Could Christianity and Islam ever reach a consensus?

[FunctionalAtheist]

Doubt about what?

"Oh Father, why has thou forsaken me?" Recall that one?

 

[arthra]

Could Christianity and Islam ever reach a consensus in regards to Jesus' identity? If no, which of the two religions is more likely to disappear first? If yes, which of the two religions do you think should and will make the bigger compromise? Will Christians accept Jesus as a divine prophet? Will Muslims adopt the concept of Trinity? Will they decide to change Jesus' status into both a prophet and The Son Of God to incorporate both beliefs?

Lucian:

I'm active in a local Interfaith Council and I've seen a lot of cooperation between Muslims and Christians in my community so I'm optimistic about the future of both religions... We have had an Interfaith choir and when terrorists acted a year or so ago the churches gave Muslims understanding and worked with them to reduce tensions.

Being a Baha'i I accept the Bible as inspired as well as the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad as well as Jesus Christ.

You might also be interested in the following article...

Time for Catholics to Reconsider Islam and the “Prophet” Muhammad? – Catholic World Report

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I told you God was witness.

I never said God wasn't, but in order to bring God as witness you'll have to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet, which you have not done, therefore the fact that God was witness cannot be taken as a valid argument.

All the references I'm finding mention the word 'vast',

I have no clue where you're getting the phrase 'vast multitude' from. It is not on in Tacitus' Annals:

a site I just looked at added more damaging information:

There was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened.

Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century. Also there is the tone and style of the writing is unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of the least mention of Christ or Christians. In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, and it is valueless in establishing a historical Jesus, it is simply a recital of very old Christian tales.

Many works of historians of the time were lost. To call Tacitus' passage 'valueless' and classify it as a 'recital of very old Christian tales' is a contradiction. If the tales were 'very old', then they must have originated from the time that the event actually happened, therefore adding to their accuracy.

Because the Romans were persecuting the Christians, and you think they would refer to their leader as the Messiah?

Tacitus was a historian and used the word 'Christus' to explain the name of the movement that were calling themselves 'Christians'. You can see that he doesn't talk about them kindly and describes objectively the events that happened. It would have made no sense for him to say: "'Yeshua', from whom the name 'Christians' has its origins,..."

Yes perhaps he was both, but given the additional evidence the reference is either fabricated or Tacitus just passing on Hearsay.

Hearsay of people who lived closer in both space and time to the events than the authors of the Quran did.

There no evidence to suggest anyone gave him personal testimony.

You literally just said that several posts above:

"Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians.""

My point was the eclipse and Earthquake would have caused panic and people would have been panicked, hence no one knowing what happened on the cross.

The Earthquake happened after Jesus died. As for the eclipse, there's no mention of it in the Bible. All it says is that the sky got dark as if the sun had hidden. That can very well happen at the beginning of a storm or when it's very cloudy. Whether or not there was an actual eclipse is not known.
People did panic, but the earthquake didn't last long. The Roman officers responsible with the crucifixions were trained to not cower in the face of danger.

Middle ages? Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

What is that? You just gave me a link to a site containing an amalgamation of both Biblical writings and apocrypha without any context. Many of those have been debunked as having been forgeries from the middle ages. What do you expect me to do with that link?

Jesus pbuh himself prayed all night to be saved:
luke 22:44 And having been in agony, He was praying more earnestly. And His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.

He did. Your point being...?

John 11:41-42 shows his prayers were ALWAYS heard. No wonder of course, as his name Yeshua means, 'God Saves'.

You're using The Bible, a book you say was corrupted, to disprove the teachings of The Bible? Do you realize how nonsensical that is?

Yes, He did pray to God, and this is what he said:

A second time He went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cup cannot pass unless I drink it, may Your will be done.” (Matthew 26:42)

6 disciples outside of the NT write to say another whose name was Simon was crucified in error by the enemies of Jesus pbuh.

And that would have been fair how exactly...? Why would a just God allow a random civilian to be crucified for the teachings of God's prophet? Was this Simon guy a sinner and was God punishing Him or why did that happened?

Many early Christian sects did not believe Jesus was crucified.

Many early Muslims worshiped three pagan goddesses that were allegedly the daughters of Allah. What's your point?

Throw into the mix the facts, you don't have the originals, widespread editing from Scribes and Church Fathers, fabricated letters and epistles, disagreement between John and the Synoptics about what was said at the trial, where the trial was, the day and time of the crucifixion, and events surrounding the empty tomb, and it is plain to see you can not be sure of anything.

Why do I feel like you're mostly attacking my religion instead of debating? I refuse to take part in this any longer, because it is not fair. I cannot attack Islam with facts because its followers are dangerous, therefore this gives you the upper hand in this conversation.

Edit: Xenforo's quoting system is beyond me.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Muslim-UK]

I told you God was witness.

I never said God wasn't, but in order to bring God as witness you'll have to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet, which you have not done, therefore the fact that God was witness cannot be taken as a valid argument.

That's not the purpose of our discussion. If you want to start a thread about that, we can discuss it further. You can perhaps define what a Prophet is and use Scripture to make your case?

I have no clue where you're getting the phrase 'vast multitude' from. It is not on in Tacitus' Annals:[/quote]Your link is a translation, and on the edit page people make note of this fact: Revision history of "Talk:The Annals (Tacitus)/Book 15" - Wikisource, the free online library

Many works of historians of the time were lost. To call Tacitus' passage 'valueless' and classify it as a 'recital of very old Christian tales' is a contradiction. If the tales were 'very old', then they must have originated from the time that the event actually happened, therefore adding to their accuracy.

It's only a accurate representation of what people in Judea thought amongst a group of early Christians, one would then have to ask, who was spreading this news and were they trustworthy or doing the work of Satan?

Tacitus was a historian and used the word 'Christus' to explain the name of the movement that were calling themselves 'Christians'. You can see that he doesn't talk about them kindly and describes objectively the events that happened. It would have made no sense for him to say: "'Yeshua', from whom the name 'Christians' has its origins,..."

Yes describes them a evil source based on 'a most mischievous superstition'. No mention of Roman soldiers being witness to these superstitions either.

Hearsay of people who lived closer in both space and time to the events than the authors of the Quran did.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were close too, and some letters hidden away around 68 A.D. by the Communities of Qumran. There's no mention of Jesus pbuh being crucified, much less rising from his tomb 3 days later. They do mention a 'spouter of lies' spreading fake news. James the brother of Jesus pbuh belonged to this Community, and his followers lived by the Torah, and introduced Gentiles to his brother's teachings by way of a document called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. And yes there's no Trinity, Crucifixion or Resurrection mentioned.

You literally just said that several posts above:

"Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians.""

Yes but not face to face, as you say, the Christians would have been afraid, so perhaps he is relaying the superstitions of the evil ones from fellow Romans who have had a hand in punishing or interacting with the trouble makers.

The Earthquake happened after Jesus died. As for the eclipse, there's no mention of it in the Bible. All it says is that the sky got dark as if the sun had hidden. That can very well happen at the beginning of a storm or when it's very cloudy. Whether or not there was an actual eclipse is not known.
People did panic, but the earthquake didn't last long. The Roman officers responsible with the crucifixions were trained to not cower in the face of danger.

You must concede this would have added to the confusion on the day? How many people named Jesus were being held by Pontius and didn't Jesus pbuh have the ability to shapeshift?

What is that? You just gave me a link to a site containing an amalgamation of both Biblical writings and apocrypha without any context. Many of those have been debunked as having been forgeries from the middle ages. What do you expect me to do with that link?

Look at the dates to dispel myths of writings from the Middle ages as you asserted. It's no good trying to brush them aside as forgeries because for one Scholars use them to get a picture of early Christianity, and similarly most of the NT has been debunked as a fabrication based on unknown sources and anonymous writers:

The Church disputed over the following books: Revelations, Hebrews, Philemon, and the Catholic Epistles (I and II Peter, I and II and III John, and Jude). The 4 Gospels are anonymous, the Prologue and ending of John's Gospel is from another hand. 2 Corinthians is said to be up to 5 letters cut and pasted together etc. It would be silly to dismiss disputed texts, otherwise what have you left? Rather one should shift through all the available material and try to piece together what may have happened.

He did. Your point being...? You're using The Bible, a book you say was corrupted, to disprove the teachings of The Bible? Do you realize how nonsensical that is? Yes, He did pray to God, and this is what he said:
A second time He went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cup cannot pass unless I drink it, may Your will be done.” (Matthew 26:42)

Qur'an tells us the Injeel was given to Jesus pbuh, he preached the good news from it. What you have in the NT is parts of the Injeel, so whilst it may be a corrupted text, the Qur'an says you can use what matches with it to distinguish the truth from the falsehood.

In this manner we see the prayers of Jesus pbuh were ALWAYS heard.

And that would have been fair how exactly...? Why would a just God allow a random civilian to be crucified for the teachings of God's prophet? Was this Simon guy a sinner and was God punishing Him or why did that happened?

Perhaps it was Jude who betrayed him, perhaps it was a Disciple who accepted Paradise in exchange for taking the place of Jesus pbuh. Who knows. We do know there were many many people who did not believe he was crucified, and later non Jewish writers hijacked the message of Jesus pbuh and turned it into a new religion for the Empire. You are of course free to continue believing a lie or giving thought to the afterlife and perhaps returning to the message of Monotheism as taught by Jews and Muslims.

Many early Muslims worshiped three pagan goddesses that were allegedly the daughters of Allah. What's your point?

They were never called Muslims, and 99% of the people embraced Monotheism. Are you with the 99% or the misguided Pagans?

Why do I feel like you're mostly attacking my religion instead of debating? I refuse to take part in this any longer, because it is not fair. I cannot attack Islam with facts because its followers are dangerous, therefore this gives you the upper hand in this conversation.

What a lame excuse. I'm not attacking, I'm showing reasonable doubt from credible sources, showing the events presented by the Church were highly disputed in the First and Second Century. I'm sorry if you feel I'm attacking, that is not my intent, well not much, perhaps just a little to shake things up a bit

Edit: Xenforo's quoting system is beyond me.

Don't worry, you'll get used to it.
Peace

 

[ronandcarol]

Could Christianity and Islam ever reach a consensus?
How could anyone expect a true believer to compromise their faith! These co-exist bumper stickers that you see simply are not reasonable. A true follower would take their faith and belief to the grave before they would cave into another belief that does not agree with theirs. I don't believe that the two should be at war or at odds with each other. All should have the freedom to worship whoever or what ever they choose to believe. Freedom of Religion.
In the final analysis, This Jesus that Islam calls a prophet is our redeemer and savior and deserves our unending praise and worship. "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.'"
ronandcarol

 

[Lyndon]

What Muslim UK is pointing out is that roughly half of the early Christians up to about 400AD didn't believe Jesus was God or in the Holy Trinity, Then the pagan emperor Consantine got involved and decided in the interest of uniting the people to elect the early Catholic church as the winner and proceeded to persecute and execute the Christians that didn't believe Jesus was God, all their religious book, including gospels we never got to hear of were burned, and today it is very hard to get information about this large group of early Christians that believed Jesus was a Prophet and great leader but not a God. The prophet Mohammad had access to these Christians as in the Middle East they hadn't yet been all exterminated. You can believe whatever you believe, just be aware that the portrayal Of Jesus as a Prophet who may not actually have been crucified had a strong and vocal following in the Early days of Christianity..before the Catholic and Orthodox churches took over with their "heretical" doctrine of the Trinity, which IS NOT IN THE BIBLE, trust me.

 

[Lyndon]

And it was the early Catholic Church around the time of Constantine that picked and chose which books got included in the New Testament and which books didn't and were labeled heretical, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Barnabas etc etc etc

 

[DavidFirth]

Could Christianity and Islam ever reach a consensus in regards to Jesus' identity? If no, which of the two religions is more likely to disappear first? If yes, which of the two religions do you think should and will make the bigger compromise? Will Christians accept Jesus as a divine prophet? Will Muslims adopt the concept of Trinity? Will they decide to change Jesus' status into both a prophet and The Son Of God to incorporate both beliefs?

No. A Christian is defined as a person who believes Jesus is God's son and Muslims deny this. There is absolutely no compromise.

Your other questions will be answered in due time.

 

[Muslim-UK]

No. A Christian is defined as a person who believes Jesus is God's son and Muslims deny this. There is absolutely no compromise.

You mean divine son, the Father will eventually cease to be and hand the throne over to his son? If so, did the father inherit the throne from his father and so on? This concept of Father Son relationship is not accepted by the Jews either.

Or do you mean son of God as understood in the Torah and amongst the people of Palestine in the First Century, a pious God fearing person, a servant of God, a son of God.

If it's the latter, then Muslims have no problem with Jesus pbuh being the son of God.

 

[Lyndon]

No. A Christian is defined as a person who believes Jesus is God's son and Muslims deny this. There is absolutely no compromise.

Your other questions will be answered in due time.

WRONG, a Christian is a follower of Christ and Christ's teachings, whether you believe Jesus is God, Son Of God, Son of Man, Just Man or Prophet, has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian or not. What you are talking about is you have to believe Jesus is God to be a Catholic, or which ever denominations that believe that, you can't limit Christians to only your own denomination, that's what Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists try to teach.

 

[Muslim-UK]

What Muslim UK is pointing out is that roughly half of the early Christians up to about 400AD didn't believe Jesus was God or in the Holy Trinity, Then the pagan emperor Consantine got involved and decided in the interest of uniting the people to elect the early Catholic church as the winner and proceeded to persecute and execute the Christians that didn't believe Jesus was God, all their religious book, including gospels we never got to hear of were burned, and today it is very hard to get information about this large group of early Christians that believed Jesus was a Prophet and great leader but not a God. The prophet Mohammad had access to these Christians as in the Middle East they hadn't yet been all exterminated. You can believe whatever you believe, just be aware that the portrayal Of Jesus as a Prophet who may not actually have been crucified had a strong and vocal following in the Early days of Christianity..before the Catholic and Orthodox churches took over with their "heretical" doctrine of the Trinity, which IS NOT IN THE BIBLE, trust me.

They were the Ebionites and others who stayed true to the teachings of Jesus pbuh:

The Ebionites: True followers of Jesus who converted to Islam

 

[Lyndon]

Funny how all these protestants hate Catholics so much, never realizing 80% of their religious beliefs were invented by Catholics. Catholics made the Bible, Catholics invented the Trinity, Catholics basically invented Hell too. etc etc

 

[DavidFirth]

You mean divine son, the Father will eventually cease to be and hand the throne over to his son? If so, did the father inherit the throne from his father and so on? This concept of Father Son relationship is not accepted by the Jews either.

Or do you mean son of God as understood in the Torah and amongst the people of Palestine in the First Century, a pious God fearing person, a servant of God, a son of God.

If it's the latter, then Muslims have no problem with Jesus pbuh being the son of God.

No. I mean Jesus Christ i.e. the New Testament. Mohammed never taught Christ rose from the dead or is the Son of God, the only name under heaven by which men must be saved.

 

[DavidFirth]

WRONG, a Christian is a follower of Christ and Christ's teachings, whether you believe Jesus is God, Son Of God, Son of Man, Just Man or Prophet, has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian or not. What you are talking about is you have to believe Jesus is God to be a Catholic, or which ever denominations that believe that, you can't limit Christians to only your own denomination, that's what Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists try to teach.

In order to be a Christian, one must believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He died on the cross and that He rose from the dead. I know of no other "kind" of Christian.

 

[columbus]

In order to be a Christian, one must believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He died on the cross and that He rose from the dead. I know of no other "kind" of Christian.

We do know there were many many people who did not believe he was crucified, and later non Jewish writers hijacked the message of Jesus pbuh and turned it into a new religion for the Empire. You are of course free to continue believing a lie or giving thought to the afterlife and perhaps returning to the message of Monotheism as taught by Jews and Muslims.

These two posts well illustrate why the answer to the OP title is No.
The most fundamental premise of both religions is "The ancient people I have Faith in were informed by God and so therefore cannot be wrong".
It's not the opinions about God that are irreconcilable. It's the Faith in humans that is utterly intractable.
Tom

 

[Lyndon]

In order to be a Christian, one must believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He died on the cross and that He rose from the dead. I know of no other "kind" of Christian.

Then you need to come out of you shell!!

 

[Lyndon]

In order to be a Christian, one must believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He died on the cross and that He rose from the dead. I know of no other "kind" of Christian.

The Oxford dictionary would beg to differ with your definition of Christian, try google it, You are confusing your particular churches definition of Christian, with the actual definitions of Christian and Christianity as a whole.

 

[Muslim-UK]

No. I mean Jesus Christ i.e. the New Testament. Mohammed never taught Christ rose from the dead or is the Son of God, the only name under heaven by which men must be saved.

Well as I've been showing Lucian Hodoboc, there's no definitive evidence for any crucifixion of Jesus pbuh, rather most of his followers did not accept his death or resurrection, as it was not mentioned in the Gospel they were using. Bishop Ignatius of Antioch is adamant crucifixion and resurrection are in the original Gospel, and you can read his exchange with the followers of Jesus pbuh here:

Early Christian Fathers - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Qur'an 4:157

On a related issue, can I ask, following his resurrection could Jesus pbuh be killed again by his enemies or is a resurrected body protected from harm? (unless of course God intends to cast it into Hell).

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

And it was the early Catholic Church around the time of Constantine that picked and chose which books got included in the New Testament and which books didn't and were labeled heretical, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Barnabas etc etc etc

The Gospel of Barnabas was dated as having been written in the 16th century. The Gospel of Thomas does not deny Jesus' crucifixion. Half of it repeats the same things from the other gospels and the other half adds some ideas that seem to have been influenced by Hinduism.

In order to be a Christian, one must believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He died on the cross and that He rose from the dead. I know of no other "kind" of Christian.

Then you need to come out of you shell!!

The teachings of Christ are to be found in The Bible. The Bible is the official Holy Book of Christianity. If you believe other books, then you're not an official Christian, just like if you believe the teachings of Mira Ghulam Ahmad, you're not an official Muslim. You can label yourself anything you want, but that doesn't mean that the religious leaders will validate your being part of the congregation.

 

[Desert Snake]

What Muslim UK is pointing out is that roughly half of the early Christians up to about 400AD didn't believe Jesus was God or in the Holy Trinity, Then the pagan emperor Consantine got involved and decided in the interest of uniting the people to elect the early Catholic church as the winner and proceeded to persecute and execute the Christians that didn't believe Jesus was God, all their religious book, including gospels we never got to hear of were burned, and today it is very hard to get information about this large group of early Christians that believed Jesus was a Prophet and great leader but not a God. The prophet Mohammad had access to these Christians as in the Middle East they hadn't yet been all exterminated. You can believe whatever you believe, just be aware that the portrayal Of Jesus as a Prophet who may not actually have been crucified had a strong and vocal following in the Early days of Christianity..before the Catholic and Orthodox churches took over with their "heretical" doctrine of the Trinity, which IS NOT IN THE BIBLE, trust me.

Except , you're both wrong.

When the trinitarians were affirming doctrine, /whether their doctrine is correct or not, they encountered the Sabellian, and modalist, "heresy".
There were three main, groups of thought; modalist, Sabellian, these are very similar,, the 'pre-doctrine trinitarians, /this is like the less divisional trinitarianism, , and, church "trinitarianism", which actually was at the extreme of difference, in the godhood concepts, compared to traditional Jesus as God theology.
Constantine, probably would not have approved of the divisional trinity, that the church came up with, later. Rather Constantines theology probably followed the traditional "trinitarian" beliefs, //he was a convert,, of, no separation of persons; ie not 'distinct' persons in the trinity, yet rather non-distinct, plurality, which matches Biblical inference.