Find solution
What is the difference between covering and overlapping constraints use in DBMS?

Is there a difference between how the Christians use the word “Christ” and the way Muslims use it?

  • Is there a difference between how the Christians use the word “Christ” to refer to Jesus of Nazareth and the way that Muslims use the word “Christ” to refer to Jesus of Nazareth? If so, what is that difference? Thank You

  • Answer:

    Hi. not sure how the Muslims use the word "Christ" to refer to Jesus. But to answer your question. Here's how I view it. Colossians 2:9: KJ reads: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Greek, the·o′te·tos] bodily.” (A similar thought is conveyed by the renderings in NE, RS, JB, NAB, Dy.) However, NW reads: “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” (AT, We, and CKW read “God’s nature,” instead of “Godhead.” Compare 2 Peter 1:4.) Admittedly, not everyone offers the same interpretation of Colossians 2:9. But what is in agreement with the rest of the inspired letter to the Colossians? Did Christ have in himself something that is his because he is God, part of a Trinity? Or is “the fullness” that dwells in him something that became his because of the decision of someone else? Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.” Consider the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: In verse 8, readers are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human traditions. They are also told that in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and are urged to “live in him” and to be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith.” (Verses 3, 6, 7) It is in him, and not in the originators or the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain precious “fulness” dwells. Was the apostle Paul there saying that the “fulness” that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be “seated at the right hand of God.”—See KJ, Dy, TEV, NAB.

LeonidasHart at Answerbag.com Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Christ means THE Messiah. The promised one who would deliver the Jews from their troubles. By Christian dogma that is Jesus of Nazareth. Most jews dont think so (he did not particularly deliver them from their troubles). And Christian dogma (in most branches) goes on to say he was divine. A manifestation of God himself. By Islamic dogma Jesus may be the prophesied one (and so deserve to be called Christ); But that do not mean they see him as divine. they see him as a man and a prophet, just like Balam and Elijah and Elisha and (later) Mohammed. So both may use the word "Christ" for him. But with 2 rather different meanings.

JakobA ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) the alooney

I've never heard a Muslim refer to Christ. Only to Jesus as a prophet.

my2cents

When there's even a difference between how claimed Christians use the word, very likely.

nightcrawler0_2

1- the HQ mentions Jesus 25 times almost always by his full HQ title as "the Christ, Jesus, son of Mary" 2- the word "Christ" is Anglicised version of the Greek "Christos" while the word "Messiah" is Anglicised version of the Hebrew "mashiach". 3- Both the Greek "Christos" and the Hebrew "mashiach" should actually be translated into English as "anointed". 4- In the OT kings, the High Priests and sometimes prophets were traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil. This conferred upon them the title "the Anointed" or "the Christ" or "the Messiah" as they were the same but in different languages. 5- Note though, that messiahs were not necessarily Jewish. The OT refers to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as a messiah, a christ, for his decree to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple.

CLURT

nope .. they could actually both just use " imaginary mascot " .

The Anonymous Witch

According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the·o′tes (the nominative form, from which the·o′te·tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age.

vew573

There is a difference in how every human on the planet perceives Christ. The Hindus see Christ as the God in human form like Krishna and all the great avatars. Satya Sai Baba preached that Krishna was an avatar. Jesus was not. He was not born on earth fully realized. He became realized before He died. He lived and taught on the planet as a God-realized soul. That means He awoke to the fact that He was, in fact, Christ as are all of us. That is His message. That is Jesus' message. We are all God. He showed us the way. He said: All that I can do, you can do also AND MORE. Now you can interpret this 1,000 ways till Sunday. But the truth remains. We are all drops of God in the ocean of God which is Christ Consciousness.

TOWEL OF THE CORN

Do Muslims even refer to Christ? I was under the impression that they don't want anything to do with Christianity.

Bootsiebaby

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.