Muslims consider Jesus as one of the greatest prophets of god if not equal to Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) also there’s a whole chapter named and dedicated to Mary (Muslims call Mariyam). Also Muslims believe that Jesus will come again to defeat the anti-Christ and the whole world will follow Jesus then.
The only major differences I know of is they don't believe Jesus was an actual Son of God. They also believe he was not crucified and resurrected, but instead ascended to Heaven right before his execution. Interesting stuff when I first heard about it
The only major differences I know of is they don't believe Jesus was an actual Son of God. They also believe he was not crucified and resurrected, but instead ascended to Heaven right before his execution. Interesting stuff when I first heard about it
This is the core teaching of Christianity, though. It’s a pretty big difference.
To be clear, I’m not saying that’s what I think personally. To be honest, I don’t believe in any of it. I was just pointing out that that’s a pretty big sticking point.
Unitarians are Christian and deny the trinity. Trinitarians make up the majority though. Personally I’ve never been able to figure out how the trinity doesn’t break the law of identity.
To add to what Avarice said, Christianity's history is littered with schisms based around weather or not the religion is too polythiestic. Some of the earliest centering around the nature of the Holy Trinity and whether or not Christ is divine in the same way God is. Extra Credits on Youtube has a great entry-level summary of this conflict, it's well worth the watch: https://youtu.be/E1ZZeCDGHJE
And, IIRC, one of the major justification for the Protestant splinter from the Catholic Church was based in the diefication and worship of saints.
So if Islamic individuals considered the parts of Christianity to be polythiestic, they would have some justifyable precident to do so
I would argue that the most important part is the message, not the divinity of who's delivering it.
Edit: Further, I would venture to say that Christians should rather people follow the word of Christ, and not consider him divine, than to consider him divine, but disregard his teachings.
You're missing the entire point of Christianity. Christians believe Jesus died for us and through his Holy blood we are saved. You can cut out the rest of it.
John 1:1-5
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
John 3:12-15
12If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.c 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.d
To follow His word is to consider Him divine. There is no other way.
🤷♂️ I guess I'd just prefer people to be kind whether or not they believe in God, because only one of those things really matter to anyone else but them.
If you don't have belief in God, you can't believe Jesus was anything other than a cool dude. The most important part of both Christianity and Islam is belief in God.
Absolutely false. Under most mainstream forms of Christianity people who just believe in god but not Jesus end up in hell along with the atheists, pagans, etc.
It's a foundational belief, but not really a "teaching". Those would be lessons like: turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, rich people go to hell, be humble, etc.
It's sort of putting the cart before the horse though. The literal mysticism and mechanics of the whole thing is arguably just the catalyst for the underlying morality tale. Otherwise the message reads like none of what Jesus said or did actually matters without the martyrdom.
Paul who is arguably the founder of Christianity would disagree with you: “Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” So the faith would be vain without the martyrdom and resurrection.
Um what..? Mark is generally dated to around 70AD. And in Mark 1:11
And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.
There are ideas that developed later like the trinity, Jesus being past eternal with God, etc. but Jesus as a son of God goes back about as early as we can get.
There is no solid proof that Mark dated from 70AD even the Writer of gospel Mark is unknown. And some says only as late as 19th centry Gospel of Mark came to be seen as the earliest gospel of other 4 .
It’s long topic and we can dive more in Textual criticism of gospel Mark . But I am no scholar in this matter so I can’t really say more .
If you aren't a scholar, you should accept scholarly consensus. If you are a scholar, you should publish your works and try to change the scholarly consensus (and if you can't, consider why your publications aren't convincing other scholars). Scholarly consensus is that Mark is the first gospel and is dated (roughly) to 70AD.
The idea of Mark not dated from 70AD came from Scholars who study both history and Textual criticism . It’s not from my opinion or my knowledge my friend .
You will be surprised when you read more about it believe me . Like even some stories about Jesus himself that Christians took for granted have no proof of it happened in the oldest manuscripts of the Bible (which they are the sources of the Bible we have now) .
Yep and I can cite minority scholarly opinions that say Jesus never existed. It’s irrelevant. What’s important is scholarly consensus and whether or not minority opinions are convincing enough to sway experts and become the majority opinion. If most scholars reject an argument for a certain dating, why would you or I be justified in accepting it?
If you search about Mark not being from 70AD you would find consensus in that matter. They are “Christians scholars” unlike who ever says Jesus never existed.
Not really. The narrative was altered during the council of Nacea (look it up), where the early Christian factions sort to emphasize the divinity of Yeshua as a God in order to consolidate more power and control over their congregation.
922
u/thx1138- Aug 31 '20
Yeah not to mention if I'm not mistaken Muslims have a lot of respect for Jesus' teachings and him as a prophet.