Jesus was a "Muslim"

reply to post by logical7


Keep trying. That was a hoax by Harun Yahya.

The Rosetta Stone at the British Museum

You are aware, are you not, that Pharaoh is simply a title. The Rosetta Stone was dedicated by Ptolemy. And nothing in it says Haman. And you do realize don't you that Pharaohs believed themselves to be gods?
You really should not use the Islamic websites you wanted me not to use, they don't help your case at all. In fact, the Rosetta Stone does not say Haman at all. Imagine that. It does say Amun, which is a god in Egypt pantheon.

And it does not say Musa. Imagine that.

Harun Yahya made a lie.

I don't think you know much about Egyptian history. In the first chapter of the Rosetta Stone,

Whereas King Ptolemy, living forever, the Manifest God whose excellence is fine, son of King Ptolemy [and Queen] Arsinoe, the Father-loving Gods, is wont to do many favours for the temples of Egypt and for all those who are subject to his kingship, he being a god, the son of a god and a goddess, and being like Horus son of Isis and Osiris, who protects his father Osiris, and his heart being beneficent concerning the gods, since he has given much money and much grain to the temples of Egypt, [he having undertaken great expenses] in order to create peace in Egypt and to establish the temples, and having rewarded all the forces that are subject to his rulership;

This didn't help prove anything. Neither Haman nor Moses are mentioned in the Rosetta Stone, which you can go see right now in the British Museum.

You People - Get back to your source!

An old bible found in Palestine confirms the Quran story True

reply to post by FlyersFan

The Christian God is a different God than the Jews and Muslims.

You are correct on this matter.

If only more Christians spoke this truth in the open.

Instead we have influential Christians claim that the monotheism of Jews is the same as the trinitarianism of the Christianity.

Originally posted by shuar911
You People - Get back to your source!

An old bible found in Palestine confirms the Quran story True

edit on 8-10-2012 by shuar911 because: (no reason given)

You mean the Gnostic Gospels? Yes, I would agree that the writers of the Quran used Gnostic sources

There are numerous references to the Gnostics in second century proto-orthodox literature. Most of what we know about them is from the polemic thrown at them by the early Church Fathers. They are alluded to in the Bible in the pastorals (spurious Paulines of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), for example 1 Tm 1:4 and 1 Tm 6:20, and possibly the entirety of Jude. Ignatius of Antioch writes against them as well as Docetism, a doctrine closely related to Gnosticism that stated that Christ was pure spirit and had only a phantom body. Second Clement is a document aimed at refuting early second century Gnosticism. Marcion was the most famous of the Gnostics, and he established a "canon" of the Pauline epistles (minus the pastorals) and a "mutilated" Luke (presumably considered so because it lacked proof-texts such as Lk 22:43-44). Justin Martyr mentioned him c. 150 CE, and Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote against him extensively in the late second century (in Against Heresy and Against Marcion, respectively).

That still does not validate the Quran at all. Here is the from the Fragments of Ptolemy...

1. But the followers of Ptolemy say that he [Bythos] has two consorts, which they also name Diatheses (affections), viz., Ennoae and Thelesis. For, as they affirm, he first conceived the thought of producing something, and then willed to that effect. Wherefore, again, these two affections, or powers, Ennoea and Thelesis, having intercourse, as it were, between themselves, the production of Monogenes and Aletheia took place according to conjunction. These two came forth as types and images of the two affections of the Father,-visible representations of those that were invisible,-Nous (i.e., Monogenes) of Thelesis, and Aletheia of Ennoea, and accordingly the image resulting from Thelesis was masculine, while that from Ennoea was feminine. Thus Thelesis (will) became, as it were, a faculty of Ennœa (thought). For Ennoea continually yearned after offspring; but she could not of herself bring forth that which she desired. But when the power of Thelesis (the faculty of will) came upon her, then she brought forth that on which she had brooded.

You are aware that Ptolemy was a Pharaoh, and those were gods that were worshiped? Still does not help the Quran.

The Gnostic Gospels
Islam came 600+ years later. Again, other ripping off earlier sources.

reply to post by logical7

OT is an ancient historical account. Now when egyptian tablets and writings were found that dated older than OT but had the same history, would OT be blamed as been plagiarized? And if they differ, which would you take as true account? And why?

There is an example.
There are accounts of the great flood which pre-date the bible.

Yet the Christians don't seem to be very open to the idea of the biblical account being plagiarized from other sources.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
There is an example.
There are accounts of the great flood which pre-date the bible.

Yet the Christians don't seem to be very open to the idea of the biblical account being plagiarized from other sources.

Probably because they view multiple accounts of a flood to be multiple references to the same thing.

And, in actuality, the Hebrew Bible is a Jewish creation, not Christian, so if you have issues with it, you'd be better advised to complain to the Jews about it, rather than Christians.

reply to post by adjensen


The flood is in all of the Bibles. And this whole thing about, "Oh, well, the Bible says different things for different cultures" is a little bit tiresome.

What makes us so special that we get a different version of the Bible? What sets us apart?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by babloyi

 

Admit you were wrong when you said this -

Originally posted by babloyi
Hahaha....if that were true, there seem to be a huuuuge number of christians who are doing it wrong. I suppose only you are correct?

Admit that the vast majority of Christians worship a TRINITY God and that muslims do not.

Now as to Julius Wellhausen .... this is the conclusion of a person who has studied that time period. I'm not surprised that Muslims don't like it. It kinda blows their Muhammad worship apart. If you wish to ignore it (without ever having read it

) and continue to buy into the Muslim rhetoric about that time period ... of course that's your choice.

ON TOPIC ...

Bottom line .. Jesus was not a Muslim. There were no Muslims around 2,000 years ago. The Christian Trinity God and the Muslim Allah god are two different gods. NO MATTER WHO MUSLIMS SAY ALLAH IS, it's not the same as the Christian Trinity God. If Muslims start worshipping Christ as God incarnate, then we can revisit to see if the Muslims and Christians have the same god. Until then .. two different gods.

Jesus was not a Muslim.

(2:120) Never will the Jews be pleased with you, (O Prophet), nor the Christians until you follow their way. Say: “Surely Allah’s guidance, is the true guidance.” Should you follow their desires disregarding the knowledge which has come to you, you shall have no protector or helper against Allah.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

The flood is in all of the Bibles. And this whole thing about, "Oh, well, the Bible says different things for different cultures" is a little bit tiresome.

Huh? What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about it saying different things for different cultures.

What I said was "It was written by Jews, so if you don't like it, go talk to them." Some people don't like to hear that, because it points out their anti-Semitism, and the hypocrisy of criticizing Christians but not criticizing Jews because of some bias doesn't sit well with most liberals.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

The Christian God is a different God than the Jews and Muslims.

You are correct on this matter.

If only more Christians spoke this truth in the open.

Instead we have influential Christians claim that the monotheism of Jews is the same as the trinitarianism of the Christianity.

If your assessment is correct, then Jesus was not a Muslim for that reason alone. But that still does make the Quran correct by any means.

And the monotheism of the Jews is still the monotheism of Christians. You really should learn Hebrew, it might help you. Jesus read Hebrew because that is what the Torah and the Tanakh are written in. You can say He spoke Aramaic all you want, but the simple truth is, He read Hebrew. That is the official written language of the Torah, always has been and always will be. Just because we have the English translation now does not mean that Hebrew is still not official. Every Siddur and every Jewish Bible is written in Hebrew. Children go to Hebrew school, boys must learn Hebrew for their barmitzvah.

Jesus was called rabbi. Only the learned in Hebrew and Torah can become a rabbi. Every rabbi in the world, no matter where he is, reads the Torah in Hebrew. Jesus said "Baptize them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Ghost". So do the Muslims baptize in that manner? They claim Isa is Jesus, so why aren't they doing what Jesus said?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by logical7

 

OT is an ancient historical account. Now when egyptian tablets and writings were found that dated older than OT but had the same history, would OT be blamed as been plagiarized? And if they differ, which would you take as true account? And why?

There is an example.
There are accounts of the great flood which pre-date the bible.

Yet the Christians don't seem to be very open to the idea of the biblical account being plagiarized from other sources.

The Quran says Noah, right? So then I suppose that it would be ok to insert Unatpishtim in place of Noah? Would that be ok with you?

If you would care to say our Bible is corrupted and the Quran is right, then should the Quran not say Unatpishtim? And that demonstrates the fact that we have not changed the Bible, neither have we corrupted it from the original Hebrew.

If the Hebrew Bible is saying legends from earlier sources, it would merely indicate that many of those ancient cultures did believe in a flood account. Your Quran is relying on the Hebrew story, and if the Jews got it wrong...that means the Quran was wrong.

Christians do not deny there were flood accounts, but there are so many who can keep track of them. It simply means a man was warned of a flood and made a boat. I guess when I read the Quran, I should be alright to insert the name Unatpishtim in place of Noah and be correct, wouldn't you agree?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Idiotic tactics to derail a mighty religion of islam is not ur best i think! taking rediculous sources of urs is rather pathetic and weak. Lies is what best you can do. Islam confirms jesus was the christ and a messiah. Confirmation is not copy , i think there is a certain disease you people suffering! to understand basic english.

reply to post by WarminIndy



Did you know BASTARD the word occurs in the Bible THREE times?

(a) “The BASTARD shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation . . . DEUTERONOMY 23:2

(b) “And a BASTARD shall dwell in Ashdod . .ZECHARIAH 9:6

(c) “But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then ye are BASTARDS and not sons. ” HERREWS 12:8


meh!

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by logical7
writing something in BOLD or repeating it a lot doesnt make something true.

And yet, when I say Muhammed PLAGIARIZED .. it most definately is true .. bold or not.
The reason it is repeated is because that fact doesn't seem to be sinking in.

OT is an ancient historical account. Now when egyptian tablets and writings were found that dated older than OT but had the same history, would OT be blamed as been plagiarized? And if they differ, which would you take as true account? And why?
Not all that is mentioned in OT has been proved true by archeology or other sciences. But you still take everything as fact. While you ignore the established facts mentioned in Quran and question things which are in Quran but not OT. In short you mean "if its not in OT, it dint happen"
let me tell you a prophecy in Quran that Allah would make pharoh a sign for people till judgement day. Now Muhammad(pbuh) had no clue what that meant, it could simply mean making the story a lesson.
But then the mummy of a pharoh, possibly of the time of Moses was discovered.
Now if that finding validitates OT, doesnt it validitate Quran more?

The Old Testament is concurrent with those world events.
You know what? You probably should not be using bogus Islamic websites like you told me not to. Now show us, according to the Torah, which has never, never, never, ever, changed in words...show me where it says Haman, According to the Torah and the Torah alone. That should be simple to do if the writers of the Quran did it. The Quran is basing their stories from the Torah, so show us the Torah verse.

Lol. Hope you dont mean that!!
You are saying Quran copied from OT and when Quran has a fact thats not in Torah, you say to show it in Torah and only then you'l accept? My friend Torah missed it, Quran dint. Logical conclusion=> Quran is not copied from Torah. period

reply to post by WarminIndy


who said the rosetta had those names?
Rosetta helped to revive a dead language.
And other inscriptions in that language mention haman.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
There is an example.
There are accounts of the great flood which pre-date the bible.

Yet the Christians don't seem to be very open to the idea of the biblical account being plagiarized from other sources.

Probably because they view multiple accounts of a flood to be multiple references to the same thing.

And, in actuality, the Hebrew Bible is a Jewish creation, not Christian, so if you have issues with it, you'd be better advised to complain to the Jews about it, rather than Christians.

oh thats convinient, when OT serves a purpose it, never, never, never.. phew..never changed.
When there's and issue with it, "go complain to jews, its not ours"!!!

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Admit you were wrong when you said this -

Originally posted by babloyi
Hahaha....if that were true, there seem to be a huuuuge number of christians who are doing it wrong. I suppose only you are correct?

Hahahahahaha....admit I was wrong? You know, despite the awesomely large number of times I've caught out people who were either innocently mistaken, or straight out lying about Islam, I've never gotten an admission of wrongness. And I caught these people straight out, with no possibility of any other way. The most I get is a moving forward of the goalposts, or just ignoring my previous points.
How am I wrong in what I said? A huge number of christians do not believe in the trinity. This is not false.
Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, many Quaker groups, Christadelphians, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarian Universalist Christians, the United Church of God, Dawn Bible Students, Iglesia ni Cristo (the non-catholic "Church of Christ" in the Philippines), Members Church of God International (also in the Philippines), The Light of the World Church in Mexico, Living Church of God, Friends of Man Church, Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ etc. And these are just some of the official organisations, not a count of the individuals who do not believe in the trinity. And it isn't even a complete count of the organisations either..just as many as I could find in this short time.
Not all of these groups are unitarian, and some of them hold pretty out-there and weird beliefs, but all of them are non-trinitarian or even anti-trinitarian. In fact, a great many of the denominations that came out of the Restorationism movement are non-trinitarian.

You are absolutely correct that the Christian Trinity is not the God of Islam, but then again, the OP never made this claim. The claim made in the OP was that Jesus Christ (not any trinitarian belief set that arose after his departure from earth) was a muslim, in the sense that he submitted to the will of God, exactly like the Quran instructs.

Originally posted by shuar911
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Idiotic tactics to derail a mighty religion of islam is not ur best i think! taking rediculous sources of urs is rather pathetic and weak. Lies is what best you can do. Islam confirms jesus was the christ and a messiah. Confirmation is not copy , i think there is a certain disease you people suffering! to understand basic english.

edit on 8-10-2012 by shuar911 because: (no reason given)

Are you one of those people who does not understand basic history? Do you suffer from a certain disease called illogic?

Let me give a hypothetical situation..ok.

Let's say today the New York Times has an article that says "President Obama Visits Egypt" and goes on to give the details of the visit. Then next year, the LA Times has an article with the same title and some of the details are changed, but still referring to the same visit. Then the LA Times is asked where the article came from and they say the New York Times, and point to the article and yet details have been changed, would that make the story from the LA Times more correct?

That is illogical and is exactly what the Quran has done. You are the kind who believes the LA Times, saying it confirms the New York Times. Pretty illogical.

If your Quran is based in earlier stories, but details are wrong, then perhaps you should question the Quran writers. Go back to the original source. In the case of the Quran, the earlier sources are not only the Torah, and the the Injeel, but Zoroastrianism, Persian Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Arabian mythology, and the Gnostic Gospels. Then you deny those earlier sources, except the Torah and Gnostic Gospels, even though all the rest are evident because those verses are found in the Avestas and Rig Vedas and found in archeological sites, steles, inscriptions and coins.

If the Quran uses an Avesta verse, then that makes the Avesta correct, if the Quran confirms it. Therefore the Rig Vedas are just as correct, because the Quran confirms it. Please don't be illogical and say we have the problem. You are the one who is denying all of history before the Quran.

Then Muslims say "The Rosetta Stone confirms it" after it has been proven the man created a hoax, but millions and millions of Muslims who have never read a history book, never traveled outside of their village believe it because an imam tells them to.

The denial of history is ignorance. The rest of the world sees you stumbling around in your ignorance and actually feel sorry for you. When we try to show you history, you say "I can't believe you because Mohammed said I should be killed for losing faith". So the scholars and imams have to keep making up newer, more blatant lies to keep people from knowing the truth. I know the Quranic verse that says you are not allowed to ask questions because you lose faith. Do you see how much of a bondage that places you in? You are not slaves of Allah, you are slaves to a system of ignorance and fear. All is fine in your world as long as another Muslim notices that you are staying Muslim.

Let me ask you this, are you allowed to sit in your home with your Muslim parents and say "why does the Bible say this?" Are you allowed to compare the Bible and the Quran? Are you allowed to sit with an imam and discuss the Bible with him?

Massive ignorance forced on people does not make the Quran true.