Comments on: Would Jesus Criticize the Muslims?

By: MInTheGap

MInTheGap — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:00:43 +0000

I agree with you Chris– he would definitely have something to say against pluralism.

Stephen– I think you highlight an important truth that we tend to overlook– the way in which we deal with non-believers is important. Instead of seeing people as lost and in need of a Savior, we tend to shy away. Now, I think that there always has to be (and that Jesus would take a) strong stance against a religion that was leading others astray– be they other polythesitc, atheistic or flavors of Christianity that do not preach the Gospel of Christ. But you’re right, we’re here to spread the good news, and that news meets people where they are: In sin with a need for a Savior.

By: Chris Naron

Chris Naron — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:19:48 +0000

I agree that His debates would likely be limited to personal, or one on one debates. As opposed to creating an anti-Islamic organization. There would be no reason for Him to rail against Islamic hypocrisy because He knows any false religion will stink of hypocrisy. What He would rail against is the tendency of people within “Christiandom” to buy into the worldly idea that all religions are equal paths to gOd.

By: Stephen Kingston

Stephen Kingston — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:42:42 +0000

Chris, there was a case of Jesus involving himself in apologetic debate with a Samaritan woman, so I think he might do so with a Muslim in such a situation. But what I don’t think he would do is rail against the hypocrisy of Islam - at least, not in the Christian church.

That was what my piece was trying to say. I think you are right to point out that Jesus was working on the real thing. Indeed, in many ways his ministry was of great eschatological significance, but he left it to Paul to develop a Christian theology.

MiN: I agree that Jesus would have maintained he was the way, the truth and the life. I am not saying we should be taking a line of moral equivalence, where we water down Christ’s message. But look at how Jesus’ ministry was different in his approach to Zacchaeus. Instead of condemning tax collectors for their working with the Romans, or for their propensity to skim the profits on the taxes or whatever, he simply treated Zacchaeus as a needy friend.

By: MInTheGap

MInTheGap — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:53:32 +0000

I guess the difference between then and now, to me, would be that the Muslims have taken the Christian faith and added to it. For example, Muslims believe that Jesus Himself is one of their prophets. I would think that He would have to address this claim.

Certainly you are right, Jesus did not go around to Caananite and Roman gods proving himself to each of them, but in the same vein, His actions were that of God and demonstrated his power.

I certainly would expect Him to maintain His statement that He is Way, Truth, and Life and the only way to the Father.

By: Chris Naron

Chris Naron — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:15:40 +0000

When trying to foil counterfeiters, do you take out newspaper and TV ads that tell people what they already know–counterfeiting is wrong!? No, you concentrate on the real thing and making it harder to counterfeit. That’s what Jesus was doing during his ministry, working on the real thing because it went without saying that the false religions were just that, false.

Today, Jesus wouldn’t just have heresies within Judaism to contend with. He would be dealing with a pervasive thought process that attempts to make all religion or lack thereof equal in moral authority. Therefore, Jesus would be working on the Church, making sure that it knows the truth. Perhaps that would require him to teach why other religions, including Islam, are false. But would he be directly involved in apologetic debates with Muslims? I doubt it.