Jesus was a "Muslim"

Technically speaking, according to Islam everything but man is already Islam as it is obedience to the order God set. I mean allah set. Muslim is another thing.

Wrong. There is only the Mormon Jesus.





Mormon Jesus has swagger.

Originally posted by Sublimecraft
reply to post by shuar911

 

Jesus was/is an awesome dude who went around telling everybody to be cool, love everything and to stop having a go at others when you feel uncomfortable.

Jewish / Christian / Muslim / Buddhist / Jedi............that's an all too human label that he would obviously shed in an instant if/when he returns.

If you have skin, a heartbeat and walk upright then he came here to tell you something & you could/can take it or leave it.

It resonated with me so I run with it, but sometimes I also run with the wolves......., after all, how can I defeat the enemy without knowing how they think.

Knowledge is power - Jesus being a "Muslim" or "other" concerns me not - I have bigger fish to fry.

Interesting read - designed to galvanize nonetheless.

Bestest and most sensible response Ive ever read in a religious forum by a religious person

Dude if all religious types were like you the world would be an awesome place to be.

Wish I could star more than once

reply to post by shuar911

I dont know about Moslem, but he as an Arab.

He was born in Bethlehem ie the Middle East.

Passion of the Christ was filmed in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus.

Currently, the remaining Aramaic speakers are in Syria.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Lol. A Muslim who said the greatest command in the Bible is to love YHVH.

I've officially heard everything now, I am at peace.

Eh? That is exactly what muslims believe (not the "in the Bible" part, though. In the Law). It is the christians who changed it to "Believe that Jesus died for your sins so that you may be saved".
It is odd how so many Christians claim that Islam/Muhammad is the anti-christ. This claim goes directly against their own scripture. The Biblical definition of the anti-christ is the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah.
Islam is probably the only religion that acknowledges that role exclusively for Jesus.

reply to post by Awen24

Originally posted by Awen24
A *Jewish* Muslim...
don't forget that part.

Technically, since jews define themselves as "anyone who has a jewish mother", and muslim men can marry women from the "People of the Book", I'd say the concept of a "Jewish muslim" is more than plausible.

And it is pretty funny that you compare Jesus to a hadith from the end-times, and people go on about how Jesus was the "Prince of Peace", while Muhammad and Islam is all violent.
The Bible itself tells how Jesus will return to wage war accompanied by armies, strike down the nations, kill the non-believers, kill all the leaders and authorities and powers so that every tribe will mourn, have his robe dipped in blood, and then when it is all done, he will rule with an iron rod (no mercy or compassion this time).
So yeah, a "Prince of Peace" (where "peace" means that all the enemies have been slaughtered), who comes to bring the (totally not metaphorical) sword.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
I dont know about Moslem, but he as an Arab.

Muslim.

He was born in Bethlehem ie the Middle East.

There seems to be some controversy over whether it was Nazareth or Bethlehem. The Messiah was supposed to be born in Bethlehem so they had that expectation.

Passion of the Christ was filmed in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus.

It was filmed in Aramaic and Latin.

In addition to Aramaic Jesus likely spoke Hebrew, and possibly Greek as well. He likely did not speak Latin, which I believe was depicted in the movie?..

Currently, the remaining Aramaic speakers are in Syria.

And those filmed in the movie Passion of the Christ no?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Regarding the Bethlehem issue. One school of thought is that Jesus was a Nazarite as there is some question as to whether or not Nazareth was even inhabited during the Roman period.

~Heff

reply to post by shuar911


That is kinda an interesting story. As I too believe in the saying "Be careful what you wish for or you might just get it". Like people have no clue. They pray for something, they get it, only to realize it was a mistake. I've done that before.

But I don't think this is a real story at all. One major problem with it. I've hunted dear. You know how hard it is to catch a deer? Even with a high power rifle? Like come on, but yet they caught this deer with there bare hands? I don't think so. The bible doesn't mention one time a disciple or anyone else in the new testiment going deer hunting.

Jesus wasn't muslim. He was Christian. Mohammad was muslim. Or do you need me to show you "innocence of mulsim?"

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Off topic:

Try this on Mr Wolf - 170x240 pixels so is ideal for Avatar size

reply to post by Sublimecraft


Very kind of you.

reply to post by babloyi


No. To be specific, there is a "spirit of antichrist", and a "the antichrist". Two different things. One is alive and well in the Earth, which denies two things. 1. That Christ came in the flesh, and 2. Denies the Trinity (denies the relationship between the Father and the Son). There is coming a "the antichrist" which in Greek is designated by the definite article "hu", (the). When definite articles are used in Greek it signifies a specific one, different/unique from any other.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I acknowledge there is a case in the bible both for the existence of antichrists, AND The Antichrist™. One passage uses the phrase "the spirit of the antichrist", in general to mean "the idea of not accepting that Jesus was from God".

Whatever the case may be, it seems obvious that the Antichrist™ would be an antichrist. And since the definition of an antichrist in the Bible (from 1 and 2 John) is that Jesus was the Messiah and came in the flesh, since Islam acknowledges (and Muhammad acknowledged) that Jesus WAS the Christ/Messiah, and definitely was a real person, it can neither be an antichrist, and therefore, not the Antichrist™.

Now you seem to have stuffed in the trinity into there somehow, but it doesn't really apply. One of the defintions is admittedly that Jesus was of God, and the "of" (also "from", "with" or "by") in this case, "ek", which yes, has been used in the Bible to talk of sons being "of" fathers/mothers (including Jesus "ek" Mary), but that isn't the exclusive use of "ek" in the Bible.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
What i find interesting is how Jesus was a muslim 620 years before Islam existed if you catch my drift.

Well, obviously Jesus was also a time traveling space alien, as well.

When people just make stuff up, like this Robert F. Shedinger clown appears to do, why even pretend that reality matters anymore?

Pilate: "But what is truth?"

Robert F. Shedinger: "Whatever fits my agenda."

Lets clear up something. Islam was revived by prophet Muhammad(pbuh) rather than started by him.
Every prophet from Adam to Muhammad(peace be upon them all) gave the same simple message of truth and Oneness of God.
Anyone who accepted that and obviously accepted the prophet of his time who gave that message is technically a muslim(verb) not the muslim(noun) as assumed all over this thread.
There was supposed to be one religion, the straight path, what Jesus(pbuh)called the "narrow road"
some prophets got the books containing God's law to facilitate a good way of life. God never changed his mind but people(especially scribes/priests) changed and perverted the teachings over time making it necessary to send a new prophet to guide the people back to the straight way, the people who had everything to lose were the elite and priests and they resisted for the sake of power causing bloodshed, misleading the masses etc giving rise to many religions, enimity between those religions for the stupid reason of "mine's better than yours"
that caused people with intelligence to just forsake God as they were fed up with the thorny fruits of religions. So atheist are not bad, rather more close to God as compared to arrogant theists who have no better work than to malinge other religions.

reply to post by babloyi

It is the christians who changed it to "Believe that Jesus died for your sins so that you may be saved". It is odd how so many Christians claim that Islam/Muhammad is the anti-christ. This claim goes directly against their own scripture. The Biblical definition of the anti-christ is the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah. Islam is probably the only religion that acknowledges that role exclusively for Jesus.

Who are you kidding?

The Christians didn't change anything.

It was Muhammad who came along hundreds of years later to change Christ's message.

Islam even changed the definition of what "Messiah" was, therefore denying it.

Jesus told everyone himself that he was going to die and why, yet Islam tells everyone that Jesus was a liar and never died and another was put in his place.

Once again, anti-Christ.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I acknowledge there is a case in the bible both for the existence of antichrists, AND The Antichrist™. One passage uses the phrase "the spirit of the antichrist", in general to mean "the idea of not accepting that Jesus was from God".

Whatever the case may be, it seems obvious that the Antichrist™ would be an antichrist. And since the definition of an antichrist in the Bible (from 1 and 2 John) is that Jesus was the Messiah and came in the flesh, since Islam acknowledges (and Muhammad acknowledged) that Jesus WAS the Christ/Messiah, and definitely was a real person, it can neither be an antichrist, and therefore, not the Antichrist™.

Now you seem to have stuffed in the trinity into there somehow, but it doesn't really apply. One of the defintions is admittedly that Jesus was of God, and the "of" (also "from", "with" or "by") in this case, "ek", which yes, has been used in the Bible to talk of sons being "of" fathers/mothers (including Jesus "ek" Mary), but that isn't the exclusive use of "ek" in the Bible.

edit on 2-10-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

"Denies the relationship between the Father and the Son". Islam states "God does not begat neither is He begotten" or something to that effect. Which is a direct denial that Jesus is the begotten Son of God.

Originally posted by Sublimecraft
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Off topic:

Try this on Mr Wolf - 170x240 pixels so is ideal for Avatar size

Thanks i saved it .

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by shuar911

 

I dont know about Moslem, but he as an Arab.

He was born in Bethlehem ie the Middle East.

Passion of the Christ was filmed in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus.

Currently, the remaining Aramaic speakers are in Syria.

The earliest documented use of the word "Arab" to refer to a people appears in the Monolith Inscription, an Akkadian language record of the 9th century BC Assyrian Conquest of Syria (Arabs had formed part of a coalition of forces opposed to Assyria).[16] Listed among the booty captured by the army of king Shalmaneser III of Assyria in the Battle of Qarqar are 1000 camels of "Gi-in-di-bu'u the ar-ba-a-a" or "[the man] Gindibu belonging to the ʕarab" (ar-ba-a-a being an adjectival nisba of the noun ʕarab).[16] The most popular Arab account holds that the word 'Arab' came from an eponymous father called Yarab, who was supposedly the first to speak Arabic. Al-Hamdani had another view; he states that Arabs were called GhArab (West in Semitic) by Mesopotamians because Arabs resided to the west of Mesopotamia; the term was then corrupted into Arab. Yet another view is held by Al-Masudi that the word Arabs was initially applied to the Ishmaelites of the "Arabah" valley.

Jesus does NOT descend from Ishmael, so it is not possible He was Arab. Jerusalem was and is the capital of Israel, since the time of Dawud...

Only the Arab League tacked your definition on, so why would they do that? To legitimize Islam by yet another way, by taking away the identity of a group of people then saying they are Arab.

he relation of ʿarab and ʾaʿrāb is complicated further by the notion of "lost Arabs" al-ʿArab al-ba'ida mentioned in the Qur'an as punished for their disbelief. All contemporary Arabs were considered as descended from two ancestors, Qahtan and Adnan.

Qahtan was from Yemen. Was Jesus from Yemen? No. Adnan was from northern Saudi Arabia. Was Jesus from northern Saudi Arabia? No. He was born in Israel to a Jewish mother, He read the Torah in Hebrew. He spoke Aramaic, which is a dialect of....Hebrew.

The Arab conquests forced an false identity onto people, denying their language. Jesus was most definitely NOT Arab and lived before the Arab conquests.

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
What i find interesting is how Jesus was a muslim 620 years before Islam existed if you catch my drift.

Well, obviously Jesus was also a time traveling space alien, as well.

When people just make stuff up, like this Robert F. Shedinger clown appears to do, why even pretend that reality matters anymore?

Pilate: "But what is truth?"

Robert F. Shedinger: "Whatever fits my agenda."

Lets clear up something. Islam was revived by prophet Muhammad(pbuh) rather than started by him.
Every prophet from Adam to Muhammad(peace be upon them all) gave the same simple message of truth and Oneness of God.
Anyone who accepted that and obviously accepted the prophet of his time who gave that message is technically a muslim(verb) not the muslim(noun) as assumed all over this thread.
There was supposed to be one religion, the straight path, what Jesus(pbuh)called the "narrow road"
some prophets got the books containing God's law to facilitate a good way of life. God never changed his mind but people(especially scribes/priests) changed and perverted the teachings over time making it necessary to send a new prophet to guide the people back to the straight way, the people who had everything to lose were the elite and priests and they resisted for the sake of power causing bloodshed, misleading the masses etc giving rise to many religions, enimity between those religions for the stupid reason of "mine's better than yours"
that caused people with intelligence to just forsake God as they were fed up with the thorny fruits of religions. So atheist are not bad, rather more close to God as compared to arrogant theists who have no better work than to malinge other religions.

Have you read any writings to show that any of the old prophets spoke the Shahada? When confronted by this question, Muslims scramble to find Mohammed in the Bible. Yet they do not find Mohammed and take one or two verses trying to place Mohammed in the text. Then they commit blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, which is not a human person and never had a human incarnation.

Mohammed never revived it at all. In fact, for 23 years he continued to worship with the pagans in the kaaba, still performed hajj and bowed down to Hubal. This was 23 years after he pronounced his apostleship. So nope, no revival.

Keep on trying to read Mohammed into a text that does not imply or state he would even exist. But there is one place he is implied, he is a false prophet, nothing more.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


"Denies the relationship between the
Father and the Son". Islam states "God
does not begat neither is He begotten"
or something to that effect. Which is a
direct denial that Jesus is the begotten
Son of God.
.
.
There is a difference between a symbolic/loving address to a person as a "son" n a literal one.
For example, a young man would be respectful of a middle age guy who address him as son. but the same middle age guy would be in trouble if he means that literally and says, "you are my begotton son"
God address many prophets as sons of God.
And in Quran God says the "similarity of Jesus(pbuh) is like Adam(pbuh)"
If one was born without a human father then the later is born without both mother and father, so Adam by christian definition is more of a son and in extention more divine(allegedly)

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
What i find interesting is how Jesus was a muslim 620 years before Islam existed if you catch my drift.

Well, obviously Jesus was also a time traveling space alien, as well.

When people just make stuff up, like this Robert F. Shedinger clown appears to do, why even pretend that reality matters anymore?

Pilate: "But what is truth?"

Robert F. Shedinger: "Whatever fits my agenda."

Lets clear up something. Islam was revived by prophet Muhammad(pbuh) rather than started by him.
Every prophet from Adam to Muhammad(peace be upon them all) gave the same simple message of truth and Oneness of God.
Anyone who accepted that and obviously accepted the prophet of his time who gave that message is technically a muslim(verb) not the muslim(noun) as assumed all over this thread.
There was supposed to be one religion, the straight path, what Jesus(pbuh)called the "narrow road"
some prophets got the books containing God's law to facilitate a good way of life. God never changed his mind but people(especially scribes/priests) changed and perverted the teachings over time making it necessary to send a new prophet to guide the people back to the straight way, the people who had everything to lose were the elite and priests and they resisted for the sake of power causing bloodshed, misleading the masses etc giving rise to many religions, enimity between those religions for the stupid reason of "mine's better than yours"
that caused people with intelligence to just forsake God as they were fed up with the thorny fruits of religions. So atheist are not bad, rather more close to God as compared to arrogant theists who have no better work than to malinge other religions.

Have you read any writings to show that any of the old prophets spoke the Shahada? When confronted by this question, Muslims scramble to find Mohammed in the Bible. Yet they do not find Mohammed and take one or two verses trying to place Mohammed in the text. Then they commit blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, which is not a human person and never had a human incarnation.

Mohammed never revived it at all. In fact, for 23 years he continued to worship with the pagans in the kaaba, still performed hajj and bowed down to Hubal. This was 23 years after he pronounced his apostleship. So nope, no revival.

Keep on trying to read Mohammed into a text that does not imply or state he would even exist. But there is one place he is implied, he is a false prophet, nothing more.

I see what you are getting into and thanx for a good point.
Shahada is a declaration of faith as you may know.
And disciples of Jesus(pbuh) must have believed that he is sent from God and followed him, thats shahada.
Everyone was supposed to say the shahada testifying the Oneness of God and prophethood of the prophet at that time.