A movie about Muhammad

[sedonaman]

You people have intentionally hidden the most part of Jesus life from the world view. It is well know that jesus the Jew, son of Jospeh the carpentar was not at all welcome in his own people and he had to run away very quickly from the land never to be seen again for two thousand years.

Have you considered a career of writing comic fiction?

 

[Lapell]

** angelos did not remember that man god (Jesus) arrived thousands of years late in the world. Did God forget to send him quickly. I cannot believe that God would forget to send his son to the world after thousands of years of mankind. Why did God do that? Sent Jesus very late, say 1400 years after Moses and two thousand years after abraham… Why was that? Was that a mistake of your God, the Father God.

It all goes to show that Catholics have no understanding of any religion and no patience and no justice / consideration for the feelings of others.

**

Jesus arrived “thousands of years late” in the world, you say.In the form of a man, yes but before that He had always been with God, being His Word…
What makes you say He arrived thousands of years “late”? From which standards? Are you God Himself to tell us such a thing? How do YOU know He WAS late? Using which rationale (how do you reason this)? Would God explain to YOU His reasons for His deeds? Your thoughts indeed are human, not God’s! How would YOU know that He fails when you don’t even know what His plans ARE?

 

[Lapell]

**I know all about you and your religion. There is no faith. That is why you could not reply to a simple question. So Jesus was not welcome by any quarter except the Muslims.

that is settled.

Now about your religious tactics:
You say Jesus died for us. Why don’t you say Jesus was killed?

Then, if he had fainted and came to senses very soon, he got up. You say he was resurrected. Why? It is said that he had risen. Okay. he had risen from the lying down position. Why say he was resurrected?.

All these funny meanings of your words with so many other funny beliefs and a big vocabulary of new type pf words will not help you progress in the world.

It would be better for you to reply honestly to any question. There is no need of any abuse.**

I am afraid you don’t know even the first thing in our religion, planten. Why say Jesus was resurrected? Because He was dead! D-E-A-D! This is not our own making up, and the Church hasn’t made it up! Why would the Apostles and the early Christians so eagerly resist the temptation of saving their own lives in front of the Roman Courts of Justice when they were arrested and threatened that if they continue to preach that Jesus Christos and to not worship the Roman emperor, they would die a horrific death? They were so convinced that what they taught is the truth and so worth it that they thought it was worth dying for.
You might find our words to mean funny (strange) things, even where there are not figures of speech at all, that’s because you don’t accept the Gospels the way they are written… provided you don’t have a falsified or truncated version of the Gospels!!

 

[Lapell]

I know all about you and your religion. There is no faith. That is why you could not reply to a simple question. So Jesus was not welcome by any quarter except the Muslims.

Muhammad didn’t come into this world before the 6th Century A.D. and Jesus died on the cross about the year 30 A.D. So, no Muslims (that is, Muhammad and his disciples) in Jesus’ time… sorry!

 

[R_not]

Jesus arrived “thousands of years late” in the world, you say.In the form of a man, yes but before that He had always been with God, being His Word…
What makes you say He arrived thousands of years “late”? From which standards? Are you God Himself to tell us such a thing? How do YOU know He WAS late? Using which rationale (how do you reason this)? Would God explain to YOU His reasons for His deeds? Your thoughts indeed are human, not God’s! How would YOU know that He fails when you don’t even know what His plans ARE?

You bring up some very good points.

It sounds like shirk to me that planten has the audacity to question God’s decisions.

 

[Lapell]

** It would be better for you to reply honestly to any question. There is no need of any abuse.**

From what I understand, the people on CAF, including me, find it very difficult to believe in the honesty of YOUR questions, especially when you question everything the Catholic Church has always taught and believed, even their wording… trying hard to tell us our religion is nothing but hogwash.
Even if you would do it in reply to some of us denigrating your religion and hurting thus your feelings, I can’t for one find you any better than them. What don’t you show us that you are better than us by ignoring them?

 

[Lapell]

I do agree that we don’t need to abuse one another from any side.

 

[Lapell]

You bring up some very good points.

It sounds like shirk to me that planten has the audacity to question God’s decisions.

Indeed. The OT Patriarchs and Prophets, even Job, would agree!

 

[planten]

**Jesus (God) is about peace and love not hate. That is why he would never have killed anyone. Mohammed on the other hand was an evil man.
**

**charlotte, I will ask you to show me where did Jesus say that he was for peace and love? I am sure you cannot show me. But I can show you from the bibleNT that Jesus said “Do not think I have come to make peace in the world…”

What do you say about that? Was Jesus telling lies?**

 

[planten]

From what I understand, the people on CAF, including me, find it very difficult to believe in the honesty of YOUR questions, especially when you question everything the Catholic Church has always taught and believed, even their wording… trying hard to tell us our religion is nothing but hogwash.
Even if you would do it in reply to some of us denigrating your religion and hurting thus your feelings, I can’t for one find you any better than them. What don’t you show us that you are better than us by ignoring them?

**That was needed. I had asked a simple question. In return I got all the abuse from all the clever catholics. I hope you had read that. So do not misunderstand me please. I had that good question and it could have been nicely replied. But no one did that. **.

 

[josie_L]

**charlotte, I will ask you to show me where did Jesus say that he was for peace and love? I am sure you cannot show me. But I can show you from the bibleNT that Jesus said “Do not think I have come to make peace in the world…”

What do you say about that? Was Jesus telling lies?**

It’s easy to pick words and then discard others, Planten. How about reading everything that Jesus had to say about peace and love? It might make listening to you a little worthwhile if you did.

 

[jakasaki]

charlotte, I will ask you to show me where did Jesus say that he was for peace and love? I am sure you cannot show me. But I can show you from the bibleNT that Jesus said "Do not think I have come to make peace in the world…"
What do you say about that? Was Jesus telling lies?

Matthew - Chapter 10 - Ministry and Mission - Preparing the 12

"Everyone therefore who shall acknowledge me before people, I also shall acknowledge them before my Father in heaven.

And whoever disowns me before people, I also shall disown that person before my Father in heaven.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn:

                " 'a man against his father,
                and a daughter against her mother,
          and a daughter-in-law against her
                      mother-in-law—
                 a man's enemies will be 
          members of his own household.

"He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;

and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

and he who does not take up his cross and follow behind me is not worthy of me.

The person who finds his life will lose it, and the one who loses his life for my sake will find it.

** ← I put the above in a quote so it’s easy too read.

This is simple if you follow and read the whole chapter 10 you will understand that the usage of the word “sword” does NOT mean “at war and fight with swords”.

I will leave it at that and see what you understand from it.

 

[R_not]

**That was needed. I had asked a simple question. In return I got all the abuse from all the clever catholics. I hope you had read that. So do not misunderstand me please. I had that good question and it could have been nicely replied. But no one did that. **.

planten, most of your questions have been repeated so many times and answered by more than one person every time you ask it so many times, that it is hard to take you seriously anymore.

I also find your posts very insulting most of the time. YOu go against your own texts so often when you are not happy about what we find in your texts. These are threads talking about islam and all its aspects. And I know that we are in a very unique time in history since we can do this without fear of torture and/or death. Because that is what has happened to people who have done what we do on these threads.

I would suspect that is why you are finding it hard to cope and lash out. I see this type of behavior on many videos and articles when muslims and others talk about religion.

islam is very duplicitous and its followers are also that way. It comes in very convenient I suppose when some want to show us an abrogated, more ‘peaceful’ surah and others want to wage jihad. Of course, muslims don’t see a problem with this behavior because they are just following what their (im)‘perfect man’ did and taught.

 

[planten]

Matthew - Chapter 10 - Ministry and Mission - Preparing the 12

"Everyone therefore who shall acknowledge me before people, I also shall acknowledge them before my Father in heaven.

And whoever disowns me before people, I also shall disown that person before my Father in heaven.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn:

" 'a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be
members of his own household.

"He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;

and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

and he who does not take up his cross and follow behind me is not worthy of me.

The person who finds his life will lose it, and the one who loses his life for my sake will find it.

** ← I put the above in a quote so it’s easy too read.

This is simple if you follow and read the whole chapter 10 you will understand that the usage of the word “sword” does NOT mean “at war and fight with swords”.

I will leave it at that and see what you understand from it.

jakasaki, I understand. Nothing is bad from jesus. But see the words, " "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

The words are clear that Jesus did not come to make peace in the world. You and I cannot turn the meanings around as we desire. Honestly tell me what Jesus is saying. When the Catholics attack my prophet and say that Jesus came for love and Peace and Muhammad came to kill, Can I not rebutt them to show them that Jesus did not come for peace. It is his own words in the bibleNT. How can the catholics have it greased on both sides?

 

[sedonaman]

What do you say about that? Was Jesus telling lies?

We are not here to explain or justify what Jesus said or meant; we are here to expose Mohammed for what he was. That’s why the thread is called, “A movie about Muhammad.”

 

[sedonaman]

Everyone:

Have you noticed how planten, et al, have skilfully shifted the discussion from Mohammed to Jesus? Let’s try to bring them on topic, i.e., Mohammed, or ignore them.

 

[jakasaki]

Everyone:

Have you noticed how planten, et al, have skilfully shifted the discussion from Mohammed to Jesus? Let’s try to bring them on topic, i.e., Mohammed, or ignore them.

OK - good advice… will do.

I was going to reply to his inquiry (Matthew chapter 10) because he doesn’t get it but you are right. The thread is being hijacked like all others do.

 

[Verisimilitude]

]jakasaki, I understand. Nothing is bad from jesus. But see the words, " “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Keep reading:
40"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.”

The words are clear that Jesus did not come to make peace in the world. You and I cannot turn the meanings around as we desire. Honestly tell me what Jesus is saying. When the Catholics attack my prophet and say that Jesus came for love and Peace and Muhammad came to kill, Can I not rebutt them to show them that Jesus did not come for peace. It is his own words in the bibleNT. How can the catholics have it greased on both sides?

 

[R_not]

jakasaki, I understand. Nothing is bad from jesus. But see the words, " "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

The words are clear that Jesus did not come to make peace in the world. You and I cannot turn the meanings around as we desire. Honestly tell me what Jesus is saying. When the Catholics attack my prophet and say that Jesus came for love and Peace and Muhammad came to kill, Can I not rebutt them to show them that Jesus did not come for peace. It is his own words in the bibleNT. How can the catholics have it greased on both sides?

considering the new converts to Christianity did not use a sword to spread Christianity - I would have to say that the proof is in the different behaviors of the new converts to Christianity versus the new reverts to islam who spread islam by terror and the sword - while mohammed was alive and afterward.

This verse has been explained to you so many times…

Matt 10:34 is planten’s quote, and also 26:52 ‘All who draw the sword will die by the sword.’

Matt 10:34 vs koran 9:123

We see in the koran’s chapter 9 that these surahs are the ones that abrogated the weaker Meccan surahs. The call to fight for allah.

…Muhammad led a large army of 30,000 soldiers to the northern city of Tabuk in order to confront the Byzantine Christians. This is clearly a Muslim Crusade, centuries before the European Crusades. The Byzantines failed to show up, so Muhammad’s Crusade was fruitless, except he managed to extort a tax from northern tribes for the “privilege” of living under Islam, that is, for not being attacked again. After the Muslims returned, Muhammad scolded the “hypocrites” who had stayed behind and failed to support him. Then he turns to those people who stirred up strife in the community by expressing doubt in Muhammad’s revelations; they needed to be silenced. This latter groups is whom he attacks in 9:123—the “unbelievers.” He may wage war on them, without flinching.

Another aspect of the historical context should be considered. Muhammad urges his fighters forward in order to kill the unbelievers, even if the latter belong to the fighters’ own family, as seen in the words “near you” in v. 123, which may imply a relational nearness as well as a geographical one. Be that as it may, the Muslim commentator S. Abdul A’la Maududi informs us:

The Command [to fight] has been repeated at [the] end [of Sura 9] in order to impress on the Muslims the importance of the matter and to urge them to do Jihad and crush these internal enemies, without paying the least regard to the racial, family, and social relations that had been proving a binding force with them.

It is clear, then, that Muslims should not pay even “the least regard to the … family … relations,” a “binding force” that had encumbered the expansion of Islam. Muslims have been ordered, therefore, to fight their family members in a physical way, in other words, to hit them with sharp swords. Why does Muhammad order this? According to Maududi, it is to "crush these internal enemies."

Matt 10:34 quotes:

The historical context, we should recall, is Jewish culture, as Jesus ministers to his own people. He sends out the twelve disciples to the “lost sheep of Israel,” not yet to the gentiles, who will be reached after the Resurrection. It is not surprising, historically speaking, that he would spread his word by proclamation to his own, by Jewish disciples. Second, he predicts that some towns may not receive the disciples and that the authorities may put them on trial and flog them.

…

It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may “split” it up, the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on (Micah 7:6). It is only natural that Matthew, the traditional author of the most Jewish of the Gospels, would include a pericope (a unit or section) like 10:32-39. Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on (they later came around), it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family. But this applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him in his new faith; he must not reject them because the whole point of Jesus’ advent is to win as many people to his side as possible, even if this divides the world in two, but never violently.

And historically - Jesus never wielded a sword against anyone while mohammed did it quite often.

And I know this will all fly over planten’s head, but I couldn’t have said it better than this article I found sometime last year.

 

[chrisse]

**That was needed. I had asked a simple question. In return I got all the abuse from all the clever catholics. I hope you had read that. So do not misunderstand me please. I had that good question and it could have been nicely replied. But no one did that. **.

In my experience with muslims, they call any criticism of Islam, and Mohammed abuse.
In my experience with muslims, they call using their authoriative texts as proof abuse.
In my experience with muslims, they call not accepting Islam abuse.