[Abrahamic]

Hello, I'm not a Christian but I am very interested in the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and their similarities/differences. I would just like some help to undersand the Christian beliefs of Jesus Christ and his relationship with God, and what Christian's overall views are on Moses (of Judaism) and Mohammed (of Islam).

Thanks in advance.

[dwashbur]

Hello, I'm not a Christian but I am very interested in the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and their similarities/differences. I would just like some help to undersand the Christian beliefs of Jesus Christ and his relationship with God, and what Christian's overall views are on Moses (of Judaism) and Mohammed (of Islam).

Thanks in advance.

You'll probably get a number of answers, but basically:

-Jesus was God incarnate, born of a virgin. He grew to manhood and taught for a number of years, performing miracles and demonstrating who he was. His death was foretold in the Old Testament as the ultimate sacrifice for sins. He died, and rose again three days later under his own power; his resurrection demonstrates the truth of his claims. Through belief in his atoning sacrifice we receive forgiveness of sins and are made new creatures, acceptable to God and bound for eternal life.

Moses was the first of the great prophets of God. Through him God gave the law and began revealing himself. The law was a teacher to look forward to the coming of Jesus, and all the law and the prophets point to him. We don't need to keep the law for salvation; it was fulfilled in Jesus.

As for Mohammed, you'll probably get even more answers there, and diverse ones. I can only speak for myself. I do not believe he was any kind of prophet. God's revelation was finished with the completion of the New Testament, and no further prophecy is needed. There are plenty of claimants, but as far as I'm concerned they're all misguided.

[paraclete]

Hello, I'm not a Christian but I am very interested in the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and their similarities/differences. I would just like some help to undersand the Christian beliefs of Jesus Christ and his relationship with God, and what Christian's overall views are on Moses (of Judaism) and Mohammed (of Islam).

Thanks in advance.

Judaism is a root of both Christianity and Mohammedanism. Moses was a great leader of the Jewish people and a Prophet, what happened in his day foreshadowed Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and a prophet but more than a prophet, and Mohammedanism represents a corruption of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Moses was sent by God to release his people from slavery and to lead them back to Caanan the land promised to Abraham. As to Jesus relationship with God we have his personal testimony, "The Father and I are one" "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" "I saw satan fall" " Moses wrote about me" so we are faced with the conundrum, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or the person he claimed to be. His miracles attest to extraordinary faith and abilities beyond those of ordinary humans. His life is a fulfillment of prophecy, far more than could be said to be coincidence. Moses also exhibited miracles of faith but no such miracles are attributed to Mohammed. One of the important differences between Jesus Christ and Mohammed is the use of violence to achieve objectives. Jesus did not use secular power.

There is much more that can be said, but then it would require the contrast of Talmud, Bible and Koran. Perhaps this is a beginning
http://www.abcog.org/cislam2.htm

[dwashbur]

"Mohammedanism"??

[paraclete]

"Mohammedanism"??????

And your question is?
Mohammedan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.muhammadanism.org/Koelle/...sm/Default.htm

[dwashbur]

and your question is?
Mohammedan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mohammed & Mohammedanism by S.W. Koelle

From your first link:

Mohammedan (also spelt Muhammadan, Mahommedan, Mahomedan or Mahometan) is a Westernized term for Muslims, that Muslims consider both offensive and inaccurate because it suggests that Muslims are the followers of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

So I guess my question is, are you deliberately trying to be offensive with that term?

From your second link:

Koelle, Sigismund Wilhelm, Mohammed and Mohammedanism: Critically Considered, Rivingtons, London, England, 1889, pp. 540.

So you drew the term from an 1889 reference? I guess the next question is, what century are you living in? The religion is called Islam. I don't agree with it, but I can't see deliberately calling it something that went out of use a century ago and that its adherents consider insulting.

[paraclete]

So I guess my question is, are you deliberately trying to be offensive with that term?

No the term is valid whether Muslims consider it offensive or not, they are followers of Mohammed just as I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I consider it offensive when they suggest that every believer in God is a Muslim, does this stop them doing it?


.

So you drew the term from an 1889 reference?

Does 1889 make it invalid ? It is scholarly if a little verbose but I really used it to demonstrate the term is valid and to offer some depth.


You really should remove the unnecessary sensitivity from these discussions. Differences in point of view are expected. It doesn't mean someone is trying to be offensive. I don't get your defense of Islam (mohammedanism) since you said something much more offensive to muslims in your answer

[dwashbur]

No the term is valid whether Muslims consider it offensive or not, they are followers of Mohammed just as I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I consider it offensive when they suggest that every believer in God is a Muslim, does this stop them doing it?

The term is most definitely not valid. They consider Mohammed a prophet, but there's a lot more to Islam than that. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be trying to answer the question.

Does 1889 make it invalid ? It is scholarly if a little verbose but I really used it to demonstrate the term is valid and to offer some depth.

First, a lot of knowledge has been acquired since 1889. Second, the English language has changed a LOT since 1889. It's scholarly for its time, but it's badly outdated.

You really should remove the unnecessary sensitivity from these discussions.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be the one who's overly sensitive.

Differences in point of view are expected. It doesn't mean someone is trying to be offensive. I don't get your defense of Islam (mohammedanism) since you said something much more offensive to muslims in your answer

Run that by me again? Of course differences in point of view are expected. I didn't offer any "defense" of Islam, I merely pointed out that your terminology is dated and frankly erroneous. What exactly did I say that was offensive? That I disagree with it? That's not offensive to any of the Muslims I know. But you're calling their religion by a name that even your own sources say is offensive to them. I find that more than a little peculiar.

[paraclete]

What exactly did I say that was offensive? That I disagree with it? That's not offensive to any of the Muslims I know. But you're calling their religion by a name that even your own sources say is offensive to them. I find that more than a little peculiar.

As I recall you said Muhhamud could not be considered a prophet. Such a statement is highly offensive to Muslims. But we are not here to be concerned about what is offensive to Muslims or whether either one of us has a handle on Islam. I happen to agree with you that Islam is something quite apart from either Judaism or Christianity and that is the context in which I replied to the original question and in no way was I responding to your answer

[dwashbur]

As I recall you said Muhhamud could not be considered a prophet.

What I actually said was this:

I do not believe he was any kind of prophet.

My statement was a opinion, not an absolute pronouncement as you try to make it. Why can't you quote me accurately when the words are right there in front of you? I am not going to continue this any more, as somebody obviously doesn't get it.

[paraclete]

What I actually said was this:



My statement was a personal opinion, not an absolute pronouncement as you try to make it. Why can't you quote me accurately when the words are right there in front of you? I am not going to continue this any more, as somebody obviously doesn't get it.

Do you think we need to run back and forth quoting you, get over yourself buddy. I got the import of what you were saying and whether it is opinion or not, I agree with you. Islam is one of the greatest scams of all time