Jesus is a Muslim

[Grandliseur]

"Muslim" is an Arabic word meaning "one who submits (to God)"

Luke 6:40 (21st Century King James Version)
40 The disciple is not above his master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

Luke 6:40 (American Standard Version)
40 The disciple is not above his teacher: but every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher.

Let us look at what Jesus said in Luke 6:40 in the language of Aramaic translated into Hebrew:
"Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo." - Luke 6:40, Source: Aramaic Bible Society

Translation in English: "No student can be above his teacher, but everyone that is a MUSLIM, can be as his teacher."

The Hebrew word "Mushlam" comes from the root "Sh L M". "Shalom" which comes from the same root means "peace". The Arabic word "Muslim" comes from the root "S L M". "Salam" means "peace".

Conclusion: The word that Jesus used in Luke 6:40 Mushlam in Hebrew is what Muslim in Arabic means - one who submits to God.

While I submit myself to God and his will daily, having only his service on my mind as I live my life, I surely do not want to be called Muslim, neither do I find a brotherhood as such with the Muslim faith. I have read half of the Qur'an, and in all honesty, it is the Bible that is the Word of God, imo.

 

[England my lionheart]

The fact is that Jesus uses the word MUSHLAM. "Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo." - Luke 6:40.

Syriac-English / Syriac-Arabic Dictionary, by Louis Costaz, 1986 Beirut :

(Mishalmana) = Perfect; complete.

Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud, Midrashic Lit

(Mishlam) = Completion, End.

Oraham's Dictionary of the stabilized and enriched Assyrian language and English, by Alexander Joseph Oraham, 1941

(Mishlmana) = Muslim, Mussulman

This is another "Muhammad mentioned in" the song of solomon", why is it so important to try and fit Islam into another religion, it's pretty poor really.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Color me not convinced.

 

[Jedster]

Color me not convinced.

For some reason your post post reminds me of this song

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For some reason your post post reminds me of this song

That video is interesting because I was looking at pictures of my favorite childhood beach in San Francisco and remembering how watching the sunset over the water in the endless horizon made me feel...

 

[Augustus]

The fact is that Jesus uses the word MUSHLAM. "Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo." - Luke 6:40.

The standard Islamic position is that the Gospels are unreliable.

What makes you confident that, despite getting many major things wrong, this specific quote was accurately recorded verbatim despite being translated between multiple languages?

Even if he did use it, why is it amazing that he used a different word that shares a similar root to Muslim in a different language and in a different context?

 

[whitemulberries]

Exactly right. I'm just wondering why if they are so happy, do they need this validation? There's not enough at home to be content, so it needs to be propped up from somewhere else, like, from a religion it sees itself as a competitor to? In their minds, if they can be seen to be validating you, then they aren't a threat anymore. In other words, it's lying to oneself out of some sense of shame, or something.

Hi,

For some at least, it's not about propping up one's religion from somewhere else, it's about ultimately showing either that that religion is wrong/flawed, the correct/corrected religion being Islam (i.e. convert to Islam) or pointing to the universality of Islam (Islam is the original faith that all Prophets/Messengers in all corners of the Earth brought, which later became corrupted, though vestiges of that faith can still be found in at least some of those religions' sacred texts).

Thanks,

wm

 

[whitemulberries]

As to how you come by all of this, is just amazing, since Jesus was born in Judea Israel, and even Jesus himself said that he was only sent to the house of Israel.

Now if what you say to be right, Why was Jesus only sent to Israel and not to the muslims. Go Figure.

Did you also know Jesus talk about how false Christ's and false prophets would come and that how a false prophet would be in the desert.

It's come down Muhammad as being that false prophet lived and was born out in the desert.
Muhammad is the only one to be a self proclaim prophet that lived out in the desert.

And Jesus gave prophecy about Muhammad 600 years before Muhammad lived.

In Matthew 24:24-26. False prophet in the desert. Muhammad being that false prophet in the desert.

Hi,

Actually, there were a number of others claiming Prophethood in the desert at around the same time, Musaylimah being one of the more famous ones.

Thanks,

wm

 

[whitemulberries]

If Jesus was a Muslim, and Christians are followers of Jesus, then Christians are Muslims.

Only if Christians are followers of what Jesus (pbuh) truly taught though.

 

[Windwalker]

For some at least, it's not about propping up one's religion from somewhere else, it's about ultimately showing either that that religion is wrong/flawed, the correct/corrected religion being Islam (i.e. convert to Islam)

To try to point tell yourself another's religion is "wrong" and how yours is "right", is doing exactly what I said, propping themselves up by pointing out how everyone but themselves is wrong.

You can see this same sort of thing psychologically in people who are overcompensating for feelings of low self esteem when they imagine themselves as "better" than others, accomplished by pointing out the flaws of another and then telling themselves, "It's a good thing I don't have that problem like them." In other words, they are attempting to feel better about themselves by comparing themselves to others, noting how they have problems they themselves do not. This is seen by others as a weakness, not a strength.

or pointing to the universality of Islam (Islam is the original faith that all Prophets/Messengers in all corners of the Earth brought, which later became corrupted, though vestiges of that faith can still be found in at least some of those religions' sacred texts).

First of all, in this statement above, there is no evidence whatsoever that the religion of Islam was being practiced or taught anywhere prior to the 600's C.E. This argument is no different than some modern cult who has some "revelation" that their group is the "restored" original church that Jesus' started, for instance. It is simply their claim that how they practice their faith is what was the "true" faith, and that the "original" truth (which they of course now have), was "lost" or "corrupted", but has now been "restored" by the prophet.

You can find example after example of this same old mantra being claimed by cultists the world over in every age. Nothing new. And it's no more true now than it was then. This is the same old argument, equally as fallacious and all the other's claiming this about themselves.

Also, it is incredibly easy to find "vestiges" of one's own current beliefs in previous beliefs by "reading backwards" into history a current point of view. It's a trick, and a danger a modern historian or anthropologist can run into, injecting modern thought into ancient people's cultures and beliefs.

But to be gracious here, there are in fact some of what you see in Islam seen in other religions as well (you imagine these as "vestiges"). The reason they are there however is because human beings are human beings universally. Of course you are going to see certain truths in these other religions, because human beings share a common humanity. It's not that Islam has "restored" the truth. It's just another version of truth that is also found in all the other religions, created from the common source of our human spiritual natures. This of course doesn't even get into cultural cross-contamination, ideas flowing over trade-routes and such.......

What you are doing here is just simply started with a biased elevation of your own religion, then creating errors of perception in reading back your truths into other religions, and dealing with the differences by calling them "wrong". This of course, is in fact, all of what I said about "propping up" one's own religion. And I would surmise the reason for that has to do with some internal self-image problem.

 

[Windwalker]

Only if Christians are followers of what Jesus (pbuh) truly taught though.

Which of course must be what your religion teaches, and not the Buddhists, or the Hindus, or the Mormons (they had their prophet restore the truth too, by the way), etc.

I think all of this can be simplified quite a lot, and in such a way that can in fact be supported rationally and reasonably by saying that everyone has some piece of the truth, and often times that truth is shared between those pieces. To assume your views and beliefs are the only one right, true, and "restored" way of thinking, is just immature thought and reasoning. It only works if you don't actually examine it closely.

 

[whitemulberries]

To try to point tell yourself another's religion is "wrong" and how yours is "right", is doing exactly what I said, propping themselves up by pointing out how everyone but themselves is wrong.

You can see this same sort of thing psychologically in people who are overcompensating for feelings of low self esteem when they imagine themselves as "better" than others, accomplished by pointing out the flaws of another and then telling themselves, "It's a good thing I don't have that problem like them." In other words, they are attempting to feel better about themselves by comparing themselves to others, noting how they have problems they themselves do not. This is seen by others as a weakness, not a strength.


First of all, in this statement above, there is no evidence whatsoever that the religion of Islam was being practiced or taught anywhere prior to the 600's C.E. This argument is no different than some modern cult who has some "revelation" that their group is the "restored" original church that Jesus' started, for instance. It is simply their claim that how they practice their faith is what was the "true" faith, and that the "original" truth (which they of course now have), was "lost" or "corrupted", but has now been "restored" by the prophet.

You can find example after example of this same old mantra being claimed by cultists the world over in every age. Nothing new. And it's no more true now than it was then. This is the same old argument, equally as fallacious and all the other's claiming this about themselves.

Also, it is incredibly easy to find "vestiges" of one's own current beliefs in previous beliefs by "reading backwards" into history a current point of view. It's a trick, and a danger a modern historian or anthropologist can run into, injecting modern thought into ancient people's cultures and beliefs.

But to be gracious here, there are in fact some of what you see in Islam seen in other religions as well (you imagine these as "vestiges"). The reason they are there however is because human beings are human beings universally. Of course you are going to see certain truths in these other religions, because human beings share a common humanity. It's not that Islam has "restored" the truth. It's just another version of truth that is also found in all the other religions, created from the common source of our human spiritual natures. This of course doesn't even get into cultural cross-contamination, ideas flowing over trade-routes and such.......

What you are doing here is just simply started with a biased elevation of your own religion, then creating errors of perception in reading back your truths into other religions, and dealing with the differences by calling them "wrong". This of course, is in fact, all of what I said about "propping up" one's own religion. And I would surmise the reason for that has to do with some internal self-image problem.

If your original point was that people who do this are seeking to prop up their own religion for psychological reasons that they are unaware of, then I have no real argument with that. I was only trying to say that whereas some might be consciously seeking to prop up their own religion in this way, others might consciously do so for other reasons (e.g. beliefs of the sort I gave).

EDIT: Scrap those points, I don't think they get me very far! I'm not sure there are going to be that many people who might consciously seek to prop up their own religion in the way we are talking bout here. Though that was my thought with my earlier post! Not an example of very clear thinking on my part, sorry!

 

[whitemulberries]

Which of course must be what your religion teaches, and not the Buddhists, or the Hindus, or the Mormons (they had their prophet restore the truth too, by the way), etc.

Of course!

they had their prophet restore the truth too, by the way

In their beliefs, sure.

I think all of this can be simplified quite a lot, and in such a way that can in fact be supported rationally and reasonably by saying that everyone has some piece of the truth, and often times that truth is shared between those pieces.

That is indeed one way of looking at it.

To assume your views and beliefs are the only one right, true, and "restored" way of thinking, is just immature thought and reasoning.

Or a belief, after thinking things through and applying one's reasoning.

It only works if you don't actually examine it closely.

I disagree.

 

[Windwalker]

If your original point was that people who do this are seeking to prop up their own religion for psychological reasons that they are unaware of, then I have no real argument with that. I was only trying to say that whereas some might be consciously seeking to prop up their own religion in this way, others might consciously do so for other reasons (e.g. beliefs of the sort I gave).

But I am saying what you said, "it's about ultimately showing either that that religion is wrong/flawed, the correct/corrected religion being Islam," is doing just what I said. Why would you feel a need to do that?

And furthermore, it's really presumptive about one's own truths, which demonstrates a lack of true humility which understands nothing they believe can be claimed with absolute certainty to the point they can say "I'm right and you're wrong". That problem is typically caused by some need to be right, which is typically caused because of some internal lack. My point.

 

[whitemulberries]

But I am saying what you said, "it's about ultimately showing either that that religion is wrong/flawed, the correct/corrected religion being Islam," is doing just what I said. Why would you feel a need to do that?

Because that is one's belief, and a genuine desire to help misguided others/save their souls.

And furthermore, it's really presumptive about one's own truths, which demonstrates a lack of true humility which understands nothing they believe can be claimed with absolute certainty to the point they can say "I'm right and you're wrong".

Well, I think that depends on how one puts it. One can say 'I believe I'm right, and this is what I believe, but I can see your point of view, and I could ultimately be wrong', which is the route I try to take, or one can indeed say 'I'm right and you're wrong, end of story'.

That problem is typically caused by some need to be right, which is typically caused because of some internal lack. My point.

I edited my post above while you were writing/posting this to say that my points didn't hold much water

 

[whitemulberries]

First of all, in this statement above, there is no evidence whatsoever that the religion of Islam was being practiced or taught anywhere prior to the 600's C.E. This argument is no different than some modern cult who has some "revelation" that their group is the "restored" original church that Jesus' started, for instance. It is simply their claim that how they practice their faith is what was the "true" faith, and that the "original" truth (which they of course now have), was "lost" or "corrupted", but has now been "restored" by the prophet.

You can find example after example of this same old mantra being claimed by cultists the world over in every age. Nothing new.

Sure, but it is nevertheless what it is, a belief.

And it's no more true now than it was then. This is the same old argument, equally as fallacious and all the other's claiming this about themselves.

Well now that's also a belief! It could be true!

 

[Windwalker]

Because that is one's belief, and a genuine desire to help misguided others/save their souls.

You have to be careful with this too. Someone may feel a "genuine desire" to "save the lost", but in reality, that desire is actually not about the other person, but about the person who feels other's need saving, or that they themselves have the answers. In both cases, it's the ego seeking something for itself.

The funny thing about this is that it's like the near enemy and far enemy found in Buddhist teachings. The far enemy is the exact opposite of something, such as indifference is to compassion. But the near enemy is one which appears to be the quality you want, but is actually a not. It masquares itself, allowing the person to lie to themselves they are not indifferent. So the near enemy to compassion is pity. Pity is not true compassion, and is about the person themselves, not the other person.

Same thing here with this notion of trying to "save" others. It is the near enemy of Love. It's a lie someone tells themselves they genuinely care, when they don't. It's a way to hide themselves from their own self-examination under the guise of religious piety. It presumes the other needs to be saved, in order for that person to feel their beliefs are right. It is their own insecurity on display as they proclaim "the truth" to the "unsaved", hoping if other's convert, it will validate their own beliefs to themselves. It's not about others. It's about themselves.

Well, I think that depends on how one puts it. One can say 'I believe I'm right, and this is what I believe, but I can see your point of view, and I could ultimately be wrong', which is the route I try to take, or one can indeed say 'I'm right and you're wrong, end of story'.

I think the healthiest way for any of us to take in regards to our beliefs and the beliefs of others is to acknowledge that all truths are partial truths. That you may choose to view God a particular way that I do not, it doesn't mean either you are right or I am and one of us is wrong.

It's like the old story of the blind men and the elephant, if you are familiar. Each man touching the elephant described it differently, "It's a like a rope," as he felt the tail; "It's like a tree", as another felt the leg, and so forth. Each was right, and each was wrong.

Truth is relative this way for us as humans. This approach allows for much more grace and genuine respect, which is actually about the other.

I edited my post above while you were writing/posting this to say that my points didn't hold much water

That's cool. I'll take note of that... I hate when that happens, where I edit something while someone is responding already to what I decided to edit.

 

[Tumah]

"Muslim" is an Arabic word meaning "one who submits (to God)"

Luke 6:40 (21st Century King James Version)
40 The disciple is not above his master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

Luke 6:40 (American Standard Version)
40 The disciple is not above his teacher: but every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher.

Let us look at what Jesus said in Luke 6:40 in the language of Aramaic translated into Hebrew:
"Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo." - Luke 6:40, Source: Aramaic Bible Society

Translation in English: "No student can be above his teacher, but everyone that is a MUSLIM, can be as his teacher."

The Hebrew word "Mushlam" comes from the root "Sh L M". "Shalom" which comes from the same root means "peace". The Arabic word "Muslim" comes from the root "S L M". "Salam" means "peace".

Conclusion: The word that Jesus used in Luke 6:40 Mushlam in Hebrew is what Muslim in Arabic means - one who submits to God.

This is ridiculous as expected. You haven't proven that Jesus was a Muslim. What you did was play some word games in order to pretend that the Hebrew word mushlam (this word doesn't appear in Tanach, tam would be the Biblical equivalent) is synonymous with the Arabic word Muslim. It's about as synonymous as the Arabic word ṣalat is with the Aramaic ṣila meaning 'shadow' (ṣalat -> maṣli (pray in Aramaic) -> ṣila). The answer is: "not at all".

Why not use a text written in Aramaic - the language that the NT authors and the Jesus of their narrative spoke? Why use a modern Hebrew translation of the text even though the original text was not written in Hebrew...?

"Leth talmida d'yatir min rabba, kalnash gir d'GAMIR n'hu eikh rabba"

...because the Pe****ta wasn't accommodating, apparently.

Yes, the words shalom, shalem, salam and aslama all share an etymological source. But unless you intend to start greeting people with "muslim" instead of "salam", try to remember that words have different meanings and they're not all interchangeable.

Also -1 for that conclusion. You spent your OP explaining the relationship between the root of mushlam and salam/peace. Then you totally ignore your OP by concluding that mushlam means Muslim even though Muslim doesn't mean peace but submission.

 

[whitemulberries]

You have to be careful with this too. Someone may feel a "genuine desire" to "save the lost", but in reality, that desire is actually not about the other person, but about the person who feels other's need saving, or that they themselves have the answers. In both cases, it's the ego seeking something for itself.

The funny thing about this is that it's like the near enemy and far enemy found in Buddhist teachings. The far enemy is the exact opposite of something, such as indifference is to compassion. But the near enemy is one which appears to be the quality you want, but is actually a not. It masquares itself, allowing the person to lie to themselves they are not indifferent. So the near enemy to compassion is pity. Pity is not true compassion, and is about the person themselves, not the other person.

Same thing here with this notion of trying to "save" others. It is the near enemy of Love. It's a lie someone tells themselves they genuinely care, when they don't. It's a way to hide themselves from their own self-examination under the guise of religious piety. It presumes the other needs to be saved, in order for that person to feel their beliefs are right. It is their own insecurity on display as they proclaim "the truth" to the "unsaved", hoping if other's convert, it will validate their own beliefs to themselves. It's not about others. It's about themselves.

I pretty much agree with everything you say here, although I do think it is possible to genuinely care for the other in this way, the danger notwithstanding.

I think the healthiest way for any of us to take in regards to our beliefs and the beliefs of others is to acknowledge that all truths are partial truths. That you may choose to view God a particular way that I do not, it doesn't mean either you are right or I am and one of us is wrong.

A nice idea in principle, but I'm afraid there are certain things that I believe to be right and other things (that others believe) to be wrong.

It's like the old story of the blind men and the elephant, if you are familiar. Each man touching the elephant described it differently, "It's a like a rope," as he felt the tail; "It's like a tree", as another felt the leg, and so forth. Each was right, and each was wrong.

Truth is relative this way for us as humans. This approach allows for much more grace and genuine respect, which is actually about the other.

It's a nice story, which I used to hold to, though not any more. I do agree that Truth (if such a thing exists) is something that we can at best only partially grasp, but that's not the same thing as saying that all of us necessarily have a partially correct perspective on the Truth.

 

[Windwalker]

Sure, but it is nevertheless what it is, a belief.

And now I'm going to sound like I'm contradicting myself. When someone makes a statement that this is how things are which is completely fabricated, and then follows it up by saying "It's a belief. It could be true," that does not hold water at all. There is a scale of probabilities of beliefs, anywhere from highly likely to be true, all the way down to pure fantasy with no grounding in reality.

When I hear people these days citing, "Well, it's how I believe," when making statements that can be factually disproven, that is an intellectual dishonestly. Contrary to the abusive of understanding postmodernist relativity, beliefs and opinion are not all equally valid. They have to be justified. Here's a great article to look at regarding this: No, you're not entitled to your opinion

Well now that's also a belief! It could be true!

It's an informed opinion, and as such it is much more likely true than when someone makes something up out of thin air that "sounds logical" until actually examined. You can examine what I said, and I can offer support for it, thus increasing its probability it exists as true beyond just a personal belief.

So why this is not a contradiction to what I said before about how when religions have to prop themselves up to make themselves "right" by trying to prove the others as "wrong", is because when it comes to beliefs about God and theologies, these are not matters of historical and scientific facts. Religious expressions are metaphors, not facts.

It's like arguing with someone who sees a beautiful butterfly in the shapes of the stars, and someone saying, "No, you're wrong! It's a horse! Our prophet said it was! Die infidel!". That is in fact arguing beliefs as facts, whereas what I was saying referenced actual data that can be examined critically by anyone, regardless of their belief systems.