Muslims are Christian???

[RJM]

Essentially a Christian is anyone who likes some of the gospel stuff about Jesus but who is entitled also to reject a lot or most of of it – including the crucifixion and resurrection and the entire Gospel of John -- but a Muslim needs to accept 100% veracity of the Quran and Muhammad (PBUH) as the prophet? So a Muslim can be a Christian, but the reverse does not apply?

While this is not intended as argumentative, would it be accurate?

 

[wil]

but a Muslim needs to accept 100% veracity of the Quran

When I was a child the nuns and Sunday school teachers demanded the same of the bible and caused a lifelong rejection of it.

But I believe, like the bible there are various translations and interpretations of tje Qur'an, hence the various sects.

 

[RJM]

When I was a child the nuns and Sunday school teachers demanded the same of the bible and caused a lifelong rejection of it.

But I believe, like the bible there are various translations and interpretations of the Qur'an, hence the various sects.

Ok. But I am talking about just the gospels here @wil?

 

[wil]

Ok. But I am talking about just the gospels here @wil?

Yes, they wanted me to not question any of that either.

 

[RJM]

We have the Jesus of the Gospels, and the Jesus of the Quran -- which imo assumes a basic knowledge of the gospel Jesus. The Quran Jesus is very sketchy, imo. His life is not accounted in near the same detail as the gospel Jesus?

Am just laying this down as fodder for discussion, not laying down the law

 

[RJM]

Yes, they wanted me to not question any of that either.

But you did question anyway.

However unlikely the events and miracles, is it acceptable to take the parts of the gospel Jesus I like, and to discard the rest as 'corrupted' or whatever, because I don't like it?

 

[RJM]

Not you @wil
Not about you

 

[wil]

But you did question anyway.

However unlikely the events and miracles, is it acceptable to take the parts of the gospel Jesus I like, and to discard the rest as 'corrupted' or whatever, because I don't like it?

Yup... I questioned...and my parents were reprimanded and I ended up quitting.

And the second half of that is ABSOLUTELY...take what resonates and argue the rest.

Like amendments to any law or theory.

 

[RJM]

Yup... I questioned...and my parents were reprimanded and I ended up quitting.

And the second half of that is ABSOLUTELY...take what resonates and argue the rest.

Like amendments to any law or theory.

It's endless. So, to be a Muslim it is required to believe in the Quran, and in Muhammad (PBUH) as the prophet -- what is required to 'be a Christian'?

 

[wil]

what is required to 'be a Christian'?

In both cases...depends on who is doing the requiring.

In all religions (I believe) there are literalists and orthodox....and many interpretations beyond those which see things differently.

 

[RJM]

In both cases...depends on who is doing the requiring.

I think for Islam it is required to accept the Quran and the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as inerrant. It is the base level requirement?

 

[Cino]

It's endless. So, to be a Muslim it is required to believe in the Quran, and in Muhammad (PBUH) as the prophet -- what is required to 'be a Christian'?

The Shahada would be a good starting point for Muslim belief, I think.

The Apostle's Creed is likewise something the majority of Christian denominations would accept as a solid foundation?

 

[wil]

The Shahada would be a good starting point for Muslim belief, I think.

The Apostle's Creed is likewise something the majority of Christian denominations would accept as a solid foundation?

I can't speak to the former, but the latter I think might apply to most Catholics.

 

[Cino]

I'd be intetested in @Connect Muslims point of view.

 

[RJM]

I don't know why..
Are you saying that Unitarians aren't refuting the Bible, but I am?

I'm not sure what you mean by that..
Who is refuting the Bible, exactly?

Can someone reject large chunks of the New Testament including the crucifixion and the ressurrection, the Paul letters and the entire gospel of John and still insist they are not refuting the Bible? I'm just trying to understand?

 

[Cino]

Can someone reject large chunks of the New Testament including the crucifixion and the ressurrection, the Paul letters and the entire gospel of John and still insist they are not refuting the Bible? I'm just trying to understand?

Why not? After all, Christian and Jewish interpretation of the prophecies regarding the Messiah are incompatible, each side indicate that the other are ignoring important parts, and both assert that they are completely in line with the scriptures.

 

[RJM]

The gospels say Jesus died on the cross and rose again. They say that. So can I insist that did not happen, yet still insist I am not refuting the gospel accounts?

Not saying anyone has to accept the gospel accounts. It's ok not to. But I'm trying to understand how it's possible to reject them and insist at the same time that I do not refute them?

The gospel of John is one of the four gospels. Can I reject it entirely while insisting I am not refuting the Bible -- the gospels, in this case?

Can you explain?

 

[Thomas]

Yup... I questioned...and my parents were reprimanded and I ended up quitting.

It's a shame you had such a bad teaching experience.

Like amendments to any law or theory.

Well, we shouldn't amend laws or theories according to subjective opinion ... but too often, sadly, we do ...

 

[Thomas]

... I think might apply to most Catholics.

Roman Catholics accept the Apostle's Creed, as do Anglicans and many Protestant denominations – I think Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did, so it's approved by Lutherans, Presbyterians (inc. US Presbyterians), Methodists and others. Southern Baptists accept all the statements of the Creed, but don't officially espouse it.

 

[Thomas]

Why not? After all, Christian and Jewish interpretation of the prophecies regarding the Messiah are incompatible ....

I think that's a crucial distinction – the matter of interpretation, as opposed to outright rejection?

The problem for me with the dismissal of a sacred text as 'fake' or 'corrupted' (when there is no firm evidence to say so), is that all and every sacra doctrina falls by the same token. So anyone who argues 'yours is corrupted, mine is not' is on uncertain terrain, I would have thought.