I see the actions of recent Popes as helping to foster very positive advances in the relationship between Christians and Muslims.
Certainly Catholic exegesis of the Tanakh is not the same as Jewish exegesis of the same scriptures. Should we then claim that Catholics are not allowed to interpret the Old Testament in the light of Christ, because that scripture somehow “belongs” to Jews, not Christians? I think you can see the fallacy of that position.
The dialogue is not to reveal “fundamental problems”! The dialogue is to reach a true understanding, knowledge and differences between Catholicism (true Christianity that predates Muhammad and the Quran) and Islam.
. It makes no difference if? Islam believes the moon is made of cheese. Islam is asked to make known Islam’s understanding of the moon is made of cheese, Islam’s knowledge of the moon and explain and understand each one’s view of what the moon is made of. Faith and reason which is what the Catholic faith is based upon and Islam’s faith is based on carnal knowledge of logic. The dialogue calls for Islam’s understanding, knowledge and differences be made known for all the world to know no matter what it believes. Then the dialogue can graduate.
The Pope has already put an effort forth to dialogue with Islam. It requires Islam to accept the Popes olive branch to dialogue.
I have already revealed my opinion here; **Progress can be made when addressing Islam’s religious and religion subjects only in a dialogue; and then dialogue with political subjects and goals of Islam apart from religious subjects which can cause a contradiction and misunderstanding. **
I will believe you, when Muslims stop believing and teaching Muslims and converts the lie, that Jesus was not crucified. And allow Christians to freely practice their faith in a predominate Muslim society.
God revealed all the scriptures and Jesus opened the mind of the Church to understand them all. The Scriptures is God’s Word, they belong to God because they come from God.
There isn’t any kind of central authority in Islam who can make this kind of statement.
How do Muslims resolve issues concerning the interpretation of the Quran and Islamic teachings? Do they go with- “well we don’t have a central authority so anything goes,” or do they go with- “we’ll go with what is the consensus of Islamic scholars on the issue”?
Well, different communities recognize different religious scholars as being legitimate. So there are many varying consensuses. And people also pick and choose which scholars they pay attention to. Which certainly does present problems in relationships between different groups of Muslims today.
Who will the Pope have a dialogue with from Islam? When Islam has no one authority that all Muslims adhere to. Hence the Quran’s religious teachings which all Muslims will adhere to should be a subject within the dialogue to reach the goal of understanding.
The leaders of Islam; who teach Muslims, that Jesus was not crucified and the bible was corrupted by Jews and Christians. I would be happy to learn if? you can prove that any Muslim today who was not taught this false view from their Islamic teachers.
The Quran has teachings to which all Muslims follow in religious practices not political views which is a whole other subject that can be dialogued on a separate dialogue. I would like to know and support any Muslim religious leader who believes Jesus was crucified and the bible is not corrupted. Islamic leaders teach this false teaching to all Muslims whether or not it is stated emphatically in the Quran. This false teaching is top on the list for all Muslims to learn from their Islamic leaders., Why?
This is an intriguing article which references many Islamic scholars who have rejected the “no crucifixion” position:
Absolutely spot on.
Pretty good. Which thus means the Quran isn’t as detailed and clear as the Biblical accounts whether in facts or in spirit.
Matthew, I don’t really disagree with anything you have said here but then that wasn’t really the point I was making. My point is this. There is much evidence of Baha’i interpretation of Christian Scripture right here in the Non-Catholic Religions section of CAF. Baha’i interpretation is not even close; in fact it couldn’t be further away from the Christian interpretation of our own sacred texts. In fact, you must believe us to have equally as poor exegesis as do the Muslims in interpreting the Quran.
Maybe, maybe not. It didn’t take me long to find quite a few passages from the Quran that state that the writings of the “people of the book” have been distorted.
And one, apparently, can read the New Testament and come to the conclusion that Jesus was not resurrected bodily from the grave.
And of what are you speaking; the Crusades, the Inquisition…? You think they were caused by poor exegesis?
Indeed, and I am the culprit in that regard even though that was not my intention. My only point was that if I want to know what Muslims believe about their “scriptures” then I will ask a Muslim. I would not dream of telling them that they don’t know what is in their own sacred texts and that I know better. But your point is well taken.
Well, it does become difficult when there is so much division. There is really no one authority within Islam that can say “we believe this” and “we do not believe that”. And I would love to hear, from just one Muslim, that they do not believe the Bible is corrupt. If it is not corrupt then they must accept all that it contains, which would mean that they must accept Christianity as the one, true religion.
Honestly, what difference does it make? When one reads the New Testament and then denies the crucifixion and bodily resurrection of Christ and then claims that this is due to a difference in interpretation and/or poor exegesis it makes one’s head spin. Either accept it or reject it, but do not say that the New Testament does not, very clearly, make these claims concerning Christ.
I think it makes an enormous difference whether Muslims respect the Old and New Testaments or not.