What a pile of crap

Eglinton

It's no wonder the two religions can't agree with crap like this goin around. I thought Mohammed was around in the 5th or 6th century? And those bible stories were written long before that.

http://www.bibleheadquarters.org/JesusandMohammed.html

Smiegel

Surely we must call Mohammed for what he is. If he is opposing the teachings of Jesus then that is what he opposes.

Scofflaw

Actually, Mohammed respected Jesus as a teacher, and he is considered to have the status of a Prophet within Islam (much like Moses).


regards,
Scofflaw

Call_Me,Stan

Respecting to very different to believing. If Mohammed started his faith in the 5th or 6th century, he could hardly ignore the rapidly growing faith of Christianity.

Scofflaw

Call_Me,Stan wrote:

Respecting to very different to believing. If Mohammed started his faith in the 5th or 6th century, he could hardly ignore the rapidly growing faith of Christianity.

...and he didn't, like I just said. He just didn't regard Jesus as being the final word. Also, 7th century.


regards,
Scofflaw

bmoferrall

>> Actually, Mohammed respected Jesus as a teacher, and he is considered to have the status of a Prophet within Islam (much like Moses).
>> Respecting is very different to believing. If Mohammed started his faith in the 5th or 6th century, he could hardly ignore the rapidly growing faith of Christianity.

How disarming of Islam to bestow such an unexpected honour on Jesus; no doubt He would be puffed up with pride at the good news! Of course, it implicitly characterises him as either a liar or a deluded madman; He would happily gloss over minor technicalities, though, in exchange for such recognition!
Referring to Jesus as a prophet, when neither He, nor any of the apostles, claimed any such thing, is frankly patronising. Referring to him as merely a great teacher is also a mischaracterisation, and equally patronising.

Anyway, this topic was thrashed out to good effect here.

Scofflaw

bmoferrall wrote:

How disarming of Islam to bestow such an unexpected honour on Jesus; no doubt He would be puffed up with pride at the good news! Of course, it implicitly characterises him as either a liar or a deluded madman; He would happily gloss over minor technicalities, though, in exchange for such recognition!
Referring to Jesus as a prophet, when neither He, nor any of the apostles, claimed any such thing, is frankly patronising. Referring to him as merely a great teacher is also a mischaracterisation, and equally patronising.

Not normally how one characterises Prophets. From this article:

"Were the Muslims on the panel trying to placate the viewers out policy, deceit or diplomacy? Nothing of the kind! They were only articulating what God Almighty had commanded them to say in the Holy Quran. As Muslims, they had no choice. They had said in so many words: "We Muslims believe, that Jesus was one of the mightiest messengers of God, that he was the Christ, that he was born miraculously without any male intervention (which many modern-day Christians do not believe today), that he gave life to the dead by God's permission and that he healed those born blind and the lepers by god's permission. In fact, no Muslim is a Muslim if he or she does not believe in Jesus!"

Quite a bit more respect than is accorded Mohammed by Christians. You'll note, by the way, that they believe that they believe in the same God as Christians and Jews, who are characterised as People of the Book.


regards,
Scofflaw