Muslims4Lent

[SjMelnychuk]

This does not really answer the question dear Sj.

We are not talking about who is the blessed ones in a family lineage.

The question is how does one objectively come to the conclusion that the OT is Truth, and the Quran is false (or misguided)?

Convince me please, using rational argument.

One cannot go around calling other peoples family members “misguided” based on a hunch or a “belief” or that “someone I trust told me”.

In a similar vein one cannot do the same with the Holy Book of a billion people, so many of which live exemplary lives of piety and loving devotion.

.

.

No, who Jesus is is EXACTLY the point and DOES answer the question because whether or not Islam should be followed or whether or not you can combine multiple faiths together DOES matter. For everything CENTRES upon the foundation of who Jesus Christ is. He is either just a Prophet like Judaism and Islam claim or Jesus is the Christ, that He died on the Cross and risen from the grave. Any religion that contradicts this has historical errors and an incomplete faith. Who Muhammed is also has everything to do with it. He is either the last supreme Prophet above all Prophets or he’s a false Prophet. If he’s a false Prophet than Islam has errors in its teaching. So yes the question who Jesus is and who Muhammed is has EVERYTHING to do with this topic. Both claim to be exclusively and complete and fulfillment of all TRUTH both can’t be the fulfillment of all TRUTH.

 

[Servant19]

-No the question still remains as to why you are asking me for something you apparently already have for a claim that you apparently already agree with.
-And I’m pretty sure I’ve already covered why the OT was inspired by God (the faith claiming God authored their book would Islam hence the need for the Quran to be completely error free and hence why the historical errors you already know about and accept would mean you can’t believe it is authored by God).

When I stated that there are “also some historical inaccuracies in the Quran” I was writing from the perspective of a Christian. I added that the OT is similarly historically inaccurate, so why acknowledge only the OT? That was the angle being presented in that posted. My apologies if that was unclear.

From a Baha’i perspective, I would suggest that there is no historical inaccuracies in the Quran, but that the Quran has been grossly misinterpreted today by Muslims.

So, my question still stands dear friend

.

 

[Servant19]

Judaism post-Christ isn’t right; and post-Christ Jewish theology contains errors. Judaism pre-Christ is right, just incomplete with Christianity completing it; and pre-Christ Jewish theology doesn’t contain errors, it’s just incomplete.

If pre-Christ Jewish theology doesn’t contain errors, and post-Christ Judaism “isn’t right”, then why did God misguide His people?

The OT is evidently false. (especially on matters related to the Messiah)

This is rather different from Islam’s view of Judaism and Christianity which it claims to be the continuation and completion of, but it also claims that pre-Islam Judaism and Christianity have theological errors (which is different from just being incomplete).

If the prior faith is the foundation of a house and the current faith the house itself, Christianity has built a house on a firm and rot free foundation (Judaism is incomplete)where as Islam has built a house on a rotten foundation (Judaism and Christianity are in error/have errors in their theology).

So is the Deuteronomy verse explicitly stating that he who hangs from a tree is cursed, an “incomplete” statement or a “false” statement?

.

 

[Servant19]

No, who Jesus is is EXACTLY the point and DOES answer the question because whether or not Islam should be followed or whether or not you can combine multiple faiths together DOES matter. For everything CENTRES upon the foundation of who Jesus Christ is. He is either just a Prophet like Judaism and Islam claim or Jesus is the Christ, that He died on the Cross and risen from the grave. Any religion that contradicts this has historical errors and an incomplete faith. Who Muhammed is also has everything to do with it. He is either the last supreme Prophet above all Prophets or he’s a false Prophet. If he’s a false Prophet than Islam has errors in its teaching. So yes the question who Jesus is and who Muhammed is has EVERYTHING to do with this topic. Both claim to be exclusively and complete and fulfillment of all TRUTH both can’t be the fulfillment of all TRUTH.

Where in the Bible or the Quran does it state that Jesus or Muhammad is the fulfillment of ALL Truth please?

Can you also please show me where historical errors exist in the Quran that denies Jesus?

.

 

[Mystophilus]

Where do you think it lies in Anglican theology? It looks to me like logic plus ethics.

The latter is actually a fair summary of Anglican theology: officially designated as Reason plus Scripture plus Tradition, it generally operates as logic plus Christian ethics.

 

[Mystophilus]

Those who accept Catholicism or Judaism as the “true faith” can know the origin of the Quran, or at the very least know that the origin wasn’t God.

There is a vast, yawning gulf between “It didn’t come from God” and “We know where it came from.”

1. I’m pretty sure I’ve presented options in which Muhammad made up the Quran based upon him doing so without a dishonest intent (i.e. lying).

Really? Where? I have repeatedly reworded “made up” as “fabricated” so as to check whether you meant anything beyond “wrote”, and you haven’t objected to that thus far. This thread has become tortuously long, and I hope that I haven’t missed the one thing for which I was aiming.

Wouldn’t Muhammad being in league with a demonic source to falsely present the demonically authored Quran as coming from God in order to lead people astray be the morally worst of the possible choices?

There is another vast, yawning gulf between your Catechism’s statement that non-Christians are deceived by the Devil and your idea of their being “in league with” the Devil.

Describing someone as deceived does not accuse them of anything more immoral than folly. Describing them as consciously perpetrating an act of wickedness goes far beyond that.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Where in the Bible or the Quran does it state that Jesus or Muhammad is the fulfillment of ALL Truth please?

Can you also please show me where historical errors exist in the Quran that denies Jesus?

.

I was drawn into this thread by its title - ‘Muslims and Lent’, thinking this is an easy one. That unlike Lent type fasting or abstaining directions, Islamic fasting such as Ramadan allows for large scale feeding indulgence under the cover of darkness.

Now, Servant19, you pose what if thoroughly approached is the stuff of lectures and academic tomes. I will have to come back to this when I have more time, but in the meantime I will bung in a few quotes:

John 14:6 - Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father,

There are in fact many Gospel quotes that expressly say, or strongly infer that Jesus Himself claimed to be divine, and that He is the fulfilment of the prophets.

Not all Jews were/are Messianic, and most of those who were/are think that the Messiah forecast in the Torah will be a Heavenly warrior figure who will come and lead the Jews in battle to a renewed ‘earthly’ greatness. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” - that in effect He/God was leaving control of this world, at least until His second coming, [by and large] in the hands of humanity.

Regarding the Muslim take on Jesus, they perceive Him as being a just man, but not the God AND man that Bibles and Christian tracts written before the time of Muhammad claim, and their prophet in his early period endorsed. In fact, before he had gained power through warfare and subterfuge he told his followers that if they had a [religious] issue, that they should refer to the ‘People of the Book’ for guidance - Jews and Christians. It was latterly, after gaining power and wealth, that his increasingly political form religion claimed that Jews and Christians had corrupted their Testaments - this despite writings that existed before his time, and those until the present day being in any important essence the same.

The New Testament speaks of Jesus being the fulfilment of the Prophets, Islam perceives/claims Muhammad as being in effect the fulfilment of the line of Prophets, and that he is the model for Muslims.

There is much in the Qur’an(s) {yes, there are numbers of variants, including all of their earliest surviving ones], and in the Hadiths, that runs counter to the Christian New Testament accounts of Jesus.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Where in the Bible or the Quran does it state that Jesus or Muhammad is the fulfillment of ALL Truth please?

Can you also please show me where historical errors exist in the Quran that denies Jesus?

.

You obviously don’t know anything about Islam or Catholicism and our Sacred Scripture. And here’s the thing, Muslims rever Muhammed pretty high up there. They follow Muhammed and his teachings as much as Christians follow Jesus and His teachings. Tell me, would you hang on every word of a Prophet if you didn’t believe that he wasn’t believed to be the fulfilment of all Prophets? Obviously not but Muslims follow Muhammed in a way that venerates Muhammed above Jesus.

Like I said, there’s error if you don’t believe that Jesus died on the Cross and has risen from the grave. No Muslim I know says the fulfilment of all truth is found apart from Islam but then again most Muslims would say that to be a faithful Catholic or Protestant is essentially Islam … Point is, Islam is seen as the fulfilment of all truth by most Muslims no matter how you slice the pie every Muslim still points to Islam.

Now, Any scholar knows that there are some errors in what we have as Sacred Scripture, all the more reason to reject Sola Scripture. And I mentioned the lineage of blessings from Abraham all the way through to King David … Muslims teach that Esau received the blessing and not Jacob. That is one historically incorrect teaching of Islam. But you kinda skipped over that.

Point, for the sake of redundancy, there is more archeological evidence to prove that Jesus walked the earth, died on the cross, and substantial reason to believe he raised from the grave more evidence of this than anything to prove Julius Ceaser lived and yet Islam rejects this claim.

Again… It all points to who Jesus is and who he claimed to be. You cannot side step around this. As a Catholic I don’t need for Sacred Scripture to be error free because I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura however, no false Prophet will be speaking anything remotely close to the fulfilment of all truth and if you don’t believe the veneration of Muhammed by Muslims you obviously don’t have a clue as to what Islam is about unless you’re trying to be willfully deceptive as quite a few Muslims say is OK because it Islam commends people for being deceptive in the spirit of jihad and pending on your interpretation of this jihad would determine how deceptive a Muslim might be… Itdepends of course what kind of Muslim. However, I’m going to assume you are just as ignorant about Islam as you are about the Christian faith because I don’t like to believe that people willfully confuse the issues and present a deceptive picture about Islam.

 

[Servant19]

I was drawn into this thread by its title - ‘Muslims and Lent’, thinking this is an easy one. That unlike Lent type fasting or abstaining directions, Islamic fasting such as Ramadan allows for large scale feeding indulgence under the cover of darkness.

Now, Servant19, you pose what if thoroughly approached is the stuff of lectures and academic tomes. I will have to come back to this when I have more time, but in the meantime I will bung in a few quotes:

John 14:6 - Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father,

There are in fact many Gospel quotes that expressly say, or strongly infer that Jesus Himself claimed to be divine, and that He is the fulfilment of the prophets.

Hi Mount Carmel (great name btw)

Claiming Divinity (which I am comfortable with) is different to claiming to the fulfillment of ALL Truth.

If you have an explicit quote from the Bible that ALL Truth came with Jesus, I would like to see it please

Not all Jews were/are Messianic, and most of those who were/are think that the Messiah forecast in the Torah will be a Heavenly warrior figure who will come and lead the Jews in battle to a renewed ‘earthly’ greatness. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” - that in effect He/God was leaving control of this world, at least until His second coming, [by and large] in the hands of humanity.

All Prophets’ Kingdoms are not of this world. That includes Muhammad. But Muhammad was the first to bring the stirrings of “God’s Kingdom on earth”, what all Christians have been praying for since day 1.

Regarding the Muslim take on Jesus, they perceive Him as being a just man, but not the God AND man that Bibles and Christian tracts written before the time of Muhammad claim, and their prophet in his early period endorsed. In fact, before he had gained power through warfare and subterfuge he told his followers that if they had a [religious] issue, that they should refer to the ‘People of the Book’ for guidance - Jews and Christians. It was latterly, after gaining power and wealth, that his increasingly political form religion claimed that Jews and Christians had corrupted their Testaments - this despite writings that existed before his time, and those until the present day being in any important essence the same.

The New Testament speaks of Jesus being the fulfilment of the Prophets, Islam perceives/claims Muhammad as being in effect the fulfilment of the line of Prophets, and that he is the model for Muslims.

There is much in the Qur’an(s) {yes, there are numbers of variants, including all of their earliest surviving ones], and in the Hadiths, that runs counter to the Christian New Testament accounts of Jesus.

That Muahmmad may have asked for Muslims to refer “issues” to the people of the Book (I would like a reference for this please) for their spiritual insights is not related to the authenticity of their Book. These are two different matters. You are comparing apples with oranges I feel here

The Hadiths are of less authenticity to objective analysts than the Quran itself. Can you point out what in the Quran runs counter to New Testament accounst please?

God bless you

.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You obviously don’t know anything about Islam or Catholicism and our Sacred Scripture. And here’s the thing, Muslims rever Muhammed pretty high up there. They follow Muhammed and his teachings as much as Christians follow Jesus and His teachings. Tell me, would you hang on every word of a Prophet if you didn’t believe that he wasn’t believed to be the fulfilment of all Prophets? Obviously not but Muslims follow Muhammed in a way that venerates Muhammed above Jesus.

Like I said, there’s error if you don’t believe that Jesus died on the Cross and has risen from the grave. No Muslim I know says the fulfilment of all truth is found apart from Islam but then again most Muslims would say that to be a faithful Catholic or Protestant is essentially Islam … Point is, Islam is seen as the fulfilment of all truth by most Muslims no matter how you slice the pie every Muslim still points to Islam.

Now, Any scholar knows that there are some errors in what we have as Sacred Scripture, all the more reason to reject Sola Scripture. And I mentioned the lineage of blessings from Abraham all the way through to King David … Muslims teach that Esau received the blessing and not Jacob. That is one historically incorrect teaching of Islam. But you kinda skipped over that.

Point, for the sake of redundancy, there is more archeological evidence to prove that Jesus walked the earth, died on the cross, and substantial reason to believe he raised from the grave more evidence of this than anything to prove Julius Ceaser lived and yet Islam rejects this claim.

Again… It all points to who Jesus is and who he claimed to be. You cannot side step around this. As a Catholic I don’t need for Sacred Scripture to be error free because I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura however, no false Prophet will be speaking anything remotely close to the fulfilment of all truth and if you don’t believe the veneration of Muhammed by Muslims you obviously don’t have a clue as to what Islam is about unless you’re trying to be willfully deceptive as quite a few Muslims say is OK because it Islam commends people for being deceptive in the spirit of jihad and pending on your interpretation of this jihad would determine how deceptive a Muslim might be… Itdepends of course what kind of Muslim.

Good post, what is the “authentic teaching” of Islam with the return of Jesus? What is the meaning here? Perhaps to even further reduce the understanding, ruling parties of the Sunni and Shia middle-east.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Servant19 - In the New Testament, Jesus is recorded as expressing His divinity and that He is ALSO the TRUTH. As DIVINE TRUTH, He needs must also encompass the totality of TRUTH - surely?

As for Muhammad, well modern academic study of the historicity of himself and Islam, call into massive question his prophethood and many many other claims.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Servant19 - In the New Testament, Jesus is recorded as expressing His divinity and that He is ALSO the TRUTH. As DIVINE TRUTH, He needs must also encompass the totality of TRUTH - surely?

As for Muhammad, well modern academic study of the historicity of himself and Islam, call into massive question his prophethood and many many other claims.

What was the prophecy of the prophet while he was alive? I hear there isn’t much historical evidence from the time of his death until approx 200 years later. When year was the first Quran given to us from heaven in relation to Mohammeds death?

 

[Mount_Carmel]

What was the prophecy of the prophet while he was alive? I hear there isn’t much historical evidence from the time of his death until approx 200 years later. When year was the first Quran given to us from heaven in relation to Mohammeds death?

As you infer, there are questions about his title of ‘prophet’, since he does not appear to have made any. Also, as you infer, the evidence and shape of Muhammad, Islam, and indeed ‘Allah’ himself appear to have been shaped and filled out by a number of compilers and interpreters over many years.

Indeed, as for Muhammad’s death, well there is his unopened grave in Medina, and yet a significant minority of Muslims think he was resurrected and ascended bodily into heaven.

Make of that what you will.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

When I stated that there are “also some historical inaccuracies in the Quran” I was writing from the perspective of a Christian. I added that the OT is similarly historically inaccurate, so why acknowledge only the OT? That was the angle being presented in that posted. My apologies if that was unclear.

From a Baha’i perspective, I would suggest that there is no historical inaccuracies in the Quran, but that the Quran has been grossly misinterpreted today by Muslims.

So, my question still stands dear friend

.

-You’re still trying to compare two works by the standards of just one of them. Judaism and Christianity don’t hold that that OT is verbatim from the mouth of God which is the Islamic position on the Quran. The historical, scientific, linguistic, etc errors in the OT don’t matter to Judaism or Christianity since it is divinely inspired not divinely authored. What matters would be the theological truths.
-Christianity holds that their are no errors in theological truths in the OT, just that these truths are incomplete. The errors in post-Christ Judaic theological development and understanding come from the misunderstanding of these incomplete theological truths/ignorance of their completion through Christ.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

There is a vast, yawning gulf between “It didn’t come from God” and “We know where it came from.”
Not when compared to a claim that we can’t know who wrote it; and not when used with reason and an understanding of Church teachings concerning Islam. Take God and demonic sources out of the possibilities for being the author and you’re left with Muhammad.

Really? Where? I have repeatedly reworded “made up” as “fabricated” so as to check whether you meant anything beyond “wrote”, and you haven’t objected to that thus far. This thread has become tortuously long, and I hope that I haven’t missed the one thing for which I was aiming.
Post 131, 94, 90, 69, 50, and 40. I’ve repeatedly brought up the fact that there is a difference between stating Muhammad made it up with a dishonest intent and stating Muhammad made it up with an honest intent. In fact, you won’t find any of my posts that make a positive claim on Muhammad lying. I personally think he made it up based on a good intent, but such a position is really just opinion because that, unlike the authorship of the Quran, is something we really can’t know.

There is another vast, yawning gulf between your Catechism’s statement that non-Christians are deceived by the Devil and your idea of their being “in league with” the Devil.

Describing someone as deceived does not accuse them of anything more immoral than folly. Describing them as consciously perpetrating an act of wickedness goes far beyond that.
Yes, there is a vast gulf, but unfortunately for you we are using your standard of “we can’t know who wrote it.” If we can’t know who wrote it, then the worse possible moral option for the creation of the Quran would be what I presented. Not my fault you don’t agree with your own criteria.

 

[Picky_Picky]

What do you think he is saying in post 160?

I think he’s saying

1. We do not and cannot know the precise origin of the message.
2. Therefore, any view about its origin is necessarily speculative.
3. Therefore, any choice to accuse Muhammad of lying means selecting the morally worst of the possible choices and is thus uncharitable.

 

[Picky_Picky]

The latter is actually a fair summary of Anglican theology: officially designated as Reason plus Scripture plus Tradition, it generally operates as logic plus Christian ethics.

Well, I think the Anglican approach to theology is through the use of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, but Anglican theology, I reckon, is stuff about God and the like.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I think he’s saying

That’s not what you think he said, that’s what he said; and since you don’t think I understood him the first time I fail to see how restating exactly what he said would be of any help.

 

[Picky_Picky]

That’s not what you think he said, that’s what he said; and since you don’t think I understood him the first time I fail to see how restating exactly what he said would be of any help.

Because it is so clearly different from what you intimidated he had said:

God didn’t author the Quran, but you can’t say He didn’t author the Quran because declaring something to be true because your faith tells you it is true is uncharitable.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Because it is so clearly different from what you intimidated he had said:

So I’m supposed to assume that Anglicanism does not view itself as having any authority over understanding God or determining what comes from God and what does not?