Christianity, Islam and Judaism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Familyman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dzheremi said:
This is incredibly interesting, since Arabic was not spoken in or around any place where Abraham is traditionally identified to have lived or grown up. He was born in Ur, which whether you identify it with North or South Mesopotamia (it seems that the traditional view is that it was in the North, and the modern that it was in the South), it remains that the time-line of the modern Islamic apologists such as yourself is waaaaaayyyy off.
Click to expand...
Obviously, when we want to look for the word ‘Islam’ in other languges , we have to look for its translated meaning .

**“Submission to the will of the One True God” **

What does ‘submission’ mean here? It means total obedience, loving and willing. In the Biblical terminology, it means ‘keeping the commandments’, or ‘doing the will of God’. We find these phrases in many places in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and New Testament. The following are a few examples:

So now, 0 Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? Only to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his decrees, that I am commanding you this day for your own well-being
(Deuteronomy 10:12-13)

One phrase encompassing all the above points is: “Total, loving, and willing submission to Him”. The Arabic term, ‘Islam’, has just this meaning.

David, charged his son Solomon, saying:

“I am about to go the way of all the earth,” he said. "So be strong, show yourself a man, and observe what the Lord your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go.
(I Kings 2:2-3)

Solomon, addressing the congregation of Israel:

… so that all the people of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other. Therefore devote yourself completely to the Lord our God, walking in his statutes and keeping his commandments, as at this day. (I Kings 8:60,61)

Islam is submission to the Will of Allah. It is the only religion preached by all the prophets and messengers; worship Allah alone and submit to Him alone.

this is why we say that all prophets were muslims , its because all of them submitted to the will of God , this is simply means “aslam " and those who submitted themselfs means " muslim” , and when they invite people o worship God alone and submit to his will , it means call them for islam
 
I am well aware of what Islam claims about itself. It is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. As I stated to the other poster who quoted that post, my post is about the linguistic reality of Abraham’s immediate surroundings, as it was claimed by the poster I was responding to that Abraham chose the term “Islam” for his religion. My point is that this is literally impossible, given the linguistic reality of Abraham’s world.
 
dzheremi said:
I am well aware of what Islam claims about itself. It is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. As I stated to the other poster who quoted that post, my post is about the linguistic reality of Abraham’s immediate surroundings, as it was claimed by the poster I was responding to that Abraham chose the term “Islam” for his religion. My point is that this is literally impossible, given the linguistic reality of Abraham’s world.
Click to expand...
allah told us in quran that abraham gave a name for the followeres of his relegion as
muslim ( in arabic quran )
submitter ( in english )
MUSHLAM in ( hebrew )

i said in my post that when we want to look for the word ‘Islam’ in other languges , we have to look for its translated meaning .

that’s why i think it’s relevant

what was the languge of abraham (pbuh) ? , his son Ismail was raised in arab desert and among arab nations , most probably he (abraham (pbuh)) spoke arabic either
(i’m not very sure from that , it’s just my thoughts 😛 )
 
Sorry, Elwill, but if you’re going to try to convince me of anything, you cannot rely on the Qur’an to substantiate your argument. Not only do I not care at all what it has to say about this or anything, it is most definitely not a history book on the lives of people who lived hundreds of miles away from the cultural and geographical contexts in which it was composed. Please provide some other source regarding the Hebrew language (my Hebrew dictionary is in a box somewhere, so I cannot verify your claim myself), as I have dealt with this particular claim before on here and found it utterly lacking.

I provided my source on the cultural makeup of Mesopotamia in antiquity. The bare fact is that there was no significant Arab presence in the area until many, many centuries after Abraham lived in Ur, and there is no evidence outside of the Qur’an to substantiate the claims you’ve made. Please provide some other, scholarly source.
 
dzheremi said:
Sorry, Elwill, but if you’re going to try to convince me of anything, you cannot rely on the Qur’an to substantiate your argument. Not only do I not care at all what it has to say about this or anything, it is most definitely not a history book on the lives of people who lived hundreds of miles away from the cultural and geographical contexts in which it was composed.
I provided my source on the cultural makeup of Mesopotamia in antiquity. The bare fact is that there was no significant Arab presence in the area until many, many centuries after Abraham lived in Ur, and there is no evidence outside of the Qur’an to substantiate the claims you’ve made. Please provide some other, scholarly source.
Click to expand...
you are right , i can’t convince you relying on quran , it’s not logic ( offcourse if i tried relying on your own holy book someone else will say to me that i can’t relying on corrupted book :confused: )

but actually i’m not trying to convince you with anything
i think you lost the sequence of this argument

the argument started when **shambles ** said
Abraham chose the name Muslim, for those who submitt to the Will of God,offcourse shambles is talking from islamic prespective from the beginning

when you tried to refute his view which coming from quran you said that abraham didn’t spoke arabic which means that he didn’t call them muslims

then it was my respond that , when we want to look for the word ‘Islam’ in other languges , we have to look for its translated meaning
anyway , you asking me about any other source out of quran which support the claims of quran which says that abraham was muslim and his massage was islam . ?

well , you are more aware than me about the bible
is the bible have anything which refute these claims ?

tell me what the bible said about relegion of abraham (pbuh) and his massage , please
Please provide some other source regarding the Hebrew language (my Hebrew dictionary is in a box somewhere, so I cannot verify your claim myself), as I have dealt with this particular claim before on here and found it utterly lacking.
Click to expand...
i don’t know hebrew nor have a dictionery for it , but here is whar i read and i will be thankfull if you corrected my false knowldge

The word ‘Muslim’ is not a new word that is found only in the Qur’an. ‘Muslim’ is just the Arabic form. This word already existed in both Hebrew and Aramaic

The Aramaic equivalent of the Arabic word ‘Muslim’ is ‘Mushlam.’ It is derived from the root ‘SH L M.’ The words ‘Shalom’ and ‘Shlama’ are also derived from this root. ‘Shalom’ means peace. ‘Shlama’ means submitting your will (to the Will of God).

** Lets see what an Assyrian Bible scholar, whose native language was Aramaic, and a Bishop from the Church of East have to say about what ‘Shlama’ means:**

‘Tranquility, that peace which is under and in accordance to God’s Will.’ (Enlightenment from Aramaic, Selected Passages From the Khaboris Manuscript, by Sadook de Mar Shimum, Archdeacon)

‘…the peace which caused them to surrender themselves to God…’ (New Testament Light, George M. Lamsa).

‘Muslim’ is Arabic. '‘Mushlam’ is Aramaic. The meaning is the same.

Jesus was a Mushlam, according to his language and a Muslim, according to the Arabic language. He explains this in Luke 6:40:

Aramaic: 'Ein talmeed na’aleh ‘al rabbo; sheken kal adam she’Mushlam yihyeh k’rabbo.’ Translation: ‘The disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone that is perfect, shall be as his teacher.’

The word ‘kal adam’ means ‘all people’ or ‘all mankind.’ Mushlam means Muslim. Therefore, he is telling the entire humanity that in order to be like him, they have to be Mushlam, or in Arabic, Muslim.
 
elwill said:
The word ‘Muslim’ is not a new word that is found only in the Qur’an. ‘Muslim’ is just the Arabic form. This word already existed in both Hebrew and Aramaic

The Aramaic equivalent of the Arabic word ‘Muslim’ is ‘Mushlam.’ It is derived from the root ‘SH L M.’ The words ‘Shalom’ and ‘Shlama’ are also derived from this root. ‘Shalom’ means peace. ‘Shlama’ means submitting your will (to the Will of God).

** Lets see what an Assyrian Bible scholar, whose native language was Aramaic, and a Bishop from the Church of East have to say about what ‘Shlama’ means:**

‘Tranquility, that peace which is under and in accordance to God’s Will.’ (Enlightenment from Aramaic, Selected Passages From the Khaboris Manuscript, by Sadook de Mar Shimum, Archdeacon)

‘…the peace which caused them to surrender themselves to God…’ (New Testament Light, George M. Lamsa).

‘Muslim’ is Arabic. '‘Mushlam’ is Aramaic. The meaning is the same.

Jesus was a Mushlam, according to his language and a Muslim, according to the Arabic language. He explains this in Luke 6:40:

Aramaic: 'Ein talmeed na’aleh ‘al rabbo; sheken kal adam she’Mushlam yihyeh k’rabbo.’ Translation: ‘The disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone that is perfect, shall be as his teacher.’

The word ‘kal adam’ means ‘all people’ or ‘all mankind.’ Mushlam means Muslim. Therefore, he is telling the entire humanity that in order to be like him, they have to be Mushlam, or in Arabic, Muslim.
Click to expand...
That was a really good reply.
It seems ppl are putting a lot of effort into segregating, rather than uniting.
It really is a simple case of research and Divine guidance. If the heart and intentions are pure and being humble helps, then the Almighty will allow one to see the truth/connectives/links.
It seems, from a mixture of research. the last couple of years, that modern-day Christianity is actually quite heretical. its the agenda nwo based, illuminatti and anti-Christ etc. Theyve infiltrated the religions. But with regards to Christ dying on The cross, apparently, the whole ritual is Babylonian and the idea was to transfer the sins onto him and offer him up by putting him to death. The God of Christ, peace unto Him, does not require human sacrifice, as was proven in the story of Abraham and His son. Im no expert, simply a believer in the seal of revelation.
Another angle to research and compare-using numbers. Numerologically all the truths should have the same number value. Like the names translated - link, so should all that is in common, link through numbers.
Give it a try, I think I will.
 
Elwill, Shambles:

What neither of you seem to grasp is that by trying to have a discussion that links linguistic facts and realities of the ancient or modern Near East (what I discussed in my first post that seems to cause you such problems) to the supposed divine truth of your religion, you actually disqualify the points you make about either. If you look at the word Muslim, Mushlim, or whatever the word is, the structural similarities can be explained by the fact that Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. are all Semitic languages, so they are similar as a matter of common Semitic morphology. So what? An Assyrian, be he archdeacon or of any other position in life, would likewise use “Aloho” or “Alaha” when praying to God, does this likewise mean that he is praying to the deity of the Qur’an, by virtue of their structural similarity to “Allah”? My only point is that to say that Abraham chose the name “Muslim” (no matter what the reason) shows a deep ignorance about the history and linguistic realities of Abraham’s world (Abraham was neither Muslim nor Arab, and neither were anyone around him), and since you cannot refute that you say “well, it is about those words that we use in common with the words that speakers of related Semitic languages use for similar concepts!”, as though that is any kind of argument to make. But, okay…I will play along: Assyrians must be talking about the necessity that all be Muslims and pray to your Islamic recension of Allah…after all, they use a similar word in their own prayers…that must explain why sooooo many of them are Muslims, including obviously this archdeacon you’ve quoted…same with the Jews… 😛

Point being: The similarity in the words only takes on any theological or religious meaning when you try to graft other religious figures onto your own religion, which apparently is a divine activity as much of your Qur’an and its accounts of previous non-Islamic religious figures does this. Since this contradicts history as it is recognized to function outside of the Qur’an (e.g. IN REALITY), it is of little use to anyone but those already convinced in the supposed “truth” of the Qur’an and its accounts of figures that lived centuries before it came to Muhammad. It is an inherently deeply flawed system of epistemology, which twists both linguistics and theology until neither have any meaning or purpose but to prop up your false book and religion. And, as we have seen, without these incredibly weak arguments you are left with no argument, since stating that Abraham and Muhammad and an Assyrian bishop would have used similar sounding words is essentially a non-argument (it doesn’t “mean” anything, from a linguistic standpoint).
 
shambles said:
That was a really good reply.
It seems ppl are putting a lot of effort into segregating, rather than uniting.
It really is a simple case of research and Divine guidance. If the heart and intentions are pure and being humble helps, then the Almighty will allow one to see the truth/connectives/links.
It seems, from a mixture of research. the last couple of years, that modern-day Christianity is actually quite heretical. its the agenda nwo based, illuminatti and anti-Christ etc. Theyve infiltrated the religions. But with regards to Christ dying on The cross, apparently, the whole ritual is Babylonian and the idea was to transfer the sins onto him and offer him up by putting him to death. The God of Christ, peace unto Him, does not require human sacrifice, as was proven in the story of Abraham and His son. Im no expert, simply a believer in the seal of revelation.
Another angle to research and compare-using numbers. Numerologically all the truths should have the same number value. Like the names translated - link, so should all that is in common, link through numbers.
Give it a try, I think I will.
Click to expand...
First, a book that may touch on the main subject of this thread is by the late Jaroslav Pelikan, Whose Bible is it? It’s been some time now since I’ve read it, so his ideas are not fresh in my mind. But, his discussion may be relevant.

Second, Yes, I’ve read the Jewish commentary argument that God does not want human sacrifice, based on the story of Abraham and Isaac. I would like to gently suggest the alternate explanation, that the sacrifice of Isaac would not have provided any sacrificial benefit. It was only at that moment that God was testing the faith of Abraham. It’s the old story of giving somebody an inch and they’re taking a mile. The New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament, of course, in Christian belief. We might half-agree that even a pure human sacrifice was not acceptable to God, but only His ordained sacrifice of Jesus, the God-Man, that was acceptable.

We beg to differ from Muslim theory that Jesus didn’t die on the cross, etc. Those views seem only to capture the Arian heresy of Christianity that the Prophet of Islam, was familiar with, at that time in his day, with all due respect to Muslims.

The truth, as Christians point out, is that there is only one name under heaven by which men are saved, the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. But, we know this, don’t we? All this is old news, isn’t it? this has been documented for centuries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top