Who is the Prophet Mohammed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter peace2u2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think the Church ever recognized Mohamed. All we should respect imo as far thas Muslims are concerned is their sincerity to follow God in the best way they can. Other than that there is NO compromise. We cannot allow relativism to creep in. There is only ONE truth. Mohamed is not one we should ever take as a saviour. The saviour is Jesus Christ.

MJ
 
I don’t think the Church ever recognized Mohamed. All we should respect imo as far thas Muslims are concerned is their sincerity to follow God in the best way they can. Other than that there is NO compromise. We cannot allow relativism to creep in.

MJ
 
I agree, respecting the rights for Muslims to have their beliefs and recognizing that their beliefs are very often sincere to the best of their knowledge is very different from accepting that Mohammad is a prophet for Christians as well. Most of the people in my country are Muslim, and they will respectfully refer to “your prophet, Jesus”, to which I always say, “Jesus is not a prophet, He is God.” The Trinity is really the hardest thing to grasp, not just for Muslims but even for Christians! If it’s so hard for us, imagine how difficult it must be for others who have such little encounter with the Christian Faith. We would do well to find ways to explain this in numerous languages, not for the sake of converting but for the sake of helping others to understand a tremendously difficult concept.
 
StarOfTheSea83 said:
I agree, respecting the rights for Muslims to have their beliefs and recognizing that their beliefs are very often sincere to the best of their knowledge is very different from accepting that Mohammad is a prophetfor Christians as well . Most of the people in my country are Muslim, and they will respectfully refer to “your prophet, Jesus”, to which I always say, “Jesus is not a prophet, He is God.” The Trinity is really the hardest thing to grasp, not just for Muslims but even for Christians!** If it’s so hard for us, imagine how difficult it must be for others who have such little encounter with the Christian Faith. We would do well to find ways to explain this in numerous languages, not for the sake of converting but for the sake of helping others to understand a tremendously difficult concept**.
Click to expand...
👍

MJ
 
Jocko_VT said:
drfye and Bezant already answered the question as well as it could be answered.

Two other sets of comments are interesting in that they speak on Mohammed in a way that would be insulting to Catholics and other Christians if turned on Christ (as it often is).

Christ *allegedly *lived six centuries before Mohammed.

*People **claim *Jesus is the son of God, and that he rose from the dead.

While Jesus is generally believed to be real, there are many today who *question *the *stories *about him and his existence in general. Some of his alleged claims put him at odds with Judaism.

Most Christians don’t like this language used about Jesus. It would seem to me to be good practice not to use it about others’ religions. I wonder if this is a reasonable approach to answering the question at hand? I wonder if pointing this issue out on my part is perhaps itself sinful, insofar as it may separate me from God somehow. Alternatively, to let it go when I suspect it’s unnecessarily uncharitable might also be sinful. I don’t know.
Click to expand...
When i began reading your post, I started to become insulted, but now see that you were making a point. And a very valid point, I should add. I always try to be the best Christian that I can be, which includes loving thy neighbor. It is perfectly possible to evangelize people without being insulting. I feel being charitable, setting a good example, lending a helping hand, and preaching without scorn, and without judgement(which is the Lord’s job, not ours), is the best way to convert.
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
Mohammed was the Moses of the Ishmalites, meaning the Arabs.
Click to expand...
Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey,

For starters, Arab Catholic is correct in his denouncements…yes, denouncements-not judgements as you have mistakenly labeled.

To top it off you make this comment about the non-prophet Mohammed which is completely inaccurate and misinformed. it is disinformation.

You would do well in listening with and open ear and open heart what Arab Catholic is saying…he’s been there and back.
 
Dear Perro, Thanks for noticing my post. Here’s my problem. Our Church leaders have said that Islam is a legitimate religion. (Vatican II Chapter II.16: “…the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Moslems…”) Yet there are obvious errors in the Koran, perhaps the most glaring of which is the denial of our Lord’s Passion and Resurrection. I did not mean to suggest that Mohammed was the spiritual equal of Moses, but there are certain parallels. Moses brought monotheism and the Law to the children of Israel, and he was a military commander. I think that its fair to say that Mohammed did the same for the children of Ishmael. But whereas Moses spoke face to face with the Creator, receiving the Law directly from Him, Mohammed had to make do with the hand-me-downs, the “crumbs from the table,” of Judaism and Christianity. And while Mohammed had direct knowledge of the Law from the Jewish settlements in Arabia, he did not have access to our Lord’s Gospel. Instead he had only some spurious christian teachings together with the “Yeshua” stories from the Talmud. Thus we see the writings about “Isa” in the Koran that are at variance with those in our Christian Gospels.
I must object to referring to Mohammed as a “non-prophet.” I do not believe that he was as great as Moses or Elijah. I do believe that he was a greater man than any of us posting here on this forum. Please, let’s show respect for our brothers in Islam and refrain from insulting the founder of their religion.
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
Given these statements how are we to regard the founding prophet of Islam? A clue can be found in our Lord’s Gospels where the pagan woman begged our Lord’s mercy but was rebuked and insulted. Her reply is instructive: “…the house dogs under the table can eat the children’s scraps.” Islam is composed of whatever “scraps” of Christianity and Judaism that Mohammed could get his hands on. I believe that Mohammed was commissioned by Heaven to bring monotheism to the decendants of Ishmael. He is their “Moses” some 2000 years after the Children of Israel received the Law. And just because he founded Islam on the “children’s scraps” does not mean that either he or Islam is illegitimate. Our Lord’s teaching is a powerful, wonderful thing. Even its “scraps” have great power and significance. I don’t suppose that Muslims will be pleased with my opinion. But that’s not my concern. What I want is for my fellow Christians to show the same respect for Islam (and thereby for Muhammed) that our Church leaders have shown.
Click to expand...
Jeffrey;

Firstly, the story of the Syrophoenician Woman (Mt 15:21-28) was a display of our Lord testing the woman’s faith. Her statement regarding scraps was a display of her faith as shown by Christ’s statement to her: “your faith is great” (v. 28). It was not about finding “scraps” of truth in other religions. Be careful how you handle God’s word, my friend.

Secondly, I think it is erroneous to say Mohammad was “commissioned by Heaven to bring monotheism” to the Arabs. It is erroneous for two reasons:
  1. Mohammad taught great error - and his error was very great. He taught a Christ that was not divine, that was not God the Son in the Trinity, that he did not die on the cross, and that he is not our sole pathway to salvation. There is no way he could be “commissioned from heaven.” I have no doubt God permitted Islam to rise up and used Islam to shift the chaff from the wheat, but Mohammad was not sent by God himself. There have been many who died condemned because they embraced the error Mohammad taught.
  2. We are not saved by monotheism, we are saved by Christ. The apostle Peter did not say “there is no other theism under heaven” by which we are saved, but rather “there is no other name” - the name of Christ.
I agree, of course, we should treat Muslims with respect to their persons, and there are times when people go too far in their criticism of Islam. There have been times when I see people, even Christians, treat Muslims with such gross disrespect that I can only wince. However, we have to call a spade a spade. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isa 5:20).

On the same note, I have to respond to your comment in your later post, where you said: “Mohammed…was a greater man than any of us posting here on this forum.” There are no “greater men”, we’re all sinners in the sight of God (cf. Rom 3:10, 23). Mohammad, in any case, cannot possibly be called a “greater man” by any means because of the gross error he introduced to the world. As I said before, many will be rejected before God because they have rejected His Son and His teachings. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18).
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
Dear Perro, Thanks for noticing my post. Here’s my problem. Our Church leaders have said that Islam is a legitimate religion. (Vatican II Chapter II.16: “…the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Moslems…”) Yet there are obvious errors in the Koran, perhaps the most glaring of which is the denial of our Lord’s Passion and Resurrection. I did not mean to suggest that Mohammed was the spiritual equal of Moses, but there are certain parallels. Moses brought monotheism and the Law to the children of Israel, and he was a military commander. I think that its fair to say that Mohammed did the same for the children of Ishmael. But whereas Moses spoke face to face with the Creator, receiving the Law directly from Him, Mohammed had to make do with the hand-me-downs, the “crumbs from the table,” of Judaism and Christianity. And while Mohammed had direct knowledge of the Law from the Jewish settlements in Arabia, he did not have access to our Lord’s Gospel. Instead he had only some spurious christian teachings together with the “Yeshua” stories from the Talmud. Thus we see the writings about “Isa” in the Koran that are at variance with those in our Christian Gospels.
I must object to referring to Mohammed as a “non-prophet.” I do not believe that he was as great as Moses or Elijah. I do believe that he was a greater man than any of us posting here on this forum. Please, let’s show respect for our brothers in Islam and refrain from insulting the founder of their religion.
Click to expand...
Dear Jeffrey,

God loves ya and so do I. Again, what Byz Wolf is saying (although not catholic) is true.

Your heart is in the right place and some of your facts are good. Catholics are not militant in the temporal things-we are militant in the spiritual things, in our basic catholic things. We don’t get insulted or abused and go out and blow somebody up or chop off their head. We are not militant that way.
The church is correct when it talks about muslims being children of the book or whatever it is that it calls them.

They (muslims) go by the law-however imperfect- and they have not come into the perfection of the law which was revealed by Jesus’ coming. Otherwise there would be no “sharia law” just as the law of "an eye for an eye…etc was perfected by Jesus with the message of love and charity and mercy and compassion.

I know where you think this is going- the Jews- they are God’s chosen people and therein lies the difference. Even though He came to them and His own haven’t recognized Him…they will…in time. Muslims will probably be a different story yet, many will convert when the Warning and the Permanent Miracle comes to pass. Others won’t and they, will become even more entrenched in their rebellion.

I’ll stop here for the risk of rambling on. mangy dog = perro sarnoso
 
Dear Mr. Wolf,
Thank you for replying to my post. You say, “There have been many who died condemned because they embraced the error that Mohammed taught.” I can do no better than to (again) quote what our Church leaders have said: “…the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” Vatican II Chapter II. 16
With all due respect, sir, I think that your problem in understanding Mohammed is that you are not Catholic and, therefore, do not accept the validity of Vatican II. Othewise, how can you say that Islam is a heresy?
You also say, “There are no ‘greater men’…” I would offer you these quotes: “…of all the children born of women, there is no one greater than John…” “When a man has had a great deak given him, a great deal will be demanded of him…”
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
Thank you for replying to my post. You say, “There have been many who died condemned because they embraced the error that Mohammed taught.” I can do no better than to (again) quote what our Church leaders have said: “…the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” Vatican II Chapter II. 16
With all due respect, sir, I think that your problem in understanding Mohammed is that you are not Catholic and, therefore, do not accept the validity of Vatican II. Othewise, how can you say that Islam is a heresy?
You also say, “There are no ‘greater men’…” I would offer you these quotes: “…of all the children born of women, there is no one greater than John…” “When a man has had a great deak given him, a great deal will be demanded of him…”
Click to expand...
Jeffrey;

In regards to Vatican II, you are correct that I reject the authority of Vatican II. I would not change my mind on that matter for the reason that their conclusion contradicts God’s word, which you are pitting Vatican II against. Permit me to explain my earlier point in greater detail, and do so by outlining some of the things your “great man” Mohammad taught:
  • The Trinity is a damnable heresy (S. 5:73) and a lie (S. 5:74)
  • Christ is not divine, and any one who says so, according to the words of the “Jesus” in the Quran, is lying (S. 5:116-117)
  • Christ was merely a prophet (S. 5:75)
  • Christ did not die on the cross (S. 4:157)
All of these are contradicted by scripture, which affirms the Trinity (I can’t list them all, but I have verses which teach the doctrine), affirms the divinity of Christ (Jn 8:58), and the fact that he died on the cross (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30). That Christ did not die on the cross, did not suffer for our sins, and therefore did not pay for the sins of his people, presents in Islam another gospel. That brings us to one of the most powerful passages of scripture:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. [Gal 1:8-9]

Mohammad has come teaching another gospel - if not another Jesus entirely. According to scripture he and all those who follow such a false gospel are anathema, accursed, cut off from believers, etc. However you may translate it, it’s a bad word. Islam, under the condition set by the apostle Paul, falls under this identification. Mohammad brought another gospel. He is accursed.

As for your reference to Christ’s calling John “none greater,” look at the full context:

“This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” [Mt 11:10-15]

Speaking of John the Baptist, Christ reveals that John was the messenger foretold in Malachi 3:1. He then moves on to the statement “among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist.” Why, however, was John called “greater”? Was it because of his personality or holiness? On the contrary, Christ continues on to the next verse, saying that the one who is “least in the kingdom” is “greater” than he - why? Because there is a transition of covenants - John the Baptist was the last of the old covenant prophets, and with the arrival of Christ has come the new covenant and the era of the Messiah. We see this with “all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John”, followed by Christ’s affirmation that John was the Elijah prophesied by Malachi 4:5. No one was greater up until that time because no one else foretold the coming of the Messiah within his own generation - that’s the point Christ is making. That does not contradict the notion that, before God, John was still a sinner who needed a Savior.

Please, my friend, do not dare to compare the status of John the Baptist as the forerunner to Christ with the false prophet Mohammad. John spoke the truth about Christ, while Mohammad has caused millions to stumble and fall into the pit with his theological errors and spiritual lies. Again, I say, be careful how you handle God’s word.
 
Wow, now here’s a blast from the past! It’s great to ‘see’ you, BW. Great responses, too. Carry on, my good man!
 
theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Pl/WrldUN/EU/UK&Sharia2.htm

“Modern Muslim jurists themselves recognise the three great inequalities in the tradition: between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, and between freemen and slaves”
what concerns me is what value did Mohammed add to Christ’s message to love God and to love ones’s neighbour?
-the above quote sums up for me the huge problem with Islam,
I linked to a American Muslim discussion forum from CA and the derogatory way they referred to all non-muslims as ‘kaffirs’ which was NEVER challenged concerned me greatly.
and also claims regarding the nature of the Koran appear to be incorrect

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana’a_manuscript
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
And while Mohammed had direct knowledge of the Law from the Jewish settlements in Arabia, he did not have access to our Lord’s Gospel. Instead he had only some spurious christian teachings together with the “Yeshua” stories from the Talmud. Thus we see the writings about “Isa” in the Koran that are at variance with those in our Christian Gospels.
.
Click to expand...
Sorry you are deeply wrong… according to 11 ancient source from the 7th and 8th century , they speak about muhammad story with his invasion of Palestine , and no mention that he came from mecca and madina … yet islamic sources written in the late 8th and 9th century never mention this fact ! they claim that muhammad death was before the invasion of palestine! so we have no clue of muhammad quran was written in arabia since the Sira was written so late. youtube.com/watch?v=T3YKJ0vEM8k
 
Byzantine Wolf, Welcome Back!!!

Arabic Catholic, yes, this whole idea of Muhammed wanting Jerusalem…it never happened…and at that time, St. Mary Major of Justinian was the prominent site…so you could broadly say that Muhammed ascended up to heaven next to a Catholic Church.
 
peace2u2 said:
Who is the Prophet Mohammed to Christians and Jews? Is he mentioned in Sacred Scripture or in any Jewish writings? If so, where?
Click to expand...
There are many who believe that Genesis story of Hagar and Ishmael refer to the coming of the Prophet Muhammad:

Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: …
.
They were sent to the east in the area proximate to where Muhammad appeared

.
 
Mr. Daler,
Thanks for your informative post. I see Mohammed as the “Moses” of the Ishmalites. Given the pronouncements of Vatican II about the legitimacy of Islam, Christians must learn how to accept Mohammed as a prophet and refrain from the negative innuendo that they are in the habit of using against him. (And paying some attention to the profound teachings of Baha’u’llah wouldn’t hurt either.)
Peace.
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
Mr. Daler,
Thanks for your informative post. I see Mohammed as the “Moses” of the Ishmalites. Given the pronouncements of Vatican II about the legitimacy of Islam, Christians must learn how to accept Mohammed as a prophet and refrain from the negative innuendo that they are in the habit of using against him. (And paying some attention to the profound teachings of Baha’u’llah wouldn’t hurt either.)
Peace.
Click to expand...
Jeffery,
. Thank you for your insight. It would seem that people should be non-judgemental where consideration of the legitimacy of someone who is regarded as a Prophet is concerned, and to remain objective, respectful, and courteous.
. Honestly, I cannot make sense out of how a religion could have developed with a billion and a half followers other than by the hand of God.
. There is far too much of the profound in the verses of the Quran which tends to be overlooked. Some of it is subtle, while some just jumps out at you…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top