Muslims and Christ Divinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loving_disciple
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jakasaki said:
Muslim / Islam claim ~
  • Mohammad is claimed to be the seal of prophets and no other prophet will be sent by Allah.
  • Jesus is just a prophet of Allah.
If Mohammad is the “seal of all prophets” - why then is Jesus going to return at the end of times to do some stuff and to also destroy Christianity, break the cross and make Islam the **global **religion.

Doesn’t this action **negate **the claim of Mohammad being the seal of the prophets since Jesus will return as a prophet.
Click to expand...
A Prophet prophecies.

When Jesus returns, He returns, not as a Prophet, but as the “Glory of the Father”

He returns as the “fulfillment” of ALL previous prophecies made by the Prophets of Old.

Muhammad was the last (or Seal) of the Prophets of Old

You should study the difference between “nabi’h” and “rasul”…they are two different types of entity.

.
 
If you truly believed that God actually wrote a definitive book, you would submit yourself to it. That in a nutshell is Islam. They sincerely believe that the Koran comes from God. If you want to make any headway with them, you have to show them that that it simply false.

Not an easy feat, but it’s possible.

Islam is a Johnny come lately religion that whitewashes hundred years of accepted history. Instead of Isaac, it was Ishmael that they believe Abraham almost sacrificed. Jesus was not practicing Judaism, he was Muslim and so were all the prophets God sent.

They will believe all sorts of historical distortions simple because the Koran says it’s so. They believe the Gospels were corrupted, because the Koran says it’s so … but press them to state where and they will just say anywhere where it contradicts the Koran. Never mind that we can show them that the bible hasn’t changed since the time it was written.

Therein lies all kinds of problems. As Catholics we know very well the kind of chaos a book without an authoritative interpreter can lead to. It is the same with them, since they have no Pope and Magisterium, interpretation is up for grabs. Other than their 5 pillars, which identify them; and to their credit, it works much better because they have splintered much less than the protestants, everything else is fair game. This explains how we see both the extremist radicals and the really peaceful ones.

The head of the religion is decided upon geopolitical lines. Some want to invoke Shariah laws while others don’t. Some will pass fatwas that the others do not agree with. Some will have honor killings, others don’t. Some circumcise women, others don’t … in fact, with regards to female circumcision, those who don’t subscribe to it even have lobbies against the practice.

Google Islamic miracles and it mostly brings up how the word Allah in Abrabic can be found in nature. Bizarre that they actually consider such things miracles. I suppose that doesn’t really bother them since Mohammad did not perform a single miracle. As mentioned above, they acknowledge that Jesus was born of a virgin and performed miracles, yet, Mohammad remains their best (?) prophet. I will never understand that part.

You know, one of the smartest chaps I know is Muslim … which is weird because he demonstrates sound logic and quick thinking almost daily … but somehow cannot seem to see the numerous inherent faults in their religion.

I guess we can only pray for them.
 
LaSalle said:
If you truly believed that God actually wrote a definitive book, you would submit yourself to it. That in a nutshell is Islam. They sincerely believe that the Koran comes from God. If you want to make any headway with them, you have to show them that it simply isn’t.

Not an easy feat, but it’s possible.

Islam is a Johnny come lately religion that whitewashes hundred years of accepted history. Instead of Isaac, it was Ishmael that they believe Abraham almost sacrificed. Jesus was not practicing Judaism, he was Muslim and so were all the prophets God sent.

They will believe all sorts of historical distortions simple because the Koran says it’s so. They believe the Gospels were corrupted, because the Koran says it’s so … but press them to state where and they will just say anywhere where it contradicts the Koran. Never mind that we can show them that the bible hasn’t changed since the time it was written.

Therein lies all kinds of problems. As Catholics we know very well the kind of chaos a book without an authoritative interpreter can lead to. It is the same with them, since they have no Pope and Magisterium, interpretation is up for grabs. Other than their 5 pillars, which identify them; and to their credit, it works much better because they have splintered much less than the protestants, everything else is fair game. This explains how we see both the extremist radicals and the really peaceful ones.

The head of the religion is decided upon geopolitical lines. Some want to invoke Shariah laws while others don’t. Some will pass fatwas that the others do not agree with. Some will have honor killings, others don’t. Other circumcise women, others don’t … in fact, with regards to female circumcision, they even have lobbies against the practice.

Google Islamic miracles and it mostly brings up how the word Allah in Abrabic can be found in nature. Bizarre that they actually consider such things miracles. I suppose that doesn’t really bother them since Mohammad did not perform a single miracle. As mentioned above, they acknowledge that Jesus was born of a virgin and performed miracles, yet, Mohammad remains their best (?) prophet. I will never understand that part.

You know, one of the smartest chaps I know is Muslim … which is weird because he has demonstrates sound logic and quick thinking … but somehow cannot seem to see the numerous inherent faults in their religion.

I guess we can only pray for them.
Click to expand...
When the time comes that Christians and Muslims realise that their respective “Books” relate SPIRITUAL TRUTHS rather than historical facts, the world will become a better place…

It baffles me when a Christian criticises the Quran for its lack of historicity.

The worlds historians are all cringing…
 
LaSalle said:
Why?
Click to expand...
…because there is no objective historicity on the central aspects of Jesus’ life…your belief in Jesus and the life He lead is based on faith, not historical analysis.

Secondly, the Bible and Quran are not history books, they are spiritual Books (with a capital ‘B’)

.
 
robwar said:
Since Islam does acknowledge the Virgin Birth via Mary, I would focus on that and what that implies. Islam denies that Jesus died on the cross and claim that it was an someone else because Allah wouldn’t have allowed his prophet Jesus to die a shameful death. Since the Koran does teach that Jesus was born from a virgin birth ask what do they think that would make Jesus? I think that is the angle you should take. Wouldn’t the virgin birth of Jesus make him greater than Mohammed since Mohammed wasn’t born via a virgin birth. Why would they consider Mohammed the final last prophet when Jesus was born of a virgin? Ask why they think that there would have to be another prophet after Jesus?
Click to expand...
Adam had neither mother nor father and he was not called God.

Jesus had a mother and he is called God.
 
swariffin said:
They believe that Quran is the word of God, and it is not created. That left with 2 eternal beings (a) God himself and (b) a book or collection of written word (which later was given to Muhammad) which has no beginning nor end. They fall short in elaborating that, and left me think that in the mind of the muslim, God is a supernatural being carrying a collection of written words.
Click to expand...
But we don’t believe God’s Speech became book, while you believe God’s word became man.
 
Servant19 said:
When the time comes that Christians and Muslims realise that their respective “Books” relate SPIRITUAL TRUTHS rather than historical facts, the world will become a better place…

It baffles me when a Christian criticises the Quran for its lack of historicity.

The worlds historians are all cringing…
Click to expand...
Tell us where the true followers of Jesus were for six centuries then. The quran tells us the true desciples would be victorious over the non believers, about whom is it referring to?
 
Servant19 said:
…because there is no objective historicity on the central aspects of Jesus’ life…your belief in Jesus and the life He lead is based on faith, not historical analysis.

Secondly, the Bible and Quran are not history books, they are spiritual Books (with a capital ‘B’)

.
Click to expand...
No history is “objective,” and certaintly the biblical books, not all of them are historical in some ways, historical in other ways. Luke by far was writing history when he lays out his intention to tell Theophilus the ministry of Jesus and like historians of the time goes on to give us details.

“In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah”
“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.”
“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.”

Luke is not a second century gnostic, he is writing greco roman history on level with anything Josephus wrote. Is it coincidence that the gospel authors say John was killed and that Josephus also tells us he was killed? Is it a coincidence that the gospel authors tell us Jesus was killed under Pontius Pilate like Tacitius or Josephus tell us? What is your basis for determining (along with all modern academia) that JEsus existed without the gospels which by in far are our primary sources? How do you tell Luke who says and acts as if he was writing history that he really wasn’t?

You seem to think a text cannot be both spiritual and historical. I am Curious is Polycarp’s martyrdom not a historical text because it is a very spiritual text as well? Do we throw out all of Herodotus because he mentions miracles? You have to allow ancient authors to be who they were, not super impose your secular views on them.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
No history is “objective,” and certaintly the biblical books, not all of them are historical in some ways, historical in other ways. Luke by far was writing history when he lays out his intention to tell Theophilus the ministry of Jesus and like historians of the time goes on to give us details.

“In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah”
“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.”
“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.”

Luke is not a second century gnostic, he is writing greco roman history on level with anything Josephus wrote. Is it coincidence that the gospel authors say John was killed and that Josephus also tells us he was killed? Is it a coincidence that the gospel authors tell us Jesus was killed under Pontius Pilate like Tacitius or Josephus tell us? What is your basis for determining (along with all modern academia) that JEsus existed without the gospels which by in far are our primary sources? How do you tell Luke who says and acts as if he was writing history that he really wasn’t?

You seem to think a text cannot be both spiritual and historical. I am Curious is Polycarp’s martyrdom not a historical text because it is a very spiritual text as well? Do we throw out all of Herodotus because he mentions miracles? You have to allow ancient authors to be who they were, not super impose your secular views on them.
Click to expand...
👍
 
TheSufi said:
But we don’t believe God’s Speech became book, while you believe God’s word became man.
Click to expand...
Not the letters on the paper, nor the cover to cover. However, what you believe to be God’s word (the Qur’an) is a nature of God revealed to mankind.

God has the ability to speak his word and those words are eternal, fully God and fully speech. There is no word in the Qur’an that is not the word of God, so his words in the Qur’an are equal to him. They are uncreated, and a divine nature of Allah.

So we can both agree that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God… Now we just need to convince you of the rest. 😉
 
dronald said:
Not the letters on the paper, nor the cover to cover. However, what you believe to be God’s word (the Qur’an) is a nature of God revealed to mankind.

God has the ability to speak his word and those words are eternal, fully God and fully speech. There is no word in the Qur’an that is not the word of God, so his words in the Qur’an are equal to him. They are uncreated, and a divine nature of Allah.

So we can both agree that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God… Now we just need to convince you of the rest. 😉
Click to expand...
How can the Word be with God and be God at the same time? Also, how can Jesus be the Son of God and God at the same time?
 
Shia_Muslim said:
How can the Word be with God and be God at the same time? Also, how can Jesus be the Son of God and God at the same time?
Click to expand...
How can God be eternal? How can God be incomprehensible? The question you are asking is not something that can be answered, but you should take in mind that such questions can be easily asked of the islamic God. How God does anything, how God exists is beyond any human capacity to explain. How does God work miracles into the world? How does God speak to people and convey messages to prophets? How does the one substance of divinity share three persons? How is the son ever begotten of the father?

The questions we should be asking are whether or not these doctrines make sense and or have a biblical basis.
 
Shia_Muslim said:
How can the Word be with God and be God at the same time? Also, how can Jesus be the Son of God and God at the same time?
Click to expand...
Good question Shia Muslim. Let’s take the Word of God example to start seeing as we can both agree that God is eternal and so is His Word.

If I were to ask you to name something Divine, everlasting, eternal, and incomprehensible what would your answer be? I can only assume that you would say God but wouldn’t you be equally correct in saying God’s Word? It is a tenant of Islam to believe that the Qur’an is eternal as well as Allah himself. Muslims believe that the Qur’an being God’s Word has existed as long as Allah has existed, seeing as Allah’s words must be eternal as is he.

Here’s the issue though; if we are to say that Allah is a divine, eternal being and say that the Qur’an is also divine and eternal we have suddenly created ourselves two different divine and eternal beings and someone with a simple mind can officially say that Islam is no longer monotheistic. If Allah is separate from his word and the word is separate from Allah yet they are both eternal we have created a duality and no longer adhere to monotheism.

However, if we recognize (which I assume you agree with) that Allah’s word is eternally co-existing as one with Allah, and his word (the Qur’an) is a nature that he has revealed to us then we can still consider Islam to be a Monotheistic Religion.

To say that the Qur’an is divine in nature and yet not fully God and fully Word would make the recitation into a god. Neither of us believe in god’s rather One God. So Muslims must accept that the Word of God is a nature of God revealed to us, fully God, and fully Word. To say that the Qur’an is fully God and comes from God, yet eternal and divine but not the full nature of God Himself is equal to what Christians say about Jesus. We believe that Jesus always existed as God’s Word, and came from Heaven to complete a mission for us.

Another example I use is the story of God in the burning bush, which is in the Qur’an. When God was in the bush he was still fully God, and yet He was also in Heaven. To say that the God in Heaven is different from the God in the bush because He was in the bush would be false. However, we also cannot say that the burning bush was the full nature of God, yet still was completely 100% God.
 
dronald said:
Good question Shia Muslim. Let’s take the Word of God example to start seeing as we can both agree that God is eternal and so is His Word.

If I were to ask you to name something Divine, everlasting, eternal, and incomprehensible what would your answer be? I can only assume that you would say God but wouldn’t you be equally correct in saying God’s Word? It is a tenant of Islam to believe that the Qur’an is eternal as well as Allah himself. Muslims believe that the Qur’an being God’s Word has existed as long as Allah has existed, seeing as Allah’s words must be eternal as is he.

Here’s the issue though; if we are to say that Allah is a divine, eternal being and say that the Qur’an is also divine and eternal we have suddenly created ourselves two different divine and eternal beings and someone with a simple mind can officially say that Islam is no longer monotheistic. If Allah is separate from his word and the word is separate from Allah yet they are both eternal we have created a duality and no longer adhere to monotheism.

However, if we recognize (which I assume you agree with) that Allah’s word is eternally co-existing as one with Allah, and his word (the Qur’an) is a nature that he has revealed to us then we can still consider Islam to be a Monotheistic Religion.

To say that the Qur’an is divine in nature and yet not fully God and fully Word would make the recitation into a god. Neither of us believe in god’s rather One God. So Muslims must accept that the Word of God is a nature of God revealed to us, fully God, and fully Word. To say that the Qur’an is fully God and comes from God, yet eternal and divine but not the full nature of God Himself is equal to what Christians say about Jesus. We believe that Jesus always existed as God’s Word, and came from Heaven to complete a mission for us.

Another example I use is the story of God in the burning bush, which is in the Qur’an. When God was in the bush he was still fully God, and yet He was also in Heaven. To say that the God in Heaven is different from the God in the bush because He was in the bush would be false. However, we also cannot say that the burning bush was the full nature of God, yet still was completely 100% God.
Click to expand...
About the Qur’an being eternal, that’s not a Shia belief.
About the bush, I still never fully understood this.
 
dronald said:
Ah, I see. What exactly do Shia’s believe about the Qur’an then? Do they believe it was created?

What part, my friend?
Click to expand...
We believe it was created.
Yeah, God talking from a bush seems a complex thing to me.
 
Shia_Muslim said:
We believe it was created.
Click to expand...
Thank you for educating me on such. I suppose I’ll be sure to only discuss such an analogy with Sunni’s from now on. 🙂
Shia_Muslim said:
Yeah, God talking from a bush seems a complex thing to me.
Click to expand...
It certainly is, as God is very complex. We both do believe though that God was fully present inside a bush and Moses himself was ordered to remove his shoes before approaching. God was also fully present in Heaven, as well as present with all the people of Earth. God is bound by nothing and any nature of Him that He desires to reveal is fully Him but not God in His entirety. That’s why God had to appear in a bush, and that’s why God had to come as a man because if God was to reveal His full nature, anyone who would look upon Him would die.

An example would be Exodus 33:20

But," he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

But look what else God says of Himself:

33:23

Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."

Again, we see here that God is revealing that He has some type of back, some type of hand, some type of face. These natures are uncreated, unexplainable and so on but they are natures revealed to us by Him. God does not create natures of Himself, rather He reveals them; how to fully explain this is impossible, but I hope I have done well. God is basically so full of amazement and glory, no words can explain how incredible He must be to look upon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top