Christians what makes you not accept Islam?

[Thanda]

A priest is still not a prophet....
And I didn't say that he was just a king, I said he was a king.

Okay so this man who was a king of righteousness, whose city was named Salem because he brought peace there and who was greater than Abraham and was able to bless Abraham somehow failed to qualify as a prophet?

Please tell me these qualities a man must possess in order to qualify as a prophet which Melchisedec did not have.

 

[Thana]

Okay so this man who was a king of righteousness, whose city was named Salem because he brought peace there and who was greater than Abraham and was able to bless Abraham somehow failed to qualify as a prophet?

Please tell me these qualities a man must possess in order to qualify as a prophet which Melchisedec did not have.

Do I really need to define to you the meaning of the word Prophet, Or can you look it up for yourself?

 

[Desert Snake]

Yet NT contradicts OT!! Lmao

How can NT and OT be from God when it contradicts each other

It's a continuation Covenant. some of the rules were changed.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

It's a continuation Covenant. some of the rules were changed.

The same can be said with Quran and Bible. Rules are changed but message is the same

 

[Katzpur]

Do I really need to define to you the meaning of the word Prophet, Or can you look it up for yourself?

"Prophet" is one word that means different things to different people. I think that's something we all need to acknowledge. In this case, "looking it up" probably wouldn't be particularly useful.

 

[leibowde84]

Very few serious and respected scholars doubt the historical reality of Jesus. Few also doubt his crucifixion. What is in doubt is all the other things Jesus is claimed to have said and done. And one of the main reasons for that is that we in the modern age are generally very sceptical of the supernatural.

Secondly, the abundance of literature about Jesus, even if contradictory, serves to prove the historical fact of Jesus rather than disprove it. 1000 years from now people will read a lot of contradictory information about the 9/11 attacks (in even now that is the case). Will the contradictory stories make the fact that it happened less credible?

The fact that at least 29 people wrote their version of Jesus to me appears to prove beyond doubt that Jesus existed.

Secondly what does Jesus writing have to do with us knowing what he said and did? Even today most politicians don't write what they say. In fact, very few people in general write what they say. Most records of what people say are written by journalists after the event. So saying we can't know what Jesus said because he didn't write anything is using a standard so high we would not even be able to believe what people today are reported to have said.

Unless we have a record of them actually using specific speech, then we should be skeptical. That's a good thing. And I too believe that Jesus was a real person, an apocalyptic preacher, but had a divinity in what he taught. These teachings undoubtedly changed the world in a profound way. I am just pointing out the foolishness with assuming that we actually know what he said. It is based on faith in a large way. We don't have the facts, so there is sufficient reasoning to be prudent and realistic about the historical figure of Jesus.

 

[Thana]

"Prophet" is one word that means different things to different people. I think that's something we all need to acknowledge. In this case, "looking it up" probably wouldn't be particularly useful.

"a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration"

Seems to sum it up, imo.

Can't think of any other meaning for the word. Do you regard Joseph Smith as something other than what the definition I provided says?

 

[Pastek]

I mean, Mohammad wasn't even Jewish for goodness sake....

Like many other prophets : Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Lot ....

 

[Thana]

Like many other prophets : Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Lot ....

How can that be your argument when you know the reason they weren't Jewish was because Judaism didn't exist for them.

 

[Katzpur]

Islam is supremacist in that it sees itself as THE religion of god, verified in the Qur'an. It sees itself as the only true religion and because god is on their side, it will eventually replace all other religions. One cannot, for example, believe in both the Christian narrative about Jesus AND the Islamic narrative about Jesus. The two views do not sync. Islam seeks to correct the mistaken notions in Christianity about Jesus thereby replacing a significant chunk of Christian theology.

I agree with you to some extent, but I also disagree. Several denominations within Christianity believe that they alone have the whole truth and that other denominations are lacking in some way. I really don't see anything wrong with that attitude per se. It's the means by which Islam sometimes attempts to "replace all other religions" that I see as problematic.

 

[Katzpur]

"a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration"

Seems to sum it up, imo.

Yes, it "seems to," alright and yet there are nuances that seem to cause a lot of disagreement. For instance, does a prophet "speak for God" every time he opens his mouth to talk? Personally, I think not.

Can't think of any other meaning for the word. Do you regard Joseph Smith as something other than what the definition I provided says?

Yes.

 

[Thanda]

It is based on faith in a large way. We don't have the facts, so there is sufficient reasoning to be prudent and realistic about the historical figure of Jesus.

True. I'm just pointing out that almost everything is based on faith. No more faith is required to believe what Jesus said than what is required to believe what some other historical figure of his time said; and sometimes not much more than is required to believe what some living people have said.

In any event the other thing you must take into account is the Holy Spirit. He testifies of truth. So someone reading the bible has a means of KNOWING what is true and what is a later addition and what is a mistranslation.
Indeed that is the whole basis of true religion: having a personal relationship with the ultimate source of universal truth.

 

[Thana]

Yes.

Would you care to elaborate....?

 

[Katzpur]

Would you care to elaborate....?

Not on this thread, since it would derail the OP and I really don't like doing that. (Also, you may want to reread my prior post as I was editing it while you were posting your response.)

 

[Pastek]

How can that be your argument when you know the reason they weren't Jewish was because Judaism didn't exist for them.

You were the one who said Muhammad wasn't "even" jewish while judaism didn't always exist. And Noah, Enoch weren't hebrew, so saying that a prophet should be from this religion or that origin is not true.
What is your argument by rejecting someone on those specific points ?

 

[leibowde84]

True. I'm just pointing out that almost everything is based on faith. No more faith is required to believe what Jesus said than what is required to believe what some other historical figure of his time said; and sometimes not much more than is required to believe what some living people have said.

In any event the other thing you must take into account is the Holy Spirit. He testifies of truth. So someone reading the bible has a means of KNOWING what is true and what is a later addition and what is a mistranslation.
Indeed that is the whole basis of true religion: having a personal relationship with the ultimate source of universal truth.

I agree, but our "salvation" is not dependant on many other historical figures, so it isn't really important whether they actually said what they were claimed to have. Just important that they were said.

 

[Thana]

Yes, it "seems to," alright and yet there are nuances that seem to cause a lot of disagreement. For instance, does a prophet "speak for God" every time he opens his mouth to talk? Personally, I think not.

Common sense would dictate that unlikely.

Whether all his words are from God or only some, He would still be a prophet. What he spoke of or how much he spoke, that wouldn't change him being a Prophet.

 

[Thanda]

Do I really need to define to you the meaning of the word Prophet, Or can you look it up for yourself?

I'm asking for your definition. In definition he would qualify as a prophet but obviously he falls short according to yours. So I would like to hear your definition.

 

[leibowde84]

Common sense would dictate that unlikely.

Whether all his words are from God or only some, He would still be a prophet. What he spoke of or how much he spoke, that wouldn't change him being a Prophet.

It's all subjective anyways though right. The term is only as strong as the belief if the speaker.

 

[Thana]

You were the one who said Muhammad wasn't "even" jewish while judaism didn't always exist. And Noah, Enoch weren't hebrew, so saying that a prophet should be from this religion or that origin is not true.
What is your argument by rejecting someone on those specific points ?

No, my entire argument isn't based on Him being a Gentile. But I think it's a pretty big factor.
These concepts, Hebrew, Jewish, didn't even exist when they were alive so in my opinion, they shouldn't be considered in the argument.