I have been wondering about this for very long. In catholisism and christianity the books of the bible are accepted as truth. If I am not mistaken that is because they believe the various authors were inspired by the holy spirit (part of the trinity).
However this made me wonder, wouldn't that technically speaking, make those authors prophets according to christianity/catholisism? Or is there a difference between prophets and people who are inspired by the holy spirit. What exactly is that difference then? Is it in the method of cummunication? Like a prophet hearing things directly whereas an inspired one reads the "signs" in his life? Or did both happen in the same way but is it more a matter of a prophet bringing new revelations whereas someone who's inspired brings "old news" that was previously already revealed to mankind. Or are there perhaps even different differences. Also doesn't the holy spirit influence every single Christian? So if tomorow someone comes along claiming to be inspired and saying something that contradicts with... say for example Paulus. What would make you believe the inspiration of Paulus over the inspiration of this new person?
P.S: My apologies if my questions seem to be making a mockery out of the concept, I can assure you that is not my intention and that this is a genuine inquiry.
I don't find your questions a mockery at all, but honest.
I guess from the Christian perspective, prophets are people with a prophetic calling and are named that. We don't know who wrote most of the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. We assume they were men and women of God, but we don't know if they were really prophets. Some were (like the prophetic books and some of the history books).
Paul spoke of his life as a prophetic calling in Galatians 1, like Jeremiah or Isaiah, but most of the New Testament authors are Apostles or connected to apostles. Apostles of the first generation were people who knew Jesus and were set apart to missionary work; apostles of the second generation were more general leaders.
A "prophet" in Islam is a little different. Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were prophets, but none of them wrote Scripture (except maybe Moses).
We don't know how the writers got their inspiration from God, but I don't think it was like Muhammad claimed, "revealed to memory" and dictated to scribes. The Christian imagination was much more involved, and the community edited the Bible before it came to its final, recognized form.
The Qur'an is different. A contemporary Qur'an is almost exactly the same (at least 95%) as one found in Yemen from 645-690 CE/30-75AH. There is no automatic writing or individual behind the Christian BIble.
I agree with Brenton that Islam and Christians define the term 'prophet' differently.
The prophets in the Old Testament were people who received God's word together with the mission to influence and pass in on to their communities. Through them God gave his commands and through their guidance they tried to influence the behaviour and attitudes of people around them.
Unlike Islam, which teaches that Muhammed was the last prophet, many (although perhaps not all) Christians believe that all Christians are able to receive and be guided by the Holy Spirit, according to Jesus' instructions:
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:8)
And Jesus again:
"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid." (John 14: 25-27)
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:38-39)
In that context many Christians believe that we can all be guided by the Holy Spirit ... and in that sense any of us could have 'prophetic giftings' and therefore could be called 'prophets'
(I am being cautious here, and deliberately emphasize the term 'some' or 'many' Christians, because this level of thinking may not apply to all denominations. I would like to leave it to my brothers in sisters in Christ from other denominations to speak for themselves)
As for how we would discern whether a new-appearing, self-declared prophet was really a prophet of God as he claims ... if his message contradicts the Word of God (meaning the Bible), then he most certainly could not be a prophet of God.
That's precisely why Christians cannot possibly recognise Muhammed as a prophet of God.
Peace
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
As for how we would discern whether a new-appearing, self-declared prophet was really a prophet of God as he claims ... if his message contradicts the Word of God (meaning the Bible), then he most certainly could not be a prophet of God.
That's precisely why Christians cannot possibly recognise Muhammed as a prophet of God.
Peace
Well that was my whole point. You say "if it contradicts the bible" But part of that bible is also by people who self declared to be... well maybe not prophets but at least inspired by the holy spirit. So basically you're saying the new guy has to say the same thing as the previous one, but how do you know the first one was right and the second not (if they are contradicting).
Or to speak more in general: how do you know all of them were right? I mean there's a difference in believeing in the inspiration of the holy spirit and in believeing that every single one of the autors from the bible were actually inspired right?
Last edited by Abdul Fattah; 01-06-2007 at 07:49 PM.
Brother steve, i just want to mention that we also believe in the holy spirit, and if you look at the bible, it seems as if it is the same holy spirit which Allaah sent to His prophets/messengers.
Allaah said (interpretation of the meaning):
“O ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Remember My Favour to you and to your mother when I supported you with Rooh ul Qudus (the Holy Spirit) [Jibreel (Gabriel)]…”
[al-Maa’idah 5:110]
The “Holy Spirit” (Rooh al-Qudus) is Jibreel/Gabriel (peace be upon him). Shaykh al-Shanqeeti said: “The words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning), ‘and [We] supported him with Rooh al-Qudus’ [al-Baqarah 2:87] refer to Jibreel according to the most sound view.
Well that was my whole point. You say "if it contradicts the bible" But part of that bible is also by people who self declared to be... well maybe not prophets but at least inspired by the holy spirit. So basically you're saying the new guy has to say the same thing as the previous one, but how do you know the first one was right and the second not (if they are contradicting).
Or to speak more in general: how do you know all of them were right? I mean there's a difference in believeing in the inspiration of the holy spirit and in believeing that every single one of the autors from the bible were actually inspired right?
Greetings, Steve
Again, I think Islam and Christianity have a different view in this.
From what I understand Islam teaches that God gave the same message to each of his prophets. When his message became distorted and changed he had to repeat it by giving it again to the next prophet ... until he finally gave the final version to Muhammed, which was eventually written down under much scrutiny, and thereby preserved. (Am I understanding that correctly?)
The Bible teaches differently.
Although Christianity and Islam share many prophets of the Old Testament, when you read the OT carefully, you find that God gave different messages to the different prophets.
He made new convenants with each of them. With Adam, with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses he made a new covenant each time. (To go into this in more detail and with Bible quotes I requre more time than I have right now. I might have to comeback to this at a later stage ...)
The final and complete covenant came with Jesus: salvation through God himself. It is foretold in the OT, and finally comes to be when Jesus dies and is resurrected! There, at that point, ends God's revelation to us. Jesus' life, his teachings, his sufferings and his death are God's final revelation to us!
Anything else following thereafter can only ever build on God's final word.
Anything that doesn't (from a Christian's perspective) is fake and not from God.
(Just as a Muslim would say that anything which contradicts the Qu'ran is not from God)
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
God bless you
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Just to clarify, we believe that Allaah sent messengers to their own people [nation] who spoke their own language/tongue to call to the worship of Allaah alone without no associates, and all the prophets had this as their main call. Muhammad (peace be upon him) came as a prophet to mankind.
We see that Jesus (peace be upon him) is being commanded to “Go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel!” Matthew 10:6]
Whereas Muhammad (peace be upon him) is being told:
"Say: 'O mankind! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth." (Qur'an 7:158)
So the law revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) is for all of mankind, whereas Jesus (peace be upon him) came to guide the jews back towards the worship of Allaah Almighty.
However the laws of the prophets differed in regard to lifestyle. So within some nations the people were permitted to have alcohol, whereas in the law revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) it is forbidden. For the children of Isra'eel it was forbidden to keep the spoils of war, whereas it is permitted in the nation of Muhammad (peace be upon him.)
So from there we can see that in regard to lifestyle, the laws may have been different, but all the prophets had the same purpose of calling to the worship of God alone, without no associates. And Allaah Almighty knows best.
No we do realise that skhalid, it's just that there's more then enough treads about that already here; so I guess none of us cared to bring that up here again
The final and complete covenant came with Jesus: salvation through God himself. It is foretold in the OT, and finally comes to be when Jesus dies and is resurrected! There, at that point, ends God's revelation to us. Jesus' life, his teachings, his sufferings and his death are God's final revelation to us!
Anything else following thereafter can only ever build on God's final word.
Anything that doesn't (from a Christian's perspective) is fake and not from God.
Well you do see this has a built in assumption right? Because this is based on the assumption that every single author of the New testament (not only the apostles but every author of letters to romans, korintheans, Galates, and so on, and there are plenty of them) actually are part of this final revelation.
Theoretically speaking; couldn't a new self-proclaimed "prophet" claim that he is right and confirms the final revelation and that instead Paulus was wrong in his letters to tessalonica for example? Not trying to be disrespectful to Paulus here, but there are so many authors some letters we aren't even sure of their source, yet they were included in the Bible and assumed that they were the result of the holy spirit. But even if you believe in the holy spirit, how does that give a certainty that every Christian author is in fact accurate? Couldn't there be christians who were wrong? Couldn't there be among them people who were false?
Brother steve, i just want to mention that we also believe in the holy spirit, and if you look at the bible, it seems as if it is the same holy spirit which Allaah sent to His prophets/messengers.
Just wanted to add... the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Quran is the Angel Gabrial... whereas the Holy Spirit according to Christianity is a 'part' of the Trinity.
We certainly do not believe that Gabriel inspires each and everyone of us! Rather, he inspired the Prophets and select others such as Maryam (Mary). (Inspired perhaps is not the best word, as he spoke to them directly, and they could see him, though not always in his angel form).
As for the rest of us, we are guided by God Himself.
But even if you believe in the holy spirit, how does that give a certainty that every Christian author is in fact accurate? Couldn't there be christians who were wrong? Couldn't there be among them people who were false?
And to add just one more question to that, how does someone know who has been 'inspired' and who hasn't?! How do they know it isn't just their conscience, or even the devil?
Well you do see this has a built in assumption right? Because this is based on the assumption that every single author of the New testament (not only the apostles but every author of letters to romans, korintheans, Galates, and so on, and there are plenty of them) actually are part of this final revelation.
Theoretically speaking; couldn't a new self-proclaimed "prophet" claim that he is right and confirms the final revelation and that instead Paulus was wrong in his letters to tessalonica for example? Not trying to be disrespectful to Paulus here, but there are so many authors some letters we aren't even sure of their source, yet they were included in the Bible and assumed that they were the result of the holy spirit. But even if you believe in the holy spirit, how does that give a certainty that every Christian author is in fact accurate? Couldn't there be christians who were wrong? Couldn't there be among them people who were false?
It's not so much a "Built in Assumption" as a conclusion one comes too. There is faith in all of it: Faith that Muhammad was not a fraud; faith that Jesus was not a lunatic; faith that followers maintain the word of God.
It's not so much a "Built in Assumption" as a conclusion one comes too. There is faith in all of it: Faith that Muhammad was not a fraud; faith that Jesus was not a lunatic; faith that followers maintain the word of God.
But we have proof for our faith. So instead of simply saying we believe in Muhammad (peace be upon him) because he said he was the Messenger of Allaah, we have proof from authentic Qur'an and Sunnah which applies to all times and places, whereas the bible doesn't. Islaam actually proves that it is the truth, and due to this proof we have faith.
It's not so much a "Built in Assumption" as a conclusion one comes too. There is faith in all of it: Faith that Muhammad was not a fraud; faith that Jesus was not a lunatic; faith that followers maintain the word of God.
We have the proof that he as not a fraud... his biography... anyway this isn't for this thread, i think i will start another thread about it...
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks