Mohammed in the Bible

[Islam]

Snow Bear - Because if they interpret it as Mohammed they would have 2 believe in him wouldnt they? So that would make them Muslims not Christians. And all christians who converted to Islam know its him especially ppl who were in churches etc.

 

[Snowbear]

Snow Bear - Because if they interpret it as Mohammed they would have 2 believe in him wouldnt they? So that would make them Muslims not Christians. And all christians who converted to Islam know its him especially ppl who were in churches etc.

Huh?? I'm sorry, I'm not able to make sense of what you're trying to say here...

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

But I also think Muhammad's and all Muslims interpretations are wrong too, especially where you see links to Muhammad in the OT of the bible that are not there. The prophecies that are Islam listed here are nothing more than self-promotion of your prophet. I don't see genuine understanding of OT passages from Muslims, or I see is propaganda, just as I see Christians trying to promote Jesus in the so-called prophecies.

No we did not write this stuff. The christians did. The bible catalogs his life. let me give you one prophecy the christians claim concerning Jesus I believe it is Isaiah 21:7 where they are talking about someone riding a chariot of horses, donkeys, and camels. Christians claim the one on the horses is Moses (according to some christians) the one on the assess is Jesus, so which prophet rode a camel. According to them. If noone then this is unfulfilled. There are more I will post it tonight if I have time. It will a chapter out of a wonderful book. I implore you to read it. You see many just give one evidence and say you see this is it. when some clearly need more evidence then that. so insha Allah I will give you plenty of evidences. Then after you hear it all from what is written in the text then say what you say.

As to the NT, I see more of this same self-promotion by taking the texts out of context of what Jesus said in John's gospels. The idea that you are stating the Holy Spirit (ie Comforter or Spirit of Truth) is Muhammad is interpetation that Muslims would only agree on.

Only muslims that believe Muhammed succeeded Christ in bringing forth the religion of Abraham to the world because when Jesus came to bring his message to the jews they rejected him and tried to kill him so Allah saved him.

I don't believe in any spirit or miracle because I see no proof of ones,

So why should we believe in the holy spirit that christians talk about. do you believe in that.

but I do see when people are manipulating the texts for their own interpretations by both Christians or Muslims. And that is all it is - your interpretation.

This was done by the church early on. Are you justifying their manipulation and interpretation. because Christianity as a whole is someone's interpretation. And it is not the interpretation of the one who brought it in its origninal uncorrupted form. It is someone who never met God, Jesus etc.

All quotes that islam had quoted here, can have many different interpretations because they only grabbed a few vague verses, then put whatever meaning you wish.

I can easily use islam's verses and interpret it in my own way that these verses from the books of Deuteronomy and Isaiah in regarding to the prophecised prophet as Satan or the Fairy Godmother if I so wish to....and quite convincingly too, I might add.

As I said I will give you the evidence from the bible itself. Peace

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

however if jewish interpretation of their own text differs from that of the muslim interpretation then which is the correct one?

i can read the same text and come to a much different conclusion than you about it's meaning and message.

for example, i would say that the Torah is not necessarily a universal message but one geared specifically toward Bnei Yisrael...so in Deut. 18:18-19 i would say that the prophets being spoken of there, coming from their "bretheren", is talking about coming out of Bnei Yisrael, which Muhammed was not from.

I agree but how should you interpret the Torah. From the words of Moses or someone who came after him who never met him but says Moses followers like Joshua are misguided and they should listen to him because Moses came to him in a dream. You should let Moses tell you the meaning for that is why they are called "Messengers". They tell the people something they understand and they accept or reject. Do the Christians do this or say this. Do they interpret the words of Allah through the words of Jesus and his righteous followers. Or is it someone else who has the AUTHORITY over it. By the way who gave Pauls and the church scribes etc. the right to do any of the things they have done. Jesus says circumcision is obligatory Paul says it it not. this is just one example who has more precedence jesus or paul. Who is the leader in christianity the Church or Jesus Paul or Jesus.

 

[gnostic]

Jesus says circumcision is obligatory Paul says it it not. this is just one example who has more precedence jesus or paul. Who is the leader in christianity the Church or Jesus Paul or Jesus.

You forget that the gospels weren't just meant for the Jewish people (who converted to become Christians) alone. Paul's circumstance is different from Jesus. Jesus only taught those who are already Jews. Paul and other apostles were bringing the gospels to the Gentiles, of non-Jewish backgrounds, like the Greeks and Romans. These other Christians weren't required to circumcise or to adopt what is essentially Jewish customs, but Jewish-Christians didn't stop their own customs because they became Christians.

I believe that you are ignoring Paul's circumstance are different from that of Jesus. Just how on earth is Paul going to enforce circumcision upon non-Jewish Christians, Mujahid? Paul and the apostles were supposed to spreading the gospels, not act as judges or become law-makers of non-Jewish Christians. They didn't build an army, like your prophet Muhammad, where they can enforce Torahic law upon non-Jewish Christians. These early Christians didn't spread their faith through wars and battles.

I think you are being terribly unrealistic, Mujahid.

 

[Snowbear]

Jesus says circumcision is obligatory Paul says it it not.

Where?

 

[gnostic]

I wonder what Dr. Angelo would have to say about all this?

I can't seem to find Dr Angelo here, at RF, anymore than I can find Dr Angelo at Free2Code, YmirGF. Is there a golf course in RF?

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

You forget that the gospels weren't just meant for the Jewish people (who converted to become Christians) alone. Paul's circumstance is different from Jesus.

Of course one is a Messenger sent by God from his own words who said a parakletos would come after him to finish his mission. Paul was self appointed and even because he is a gentile was cursed by Jesus.

Jesus only taught those who are already Jews.

No his message was only for the jews. Mathew 15:24 i have not been sent but unto the lost sheep OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.

Paul and other apostles were bringing the gospels to the Gentiles, of non-Jewish backgrounds, like the Greeks and Romans.

on whose authority tell me once when jesus says a pharisee(gentile) will succeed his mission.

These other Christians weren't required to circumcise or to adopt what is essentially Jewish customs, but Jewish-Christians didn't stop their own customs because they became Christians.

But since this is a custom of the Christians "man god" then regardless if they practiced it or not this is a custom they must adobt from the covenant God mad with Abraham about circumcision. This is something Moses adhered to and all the other prophets. And it is something that ALL BELIEVERS IN GOD must perform. That was one of the differences between the Ones given the message of God(jews, arabs), and the pagan gentiles.

I believe that you are ignoring Paul's circumstance are different from that of Jesus. Just how on earth is Paul going to enforce circumcision upon non-Jewish Christians, Mujahid?

If they believe and accept his message what would be hard. Abraham did it on himself when he was 80. If the Christians are believers in God and worship him as they say then why would it be hard for them to be people who submit to the laws and commandments of God. (which means to be muslim for muslim means one who submits to God.)

(which means Paul and the apostles were supposed to spreading the gospels, not act as judges or become law-makers of non-Jewish Christians. They didn't build an army, like your prophet Muhammad, where they can enforce Torahic law upon non-Jewish Christians. These early Christians didn't spread their faith through wars and battles.

Your lack of knowledge in Islamic shariah when dealing with muslims is very apparent. In islam as a non muslim living under muslim protection they are what is known as the covenanted people. Or the people of the book living under muslim protection. Non muslims are not subjected to muslim laws for instance if a christian drinks he is not punished. If he missess the muslim prayer he is not punished. They have their own shariah. They are even allowed to build churches. the early christians did spread their faith through wars. What about the early persecution of the Gnostic by the Proto orthodox, what about the inquisisitions, or the crusades.

I think you are being terribly unrealistic, Mujahid.

Knowledge is what you need with the evidence to back it up. Read the proclamation to the people of Jerusalam from Omar. Or the treaty Muhammed had with the jews. Look for the evidence in the known history and the documentation.

 

[gnostic]

Non muslims are not subjected to muslim laws for instance if a christian drinks he is not punished. If he missess the muslim prayer he is not punished. They have their own shariah.

Can you be more specific?

Non-Muslim is a very broad category, and can mean a Buddhist, Hindu, pagan, atheist, etc. If you mean Christians or Jews then please say so, instead of using non-Muslims.

They are even allowed to build churches. the early christians did spread their faith through wars.

Yes, they spread through conquests very much like the Muslims in the very beginning, but the earliest Christians, particularly in the 1st two centuries, were non-violent religion, and did spread their religion through faith alone.

They were divided, but unlike the Muslims, these early Christians didn't have any army whatsoever in the beginning.

So until the time of Constantine, they had legal representation in the Roman empire. And only thereafter, did they have protection of political and military powers.

I think you need to re-read the history books about early Christian history, Mujahid.

 

[jewscout]

I agree but how should you interpret the Torah. From the words of Moses or someone who came after him who never met him but says Moses followers like Joshua are misguided and they should listen to him because Moses came to him in a dream. You should let Moses tell you the meaning for that is why they are called "Messengers".

when there is a dispute or a question regarding Halachah one goes to a sage or a learned man...in the past there would have been a sanhedrin...today i would go to a trusted rabbi regarding questions of halachah. HaShem gave the learned men the authority to interpret Halachah

If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which HaShem thy G-d shall choose. And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment. And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which HaShem shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee. According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. Deut. 17:8-11

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Can you be more specific?

Non-Muslim is a very broad category, and can mean a Buddhist, Hindu, pagan, atheist, etc. If you mean Christians or Jews then please say so, instead of using non-Muslims.

What do you mean, non muslim. means non-muslim. a buddish, hindu are not muslims are they.

Yes, they spread through conquests very much like the Muslims in the very beginning, but the earliest Christians, particularly in the 1st two centuries, were non-violent religion, and did spread their religion through faith alone.

Muslims did not spread through conquests. If the army came many of the tribes and villages spread throughout the provinces of Rome and Persia were under oppression. People did not have rights alot of the time. Slaves and women in particular. But when Islam came it was like a liberating army because those people would live under the protection of the muslims but were not subjected to many of the laws. The only times the muslims met difficulty and went to fight is when they were fighting the oppressive armies. I will give you a hadith on it but later it is very long. so please remind me in a private message or something.

They were divided, but unlike the Muslims, these early Christians didn't have any army whatsoever in the beginning.

The muslims had an army in the beginning to protect themselves and army is really a bad term. It is more of a militia in the time of the Messenger pbu, (remember this is the beginning of Islam) the soldiers had to pay their own way to get to battle. Use their own weapons, camels etc. An army is financed by the government but there was no islamic state yet. Now much later they acquired an army financed by the state but the messenger sent letter to all the kings of the world telling them to proclaim Islam. This is what this hadith will touch on. And they spread it with the most peaceful process imaginable. Read the letter omar gave to the Christians in Jerusalem. Or the Treaties Muhammed made with others.

So until the time of Constantine, they had legal representation in the Roman empire. And only thereafter, did they have protection of political and military powers.

I think you need to re-read the history books about early Christian history, Mujahid.

The same is true for Islam. I am not saying christians in the time of Jesus had an army or immediatly after. They were still trying to decide what Christianity was. I mean after christianity was declared the religion of a specific government then they went out. But it does not excape the fact that many different christian sects were being persecuted against and it almost created a civil war within Byzantium. so did they have a physical army No. But there was still fighting and bloodshed. The muslims themselves did not have a army in the beginning. And Islam was not spread through war unless the oppressive government wanted it. For if they were to agree they would be able to live in muslim land, build churches, be protected by the muslim army, trade with them, and overall be considered equals in class amongst the society. That is why many accepted the invitation with open arms.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

when there is a dispute or a question regarding Halachah one goes to a sage or a learned man...in the past there would have been a sanhedrin...today i would go to a trusted rabbi regarding questions of halachah. HaShem gave the learned men the authority to interpret Halachah

If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which HaShem thy G-d shall choose. And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment. And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which HaShem shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee. According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. Deut. 17:8-11

Do they apply the rule according to the teachings of Moses and Allah or some other authority. And why do you use the bible as a jew for an evidence to support you statement. Why not the talmud or something (kabbalah-not saying you are but as another jewish reference)

 

[gnostic]

You said

Non muslims are not subjected to muslim laws for instance if a christian drinks he is not punished.

Clearly you are talking about Christian, who is a non-Muslim. But do your reference to "non-Muslim" applied to others, such as Jew, Hindu, Buddha, etc. Non-Muslims are broad term, but if you are really talking about Christians, then please say so. I would preferred that you be more specific.

Muslims did not spread through conquests. If the army came many of the tribes and villages spread throughout the provinces of Rome and Persia were under oppression. People did not have rights alot of the time. Slaves and women in particular. But when Islam came it was like a liberating army because those people would live under the protection of the muslims but were not subjected to many of the laws.

Sorry, but I don't see any difference between liberation and conquest. You are still occupying lands that don't belong to you. It would be different, if you "liberate", then leave; but the fact remain that you didn't leave. Those land became part of the Islamic-Arab empires. Therefore it is conquest, not liberation.

You are simply white-washing it.

Do you see the US invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq as conquests or liberation?

 

[jewscout]

Do they apply the rule according to the teachings of Moses and Allah or some other authority. And why do you use the bible as a jew for an evidence to support you statement. Why not the talmud or something (kabbalah-not saying you are but as another jewish reference)

all halachah is based on Torah...everything contained in the Talmud is based on Torah
the authority of sages and rabbis to make decisions on Halachah is based on the authority handed to them from HaShem in the Torah as stated in the verses i quoted.

 

[Islam]

Actually Gnostic, before the Muslim armies would invade any country they would ask that country to just let them enter and preach for islam. If the ruler refused letting the preachers in, then they would give him a choice:
- u pay money and we will proptect u
- war
-again, u just let the preachers enter.
even before the Muslim army invaded Uzbakistan, they didnt ask the rulerto just let them in so after they entered Unzbakistan by war and defeated the army, when the ruler of the Muslim Caliphate found out that the army never asked for permission he demanded that the army leaves Uzbakistan and ask the ruler to just let them enter as preachers. The next day the entire Muslim army left, then they asked to enter and were allowed to do so and Uzbakistan remained an independent country.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

But I also think Muhammad's and all Muslims interpretations are wrong too, especially where you see links to Muhammad in the OT of the bible that are not there. The prophecies that are Islam listed here are nothing more than self-promotion of your prophet. I don't see genuine understanding of OT passages from Muslims, or I see is propaganda, just as I see Christians trying to promote Jesus in the so-called prophecies.

No, because unlike the Christians Muslims do not use the bible as an evidence of truth. We just know that he is mentioned which he is in many verses. I will post something on this from a scholarly aspect from an excellent book I have. some people I am sure have already listed them but the evidence will insha Allah be much more clear.

As to the NT, I see more of this same self-promotion by taking the texts out of context of what Jesus said in John's gospels. The idea that you are stating the Holy Spirit (ie Comforter or Spirit of Truth) is Muhammad is interpetation that Muslims would only agree on.

So who is this Spririt of Truth he is talking about. Which will guide people to all truth, will not speak of itself but whatever spoken it will say it, will testify of Jesus, will reprove the world of sin and judgment. Who is it then.

I don't believe in any spirit or miracle because I see no proof of ones,

I am not sure what you mean So you do not believe in the Holy Spirit

but I do see when people are manipulating the texts for their own interpretations by both Christians or Muslims.

You forgeting the scribes who changed it for their own personal gain so people would believe their gospel more then others. Don't forget the alterations done by the Bishop of Catebury to the KJV, And you also can't forget out Luther, Calvin, etc. Can't forget to mention Marcion or Tertullian. So who is correct in interpretation of the Bible what is the criterion for interpreting the verses correctly. Who has solved the problem from amongst the Christians.

And that is all it is - your interpretation. All quotes that islam had quoted here, can have many different interpretations because they only grabbed a few vague verses, then put whatever meaning you wish.

As is Christianity. It is interpreted from not the one who gave you the message nor his supporters in giving the message but someone else. It is truly amazing, the words of Saint Paul are held by most of Christianity in the highest regard and this understandable since he is the primary author of the majority of the books of the New Testament. Howver, no matter what role Paul played in the definition and spread of Christinity, when displaying respect for the teachings of Paul, it is necesssary not to lose sight of the fact that he is in no way equal to Jesus, nor should his command be placed before the command of Jesus if we were to find them to differ from one another. No one, not even Paul ro the apostles of Jesus has this right, since they are all, subordinate to Jesus Christ himself.

However, when anyone studies the religion known today as "Christ" ianity we would find that it is the interpretation of Paul of what he personally believed to be the religion of Jesus. Christianity as it stands today has been reduced to an interpretation of the words of Jesus within the context of what Paul taught, along with the unknown scribes, and even more so because the farther the Christians are from the revelation the text seems to keeps going through a metamorphosis. Constant changing and revision. To bad it is not the other way around as it it should be. We would expect Christianity to be the teachings of Jesus and an living embodiment of his words and teachings and that the words of Paul and everyone else who helped in creating this Conundrum we call Christianity would be rejected or accepted according to their conformity to the teachings of Jesus. But Jesus never in his lifetime mentioned original sin, or atonement, his crucifiction, he was God and to worship him, or he is equal to God in his kingdom nor did he claim to be part of a trinity

I can easily use islam's verses and interpret it in my own way that these verses from the books of Deuteronomy and Isaiah in regarding to the prophecised prophet as Satan or the Fairy Godmother if I so wish to....and quite convincingly too, I might add.

But muslims are not allowed to interpret islam according to their own personal desires or based off of their knowledge. We understand it according to the way of the Messenger Muhammed and his righteous companions for they obeyed him and Allah says in the Quran he is pleased with him. They are the believers. When anyone starts interpreting something outside of the one bringing to you there will always be error. Look at works of abstract Art how much easier would it be to get what the artist meant in the painting if he just told us. If he did not tell you or you have the wrong info how accurate is your "interpretation" going to be. Peace.

 

[Snowbear]

So who is this Spririt of Truth he is talking about. Which will guide people to all truth, will not speak of itself but whatever spoken it will say it, will testify of Jesus, will reprove the world of sin and judgment. Who is it then.

Once again, the Spirit of Truth is speaking of the Holy Spirit (aka the Holy Ghost. Some have called Him the Spirit of God). It has absolutely nothing to do with Muhammed.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

You said



Clearly you are talking about Christian, who is a non-Muslim. But do your reference to "non-Muslim" applied to others, such as Jew, Hindu, Buddha, etc. Non-Muslims are broad term, but if you are really talking about Christians, then please say so. I would preferred that you be more specific.

I guess I have to be For example if a jew, Christian, buddhist, pagan etc. are under the protection of an islamic state then they are not subjected to the punishments.

Sorry, but I don't see any difference between liberation and conquest. You are still occupying lands that don't belong to you. It would be different, if you "liberate", then leave; but the fact remain that you didn't leave. Those land became part of the Islamic-Arab empires. Therefore it is conquest, not liberation.

Many times they did. If this is your example how did America become America. They did not take lands from people as I told you. You see this is the difference when Israel or America, the UN, ancient spain, Nazi, etc. all these corrupt and oppressive empires took over they destroy what is not there's. Muslims may just settle there and help the areas set up government, trade, markets, knowledge, all of these things that are beneficial to society come. If lets say some fortune fivehundred company came into an area and said look we are not gonna take from any of the businesses existing and we will use all our resources to help you grow and better yourselves in business. If someone tries to buy them out or disrupt the business the 500 comp. would give them aid in some kind. There is a huge difference between conquest and liberation. Especially to the ones being oppressed

Do you see the US invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq as conquests or liberation?

What do you think are they allowing the muslims to have their own government voted from there own people or has our government put in place their idea of freedom "democracy" Did they allow them to keep their property, are they not attacking civilians, Are they allowing them to keep and use their resources. It is a conquest obviously but not just of land but of the resources of the region, oil and drugs. This is a rhetorical statement.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Once again, the Spirit of Truth is speaking of the Holy Spirit (aka the Holy Ghost. Some have called Him the Spirit of God). It has absolutely nothing to do with Muhammed.

I am sorry snowbear but the question was for gnostic. I know what most christians believe that. I was asking him because he said he does not believe in spirits or miracles so i was asking him then who is the spririt of God. I am sorry you thought it was directed at you.

 

[gnostic]

But muslims are not allowed to interpret islam according to their own personal desires or based off of their knowledge.

But Muslims do interpret it so. Unless you are hiding your head in a hole, they have been do so for centuries. Do the Sunni and Shiite not see thing differently in what is written in the Qur'an?

Many times they did. If this is your example how did America become America. They did not take lands from people as I told you. You see this is the difference when Israel or America, the UN, ancient spain, Nazi, etc. all these corrupt and oppressive empires took over they destroy what is not there's.

Did not God promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the land of Canaan? Do you think the covenant of God should be broken? Did not the Book of the People, as you Muslims claim them to be, have no right whatsoever to reclaim the land promised to since these 3 patriarchs? Does your Allah's words, promises and covenants mean nothing to the Jews?

The lands in Africa, Turkey, Spain, Eastern Europes and India also doesn't belonged to Muslims. Can you actually say that God gave them all this territories to Muhammad? Or did Muslims won it through conquests? And shouldn't Muslims lose these lands that didn't belong to them in the first place, if a stronger empire conquer these lands?

You seemed to indicate one rule where can occupy lands that don't belong to them, but you protest that you can't be driven out of these lands you have conquered from conquests. That's simply double standards, and make Muslims no better than any other conquerors.

That doesn't wash, Mujahid. You religion and your former empires is invaders and was built upon those conquests. Just because your religion is Islam doesn't justify you in taking lands, forcing them to pay taxes when they don't convert, doesn't make you as liberators.

Muslims are invaders and predators (whether they be Arabs, Turks, Persians or Indonesians) as much as those other empires you have claimed to liberate them from.

The last Muslim empire is in Indonesia. Those in government are largely or wholly Muslims. Do you see them treating all islanders as equal? Do you think they give a damn about human rights, when they can take away whatever natural resources they can strip from the lands? Do you think the islands were given to them by Allah? How are they any better than the Portugeses who left the place to them?