What is the Christian perspective of Muhammed (pbuh)?

[dailogue is the best]

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

 

[dailogue is the best]

Pico, I understand what you are saying, but remember that all people do not experience death and loss as you might.

I miss the people and pets I have lost to death, but I also feel joy at their liberation. I miss their physical form, but I still feel connected to their spirits.

For many people, death is transformative but is not tied to loss, and need not be rife with sorrow or bad emotions.

Missing people, whether they are temporarily or permanently gone from one's presence, is a sign of love. It is another form of love, and personally I find that the more I draw close to God, the more I can recognize it as such. And I can feel connected to them and their ongoing love through my love of God and God's love for me. They are with God in the afterlife, and I am with God in this life, and so in a way we remain together always.

I miss them sometimes, but then, I also miss my family that live in other states and I don't see very often. The feeling is not too different when I am properly focused on God- both are recognized, but given to God and so eased from me.

Consider that death may be more difficult for some people than it is for others, that people can reach a place where they can see the transformation of people into the afterlife as a beautiful thing. As Mother Theresa has said, when a person loves and has received love, and has forgiven and been forgiven, they can "die a most beautiful death."

I see no point in pining over what could have been, what might have been, if death did not occur. Rather, I see death for what now can be-- a homecoming. It is the path that leads us back to God, and it indeed can be a beautiful path, filled with gifts to the dying and to those who surround the dying. In working with dying people, I have seen people reunite with the saints, the angels and Christ. I have seen them reunite with their parents, their friends, their pets, their spouses and children. And I have seen them go from an ordinary human being to an extraordinary spirit. Their body ends, but their soul is radiant with life.

Whether God created death or not, it has been since shortly after the beginning and it will continue until the final transformation of life itself. God allows death. And I have seen God make it sublimely beautiful, when I am open to looking at it without clinging to my own selfish desire- that the physical form of this person be with me always. When I give up my own desire and simply love the person who is going to God, and trust God for comfort, I find it is tranformative for me as well. And there is joy and peace in my heart as I see the person go to be with God.

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

 

[Saltmeister]

Hello,Saltmeister,

Actually, if God had let the Jews crucify Jesus(which didnt take place according to the Islamic perspective), I would not see that as God's betrayal to Jesus.I will see that crucifixion as a honour and martyrdom for God's cause.

we believe that some prophtes were killed, and that of no shame either to them or to God....on the contrary, It embodies the total and sincere devotion to one's beliefs, that recieves nothing in return,but admiration and respect......

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.

 

[bananabrain]

a person who gave his life in response to injustices caused by religious dogma in the Jewish culture of that time.

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.

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.

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

 

[Saltmeister]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ahanu]

Deedat and Josephus

3. Josephus, a Jewish historian, records in his book of "Antiquities" about "crucifixions" in which he intervened and as a result the "crucified" men were lowered from their crosses. One survived! What had happened to him on the cross? was he crucified? The one who did not die by crucifixion, but an attempt was made to crucify him. Was he crucified? One verb . . . ?

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

Also, survival of crucifixion was not unknown, according to the ancient historian Flavius Josephus in 'The Life of Flavius Josephus' (Vita), Section 75:

"I was sent by Titus Caesar with Ceralius and a thousand riders to a certain town by the name of Thecoa, to find out whether a camp could be set up at this place. On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the order that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended to by the doctor; the third recovered." (Flavius Josephus).

Resurrection of Jesus: Encyclopedia - Resurrection of Jesus

 

[bananabrain]

Re: Deedat and Josephus

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.

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

 

[Ahanu]

Re: The traditional Muslim interpretation of Surah 4:157

Hello, brother Ahanu,

I m so pleased to exchange views with you...you are motivating me to know more about the topic....thanks, brother.

Of course, brother, you are free in your beliefs if you believe that Jesus died on the cross....

As a Muslim, I dont believe in that because I believe in the Quran...

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.

In summary, it is noted that the above-mentioned passages from the Qur’an, and the commentaries that followed, leave room for the possibility that Jesus did in fact die.

59 Pointedly, throughout the hundreds of years there never has been one single “correct” or well-established view as to what actually took place. Arguably, the difficult passage (4:157) can be interpreted in light of the other three that are easier to manage. Again, the encouraging thing is that Muslims and Christians have things to discuss on this issue as well.​

 

[Pico]

you have to know that the reliable source for that for any Muslim is the Quran( which is, by the way, God's Words, and not Muhammed. Muhammed is just a messanger. If you want to discuss with a Muslim, you have to discuss on this basis): "....but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for a surety they killed him not(4:157)"

That sounds like like deceit to me.

 

[dailogue is the best]

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.

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

 

[islamis4u]

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!!!

 

[dailogue is the best]

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!!!

Thank you, brother, for the compliment....Actually, I m doing nothing , but explaining what I believe in....

 

[cyberpi]

That sounds like like deceit to me.

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.

 

[Quahom1]

Hello, brother Pico,

you know what? I feel that there is a rope between us, each one of us holds to the different edges of it...sometimes, you pull the rope towards you, and sometimes, I do.. Each one of us says "this what I think", the other repeats "and this is what I think" .....

you know, brother, you are a person of strong belief as I feel, and I m happy for that.....belief gives us power to continue and hold on...belief is the rockstone that we rely on to feel secure and safe.....belief is the map, the guideway, the lamb towards the truth......

I have made my image about you: brother Pico is a deep, devout, and comitted Christian believer who believes in the Original Sin,Trinity, Jesus's crucifixion, salvation....., and who sees death as a punishment....He believes that Adam and Eve are created in the picture of God........and he sincerly defends what he believes in....that are the characteristics of a good believer....

I, too, believe in Christianity and Jesus(peace be upon him),but I differ with a lot of ideas that you believe in.....however, difference is of no harm....difference was,is and it will always be till we meet God. God says:"....To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Oplen Way.If God had so willed, he would have made you a single people, but (His Plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute (5:48)"....

I think, brother, that now you have gained an idea about how Muslims regard life, death, man's creation, the trinity, Jesus's crucifixion, salvation, and of course, there are still many things that desrve to be known.....I want to say that by knowing that, you are in fact paving the way, and building a bridge towards good dialogue and communication with Muslims....

Me, in turn, I dont deny that I have learned so much from you all,brethren, and I m happy with this knowledge as it makes me to feel you, and to establish that thin line with you that can make distances between us shorter and shorter.....It's all in understanding, despite difference.......

peace life, brother
sis, DB

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.

 

[Quahom1]

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.

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".

 

[Pico]

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.

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.

 

[islamis4u]

I don't just know to conclude look did Jesus (PBUH) Claimed to be God?

 

[Pico]

I don't just know to conclude look did Jesus (PBUH) Claimed to be God?

He sure did.

7Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

 

[Netti-Netti]

He sure did.

.... calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. [/quote]
Errr, calling G-d one's Father is making oneself equal with God?

whatever the Father does the Son also does.

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.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Howdy Cyberpi,

Who says Jesus EVER died?

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."​

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

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.​

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

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

Your conclusion does not follow from the text you cite.

Who says he was killed?

John 19:30

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