He means these questions are put in a dismissive tone, as though muslims are fools.
Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Christ, though they differ in the specific details of the story. They treat the BVM with reverence, despite the fact that they don’t believe in Christ’s divinity.
If that is what he meant, I think he was reading a tone that wasn’t present. There was no part of his statement that indicated that those who believed those things were fools. Rather, the statements indicated that the issues are in contention, which they clearly are.
Some Christians are very offended when someone tries to argue about Christs divinity. Its well known how respectful Muslems are of Mohammed, im not saying i am insulted but a devout Muslem may have been by such comments.
Mohammed, inspired by the angel “Gabriel” to speak for Allah, is he who denies Jesus Christ, preaching another “Jesus Christ” who escaped the crucifixion as replaced by Judas, has no divine Sonship with Abba, all in a context of self-salvation by good works that has no need of God’s grace and mercy flowing in and through Jesus Christ and His atonement, no need to obey His law of love.
That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise – Surah 4:157-8 (Yusuf Ali)
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:22,23
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. 1 John 4:2-3
Really? I’ve never met one. Obviously, Christians would disagree or they wouldn’t be Christians. They might disagree vocally and with tremendous passion. They might consider the aruguer to be foolish or undeducated. But why would they be offended? I would say that a neither a devout muslim nor a Christian has any right to be offended by someone else’s beliefs.
I knew a non-practacing muslem (didnt pray five times a day) who was still very touchy on Mohammad.
So you are saying Mohammad is the anti-christ???
He’s self proclaimed and a revisionist. Claimed he was visited by Angel Gabriel. Makes me wonder how much of him that the Church actually bothers to write about him. The CCC recognizes Muslims. No word about their prophet.
I think your right I was just looking through catholic answers for information on the councils I was off by about 100 years:
Hippo and Carthage weren’t actually councils–only regional synods of bishops–and only defined the canon for the Western/Latinate Church. The various Eastern Churches have their own biblical canons.
He was no more a prophet than Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons. Joseph Smith had his " tablets, " so he said and Mohammed had his " vision, " so he said. Hid " saying" were a hodgepodge of heretical Christian and Jewish beliefs. His only proof of his " calling " was his success in battle - and really it wasn’t too hard for an army of armed men to swoop down on unsuspecting, peaceful city dwellers and farmers. His hatred of the Jews was because they refused to believe him and ridiculed him for his beliefs.
And of course it was easy for him to round up a group of blood thirsty men because he divided all the booty amongst them and claimed they would be rewarded by Allah for their depredations.
And I will say no more for obvious reasons.
All self respecting Christians know Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Bible. Lets be serious pre-reformation bibles still exist and the Catholic Church who complied all the books and created the bible can back up the claim of 73 books were divinely inspired.
In 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year. Later Councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) ratified this list of 73 books. In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming this canon of 73 books. In 419 AD, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed this list, which Pope Boniface agreed to. THEN 1100 years LATER The Council of Trent, in 1546, in response to the Reformation removing 7 books from the canon (canon is a Greek word meaning “standard”), reaffirmed the original St. Athanasius list of 73 books.
Initially, Luther kicked out some other New Testament Books as well, including James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation until it created an uproar. What is strange is that Luther eventually accepted all 27 books of the New Testament that the Catholic Pope Damasus I had approved of in 382 AD, but didn’t accept his Old Testament list, preferring instead to agree with the Jews who lived 90 AD or 60 years after Chirst died.
Why… oh why… did a thread about Mohamad turn into this??
The topic please
Who is the Prophet Mohammed?
Some Muslims believe that he is the promised spirit in John 14 and the ‘prophet’ in Deuteronomy. That’s why he is the last prophet.
Hi Martin. I don’t know if it was a branch but there are Muslim posters in CAF who made this argument. Their point is that Mohammad was being promised in the Bible.
Trying to understand what they were getting at, they may have good point there. The Bible is corrupt insofar it deviates from the Quran but still contains the truth where it agrees with it.
One cannot argue against this unless one says that the Quran is not God’s words or that Mohammad is not a prophet. They are consistent in saying that the Bible was corrupted at some point and therefore the Quran is only God’s word that is still intact and being preserved not just in writing but through memory. They would take great pleasure in telling you that many Muslims are able to memorize the whole Quran so that it will not be corrupted even if someone tries to do that in writing.
Another strong point for them on this is that, the only fullness of the Quran message is in Arabic while the rest are merely translations which are not equivalent to the Arabic script which is word of God recorded verbatim.