Jesus was a "Muslim"

Originally posted by logical7

by that logic, God put soul for every baby ever born. Halelujah!!We all are sons and daughters of God.

Yes, we are... some of us more wayward than others, to the point of being disowned and disinherited!

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Its like saying Christians took over the scriptures of the Jews and twisted it to include concepts such as "trinity", "original sin" and Jesus' divinity.

Bad news....You are in no position to accuse anybody else of twisting somebody elses scripture.

Yeah right, whatever...

Isaiah 9:6

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 7:14

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

And Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I Am" When He made that statement, all of those Pharisees listening knew exactly the reference. I Am means Yaweh. Throughout the whole Torah, I Am has held a singular meaning. I Am was the name Yaweh spoke to Moses.

Genesis 18 gives the best account of this.

Genesis18:1 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, 3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

Genesis 18:20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. 22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord. 23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

This is in the Torah. Three men were counted as ONE Lord, Adonai.

33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

If Abraham was counted as a Muslim, why did he bow down to three men he called Lord?
Jewish Encyclopedia

This word occurs in the Masoretic text 315 times by the side of the Tetragram YHWH (310 times preceding and five times succeeding it) and 134 times without it. Originally an appellation of God, the word became a definite title, and when the Tetragram became too holy for utterance Adonai was substituted for it, so that, as a rule, the name written YHWH receives the points of Adonai and is read Adonai, except in cases where Adonai precedes or succeeds it in the text, when it is read Elohim.

Adonai and Elohim are plural words. I think that kind of indicates the concept of trinity.

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Is this the same Moses, the brother of Aaron, that Mohammed said Mary, the mother of Jesus was Aaron's sister?

Is David the father of Jesus?
Then why does the Bible call Jesus the "son of David"?

Because Jesus was a descendant of David, which was one of the characteristics that was given to the Jews as to how they would be able to recognize the Messiah.

Jesus was the LITERAL descendant of David, therefore a literal "son", generations removed. Mary (mother of Jesus) was NOT a literal sibling of Aaron. The confusion in Islam arose because of mistaking Maryam, sister of Moses and Aaron, for Mary, mother of Jesus, in the biblical stories Mohammed heard from the people of the Book.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by nenothtu

 

www.bible-researcher.com...

Its called the Johannine Comma... Added after the fact...

This verse is their best defence for the trinity...

Honestly, I would say that Matthew 28:19 is equally as good for supporting the trinity.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Maybe not the God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is ONE concept, but it least makes it clear that it's a package deal for eternal life to exist.

reply to post by Deetermined


Perhaps if that verse said "and these three are God" it might have some weight to it...

Unfortunatly it doesn't... Trinity doctrine is clearly fabricated...

read... please

29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by nenothtu

 

He meant to say 1 John 5:7.

Ah. thank you. I reckon I'll have to ponder that for a while, but as yet I'm still not seeing any trinitarianism there. here is what it says, with some surroundings for context:

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:6-8 (American King James Version)

I presume that by "water", the baptism by John is meant. Not sure about "blood" - whether it refers to the crucifixion or to corporeal sanguinity - i.e., a reference to "body" and blood relations.

Thanks again for clearing up which verse was meant!

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Perhaps if that verse said "and these three are God" it might have some weight to it...

It doesn't matter if those three are God or not. It's a package deal.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Here's what else Jesus said:

Matthew 10:37-40

37 He that loveth father or mother more than ME is not worthy of ME: and he that loveth son or daughter more than ME is not worthy of ME.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for MY SAKE shall find it.

40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

reply to post by nenothtu

Literally, he wasn't a son of David at all. It was a term used to bring to attention that David was his ancestor.

Likewise, Mary was a "daughter of Amram", which would make her a "brother of Aaron" (her cousin Elizabeth WAS one of the "daughters of Aaron", in fact, and referred to as such in the Bible). In no sense does the Quran (or Islam) actually consider Mary to be the literal sister of Aaron.

It's only a problem if you look at it assuming it is one. I suppose it could be a little confusing because the Quran gives Mary's father the title of "Imran" (the arabic version of Amram), but if you read the text, you can tell what it is talking about.

reply to post by nenothtu


Maybe this will help you to see the trinitarian view (or not) if you combine the original verse with another one that is given.

1 John 5:7

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

John 1:14

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

reply to post by nenothtu

What you say here is a good point, and has always bothered me. Mohammed says that "God has no partner", and so goes on to remove the office of messiah from Jesus, while at the same time insisting on giving him the title. Islam makes of Jesus a "Messiah" in name only. Then, after insisting that God has no partners, Mohammed goes on to insist that in order to get to heaven, one must obey not only God, but His prophet as well - not plural "prophets", but the singular "Prophet", meaning none other than Mohammed himself. If God has no partners when it comes to the prophet Jesus, then how is it he suddenly develops a partner in Mohammed?

Now you see what i am talking about. Muhammad claims to be the Messenger of "Allah" but to christians the Messenger of God resides in Jesus. In effect what Muhammad is claiming is Messiahship and he is playing with words to do it.

Touching upon the concept of the trinity, I've never seen a biblical verse in support of it. I note that one poster claimed there was one that was taken out, but I've never seen it, nor do I have any idea how it could have been construed to support a trinitarian concept. As near as I can tell, the trinitarian doctrine was a heresy introduced at Nicea, something like 300 years after Christ, and was hotly contested at the time, only carrying the day because of political support from secular powers, not from any sort of Godly deliberation.

Trinitarian concepts come from the 3 aspects of God spoken of between the hebrew bible and the new testament which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit All 3 are mentioned in the hebrew bible (old testament) but the emphasis wasn't on the Holy Spirit but on Father and Son (Messiah). The Holy Spirit comes more into play when he is sent to us after Jesus ascends and it is the spirit of Father and Son, and we know this because Jesus said that any who believe in him they would come into them and "sup with them". But there is another sect called Oneness who advocate there are not 3 aspects to God, but that he is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The trinity concept wasn't introdiced at Nicea. Nicea was the council put together to address the Arian Heresy. Gnosticism began to arise after Valentinus decided to destroy christianity after he lost the bid for being Bishop of (Alexandria i think). One of which gnostics taught that Jesus was just spirit, not even human at all and that he laughed at himself being nailed to the cross which contradicts the Garden of Gathsemane scene where he was under so much stress he was sweating blood so he obviously wasn't in a laughing mood. It's thought the entire reason for the Great Library at Alexandria catching fire was that the Alexandrian christians burned it down because the gnostics were mixing christianity with the pharonic egyptian religions.


Here's an analogy. Man is made in the Image of God. Men have Soul, Spirit and Body. If man is made in the Image of God then God also has Body, Spirit and Soul. Body = Jesus, Spirit = Holy Spirit and Soul = Father. Each is one part of the whole, neither capable of doing anything without the other because they are all there present in eachother. It's a packaged deal, if you talk to Jesus, you're talking to Father and Holy Spirit, and when Jesus looks at you, its the Father and Holy Spirit staring back at you.

reply to post by babloyi


I am the product of my father - and his father, and his father, and his father, ad infinitum. I am their son. I am NOT the brother of any of their siblings, however.

reply to post by Deetermined


John was rather esoteric, wasn't he? Somewhat of a mystic. I have no quarrel whatsoever with anything you said in that post, but neither do I need a concept of a trinity to reconcile the quotes. This however probably isn't the thread to even begin to attempt to explain how I conceive the relationships.

reply to post by nenothtu

You may be the "product" of your ancestors, but you are not their son, at least not literally. Were you the son of your grandfather? Was your grandfather your father? No. Definitely not literally.

This all gets vague, and a bit pointless to argue about, because all these terms are being used metaphorically, and in the end, it all comes down to how you wish to use it. Priests call each other "Brother". Are they meaning it literally? Islam has a tradition of calling any non-relative muslim a "brother" or "sister" in deen. The OT talks to the jews about "their brethren". It definitely isn't meaning literal brothers either, and I'm pretty sure the jews understand the term to apply to them now as it did to their ancestors way back when they first read it. The Bible uses family relationship terms pretty loosely anyhow, which makes traversing family trees (something I had an interest in at one point) a real headache. Kish-Abner-Ner-Abiel anybody?

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You may be the "product" of your ancestors, but you are not their son, at least not literally. Were you the son of your grandfather? Was your grandfather your father? No. Definitely not literally.

Yes. Literally. One generation removed.

This all gets vague, and a bit pointless to argue about, because all these terms are being used metaphorically,

Agreed.

Priests call each other "Brother". Are they meaning it literally?

I don't know about priests - I don't hang out with that sort of rabble. Christian laity - yes. they mean it literally, but not physically. Literally they consider themselves spiritual siblings, springing from the same spiritual Father.

Islam has a tradition of calling any non-relative muslim a "brother" or "sister" in deen.

that, too would be literal, but not physical. I suppose it depends on just how flippant the speaker is being. Is it your contention that the Qur'an was written flippantly, or that it means Mary mother of Jesus was the sister of Haroun "in deen"?

I'm really not too concerned with what the Jews think in the matter - they generally stick to their own enclaves around here, and seem to be at odds and a bit put out with the other two religions... you know, us having hijacked "their" God and all.

ETA:

The Bible uses family relationship terms pretty loosely anyhow, which makes traversing family trees (something I had an interest in at one point) a real headache. Kish-Abner-Ner-Abiel anybody?

yeah, the whole "table of nations" concept in Genesis gets a bit twisted up if you try to apply it to individuals, doesn't it?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by logical7
by that logic, God put soul for every baby ever born.

Yes. Absolutely. None of us created the soul that is in our children. Our bodies made the bodies, but the soul that resides in it .. that was made by God. Ditto for Mary.

Halelujah!!We all are sons and daughters of God.

That's why Christians pray ... 'OUR FATHER, who art in Heaven ... ' ... right?
Supposedly Jesus is our brother and we are all children of God.
Although Jesus is God incarnate, and we are not.
We are created beings .. Jesus is eternal .. always has been God and always will be.
(according to John in the bible )

thanx for your opinion!!

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by logical7

From where do you get Messiah=divinity?

I don't. I did not claim that messiahship requires divinity, nor do I believe that. The very nature of requiring the death of a deity for salvation is nonsensical. What mortal can kill a god? I have, perhaps, highly peculiar notions in the matter of that relationship, but requiring divinity of the Messiah is not one of them.

Actually its the opposite, ask any of our Jew friends.

Probably not the wisest idea to ask a people who rejected him to define his office... just sayin'...

And about obeying prophet, ya its only obeying God, but as the commands are relayed through a prophet then obeying him is obeying God and thats true for any prophet. How can one obey God and accept a message but reject the messenger?

Why then does he name only himself in the Shahada? Why would he not include the other prophets by stating something like "and the prophets deliver God's word"? In every instance I can find - and you may be able to find others to correct me with - obedience is ALWAYS required not only to God, but to "His Prophet" as well... never in the plural, always in the singular. Why is that? One can obey the message, and receive the messenger without placing the messenger on an equal footing with God. It's not a hard thing to do. To give the messenger his proper place is in no way a rejection of him.

And about Jesus(pbuh) not demanding obedience, did you mean its literal "follow me"? Or rather, imitate my example, do what i say, in short"believe and obey"

"Obedience" implies strict adherence to set laws. Jesus enjoined us to follow his path, i.e. find our own way by thinking for ourselves, not blindly following the legalistic pronouncements of some other mere mortal. He saw "the law" as a living thing of spirit, subject to contemplation, not a set of dry words to be adhered to blindly. This is why I ignore both the Shari'a and the Levitical Laws. they are the pronouncements and "interpretations" of mere mortals. God does not live there.

Don't get me wrong, brother. I believe - I just believe differently - perhaps drastically so - than you, or just about anyone else I've ever met. They have chosen their path, I have chosen mine.

i get your point and agree in part. But what i see is to deny one extreme(divinity) you go to opposite extreme and almost deny prophethood. What you say is true for so called religious leaders. But prophets are divinely guided human sent to lead. Like jews benefited from obeying Moses(pbuh) and following him to red sea.
N about obeying "PROPHET" rather than prophets is wiser as previous
accounts(text) could be altered although the message is same but the most authentic is the latest prophet

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by Deetermined

 

the verse John 5:7 (refering to trinity) was removed by bible scholars as it was a fabrication from RSV bible. And understandably there was an uproar and many denominations demanded it back or refused to buy that HERATIC bible. Lol. The publishers had a choice to be true and starve, guess what they did..
So trinity is popular opinion and not a scholistic fact(its actually forgery)

edit on 3-10-2012 by logical7 because: (no reason given)

This is John 5:7:

6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he said to him, Will you be made whole? 7 The weak man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steps down before me. John 5:6-7 (American King James Version)

I'm just not seeing any trinitarian doctrine there, either. I don't happen to have the RSV, but I do have 29 other versions going back to Bishop Wulfila and John Wycliffe handy if there is another you know of that it was deleted from.

sorry thats 1john 5-7
here
kjv-1john 7For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one.
rsv-1john [7] He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might
believe through him.

reply to post by WarminIndy


If Abraham was counted as a Muslim,
why did he bow down to three men
he called Lord?
.
.
What you are quoting is there in Genesis, no doubt.
But how you assume Lord=God all the time?
Even people with noble blood etc get title as Lord.
The 3 who visited Abraham(pbuh) were angels and OT is full with many people who are addressed as Lord, like rabbis, priests, kings, if we take what you assumed, OT becomes one big pagan text. The problem is not in Abraham(pbuh) but the scribes who wrote it(bowing n kneeling was too common for them)

Originally posted by logical7

i get your point and agree in part. But what i see is to deny one extreme(divinity) you go to opposite extreme and almost deny prophethood.

I did not deny divinity, I merely don't believe it to be a requirement of messiahship. I think that is between Jesus and God, none of my business. I emphatically do not deny his prophethood, but neither do I believe that was the purpose for which he was sent. there is much more to being Messiah than a mere prophet.

N about obeying "PROPHET" rather than prophets is wiser as previous
accounts(text) could be altered although the message is same but the most authentic is the latest prophet

This is where we likely part ways. You have your prophet, and I have mine. Out of curiosity, if "the message is the same", then how can one sameness be "more authentic" than another? I personally do not believe the messages were the same. There would be need for only ONE prophet if they were all the same. The rest would be redundant.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by logical7

i get your point and agree in part. But what i see is to deny one extreme(divinity) you go to opposite extreme and almost deny prophethood.

I did not deny divinity, I merely don't believe it to be a requirement of messiahship. I think that is between Jesus and God, none of my business. I emphatically do not deny his prophethood, but neither do I believe that was the purpose for which he was sent. there is much more to being Messiah than a mere prophet.

N about obeying "PROPHET" rather than prophets is wiser as previous
accounts(text) could be altered although the message is same but the most authentic is the latest prophet

This is where we likely part ways. You have your prophet, and I have mine. Out of curiosity, if "the message is the same", then how can one sameness be "more authentic" than another? I personally do not believe the messages were the same. There would be need for only ONE prophet if they were all the same. The rest would be redundant.

thats simple enough to explain.
Following any prophet would be fine if you had a record of what they said.
Consider the jews now, they had a prophet Moses(pbuh) and the OT. But denied Jesus(pbuh) "we have everything we need and want nothing new"were they correct?NO
Jesus(pbuh)admonished them for their wrongdoings and alteration of text for personal gains
they tried to kill him to get rid of him.
600 or so years later another prophet comes and the story continues..