Muslims and Christians both agree that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Where we disagree is on the status of Muhammad in the Abraham tradition. Muslims believe that he was the seal of the prophets, and Christians claim that he was a pretender, no different than Joseph Smith or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. One big problem for this claim was that he never confronted the religious authorities on this.
In Mark 14, Jesus Christ is brought before the Jewish High Priest. The Jewish High Priest is the highest religious authority in the religion of the Mosaic Covenant. The High Priest asked Him if He was really who he was claiming to be. Christ affirmed it and then declared Himself to be the apocalyptic Son of Man from Daniel 7. He was then accused of blasphemy by the High Priest.
If Muhammad is the next prophet in line in the Abrahamic tradition, why didn’t he go out of his way to meet with the religious authorities in his day to declare who he was? It seems like he had dialogue with political leaders which showed that he took his role as a politician seriously but he never met with religious authorities higher than a priest or a monk.
At the time of Muhammad, the top religious authorities in the Church were the Pope of Rome, followed by the Eastern Patriarchs, then the metropolitan bishops. The bishops in the Church are the successors of the apostles. Why didn’t he meet with them so he could tell them who he was?
I know that he lived in Arabia but he had the resources to travel as the political ruler of Medina. He also made a night journey to Jerusalem in 621 AD. At this point there was no reason that he couldn’t have met with the Patriarch. If not the Patriarch, maybe some other religious authority in the city. He could have traveled to Constantinople and met with the Patriarch there. Why not Antioch? Why not Rome? Jesus was face to face with the High Priest!
If someone is the seal of the prophets, they should meet with the religious authorities to at least inform them of who he is, whether they believe in him or not. Eventually the bishops would have heard of Muhammad but this was after he had died. There would be no chance to test his claim.
Muslims believe that Muhammad is the prophet of Deuteronomy 18, the Muhammadim in Song of Solomon 5:16 and the Paraclete of whom Jesus spoke in the Gospel of John. When Muhammad died in 632 AD, the bishops of the Christian world had no idea who he was. He may have sent some emissaries to parts of the Roman Empire but never to the bishops. Did Muhammad think of himself as more of a politician than a prophet? It’s hard to say but this fact would certainly indicate so.
Christian religious leaders would have to wait several more years to find out the “true identity” of the man in Song of Solomon 5:16. The religious authorities of the Mosaic Covenant certainly knew that Jesus of Nazareth was claiming to be the apocalyptic Son of Man in Daniel 7. It’s also worth pointing out that neither Joseph Smith or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never went to the Pope or bishops either. I suppose that this is a common theme among false prophets.
Why is it that you always seem to make wild claims without providing any evidence? For example, on what basis do you claim that Muhammad (pbuh) could have to traveled all the way to Rome to meet with the Pope? What kind of nonsense is this?
Also, assuming Jesus (pbuh) even “confronted” the high priest (which is unlikely), what he said to him depends on your source. In one gospel, he responds with “you have said so”, which Geza Vermes declared as a “negative” response. In other words, Jesus said he was NOT the son of God. Typical contradictions from alleged “eyewitness” sources…
Well, Muhammad was a head of state. He would have had the financial resources, caravans, and armies at his disposal. He could have made it to Rome. But oh, say he couldn’t. Why not Jerusalem and Antioch? They were right under Rome in authority as they were both apostolic Patriarchates. Muhammad was even in Jerusalem for a night according to the traditional narrative.
No, that verse isn’t negative. For example, you refer to me as a Christian apologist on your blog. I can say “you have said so” and it doesn’t mean I’ve negated you. It just means that you’ve said it. Jesus never denied being the Son of God, ever. Especially not in the Gospel of Matthew where that reading is that you give. The only place He did was in the Quran.
So more assumptions and no hard facts. Apparently you don’t realize that this was Arabia, which is a desert. Desert travel was not very easy. It was very dangerous.
Also, what makes you think that these leaders would have even agreed to see him? What makes you think they wouldn’t have killed him right on the spot? I mean, let’s face it. The Catholic Church wasn’t exactly the most tolerant institution.
Finally, Muhammad (pbuh) did in fact attempt to communicate with the political and religious leaders. He sent letters to Heraclius, for example. Also, he invited and met with several religious delegations. There is the Najran delegation of Christians as an example.
“No, that verse isn’t negative. For example, you refer to me as a Christian apologist on your blog. I can say “you have said so” and it doesn’t mean I’ve negated you. It just means that you’ve said it. Jesus never denied being the Son of God, ever. Especially not in the Gospel of Matthew where that reading is that you give. The only place He did was in the Quran.”
This just again shows your ignorance. The “you have said so” response was considered a negative response in Jewish parlance. For you to compare modern language to ancient language is pathetic, and frankly, you should know better.
Assumptions? Where am I wrong? He was a head of state, and had resources at his disposal. If travelling through a dessert is so harsh, how did Arab armies emerge from Arabia shortly after Muhammad died? Well, because they knew how to travel in the dessert. Abraham traveled from Iraq to Palestine far earlier with much less because he trusted God. Let me guess, that’s made up as well?
“Also, what makes you think that these leaders would have even agreed to see him? What makes you think they wouldn’t have killed him right on the spot?”
Why did Moses go to Pharaoh? Was that safe for him? If Muhammad was a true prophet of God he wouldn’t have feared anything.
I never denied that Muhammad communicated with political leaders. Heraclius was not a bishop, Patriarch of Pope. He was a politician. He needed to meet with religious leaders equivalent to the High Priest at the time of Jesus.
The Christians from Najran? Well, lets roll out the red carpet. He doesn’t meet with the Pope, Patriarchs, or Metropolitan Archbishops, but he talks with Christians of Najran. If I remember correctly he didn’t even meet with the bishop. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Also, as a Catholic, Najran was never high on the list of centres of the faith for the Church.
Hey, I have an idea. Orangehunter is a member of the Orthodox Church. Let’s ask him if Najran was high on the list of powerful bishoprics? Maybe it’s right below the Patriarch of Antioch? I don’t know, let’s see what he says. Orangehunter?
“This just again shows your ignorance. The “you have said so” response was considered a negative response in Jewish parlance. For you to compare modern language to ancient language is pathetic, and frankly, you should know better.”
Jewish parlance? I would hope so since Jesus was a Jew. I want you to prove that He’s denying being the Son of God. The same title he affirms elsewhere in the book of Matthew.
“Let’s ask him if Najran was high on the list of powerful bishoprics? Maybe it’s right below the Patriarch of Antioch? I don’t know, let’s see what he says.”- No, not exactly. Most of the people there were not really Christians, but heretics of various stripes (like Nestorians).
“how did Arab armies emerge from Arabia shortly after Muhammad died? ”
Do you honestly think before you ask these ridiculous questions?
Do you think Muhammad (pbuh) could have travelled to Rome at the head of an army without starting a war? Do I really have to refute your nonsensical surmising?
Also, the Najran Christians came to see him. He showed them hospitality and discussed religious matters with them. He even allowed them space to pray. You seem to think that he had to go and see the top religious leaders for some reason, when there is no reason to believe they would have even welcomed him.
Did your savior go see the emperor? Did he speak in front of the Roman Senate? See how utterly fallacious your argument is? What was your savior afraid of? The Pharaoh was the religious and political leader of Egypt. In the same way, the emperor was the religious and political leader of Rome. In fact, the emperor was worshiped just like the Pharaoh was. Why didn’t your savior go see him? It’s a ludicrous argument, and you know it. Christians have to come up with ridiculous standards to judge other religions but won’t apply them to their own. You keep proving how bankrupt your polemics are. It’s a sign of desperation, me thinks!
“Do you think Muhammad (pbuh) could have travelled to Rome at the head of an army without starting a war? Do I really have to refute your nonsensical surmising?”
No, I’m saying that if an army can travel, he could as well. Arabs in the time of Muhammad weren’t as hopeless as you think they were.
“Also, the Najran Christians came to see him. He showed them hospitality and discussed religious matters with them. He even allowed them space to pray. You seem to think that he had to go and see the top religious leaders for some reason, when there is no reason to believe they would have even welcomed him.”
Yes, he debated with an extremely small Christian community with next to no authority in the church. Why didn’t he meet with the Patriarch of Jerusalem when he was in Jerusalem?
“You seem to think that he had to go and see the top religious leaders for some reason, when there is no reason to believe they would have even welcomed him.”
Well, yeah. Prophets aren’t meant to go hang out in the middle of nowhere. They’re meant to bring something new and therefore have to talk to the important people.
Why didn’t Jesus go to the Roman Emperor? Because the Emperor had nothing to do with the Abrahamic, Biblical monotheistic tradition. The Jewish High Priest did. He was a descendant of Aaron just as every bishop could trace their ordination back to the apostles.
“No, I’m saying that if an army can travel, he could as well. Arabs in the time of Muhammad weren’t as hopeless as you think they were. ”
Your ignorance is your own problem. Traveling in a desert was not as easy as you think it was. Yes, it was possible but it had many risks. It was not like the Roman Empire with paved roads and security.
“Why didn’t Jesus go to the Roman Emperor? Because the Emperor had nothing to do with the Abrahamic, Biblical monotheistic tradition. The Jewish High Priest did. He was a descendant of Aaron just as every bishop could trace their ordination back to the apostles.”
There goes your hypocrisy again. Wasn’t Jesus supposed to preach to all people? Or was he sent only to the Jews? As I said, the emperor was the political and religious leader of the entire Roman Empire. Your savior would have been wise, using your “logic”, to go see him. But he didn’t. I wonder why?
As I said, you are incapable of applying these lofty standards to your savior. You keep proving this over and over again. Why are Christian apologists so hypocritical? It says a lot about your religion.
I never said that traveling in the dessert was easy, I said that they knew how to do it. Abraham traveled from Ur to Palestine. Certainly Muhammad could have gone from Medina to Antioch. There is also the night journey to Jerusalem, that was his chance to meet with the Patriarch.
Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but commissioned his disciples to go into all the world. The Emperor of Rome was no more important to Him than the Emperor of China. He did see the Jewish High Priest though which was the office that started with Aaron in the Torah. The emperors of Rome didn’t start with a Biblical figure.
Muhammad didn’t see any high ranking Christian religious authority. He spent his time preaching to pagans in Arabia. Okay, pagans need to be converted, fair enough. However, if he claims to be in the line of Biblical prophets he’s got to make it clear to the authorities.
Why did Jesus go to the High Priest and Muhammad didn’t even go to a single bishop, let alone a high ranking bishop?
“I never said that traveling in the dessert was easy, I said that they knew how to do it. Abraham traveled from Ur to Palestine. Certainly Muhammad could have gone from Medina to Antioch. There is also the night journey to Jerusalem, that was his chance to meet with the Patriarch.”
Again, your lofty standards expose your double standards. Why would Muhammad (pbuh) travel to meet these religious leaders when he is busy trying to reform Arabia of its paganism? And here we see your pathetic hypocrisy:
“Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but commissioned his disciples to go into all the world. The Emperor of Rome was no more important to Him than the Emperor of China.”
Exactly! So then on what basis do you expect Muhammad (pbuh) to go see some distant pope? The pope was no more important than the pagan leaders of Quraysh or the Najran Christians. You seem to think that you get to decide what Muhammad (pbuh) should or should not have done, but then refuse to apply that to your savior.
Also, why didn’t the disciples go see the emperors? Do you have historical evidence that any of them met face to face with any of the emperors or the Senate?
“However, if he claims to be in the line of Biblical prophets he’s got to make it clear to the authorities. ”
He did make it clear. He announced it in his letters. The religious leaders of the Byzantine Empire would have been present in Heraclius’ court, wouldn’t they?
“Why did Jesus go to the High Priest and Muhammad didn’t even go to a single bishop, let alone a high ranking bishop?”
LOL! First of all, Jesus (pbuh) didn’t go to the high priest on his own accord. He was captured and then brought to the high priest. The story is historically suspect, but even if we assume it was true, Jesus tended to avoid the religious leaders until he had no choice.
“Why would Muhammad (pbuh) travel to meet these religious leaders when he is busy trying to reform Arabia of its paganism?”
Because those people had no Abrahamic pedigree. They weren’t people with scripture or a covenant. The Pope was part of the covenant that Christ established.
“Exactly! So then on what basis do you expect Muhammad (pbuh) to go see some distant pope? ”
Because he was part of the religion of Christ who was a prophet according the Quran. Just like the High Priest was part of the mosaic covenant before him. He was in the office of Aaron, just like the Pope sits in the office of Peter. And if not the Pope, why not the Patriarch of Jerusalem. He was in that city!
“The pope was no more important than the pagan leaders of Quraysh or the Najran Christians. You seem to think that you get to decide what Muhammad (pbuh) should or should not have done, but then refuse to apply that to your savior.”
Okay, you offer no proof. My savior confronted the High Priest of the OT religion. Your prophet did nothing even close.
“Also, why didn’t the disciples go see the emperors? Do you have historical evidence that any of them met face to face with any of the emperors or the Senate?”
The preached the Gospel to Jew and pagan alike. The emperor would not have been anymore important than a pagan peasant since he wields no religious authority. They went to whoever they could.
“He did make it clear. He announced it in his letters. The religious leaders of the Byzantine Empire would have been present in Heraclius’ court, wouldn’t they?”
He never sent a letter to the Patriach or Pope. It was to Heraclius who was the emperor who didn’t hold an office in the Church. It was addressed to him. The court? No, bishops werent in “the court”. He couldn’t even send a letter to the Patriach or Pope.
“LOL! First of all, Jesus (pbuh) didn’t go to the high priest on his own accord. He was captured and then brought to the high priest. The story is historically suspect, but even if we assume it was true, Jesus tended to avoid the religious leaders until he had no choice.”
True, but it was all known and arranged by the Almighty.
“We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
– Mark 10:33-34
Your prophet did none of this. Jesus announced who he was to the high priest. I don’t think Muhammad ever spoke to a bishop, let alone a patriarch or the Pope. Talk about a huge failure on his part.
“Because those people had no Abrahamic pedigree. They weren’t people with scripture or a covenant. The Pope was part of the covenant that Christ established.”
That’s exactly why they were a priority. They needed to be brought into the true Abrahamic tradition. And no, the pope was not “part of the covenant”. The pope is the leader of a false religion that has nothing to do with Jesus (pbuh).
“Okay, you offer no proof. My savior confronted the High Priest of the OT religion. Your prophet did nothing even close.”
Again, your savior was taken to the high priest after he was captured. And even that story is historically suspect. Then on top of that, your savior offered contradictory and vague answers to the high priest. How convenient!
“The preached the Gospel to Jew and pagan alike. The emperor would not have been anymore important than a pagan peasant since he wields no religious authority. They went to whoever they could.”
So again we see you making excuses. The emperor was the most powerful man in the world. If your savior and his disciples wanted to preach to Jew and Gentile alike, then it would make sense to preach to the most powerful gentile. You can proving again and again how biased you are. It seems to me that they were just plain afraid. They didn’t want to upset the powers that be.
“He never sent a letter to the Patriach or Pope. It was to Heraclius who was the emperor who didn’t hold an office in the Church. It was addressed to him. The court? No, bishops werent in “the court”. He couldn’t even send a letter to the Patriach or Pope.”
The letters were sent to the leaders of the different empires and nations of the time. It makes perfect sense. Heraclius was at the center of the main schism of the time. He even promoted monothelitism as a compromise. So he was obviously involved in theological matters.
“True, but it was all known and arranged by the Almighty.”
So then you have absolutely no basis to demand something of Muhammad (pbuh) that your own savior did not do of his own accord.
” “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
– Mark 10:33-34″
Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!” – Mark 14:41-42
This doesn’t sound like a guy who was willing to face the high priest. He said to the disciples to rise and leave with him before the crowd captured him.
“Your prophet did none of this. Jesus announced who he was to the high priest. I don’t think Muhammad ever spoke to a bishop, let alone a patriarch or the Pope. Talk about a huge failure on his part.”
Again, your savior avoided contact with the authorities and never willingly went to them. Apply your standards to your savior.
Muhammad (pbuh) had no reason to go seek out some bishop or pope. He was busy reforming his people and sending the message out to neighboring countries. What more could he have done? He did far more than your savior ever did. Talk about a huge failure on his part.
“That’s exactly why they were a priority. They needed to be brought into the true Abrahamic tradition. And no, the pope was not “part of the covenant”. The pope is the leader of a false religion that has nothing to do with Jesus (pbuh).”
Well, I have six centuries worth of evidence prior to Muhammad to prove you wrong. So it’s all that evidence against the word of Faiz. History has never been on the side of any Islamic apologist. It certainly isn’t on yours. Tell me why I should reject six centuries of established history and take your word.
“Again, your savior was taken to the high priest after he was captured. And even that story is historically suspect. Then on top of that, your savior offered contradictory and vague answers to the high priest. How convenient!”
I showed how it was in God’s plan and I showed you that it wasn’t contradictory at all.
“The letters were sent to the leaders of the different empires and nations of the time. It makes perfect sense. Heraclius was at the center of the main schism of the time. He even promoted monothelitism as a compromise. So he was obviously involved in theological matters.”
You’ve just contradicted yourself. Muhammad doesn’t need to go to the Pope because he’s the head of a false religion alien from Christ but you’re boasting about a letter written to a layman in the same Church as the Pope. You also try to make him an authority because he promoted a heresy. So if he promoted a heresy, he automatically becomes a bishop? You appear to know very little about the Christian religion.
“So then you have absolutely no basis to demand something of Muhammad (pbuh) that your own savior did not do of his own accord.”
If Muhammad were a true prophet the Almighty would have arranged it.
“This doesn’t sound like a guy who was willing to face the high priest. He said to the disciples to rise and leave with him before the crowd captured him.”
This verse is about getting arrested. This doesn’t cancel out Mark 10 which you can’t respond to.
“Muhammad (pbuh) had no reason to go seek out some bishop or pope. He was busy reforming his people and sending the message out to neighboring countries. What more could he have done? He did far more than your savior ever did. Talk about a huge failure on his part.”
Well obviously Christ did far more than Muhammad. The high priest was the highest religious authority in the only true religion at that time. Muhammad speaks to some Arabian polytheists and this is supposed to be an equivalent?
My savior confronted the high priest in will with God’s plan. Your prophet stayed in the desert and couldn’t even bother to meet the Patriarch when he was in Jerusalem which he easily could have arranged. Talk about a missed opportunity.