What is the Christian perspective of Muhammed (pbuh)?

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by dailogue is the best, Jan 25, 2008.

  1. dailogue is the best

    dailogue is the best New member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hello again , brother Pico,

    you asked me about Witness Lee's quote..Yes, here it is my view:

    Witness is trying to explain the philosophy behind salvation through using the justice and righteousnes terms.....

    Actually, the example he gives cant be apllied on Islam's view...as I v written earlier, God gives us a chance to repent, and redeem for our wrong actions....He doesnt forgive us without repentence.....and if we repent, and He doesnt repent us, we cant then talk about loving, just God. Can we, Pico?

    Furthermore, what's righteousness in your opinion? I think the example Witnees Lee gives is contradictary what he himself said about justice and righteousness. The idea of salvation in my opinion,and I ask for your excuse to say it, reflects neither justice nor righteousness...Are you asking:why? let me give you a simple example, brother? Imagine that someone has done to you a lot of harm, and kill some of your family members, will you punish him by killing one of your sons, or by killing your unique son(if you have only one son)?will you? where is righteousness in that? where is justice in that? where is love in that?....

    God accepted Adam and Eve's repentence for their sin, He forgave them.....their sin presented them alone....We havent to pay for their sin.....we are created to be tested, and the winner is the one who strives for God's pleasure with all his/her efforts...death is a door to meeting God and eternal living with Him...a gateway towards eternel hell or happiness....we are responsible for our salvation through our deeds.God says:" that was a People that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! of their merits there is no question in your case (55:134)"....dont you see that is just and righteous, brother???..

    best wishes,
    sis, DB
     
  2. dailogue is the best

    dailogue is the best New member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    1

    Hello, sister Path of One,

    I really enjoy reading your post. Your words and ideas are really touching and impressive. It 's been a great joy to me to feel your heart.....

    cordially,
    sis, DB
     
  3. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello, DitB.

    I hope that explanation was useful. In much the same way as Muslims see Mohammed as the Seal of the Prophets, you could think of Jesus as the Seal of the Martyrs. There have been many martyrs in history dying for an honourable and noble cause. Just like for Jesus, I wouldn't be surprised if people developed customs for the purpose of remembering them. They might even turn these guys into legends. Many of these didn't have anything to do with Judaism. Jesus' martyrdom wasn't a generic or universal one, he's simply immortalised as a person who gave his life in response to injustices caused by religious dogma in the Jewish culture of that time. He is to be evaluated in the context of Judaism, just like you evaluate other martyrs in the context of the cultures in which they lived and died.

    Because Jesus' followers believed Jesus' life was ordained by God, they developed a written tradition to immortalise and preserve the memory of him.
     
  4. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    ahem - this is hardly a fair evaluation, considering that jewish documentation of the "religious dogma" in question does not concur with early christian propaganda about judaism. jesus was not a martyr for his position on judaism(remember, not wanting to change a "jot or a tittle" of the Law?) but a martyr *of* quietist jewish resistance to the murderous fascism of rome. the injustices ultimately must be laid at the door of the romans, not of judaism.

    quite - and the work of geza vermes is most instructive in this respect, as is a familiarity with the rather better-documented and more reliable jewish contemporary sources, rather than tendentious christian sources written many years later by people who weren't actually there and weren't familiar with this jewish context.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  5. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello and greetings, bananabrain.

    In explaining my perspective of Jesus' role in the story of Christianity, and in doing my best to capture the full meaning of the Jesus of Christianity, I was aware I might potentially have caused some misunderstanding. I presented the best description I had in mind. Most importantly, this isn't a "swipe" at Judaism. I see an opportunity now to explain how I see the phenomenon afflicting Judaism at the time affects Christianity and Islam today.

    Instead of "Judaism" I said "Jewish culture" and the "religious dogma" of the time. What often makes a religious practice oppressive is not the religion itself, but the dogma that people extrapolate from it. I don't hold the belief that Jesus ever wanted to change or replace Judaism, but I believe he was concerned with how people approached it. Judaism wasn't the problem. It was how people approached it.

    I actually see "Judaism" as a placeholder in the story of the Jesus of Christianity, with which you could substitute "Christianity" and "Islam." The story of the Jesus of Christianity can be seen as rather like a paradigm that transcends cultures of different times and places. In much the same way that many of the people of the time would have been persecuted and oppressed by certain kinds of religious dogma, you see this happening today with Christianity. The kind of persecution depicted in the NT could be compared with the present-day fundamentalist Christians in the U.S., ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel and the Islamic hardliners in Iran.

    In his trial by the religious leaders, Jesus accuses them of serving an establishment that historically, "killed the prophets." This is actually much like what happened with the medieval Christian churches killing and burning witches, Jews, Muslims and supposed heretics. In the present day, we see fundamentalist Christians charging into abortion clinics and killing staff and beating up homosexuals. So Christianity has its own share of "the killing of the prophets."

    Look at it this way. If Jesus was living with us today, throwing criticism at churches, we'd probably have him tied to an electric chair, declared a criminal and convicted of felony. Then we'd give him capital punishment. Who knows? It's probably already happened. We've probably already been shamed and don't know it.

    Ironically, a religion that tells a story of how people can be oppressed and persecuted by religious dogma, has itself, ideologically at least, been used to oppress and persecute people. But it's not the religion. It's what people have done with it. Judaism stands for holiness and justice, but that doesn't mean that their religious leaders are always holy and just in their conduct. The Old Testament/Tanakh told a story about how their leaders were often unholy and unjust. Islam stands for peace and virtue, but their followers haven't always been peaceful or virtuous.

    I'm thinking that maybe it isn't essential, at all, to see the references to Judaism in the NT as absolute references to Judaism. The references are there to show how religious dogma can persecute and oppress, they are not meant to sure how Judaism is bad. The same depiction given to the Judaism of that time can actually be re-substituted for the Christianity of today and over the last 20 centuries. The reference to Judaism isn't essential. The real issue is how Judaism has been used to convey a principle: how religious dogma can persecute and oppress. It is about how any religion proclaiming holiness, justice and virtue has a dark side. That dark side is where people proclaiming holiness, justice and virtue can become arrogant by thinking that they really do possess holiness, justice and virtue, and tread on people's toes while they do it.

    When I was talking about "evaluating him in the context of Judaism," what I actually meant was taking into consideration the struggles of a religion with the negative consequences of a particular kind of dogma, and a particular approach to the faith.

    With regards to the specific practices of Judaism, I don't think that's too much of an issue as Jesus had no intention of changing or replacing Judaism. The truth of what Jesus really said and did is hard to get. Jewish contemporary sources and the NT are two different perspectives, each offering their own incomplete picture. Each expresses their own respective perceptions, with an agenda to contemplate the future of two different causes. The NT has the advantage of being written by people with closer, personal knowledge (emotional value) of Jesus' agenda. Jewish contemporary sources wouldn't have known Jesus' personal agenda that well. (Jesus wasn't their employee or servant, of course) The best they could do was record and observe. But they would offer factual information that could be used to deal with possible Christian misconceptions of Jesus.
     
  6. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    191
    Deedat and Josephus

    I found what Deedat was looking at. I believe this will answer his question. If I am overlooking something, let me know.

    CRUCIFIXION OR CRUCI-FICTION --- By Ahmed Deedat

    Resurrection of Jesus: Encyclopedia - Resurrection of Jesus
     
  7. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    Re: Deedat and Josephus

    that's as may be, but my point was actually that documentation of *how people approached it* is far more reliable from jewish sources than the gospels. in short, if you want to know how people approached it, look at the mishnah for a start. the picture of jewish practice that emerges from it is unrecognisable when compared to that of the gospels.

    as for josephus, he's quite interesting, but is untrustworthy as a witness, particularly when it comes to sucking up to the romans - the passage above being a case in point; he was hardly going to criticise titus, who was, effectively his sodding line manager!

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  8. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    191
    Re: The traditional Muslim interpretation of Surah 4:157

    http://www.ciu.edu/seminary/resources/articles/missions/larson-Jesus-in-islam.pdf

    Hey DB, read pages 11-15. It is fairly short, but as has already been mentioned, there "never has been one single" interpretation of these verses in the Koran.

     
  9. Pico

    Pico New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
    That sounds like like deceit to me.
     
  10. dailogue is the best

    dailogue is the best New member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    1
    Re: The traditional Muslim interpretation of Surah 4:157


    Salam Ahanu,

    I see that the author has ignored many important Quranic verses in his trying to support Jesus's death on the cross. What I would like to attract your attention to is that when the Quran talks about Jesus's death, it doesnt talk about his death on the cross. He died a long time after the crucifixion accident. I dont know on what basis do you relate Jesus's death to his death on the cross.

    Look at the following Quranic verses:

    "Behold! the angels said: " O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God 46 "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. and he shall be of the company of the righteous.(3:45-46)

    The Arabic word of "in maturity" is "kahlan", and the right translation of "kahl" is an old man. you can check that by yourself..

    Jesus is believed to be crucified at the age of 30 or near that age. So, he wasnt "an old man"..

    The fact that the Quran talks about Jesus death, it is not at all contradictory to the Quran denial of Jesus crucifixion. Jesus died after the crucifixion accident. We find in the Quran Jesus talking about his death:" So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"(19:33)

    To sum up, those who support Jesus's death on the cross will find that the Quran dont support their claim. The Quran clearly declares that Jesus wasnt crucified,and not killed. Also, it doesnt deny that Jesus died (but nobody knows when, but for surely after the crucifixion accident as the Quran states he wasnt crucified).

    salamo alaykom
     
  11. islamis4u

    islamis4u Vision To Spread Islam

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    DB has done wonderfully well in replying to the posts and she is very much clear also i would say, its much easy and precise to understand!!!
     
  12. dailogue is the best

    dailogue is the best New member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thank you, brother, for the compliment....Actually, I m doing nothing , but explaining what I believe in....
     
  13. cyberpi

    cyberpi Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who says Jesus EVER died? Who says he was killed?

    John 11:26 (Jesus) "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall NEVER die. Believest thou this?"

    John 5:24 (Jesus) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

    It sounds to me like Jesus never did, and never will die. Apparently, neither have some others:

    Matthew 22:31-32 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

    So any wording that says Jesus died seems a bit... misguided.
     
  14. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    This has got to be the most reasonable and rational expression of thought that I've read in a long time between Muslim and Christian.
     
  15. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Except Jesus himself declared he would be put to death, and then he would defeat death. Indeed, he turned to the Sanhedrin after rousting the merchants out of the temple, and said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will rebuild it." Of course they didn't understand him for they declared "It took 50 years to build this temple, and you will rebuild it in three days?" Then Jesus shook his head in sadness, because they did not comprehend the significance of his declaration; that he meant his body was the temple. Their minds were clouded by rationalization, literalization and "stark reason".
     
  16. Pico

    Pico New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry but you have taken these phrases out of context. If you read the crucifixion accounts it's obvious that Jesus died. Then he conquered death in order to life to give eternal life to all. Thats the part you're missing.
     
  17. islamis4u

    islamis4u Vision To Spread Islam

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't just know to conclude look did Jesus (PBUH) Claimed to be God?
     
  18. Pico

    Pico New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
    He sure did.

     
  19. Netti-Netti

    Netti-Netti New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    .... calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. [/quote]
    Errr, calling G-d one's Father is making oneself equal with God?


    Performing the same kind of action makes two persons the same?

    You and I are both sitting at the computer running spell checks on our respective narratives - using the same spell checker even. Are we the same person simply by virtue of the fact that we are doing the same thing?

    I don't think Jesus was a pantheist.
     
  20. Netti-Netti

    Netti-Netti New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Howdy Cyberpi,


    The subject in the above passage is not Jesus; it is referrring to believers,


    The above passage does not refer to Jesus; it refers to G-d.


    Your conclusion does not follow from the text you cite.


    John 19:30

    After receiving the vinegar, he said, It is finished:
    and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
     

Share This Page