Christians what makes you not accept Islam?

[Thana]

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.

Not in any definition, Mine or any dictionary that I've seen, Does he qualify as a prophet.

But here's one, since you insist.

Prophet = A person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration

 

[Thanda]

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.

Indeed. That is why no amount of historical evidence can ever be sufficient even if we found "the Gospel according to Jesus".
The only sufficient evidence for something of eternal consequences is the testimony borne by the Holy Ghost - a member of the Godhead.

 

[leibowde84]

Prophet = A person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration

This is incorrect. It is merely a person who claims to do this. The assignment of it depends on the subjective beliefs of the speaker.

 

[jeager106]

All of the reasons already stated and the long history of senseless bloodshed
committed in the name of Islam.
And it goes on today; murdered dead in ever increasing numbers with NO END in sight.

 

[leibowde84]

Indeed. That is why no amount of historical evidence can ever be sufficient even if we found "the Gospel according to Jesus".
The only sufficient evidence for something of eternal consequences is the testimony borne by the Holy Ghost - a member of the Godhead.

But, you just moved the goal post. There is absolutely no objective evidence that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the writing of the gospels. That is an assumption based entirely on faith.

 

[Thana]

This is incorrect. It is merely a person who claims to do this. The assignment of it depends on the subjective beliefs of the speaker.

When I say that my dog loves me, It's an unsubstantiated claim but it's pretty unnecessary to point that out, right?

But, I suppose if you think it's necessary. I don't like to split hairs like that, It distracts from the point.

 

[JFish123]

Yet NT contradicts OT!! Lmao

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

They don't do you have any evidence?

 

[leibowde84]

When I say that my dog loves me, It's an unsubstantiated claim but it's pretty unnecessary to point that out, right?

But, I suppose if you think it's necessary. I don't like to split hairs like that, It distracts from the point.

I think it is crucial to the topic. A person is only a prophet if the speaker subjectively believes them to be. Unless we are talking about those that merely claim to speak for God.

 

[Thanda]

Not in any definition, Mine or any dictionary that I've seen, Does he qualify as a prophet.

But here's one, since you insist.

Prophet = A person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration

So how do you suppose Melchesidec was able to bless Abraham? Did he just speak for himself or was he inspired? And how did he become known as a king of righteousness who was greater than Abraham (rremember Paul is talking about spirituality not earthly power) without having inspiration from God?

 

[Thana]

So how do you suppose Melchesidec was able to bless Abraham? Did he just speak for himself or was he inspired? And how did he become known as a king of righteousness who was greater than Abraham (rremember Paul is talking about spirituality not earthly power) without having inspiration from God?

Here's a list of all the Prophets in Christianity. Melchizedek is not included.

Prophets of Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thanda]

But, you just moved the goal post. There is absolutely no objective evidence that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the writing of the gospels. That is an assumption based entirely on faith.

I've moved no goalposts. You're not listening to me. You say the standard that must be used to judge what Jesus said must be much higher than the standard used to judge what Ceasar said since our salvation depends on it. I agreed with you and said even if there was a Gospel written by Jesus we still wouldn't have enough evidence according to our high standard. By our high standard the only evidence sufficient for something that concerns our salvation is the testimony of God himself.

 

[Thanda]

Here's a list of all the Prophets in Christianity. Melchizedek is not included.

Prophets of Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So now you're referring me to Wikipedia's list instead of answering the questions I posed?

 

[Thana]

So now you're referring me to Wikipedia's list instead of answering the questions I posed?

Probably because I couldn't be bothered but mainly because it's weird how hard you're clinging to it. Just admit you're wrong, We're all wrong from time to time. I don't mind.
He's not a Prophet, You made a mistake. It's really not that big of a deal.

 

[leibowde84]

I've moved no goalposts. You're not listening to me. You say the standard that must be used to judge what Jesus said must be much higher than the standard used to judge what Ceasar said since our salvation depends on it. I agreed with you and said even if there was a Gospel written by Jesus we still wouldn't have enough evidence according to our high standard. By our high standard the only evidence sufficient for something that concerns our salvation is the testimony of God himself.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying there are different stages of reliability in this context.

1. Report of what someone said from an unknown author who, most likely, wasn't there.

2. Known author who claims to have witnessed said speech.

3. Claimed authorship by speaker.

4. Evidence sufficient to assume authorship by speaker.

5. Video/audio to prove authorship.

Etc.

 

[Thanda]

Probably because I couldn't be bothered but mainly because it's weird how hard you're clinging to it. Just admit you're wrong, We're all wrong from time to time. I don't mind.
He's not a Prophet, You made a mistake. It's really not that big of a deal.

I'm wrong because Wikipedia doesn't count him as a prophet even though your own definition makes him a prophet? And why was Paul talking about him and his righteousness an greatness if he were not a prophet?

 

[Thana]

I'm wrong because Wikipedia doesn't count him as a prophet even though your own definition makes him a prophet? And why was Paul talking about him and his righteousness an greatness if he were not a prophet?

Maybe because you don't need to be a prophet to be great and righteous. Like my dad, He's definitely not a Prophet but he is one of the most righteous and decent people I know.

Don't sweat it. In the end, It's just semantics. It's not that important.

 

[Thanda]

That is not what I am saying. I am saying there are different stages of reliability in this context.

1. Report of what someone said from an unknown author who, most likely, wasn't there.

2. Known author who claims to have witnessed said speech.

3. Claimed authorship by speaker.

4. Evidence sufficient to assume authorship by speaker.

5. Video/audio to prove authorship.

Etc.

Sure, and on which level of evidence are you willing to base your salvation?

 

[leibowde84]

Sure, and on which level of evidence are you willing to base your salvation?

I believe that salvation comes completely out of actions, not beliefs. That is why I tend to BELIEVE that Jesus was depicted correctly, but I understand that I could be wrong, so I will continue to search.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why would a Christian not believe that Prophet Mohammed is not the last and final messenger?

Arguments have always been a means to take people captive. That is all they are good for. We produce a reason not to believe you, then you argue against it. That is how captivity works. Every time the captive seeks to escape the captor punishes until they stop trying.

Is Christianity any different? Currently no. Its mostly the same, and so that is why there is relatively no progress for Islam. You argue. Christians argue. You preach. Christians preach. What is the difference? Islam has progressed mainly through childbirth, people gradually moving in and populating areas. That's how it has grown, and argument is how it retains its people.

Also some of the arguments are really, really terrible. They are designed to keep people in, not to convince people on the outside. Look at the arguments, for example, that the Koran was scientifically advanced. That is a particularly disingenuous and stinky argument. It reeks and is loathsome. The Christians arguments are equally loathsome, so you are equal.

 

[Katzpur]

No, I don't think God only speaks to Jews.

But if there were another Prophet, They would be Jewish. No if's ands or buts.
And if you think God loves and cherishes them any less than He did thousands of years ago, Then you're sorely mistaken. They are and always will be His people.

But why would a Jewish prophet testify that Jesus was the Christ? Wouldn't a Jewish prophet be preaching about a Messiah yet to come?