« Inclusive, Safe, and Welcoming to All? | Main | Do We Need God in Order to Explain Morality? »

April 05, 2014

Comments

Umm, No.

Jesus said "if you love Me, keep my commandments".

They do neither.

Good article. Well written. Thanks!

Jesus did ask, "Who do people say who I am?"

Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, Son of the living God." (Mt. 16: 16)

Would Muslims hold to this description of Jesus, one which He approved?

What did Jesus really said? -
www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/comparative/jesus_message.htm

www.media.isnet.org/off/Islam/JesusSay/
The Story of Maryam ( the Virgin Mary) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCB4YYiFPHA

The concept of God in Islam - www.islamhouse.com/p/49602
& also http://www.sultan.org/articles/god.html

"The Passion of Jesus" by Abdur Rahim Green (Full Version)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3mFr4ScDhU

DVD 31 Jesus Christ (Pbuh) in Christianity and Islam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAzi_HrUsG8

Christian Scholar says Jesus Was not a Christian but a Muslim who did ISLAM-TheDeenshow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZn75fGpuOA

The Truth About Jesus Christ by Abdur-Raheem Green
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIPhUY8kIBo

"The Mother of Jesus Christ - Mary" - Abdurraheem Green
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLJbgdQxLkQ

Hi john david, your links prove the point in the OP, namely that Islamists deny who Jesus Is, they deny the teaching of the Qur'an on a pretext that cannot sustain scrutiny. Alan mentions this problem, above.

The point though, is that the idea of the Christian Bible being corrupted and thus unreliable for true Christian doctrine is relatively recent, and even at the time when it was conceived as an idea, the manuscript evidence was available to prove the Islamic view false. Point being, Jesus is called a prophet, the Islamic notion of prophet includes infalability which early Islamists dont deny.

Islamists seem to gladly offer prophet status to Jesus, though it cannot be denied that He was killed by the Jews for claiming to be THE Son of God and manuscripts of Him[Jesus] making the claim are all over texts extant prior to Muhommad. Islam is incoherent as a worldview since it disregards it's own clear testimony AND what it claims as testimony.

Abdur waxes long slaying the Muslim characature of the Christian view of Jesus in the "Mother of Jesus" u-tube video you listed. He thus makes the point well for us that Islamists do not know Jesus so cannot love Him.

john david,

Your impressive array of sites and videos only affirm the point made in the post. The teaching of imams have a parity with many cultic treatments of Jesus. Put off by Jesus' humanity, Jesus' divinity, Jesus' ministry, Jesus' purpose, many have proposed a Jesus much to there liking.

A solution: I draw it from a point made by Glenn Pearson in his book That's a Great Question. He mentioned that in the case of Jesus, people approach Him with an array of "filters." They must see the man on the basis of preconceived notions. Remove the filters and ponder Jesus as presented in New Testament Scriptures. These were drawn up within the generation that Jesus lived. Then accept or reject the proposal of Jesus as presented in the Gospels. This would be intellectually honest. You will at least have met the question of Jesus as Son of God, Redeemer of the world.

I bid you well.

Given that ancient sources (Jewish and pagan)confirm what the Bible says about Jesus being crucified, the Qur'an is simply wrong when it says he wasn't.

Much like the Mormons, Muslims give lip service to somebody they call Jesus, but he isn't the Jesus of the Bible.

Very interesting article. I would like to point out that the comment "Mormons might claim to love Jesus, they believe he is a god, but not the God" is not completely accurate. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament. Where they differ from other faiths is that they believe that God the Father and God the Son are in fact two separate beings, yet one in purpose. This theological argument about the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is not new. In fact up until the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 this was a huge point of contention in the Christian church. During this council lots were cast to decide the doctrine that the church would embrace to keep the church from splitting apart. The Father, Son, Holy Ghost as one being was the only Christian doctrine for over 1,000 years following the council. If the scriptures are read with no pre-conceived notions of what is right and wrong you can easily build an argument either way.

Jeff, you're incorrect about what happened at Nicaea. You can read about it here.

The Council was called because Arius was stirring up trouble against the orthodox position that Jesus was not a created being. The point here is that Arius started the trouble. He didn't represent an ongoing tradition that had existed amongst Christians up until that time.

The creed was formulated to officially and specifically exclude Arius's position from orthodoxy because his new position wasn't considered to be biblical. Only three (including Arius) wouldn't accept the creed. The reason why the Council overwhelmingly supported the orthodox position was that you can't easily build an argument either way.

Of those who believed that Jesus was not a created being, the disagreement was over which word to use that would preserve the idea that there are three persons in the one God and exclude those who said Jesus was created.

If by "casting lots" you mean they left it up to a throw of the dice (so to speak), that's not what happened.

The comments to this entry are closed.