some of them might be.

When their methods include “miracles don’t happen, so those parts must have been later additions”, you bet I’ll downplay their methods. The fact that you don’t realize that this presumption is present indicates that you don’t know much about the people you’re using as examples. Do some reading on Rudolf Bultman, who is listed multiple times in both of your wikipedia links, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. The people who come up with the “late dates” are the same people using these presumptions.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

the article cites baur as an example of those who’ve come to a later dating. it states:

Quote:
F.C. Baur asserted a date as late as 160. Today, most critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50-70?) and culminating in the final edition (Gospel of John) around 95-100.

which suggests that baur’s proposed date is wrong. seems like you need to read a bit more carefully .

I’m refering to the other article you posted, from the same website, which directly contradicts this above quote when it says:

Following from the philosophy of Hegel, F.C. Baur negated any historical value for the Fourth Gospel. He stated that it was solely a work of synthesis of thesis-antithesis according to the Hegelian model—synthesis between the thesis of Judeo-Christianity (represented by Peter) and the antithesis of Gentile Christianity (represented by Paul). He also cited in the epistles a synthesis with the opposing dualist forces of Gnosticism. As such, he assigned a date of 170 to the Gospel. Many modern critics follow him in this late dating.

Your own sources contradict, on the very same website, and yet you say I need to be more careful in my reading. I would argue that you need to be more careful in your citation.

I’m frustrated by your use of poor citation and referencing. It’s no better than those who say that Allah is a Moon God. I’m not trying to insult you, but I think it’s very important that you don’t just copy-paste from websites like Wikipedia as backup for your position, espescially when your own references contradict eachother.

As for your allegation that the Scriptures were corrupted, please provide proof. Irenaeus cites them in the second century, and he was taught them by Polycarp, a personal friend of John. When exactly did they become corrupted? Where is the evidence of any kind of corruption outside of “the Quran tells us so”?

I hope my exasperation at these references doesn’t dissuade you from continuing to try to establish your argument. I’m certain you have a point to make, but the resources you are using are so full of holes that they can’t hold themselves up (self-contradiction), let alone hold any water.

 

[cathgal]

meedo:

No we dont see him as a crazy or Liar . Its i guess one of the christian theologians that said that if Jesus isnt God then he is eitrher liar or crazy.

Prophet dont need always state they are a prophet . I mean the normal mode for a person ios to eb ahuman bieng not to be the son of God . In my personal view. Jesus himself didnt say anything that proved his divinity .

I am still trying to see it from Jesus own words but the evidence that i posted in the verse above he clearly equates himself with his deciples .

His father is their father and his Gdo is their God.

This is in his own words , i dont see any reason to start even changing in the Tanach of the jews in order to force verses to refer to Jesus . He is saying it clear .

He never said he as God and he never said he should be worshipped .

He actually always did the opposite.

Thank yiu

You keep complaining that Jesus never claim he is God. It has already been addressed but I bring it up again, in detail:

In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, “Truly,truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM”–invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God–“I AM” or “Yahweh.” His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. “So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple”

In Philippians 2:6, Paul tellsus that Christ Jesus “who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped”. So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was “in very nature God.”

Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last"to Jesus. This is one of the OT titles to Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: “I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god” (Is.44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12)

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the Book of Revelation:
"When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, “Fear not, I am the First and the Last”. “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: 'The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life”. “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end”

The last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title “the Alpha and the Omega,” which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8)

This is as clear as it gets. If you still refuse to see it, you have harden your heart.

 

[Magicsilence]

So Christ was at the very least a prophet according to you muslims?

So God was with Him, giving Him insight into the future?

God chose Him, for one reason or the other?

Right. Im sure you agree with me so far.

BUT, He left a legacy, one that would culminate in a worldwide following of 2 billion members. And yet, you insist he was not The Son Of God.

Would God let one third of the Human race worship someone whom he gave power to?

Wrong.

Jesus was the Son Of God.

You admit he was a prophet, and yet deny his divinity, fine, but there is a religion to his name. The math doesnt work.