Google Earth proves Muhammad-Islam

Strangely, its the christian interpretation of Jesus that is far from the definition of messiah.


Because there is no statement in the bible that teaches that the "messiah" would be God or a part of God, as the christians believe Jesus to be?

The only way christians can answer this one is to composit several unrelated verses to fabricate the theology that the messiah would be God Himself.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Arab speaking christians also refer to Jesus as the "masih"...because they know how the word is defined. Its only the english speaking christians with an axe to grind with Islam who doubt the meaning of the word.... constantly in denial that Islam too accepts Jesus as the messiah.

What is a messiah in Islam? What is the function of a messiah according to Islam, what is his purpose... what is it that a Messiah DOES in Islam, his purpose for existence?

We have established the literal translation of "masih". Now we must establish what the word means within the Islamic context.

I do believe I asked you to define the word, rather than translate it.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Strangely, its the christian interpretation of Jesus that is far from the definition of messiah.


Because there is no statement in the bible that teaches that the "messiah" would be God or a part of God, as the christians believe Jesus to be?

The only way christians can answer this one is to composit several unrelated verses to fabricate the theology that the messiah would be God Himself.

No, the Christian concept of a messiah is not necessarily God or a god, it is "annointed king" at it's most basic conception. One must ask himself, then, what it is the Christians think the Messiah is the king of, and what the Muslims think the Messiah is the king of.

Then we are getting a lot closer to the root of the difference.

The specific title in Arabic is "al-masih",and in English "The Messiah", which mean the same thing in literal translation. The articles "al-" and "The" are included to distinguish this particular Messiah from "a" messiah. Why is that?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

How?
Islam acknowledges the prophethood of all the Old Testament prophets.
Islam acknowledges the messiahship of Jesus.
Islam reiterates the teachings of the unity of God.
How exactly does it challenge the "continued legitimacy of both judaism and christianity".

sk0rpi0n, can you tell me why exactly Gabriel and Allah felt further revelation was necessary when according to christianity (in itself claiming the fulfillment of the promises of jewish prophecy), everything that needed to have been said and done was said and done?

THAT'S how it's a challenge to the legitimacy of judaism and christianity - Islam officially considers them incomplete and insufficient to the task of completing god's revelation, so it came along introducing additional and contradicting information, supplanting both former religions as god's alleged truth.

In reality Judaism and christianity challenge each other...
Judaism with its denial of Jesus as messiah....and christianity with its concept of the "trinity"... or Jesus being God. So theologically, Judaism and Christianity are incompatible... yet, the phrase "judeo-christianity" is used as if jews and christians agree on everything...and are on the same side.

Yes, most of the jews don't accept Jesus as their promised messiah - that's about the only area where christians have disagreement with them. As regards the teaching of the trinity, the jewish bible itself opens the door wide there.

Theological disagreements happen even within the same faith, but this does not change the fact that while the jews disagree with the christians, christianity is itself as sect of judaism that merely identifies Jesus as the promised one (and granted, has branched off from there for some serious changes to the original worship in some cases).

Hopefully that clears up my point. Yes, Islam does pay a good bit of homage to both prior faiths, as well as also lending them both a good bit of credence - but that doesn't lessen its claim of their insufficiency or lack of completeness or accuracy in the least for the most obvious of reasons. Very odd, given the implied contradictions that abound.

reply to post by old_god

Wrong, it's meant to be the continuation and anyone with any sense who sources the original material will see that as a religion, its the natural conclusion for the other two books (in Islam the belief is that the Quran is made up of the Zabur, Torah, Bible).

This is the common belief held amongst (educated) Muslims...I am not trying to divert from your other statements, just wanted to clarify this point my friend, thank you.

According to muslims perhaps, yes and no. Islam is basically seen as a correction, a righting of wrongs, and a completing fulfillment of the truth.

It recognizes the validity of the prior messages, the truth of the revelations given to the jews and the christians - and then disagrees with them, invalidating prior (and according to the faiths, essential) teachings and replacing them with others. This only, is my point.

Please don't mistake me, as I have a vast amount of respect for Islam (not its misapplication or abuse, which christianity is also prone to so don't think I'm being impartial here) and think it has achieved wonderful things in the past. I'm just pointing out that - historically, at least - these various faiths have rightly or wrongly been at odds which each other, and are on different sides of some theological fences, to a significant and fundamental degree in some cases.

Thanks, and take care.

reply to post by nenothtu


The difference arise when the translation occured. The word in Christians was derived from Jewish language.
Jewish -> Greek -> English
Masiah -> Khristos -> Messiah

The word al-Masih in Islam derived from Arabic and still in its form. I think the root word is still in Jewish.
al-Masih - Jewish -> Arabic -> Still Arabic!
Masiah -> Yusa al-Masih -> al-Masih

The difference arise when Aramaic language translated to Greek then retranslated to English. This is why God decree Quran must, always and will be - in Arabic.

We Muslims keep our book pure, we check and recheck every single letter to ensure its unchanged and we still do it continuously.
Jews I dont know, but I think they keep their book pure too and with new scroll founding they kinda refresh and strengthen it.
Chrstians on the other hand translate and retranslated and decide what and how it should be, then revision, re-version and retranslated again. You might even make your own bible if enough people agree with it. Oh my.

On teaching
Islam stress more on "relation to god" than "relation to man", "against god will, you suffer!" style.
Christian stree more "relation to man", be good to everyone and your enemy etc, "its all good and lovey dovey" style.
Jews stress more on prophecy, - We must build the temple for the king for god to accept us.

Of the 3 religion, we can see, Christians will win human heart, its all lovey dovey, feel good, i love you etc. Its a sure win. But faith in god - almost 0.
Islam will be viewed as tyranny and evil, cannot do this, cannot do that. Actually its all a test of how faithful you to god. About relation to human, hmm not much but its there.
Jews - forget it, its a closed club, who cares

Expectation -
Christian was engineered and redesigned to recruit. Join us! Its all love over here.
Islam was sent to filter and test. Join us! - Perform the duty yet ?
Jews - who cares, closed club will not recruit.

The translation of the Hebrew word Mašíaḥ as Χριστός (Khristós) in the Greek Septuagint[3] became the accepted Christian designation and title of Jesus of Nazareth.

Masih (pronounced [ˈmɑsiːħ]) is the Arabic word for Messiah. In modern Arabic it is used as one of the many titles of Isa (عيسى `Īsā), who is known to Christians as Jesus. Masih is used by Arab Christians as well as Muslims, and is written as Yasu' al-Masih (يسوع المسيح ) or Isa al-Masih.

So hope you know how even the word Messiah have different meaning in different book.
Book of Eli touch soooooooo many Christian hearts and cry of the story, Muslim view it ..."eh ? thats all ? we got plenty of Eli then"
Suggesting you to stick to the original.

reply to post by Kharron

You guys keep arguing if it were God or Satan that gave the info, when in all reality it was aliens.

Entirely possible, then I suppose it's just a matter of figuring out who or what the "aliens" are. I tend to fall in the middle of both the usual views.

Praetorius, your small mind is showing.

How so, exactly - because I'm arguing against the claim that "god" gave the information to Mohammed to validate Islam, or that I'm representing the typical christian viewpoint of that faith?

Be well.

nevermind. some things are better left unsaid.

reply to post by NullVoid

We Muslims keep our book pure, we check and recheck every single letter to ensure its unchanged and we still do it continuously.

It is impossible for Muslims to do this just as it is impossible for Christians to do the same thing. Because both holy books were written well after the deaths of their respective Prophets. And word of mouth over time gets distorted. So they are not checking the words of their Prophets but rather the people that followed them.

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by NullVoid

 

We Muslims keep our book pure, we check and recheck every single letter to ensure its unchanged and we still do it continuously.

It is impossible for Muslims to do this just as it is impossible for Christians to do the same thing. Because both holy books were written well after the deaths of their respective Prophets. And word of mouth over time gets distorted. So they are not checking the words of their Prophets but rather the people that followed them.

Yes, I agree on Bible and Torah/Tanaks, but Quran was almost immediately written and restandardizes. While the prophet fellows still alive!. So we can be assured its not "words of mouth". The first person who listen to it is the one who compile it. Not 3rd person, not words of mouth much right ?

I talk to my wife and she wrote it after I'm dead. How far can it change ?

Originally posted by NullVoid
reply to post by nenothtu

 

The difference arise when the translation occured. The word in Christians was derived from Jewish language.
Jewish -> Greek -> English
Masiah -> Khristos -> Messiah

"Christ" is the Anglicization of the Greek "Christos". "The Messiah" is a direct Anglicization of the Hebrew "Ha-Meshaiach", without the intermediary Greek step.

The word al-Masih in Islam derived from Arabic and still in its form. I think the root word is still in Jewish.
al-Masih - Jewish -> Arabic -> Still Arabic!
Masiah -> Yusa al-Masih -> al-Masih

The root for the Arabic and Hebrew is the same - m-s-h.

The difference arise when Aramaic language translated to Greek then retranslated to English. This is why God decree Quran must, always and will be - in Arabic.

As I mentioned above, the English "messiah" does not go through the Greek imtermediary step.

We Muslims keep our book pure, we check and recheck every single letter to ensure its unchanged and we still do it continuously.
Jews I dont know, but I think they keep their book pure too and with new scroll founding they kinda refresh and strengthen it.
Chrstians on the other hand translate and retranslated and decide what and how it should be, then revision, re-version and retranslated again. You might even make your own bible if enough people agree with it. Oh my.

The histories of both the Qur'an and the Bible are fascinating, and really ought to be studied by the adherents of either. I won't go into the history of the compilation of the Qur'an here. That is for you to examine as you wish. The Jews follow the Masoretic Text, as do the Christians, but the Christians add a new volume, the New Testament, (which includes the Injeel as the first four books in it). Translations are translations. They are a re-statement in a foreign language, but they all derive from the same source.

The worst infractions of Christian "translation" are not translations at all, they are paraphrases. One example of a paraphrase would be "The Good News Bible", which is not a translation at all, it is a paraphrase of the King James Bible. Another example of a paraphrase which claims to be a translation but is not is "The New World Bible", which the Jehovah's Witnesses use. The problem with paraphrases is that they allow for doctrinal errors to creep in. translations do not - they are translations of what is there in the original.

On teaching
Islam stress more on "relation to god" than "relation to man", "against god will, you suffer!" style.
Christian stree more "relation to man", be good to everyone and your enemy etc, "its all good and lovey dovey" style.
Jews stress more on prophecy, - We must build the temple for the king for god to accept us.

I'm not sure what sort of Christians you are hanging out with. Some Christians can be every bit as violent as some Muslims. It's not all "lovey dovey". that is a modern mythology built as a control mechanism. I know of none personally that stress relationships with man over the relationship with God. That would negate the basic premise of their religion. Instead, they believe that their relations to men is EVIDENCE of their relation to God, not their paramount focus.

Of the 3 religion, we can see, Christians will win human heart, its all lovey dovey, feel good, i love you etc. Its a sure win. But faith in god - almost 0.

The purpose of a religion is a relationship with God. Without that, it is no religion at all, so that assessment of Christianity is incorrect.

Islam will be viewed as tyranny and evil, cannot do this, cannot do that. Actually its all a test of how faithful you to god. About relation to human, hmm not much but its there.

No. Christians don't view Islam as "evil" because of it's restrictions, they view it as "evil" because of their belief that it is a usurpation of God and a negation of their basic relationship to Him. This is much the same view, I believe, that the Jews have of Christianity, although I can't say that for sure.

Jews - forget it, its a closed club, who cares

Closed or not, it's not one I care to join, so your right - who cares? Leave them to their own religion in peace.

Expectation -
Christian was engineered and redesigned to recruit. Join us! Its all love over here.
Islam was sent to filter and test. Join us! - Perform the duty yet ?
Jews - who cares, closed club will not recruit.

I don't care to get into historical recruiting methodologies used by Christians, Muslims, or Jews at this point. I'd prefer to keep it civil. All I will say is that they have all had their negative moments.

So hope you know how even the word Messiah have different meaning in different book.

It can have different meanings in even the SAME book, which is why the definite articles "al-", "The", and Ha-" are used to distinguish this particular messiahship in Arabic, English, and Hebrew respectively.

Book of Eli touch soooooooo many Christian hearts and cry of the story, Muslim view it ..."eh ? thats all ? we got plenty of Eli then"
Suggesting you to stick to the original.

I do try, which is why I am neither Jewish, Christian, or Muslim any more. Problems seem to arise when God leads one or another man to believe which is "the original". It's a man's own journey, between himself and God, not for another man to dictate to him.

Originally posted by NullVoid

Yes, I agree on Bible and Torah/Tanaks, but Quran was almost immediately written and restandardizes. While the prophet fellows still alive!. So we can be assured its not "words of mouth". The first person who listen to it is the one who compile it. Not 3rd person, not words of mouth much right ?

I talk to my wife and she wrote it after I'm dead. How far can it change ?

Why then did Uthman feel a need to destroy all but one version of the Qur'an in his day? How did Uthman decide which was the "right" version? Why did Ibn Ma'sud refuse to to give up his copy to be destroyed?

In a related question, why do the Hadiths refer to passages that cannot be found in a modern Qur'an?

Where does the "original" copy of the Qur'an reside for comparisons to be made?

Originally posted by nenothtu


"Christ" is the Anglicization of the Greek "Christos". "The Messiah" is a direct Anglicization of the Hebrew "Ha-Meshaiach", without the intermediary Greek step.

Thanks for the clarification, but do remember when Bible being compiled, what is the main language used.

The histories of both the Qur'an and the Bible are fascinating, and really ought to be studied by the adherents of either. I won't go into the history of the compilation of the Qur'an here. Translations are translations. They are a re-statement in a foreign language, but they all derive from the same source.

The worst infractions of Christian "translation" are not translations at all, they are paraphrases.The problem with paraphrases is that they allow for doctrinal errors to creep in. translations do not - they are translations of what is there in the original.

Do you how hard for me to type in English ? So hard to use the correct word to express what I want to say. Sometime they are misinterpreted, and that is first hand translation. What I am sure is this - translation can and will have errors even if its derive from same source. "One for one" and "one for ones" have different meaning, and that meaning differentiate by just a single letter.

On teaching
I'm not sure what sort of Christians you are hanging out with. Some Christians can be every bit as violent as some Muslims. It's not all "lovey dovey". that is a modern mythology built as a control mechanism. I know of none personally that stress relationships with man over the relationship with God. That would negate the basic premise of their religion. Instead, they believe that their relations to men is EVIDENCE of their relation to God, not their paramount focus.

Yes, some Muslim are violent and mislead, almost all Abrahamaic religion have this, but Christians have "wordings/sooth sayer" effect. "Its all good my son, for God love us all and do love everyone" etc etc etc. Heck, even I can be priest, just say the "right" words Just read Christians postings and count how many "love" you can find its so obvious "lovey dovey", not that its wrong, its all right. I think I better focus on my faith and duty to god more than loving everybody for no apparent reason.

The purpose of a religion is a relationship with God. Without that, it is no religion at all, so that assessment of Christianity is incorrect.

Yes, but what is stressed most ? Muslims - Pray, obey order and duty to god. Christians - Love thy enemy and god will love you. Who are closer ? Yes, much to wonder here.

No. Christians don't view Islam as "evil" because of it's restrictions, they view it as "evil" because of their belief that it is a usurpation of God and a negation of their basic relationship to Him. This is much the same view, I believe, that the Jews have of Christianity, although I can't say that for sure.

" usurpation of God and a negation " ? Whats that ? Sounds like "sooth saying'. Anyway, I disagree with you regarding human view of Islam. Pretty easy to see everywhere actually. Human do not like to live in a cage, and Islam teaching have its own limit/cage/limit.

I don't care to get into historical recruiting methodologies used by Christians, Muslims, or Jews at this point. I'd prefer to keep it civil. All I will say is that they have all had their negative moments.

Uhmm, I'm not talking about historical stuff. I'm talking about current method. Christians recruit by sooth saying. Thats the point. Islam recruit by submission and willingness. I bet Christian have the upper hand in recruiting method.

Problems seem to arise when God leads one or another man to believe which is "the original". It's a man's own journey, between himself and God, not for another man to dictate to him.

Correct, I'm just relaying the teaching, you accept or not that up to you to discover and decide.

Honestly dude, you will lose in this cause, Muslims everywhere agree and accepted, its unchanged.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Why then did Uthman feel a need to destroy all but one version of the Qur'an in his day? How did Uthman decide which was the "right" version? Why did Ibn Ma'sud refuse to to give up his copy to be destroyed?

In a related question, why do the Hadiths refer to passages that cannot be found in a modern Qur'an?

Where does the "original" copy of the Qur'an reside for comparisons to be made?

edit on 2012/5/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

All the Quran was destroyed because of different way its pronounced. Tomato and tomato is different . You spend about 10 years maybe, learning Arabic . I learn English by myself, I still cant even read fluently Arabic, let alone how to sound it correctly, go figure. Ibn Ma'sud want to keep it for himself ?

Sorry, another here. You want to lower Quran authenticity and yet you dont even understood how it all work. I suggest you learn about it all first before debating. Please, educate yourself at least to understand what to debate.

I have less respect to a person who storming with accusations about something well known other than disregard it as as "uninformed". I am truly sorry.
Heres a hint where you got it wrong.

which was the "right" version?
a modern Qur'an?
"original" copy of the Qur'an
Hadiths refer to passages

reply to post by nenothtu

We have established the literal translation of "masih". Now we must establish what the word means within the Islamic context.

To put things in perspective... many christians ignorantly assume that the mahdi is the messiah, in Islam.
Then they claim that Islam is opposed to Jesus christ because it calls someone else the messiah. They don't stop to ask questions about what the word "messiah" means in Islamic context... but assume that it means the same thing, except that somebody other than Jesus is the messiah in Islam.

I've noticed that its always the christians who know that Jesus is messiah in Islam who they try and work their way around the problem by raising questions on the meaning of the word in Islam.

The word means whatever it meant in the christian context as well....because Islam was a continuation of the same religion of the biblical prophets and Jesus.

reply to post by nenothtu

The specific title in Arabic is "al-masih",and in English "The Messiah", which mean the same thing in literal translation. The articles "al-" and "The" are included to distinguish this particular Messiah from "a" messiah. Why is that?

When we say "the world"... are we adding the article "the" to disinguish this particular world from "a" world?
We both understand what world is being referred to, don't we.

Similarly with regard to the messiah, its understood by both christians and muslims that there is only one messiah. "The" is not added to distinguish him from other messiahs.

In english, when christians refer to Jesus, they say "the messiah". Its either because
a)The word "the" is required for proper sentence construction....
example - "Who is messiah?" sounds incorrect, though the meaning of the question is understood. But Who is the messiah? is a grammatically correct way of asking the same question.
b)Its a reiteration of the belief in just one messiah.

Though, its best that you ask a christian on this matter.

reply to post by Praetorius

sk0rpi0n, can you tell me why exactly Gabriel and Allah felt further revelation was necessary when according to christianity (in itself claiming the fulfillment of the promises of jewish prophecy), everything that needed to have been said and done was said and done?

"everything that needed to have been said and done was said and done?"

Actually, that is not the case.
Christianity is full of prophecies that are yet to unfurl. Even today....Christians are still waiting for 2000 year old prophecies to be fulfilled. So there no reason to think that everything was already said and done.

Yes, most of the jews don't accept Jesus as their promised messiah - that's about the only area where christians have disagreement with them. As regards the teaching of the trinity, the jewish bible itself opens the door wide there.

Its not just about Jesus....
Jews disagree on a number of things that are central to Christianity.

Jews,like muslims.... dont believe in the christian concept of "original sin".
Jews,like muslims.... dont believe in the christian concept of "trinity".
In fact, the jews dont even have a favorable view of Jesus and his mother Mary (to put it mildly).

Jesus is incompatible with Judaism....and yet Jews are favored by many Christians as the chosen people.
However, Jesus is revered by Muslims as the messiah...and yet, christian fundamentalists demonize Islam.
Strange.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

How?
Islam acknowledges the prophethood of all the Old Testament prophets.
Islam acknowledges the messiahship of Jesus.
Islam reiterates the teachings of the unity of God.
How exactly does it challenge the "continued legitimacy of both judaism and christianity".

sk0rpi0n, can you tell me why exactly Gabriel and Allah felt further revelation was necessary when according to christianity (in itself claiming the fulfillment of the promises of jewish prophecy), everything that needed to have been said and done was said and done?

errrm only because the jews refused Jesus and started worshipping lucifer hence they await the antichrist as messiah and today the zionists can vouch for that

and only because the christians started worshipping the sun and created the whole crap about son of god associating the pure religion of God with pagan religions and a whole bunch of things that makes no sense whatsoever i mean why would god make something so complicated? 'hey peeps worship me through this man and only by holding that and biting on this while drinking that and looking at those blah blah blah

its simple, one god, end off.. none of that trinity bull crap that you find in sci fi and fantasy books

reply to post by nenothtu

No, the Christian concept of a messiah is not necessarily God or a god, it is "annointed king" at it's most basic conception. One must ask himself, then, what it is the Christians think the Messiah is the king of, and what the Muslims think the Messiah is the king of.

Good point.... Now, I'd like to hear it from a christian that Jesus is not God....

reply to post by RizeorDie

errrm only because the jews refused Jesus and started worshipping lucifer hence they await the antichrist as messiah and today the zionists can vouch for that

Hmmm. Possible, I suppose, although I can't agree. I'd imagine most of the zionists are actually secular (as a good bit of Israel itself is - I'm not sure at this point how many are even actually jewish as far as observing the religion goes), but I don't think most of the observant jews worship Lucifer, since he's fairly ambiguous in judaism - and taken out of context by christians, in my opinion.

and only because the christians started worshipping the sun and created the whole crap about son of god associating the pure religion of God with pagan religions and a whole bunch of things that makes no sense whatsoever i mean why would god make something so complicated? 'hey peeps worship me through this man and only by holding that and biting on this while drinking that and looking at those blah blah blah

I'll agree that all too much pagan tradition has seeped into christianity (and I take this as the jist of Revelation 17), but I don't worship the sun, and I'm not aware of any other christians who do - short of worshiping on sunday and having sunrise services which, while stemming from pagan tradition (I don't participate) are also taken generally out of the context those people are worshipping in.

Regardless - not all christians fell for this, and the revelations given by god to the jews and christians are no less valid, so as not to need supplanting or disagreement...and my faith from reading the bible isn't as complex as you describe here, just on a side note. I believe and repent - that's about it.

its simple, one god, end off.. none of that trinity bull crap that you find in sci fi and fantasy books

I can definitely agree with the first bit, and the second piece I'm up in the air about - but if we follow the example of Christ himself, I see it as essentially being a non-issue since he himself declined worship and said to just give it to the Father.

Take care, friend.