One of the Muslim discussions over in GD got me thinking–is there any Christian group which accepts Mohammed as a prophet, or uses him as part of their teachings in any way? For this question a Christian is defined a person who believes that Jesus is the literal son of God.
The short answer is that I am no expert but I have never heard of any denomination of Christianity that accepts Mohammed as a prophet.
Furthermore my initial reaction would be that that acknowledging Mohammed as a prophet in the strict sense of that term would be inconsistent with Christian teachings. (No I don’t have a cite).
Let me be very clear that I am not trying to tell any Christians or non-Christians or anybody what to believe or what not to believe.
But I start with the premise that mainstream Christian denominations view the Bible as the prinicipal source of their religious doctrine. Mohammed’s teachings are set forth in the Koran. The Koran is not part of the Christian Bible.
there’s a warning about false prophets to come in the gospels.
Besides, given the christian beliefs, what could a prophet have to announce after the coming of the messiah, and son of god to boost?
Ask the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 
I believe that Mohammed wrote about Jesus without acknowledging him as the son of god. He may even have stated that he wasn’t. Anyway, it is fairly well established (AFAIK, but every Muslim I’ve talked with feels this way) that Mohammed thought the idea that Jesus was god, begotten not made one in being with the father (just believing he’s the son of god would make you an Arian), was worshipping a false god, and that Jesus never intended people to worship him.
Interesting angle but kind of inside-out from the OP. I thought for Christians, Jesus was kind of the last word on the subject. I am not familiar with the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons).
Yeah, that’s true. I guess that if he were acknowledged, it would be as more of a saint figure; Mohammed was credited with several “miracles.”
rfgdxm writes:
> Ask the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Which is part of why most Christian groups consider Mormons to be heretical.
My point was that Christians are not likely to honor a person who holds the opinion that they are wrong and have misrepresented Jesus’ message and nature. I just don’t see how you can say “He’s right” and still be a Christian.
That he just saved hundreds of dollars by switching to Geico? 
Muslims believe that Muhammad didn’t write anything. God dictated the Quran to Muhammad, told him to recite it to the world.
That said, Jesus (Isa in Arabic) is acknowledged by Muslims as a great prophet in the line of Moses, Abraham and so on. The second-last and one of the most important prophets, the one just before Muhammad. However, he’s not thought to have been divine.
The Quran is quite explicit on there having been no god-like figures but for God, and on the idea of God neither begetting nor having been begotten.
Well, the Unitarian-Universalists seem to incorporate just about everyone’s spiritual experience and have been known to draw from just about everyone’s religious texts in services. That includes the Quran, which necessarily entails believing Mohammed to have been some form of truth-revelator.
My ex-girlfriend, a very active UU, and I used to have an ongoing (civil) argument about whether or not the UUs are Christian. They certainly came out of a Christian philosophical tradition by pedigree.
I personally believe that Mohammed came by his teachings from a poorly-ranslated bible from one odd Christian sect which I can’t quite recall.
Well, that would be why Mohammed thought that. I know I would, if it were to happen to me.
No doubt. But anyone who’s attended a UU service - at least at any of the (many) different churches I’ve seen would recognize that they are not Christian in any sense of the word.
It seems to me that from the point of view of any one Christian sect, some or most or all other Christian sects would be heretical to a greater or lesser extent. Whenever Mormonism comes up, I often hear the statement “They’re not really Christians.” But it’s rare in my experience for a member of a mainstream Christian sect (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc.) to say that about another mainstream sect. It sets me a-wondering what is it that makes Mormonism qualitatively different?
Mormonism is qualitatively different. It depends upon a separate revelation given to Joseph Smith rather than on the Bible. (I’m not sure if it’s doctrinal that the Bible is God’s last word, but most people certainly aren’t expecting another book to come along and add on to it.)
There’s a lot of ways Joseph Smith’s revelation is extremely contrary to other Christian beliefs - for one, that after death, we have the potential to work our way up to Gods ourselves, and - I think - that God actually has peers.
That seems to vary a lot by the individual church (and people do use “church” at least in daily conversation). The services I went to were pure melange, with a (rough) mass structure. My understanding is that some congregations get a little more recognizably “Christian churchy.” They do have special Easter and Christmas programs, even if JC isn’t always a prime player. The UU theology, such as there is a consistent one, is indeed all over the place and I totally understand anyone not “counting” them for these purposes. Don’t even know that I do, thought I’d throw it out there.
I have seen a few evangelicals make the bizarre assertion that the Roman Catholic church wasn’t Christian (polytheism, for example, alleged via Mary and saint worship), but this has been limited to Jack Chick-level material (which, come to think of it, would probably reflect to the beliefs of millions of Americans…)
This is certainly true - I have no doubt that some churches place a higher emphasis on Christian ideas.
Our church, at least, also held an annual seder, seemed to have services (perhaps not as a specific holiday, but every year around that time) discussing Kwaanzaa, and recognized the equinoxes and solstices. In fact, this eclecticism is one of the things that turned me off to it - I don’t really like that whole salad bar “theology”.
That’s why I would say it’s not Christian. To whatever extent there’s a creed, it’s embodied in the seven principles (or whatever they’re called.) Off the UUA website, here they are:
These principles are supposed to be core values or something, and there’s just nothing about Christian theology, even if there’s a major element of Christian tradition in the manner church services are conducted. Check out Principles, which is where I copied this list from, for a bit on the traditions the church draws upon.
Obviously the UU Church’s origins come from (very liberal) Christian tradition, but there’s nothing of the Christian belief system left - no Christ, no creed on the afterlife or the existence of God, or of the creation of the world, no holy texts, and so on. It seems like a real stretch to call something Christian if it doesn’t involve things like Christ, or grace, or God.
Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, and Unitarian-Universalists are all considered heretical by most Christian groups, regardless of whether they consider themselves Christian or not. I’m using heretical as a technical term here. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and nearly all Protestant groups do not consider each other to be heretical. They disagree on a lot of things, but there is a core of belief that they agree on.
Islam, on the other hand, isn’t heretical because it doesn’t claim to be a Christian group.