Muslims And Protestants?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 08:11 AM' timestamp='1260544318' post='2018372']
The difference I see is reflected in the edited post above.

A Catholic puts his faith in God in the person of Jesus. We believe that Jesus was the Son of God established the Church.

A Muslim must first put his faith in a man, the prophet. A muslim must first believe that the man is indeed a prophet, and that prophets are free from error when relaying the word of God, and that this prophet is indeed relaying the word of God. A Catholic deals only with one belief - Is Jesus God? Because if He is, then we know that the words he speaks are true and infallible.

The difference is who do you put your faith in - a man or the God-man.
[/quote]
I think that you are simplifying things, and so even though I agree with your position, i.e., that a Christian puts his faith in Christ (the God-man), which is a firm foundation. I do not think that a Muslim would say - and I base what I am saying here on the discussions I have had with Muslims over the years - that he is founding his faith on Mohammad as a man. The response that I normally have been given is something along the lines of: I believe in allah, and because I believe in allah I believe in his prophet. The individual will usually go on to speak about the i'jaz al-Qur'an (the inimitable Quran), which is the miracle that confirms Mohammad's prophetic office; and I would compare this "miracle" - loosely of course - to what a Mormon calls the "burning in the belly" when a man read the Book of Mormon, which - at least according to Mormons - confirms to the man the inspired nature of Joseph Smith's utterances.

My main point here is simple: Any Christian approach to Muslims will have to focus on debunking Mohammad's status as a prophet, and this will be difficult because - like Mormons - Muslims believe that the Christian scriptures have been corrupted, and so they will tend to discount any of the differences between the New Testament and the Quran in favor of the latter over the former.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Jaime]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 10:07 AM' timestamp='1260544062' post='2018368']
And how do you know it was recorded without anyone changing it? There have been translation errors in the Quran - this is historical fact.

How do we know the prophet was actually a prophet?
[/quote]

People make the same argument about the bible.

[rayz]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1260544062' post='2018368']
And how do you know it was recorded without anyone changing it? There have been translation errors in the Quran - this is historical fact.

How do we know the prophet was actually a prophet?
[/quote]

1. We can find un-brocken chain of narrators for each verse in Quran. The chain goes all the way back to the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

2. A Muslims will never call a translation of the original arabic Quran, a Quran. We call that "translation of interpretation of meaning of Quran". We'd call it "translation of Quran" only for brevity, but it is always understood that the Quran is Quran only in the original arabic form. There is only one version of Arabic quran. You can pick a copy in USA, China or India - the Quran is the same. Pretty amazing a book remains unchanged after 1400 years, don't you think? We muslims attribute this to the promise of God, when He says He will protect the Quran.

The fact that quran every where is the same is another indication that it has not being changed. Not only the text of the Quran is un changed, but the way we recite it also is preserved throughout the ages. The people who study the subject branch of reciting quran also have an unbrocken chain of narration linking us to the prophet Muhammed pbuh.

3. Same way people back then knew Moses (pbuh) or Abraham (pbuh) were prophets. Look (learn, study, think) at the message. Look at the miracles.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rayz' date='11 December 2009 - 08:25 AM' timestamp='1260545141' post='2018378']
Not really. Bible have mixed statements regarding divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him). Depends on how you read them. If you are Unitarian you'll read the same bible verses and conclude some thing different compared to a trinitarian. A muslim would read those biblical verses and say those were the original ones and other verses which attribute divinity to Jesus (pbuh) are later amendments.

Try: (KJV www.biblegateway.com)
John 5:30
John 14:28
Mathew 12:28
Acts 2:22
[/quote]
These texts are only problematic if one posits the idea that the Bible stands alone as the sole source of a Christian's knowledge as to the nature of Christ, which is a proposition that was rejected by the Church Fathers. The Bible is just a book, albeit an inspired book, but like any written text is must be interpreted, and it is the dominical tradition of the Church (See Luke 24:44-49, Acts 8:30-31, and 2 Peter 1:20-21), which Christ gave to the Apostles, that empowers a man to read the scriptures rightly.

So - for example - the comments in John's Gospel about the Father being "greater" than the Son are understood in relation to two things: (1) the eternal [i]hypostatic[/i] generation of the Son from the Father, and (2) the incarnation of the Son. In the case of the first point the Son is "less" than the Father [i]hypostatically[/i], but only in the sense that the Son receives His [i]hypostasis[/i] eternally from the Father, who alone is the sole eternal cause ([i]aitia[/i]) within the Godhead. While the second point above, concerns the Son's being "less" than the Father after the assumption of human nature by the eternal Word from the Theotokos.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Apotheoun

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1260545694' post='2018382']
I think that you are simplifying things, and so even though I agree with your position, i.e., that a Christian puts his faith in Christ (the God-man), which is a firm foundation. I do not think that a Muslim would - and I base what I am saying here on the discussions I have had with Muslims over the years - say that he is founding his faith on Mohammad as a man. The response that I normally been given is something along the lines of: I believe in allah, and because I believe in allah I believe in his prophet. They will usually go on to speak about the i'jaz al-Qur'an (the inimitable Quran), which is the miracle that confirms Mohammad's prophetic office; and I would compare this "miracle" - loosely of course - to what a Mormon calls the "burning in the belly" when a man read the Book of Mormon, which - at least according to Mormons - confirms to the man the inspired nature of Joseph Smith's utterances.

My main point here is simple: Any Christian approach to Muslims will have to focus on debunking Mohammad's status as a prophet, and this will be difficult because - like Mormons - Muslims believe that the Christian scriptures have been corrupted, and so they will tend to discount any of the differences between the New Testament and the Quran in favor of the latter over the former.
[/quote]

I understand that the Muslim will say no I put my faith in Allah, but it doesn't actually seem that way.

Let me pitch it this way.

Suppose you live in 30 A.D. Jesus approaches you and says "I am the Son of God". You say "Amen - I believe". Jesus says "No one comes to the Father except through the Son". This statement is true because the person saying it is God Himself - it has to be true. If you put your faith in Jesus then necessarily what Jesus says is true.

Now, suppose you live in 620 A.D. (am I right on the dates here? I think so...) A man named Mohammed says "God is speaking to me" - You say "ok I believe". Then Mohammed says "God says X". You ask "How do I know you're not lying?" Mohammed says "Prophets don't lie" You: "Are you a Prophet" Mohammed: "Yes" You: "How do I know that?" Mohammed "God told me so" You: "How do I know that God told you that?" Mohammed "Because I said so" You: "And you're not God are you? You're just a man?" Mohammed "Correct." You: "Ok we'll I believe you (a man) are speaking the truth. And because I believe in you (a man) then I also believe that what you're saying is true. And if I believe in you, then I believe in what God is telling you."

I hope I'm making the difference clear. It points out that a Muslim must first put his total faith into Mohammed on at least 4 grounds. 1) He was really speaking to God 2) He was a prophet 3) Prophets are infallible 4) The correct words of God and not Mohammed's personal thoughts were recorded. Only if you put your faith in all of this, only then do you even get to God.

[rayz]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1260546260' post='2018387']
These texts are only problematic if one posits the idea that the Bible stands alone as the sole source of a Christian's knowledge as to the nature of Christ, which is a proposition that was rejected by the Church Fathers. The Bible is just a book, albeit an inspired book, but like any written text is must be interpreted, and it is the dominical tradition of the Church (See Luke 24:44-49, Acts 8:30-31, and 2 Peter 1:20-21), which Christ gave to the Apostles, that empowers a man to read the scriptures rightly.

So - for example - the comments in John's Gospel about the Father being "greater" than the Son are understood in relation to two things: (1) the eternal [i]hypostatic[/i] generation of the Son from the Father, and (2) the incarnation of the Son. In the case of the first point the Son is "less" than the Father [i]hypostatically[/i], but only in the sense that the Son receives His [i]hypostasis[/i] eternally from the Father, who alone is the sole eternal cause ([i]aitia[/i]) within the Godhead. While the second point above, concerns the Son's being "less" than the Father after the assumption of human nature by the eternal Word.
[/quote]

yes i understand what you are saying. Basically you tell me how you resolve the apparent conflict in the verses. An Unitarian would do it differently and a muslim even more differently. I am demonstrating Quran and Bible need not be mutually exclusive (when viewed from a muslim point of view)