Ok I understand your point that, but if Muhammad is the return of all prophets then he is in essence the return of "the why, the truth, and the life". As well as the savior to humankind.
I see no contradiction here.
That really depends on what you consider to be "The Way, the Truth and the Life." My impression of Islam is that it has a lot to do with structuring and organising life and society.
However, I consider "the Way, the Truth and the Life" to be something personal that is independent of structure. Christianity doesn't insist on us aligning ourselves to structures. "The Way, the Truth and the Life" may be seen as something personal. Moreover, since Jesus was a human being, this more easily conveys the concept of something personal. It's to do with compatibility. We are human beings, and so was Jesus.
But how does Jesus lead us to God when no other human being was able to do that? Moreover, why use a human being as a concept to lead us to God? Why not Islam?
I think it's to do with what he lived for and believed in. In Jesus' time, many religious leaders taught that you had to follow rules to be accepted by God. So Jesus allowed himself to be killed so that the moral authority of these systems of rules would be annulled. That also allowed God to establish the moral high ground. God's Law wasn't dependent on rules, but a personal relationship with a human being.
Before Jesus' death, human beings could make their own rules, and use them to judge each other. God essentially didn't have any authority to judge anyone, as human beings could make their own rules.
God sending Jesus to die like that was a way of saying to us human beings, "I am God, I don't need your useless rules. I can deal Justice without your rules." So Jesus' death was a way of liberating us from man-made rules.
Jesus didn't take credit for his actions, though. It was God who took credit. God was making a declaration about Himself. In that sense, God was somehow communicating Himself through Jesus. Jesus' life was God expressing Himself. That's why Jesus didn't kill himself straight away. He needed to make connections with people -- with human beings. People needed to get to know him. His actions, his life, his teachings, were really God expressing Himself.
But still, what about the nagging question, why not Islam? Why can't Islam capture the meaning of the Way, the Truth and the Life? Why do we need a human being to represent the Way, the Truth and the Life (WTL)? Sounds like a tempting argument, but consider what would happen if we said Jesus wasn't the WTL. That is, we'd be saying WTL didn't involve a human being. Human beings are sentient beings. Therefore, a WTL concept that involves a human being embodies something personal and sentimental.
While that still doesn't necessarily rule out Islam, I think it's important to notice the way Islam is practiced and expressed. The Five Daily prayers, and the Five Pillars are a way of structuring life and society. You may consider one's alignment to this structured approach to spirituality as a measure of how much one deserves to be considered one of God's people.
That idea isn't necessarily wrong, but it may be out of line with what Jesus meant when he said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life."
Appreciating the idea that Jesus was the WTL requires that one understand what Jesus, taught, lived for and personally believed. Jesus discouraged an over-emphasis on rules. Therefore, the WTL involved an understanding that over-devotion to rules didn't necessarily lead to understanding of God, that it was a personal relationship with God that mattered. Jesus saying, "I am the WTL" was like saying, "you cannot be led to God unless you focus on and pursue something personal." The idea then, was, "understand yourself and you will understand God." Understanding God means we understand right and wrong and what's important in life. That allows us to know what to do and when. That's what wisdom is -- know what to do.
Were Mohammed's teachings compatible with this idea? Well, the Five Pillars and Five Daily Prayers might not be a good way of expressing the WTL. Furthermore, Mohammed seemed to have introduced dozens of rules. While the rules may be seen as "personal" in particular contexts, Mohammed didn't exactly reinforce the idea of the Way, the Truth and the Life as depicted in the New Testament.
The way Islam was propagated in the first century suggests an emphasis on "organisation" and "structure." Articles I've read, written by proponents of Islam about Islam's role in the seventh century seem to promote the idea that "organisation" and "structure" was the strength of Islam, as well as the defining aspect of its "holiness" and "purity." The underlying objective of Islam seems to have been to achieve "purity" through structure and organisation.
The "Jesus" depicted, and the WTL concept depicted in the New Testament says very little about structure as the defining aspect of the Way, the Truth and the Life. Moreover, early Christianity didn't put an emphasis on structure. A structured approach to life, an organisation of the community was not the defining aspect of Christianity. The books in the New Testament, written by Paul, Peter, James and John don't seem to say much on how "community" should be organised.
Will a community without structure or organisation necessarily fall apart? Maybe not. If human beings are sentient beings, then sentimental thinking may be the key to knowing what's good for you. So maybe it's not rules that guide a community and its individuals, but your own, personal feelings. So sentiment may guide people. Christianity seems to put more of an emphasis on sentiment, feelings and attitudes -- your own personality. Jesus could well have been saying, when he said he was the WTL, to "be sentimental and personal."
Ephesians 4:31 says we should "get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice." The idea was that bad attitudes resulted in bad behaviour. Good attitudes resulted in good behaviour. The solution was simple, adopt good attitudes. Change the way you think. Attitudes had an influence on society without imposing any structure on it. They were part of the environment and set the conditions of life. They were the purest form of vice and virture in society. So rules, structure, organisation or lack of it, were not always what affected how well people behaved.
Rules may be "personal" in a sense, but if rules are essential and necessary, you'd be saying that rules are
stronger than human sentiment. That's not the same as saying that when people have the right sentiment, they don't need to follow rules or pursue a structured approach to life.
My impression of "the Way, the Truth and the Life" is that it isn't the same in Christianity as in Islam.
