Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YosefYosep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IgnatianPhilo said:
The continuing butchering of Saint Basil as if he were a bahai (and not one of the greatest trinitarian thinkers to help the church define its doctrine) seems to be a theme and so I will just post this quote from Saint Basil in order to demonstrate the equality of the father son and Holy spirit in his thought. This is from the same text our bahai friend has appealed to, I do not think he understands the concepts being talked about. What is the meaning of Hypostases and ousia and the confusion at the time of these words, because Hypostases was commonly used to indicate Ousia.
  1. Transfer, then, to the divine dogmas the same standard of difference which you recognise in the case both of essence and of hypostasis in human affairs, and you will not go wrong. Whatever your thought suggests to you as to the mode of the existence of the Father, you will think also in the case of the Son, and in like manner too of the Holy Ghost. For it is idle to bait the mind at any detached conception from the conviction that it is beyond all conception. For the account of the uncreate and of the incomprehensible is one and the same in the case of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. For one is not more incomprehensible and uncreate than another. And since it is necessary, by means of the notes of differentiation, in the case of the Trinity, to keep the distinction unconfounded, we shall not take into consideration, in order to estimate that which differentiates, what is contemplated in common, as the uncreate, or what is beyond all comprehension, or any quality of this nature; we shall only direct our attention to the enquiry by what means each particular conception will be lucidly and distinctly separated from that which is conceived of in common.
I would also quote this
  1. Now the proper way to direct our investigation seems to me to be as follows. We say that every good thing, which by God’s providence befalls us, is an operation, of the Grace which works in us all things, as the apostle says, “But all these works that one and the self same Spirit dividing to every man severally as he will.” 1 Corinthians 12:11 If we ask, if the supply of good things which thus comes to the saints has its origin in the Holy Ghost alone, we are on the other hand guided by Scripture to the belief that of the supply of the good things which are wrought in us through the Holy Ghost, the Originator and Cause is the Only-begotten God; for we are taught by Holy Scripture that “All things were made by Him,” John 1:3 and “by Him consist.” Colossians 1:17 When we are exalted to this conception, again, led by God-inspired guidance, we are taught that by that power all things are brought from non-being into being, but yet not by that power to the exclusion of origination. On the other hand there is a certain power subsisting without generation and without origination, which is the cause of the cause of all things. For the Son, by whom are all things, and with whom the Holy Ghost is inseparably conceived of, is of the Father. For it is not possible for any one to conceive of the Son if he be not previously enlightened by the Spirit. Since, then, the Holy Ghost, from Whom all the supply of good things for creation has its source, is attached to the Son, and with Him is inseparably apprehended, and has Its being attached to the Father, as cause, from Whom also It proceeds; It has this note of Its peculiar hypostatic nature, that It is known after the Son and together with the Son, and that It has Its subsistence of the Father. The Son, Who declares the Spirit proceeding from the Father through Himself and with Himself, shining forth alone and by only-begetting from the unbegotten light, so far as the peculiar notes are concerned, has nothing in common either with the Father or with the Holy Ghost. He alone is known by the stated signs.
Do bahai believe that Christ sustains the universe? That Christ created the universe? No they do not.
Click to expand...
Sorry but the question you posted is not what I read from those quotes. 🤷

"The Son, Who declares the Spirit proceeding from the Father through Himself and with Himself, shining forth alone and by only-begetting from the unbegotten light, so far as the peculiar notes are concerned, has nothing in common either with the Father or with the Holy Ghost’.

I see Baha’u’llah’s explanation of the Three Persons in One projecting from this and all the statements posted above.

Frame of Reference my Friend - Google that and one starts looking outside the box 😉

Regards Tony
 
nmgauss said:
The wedding event is told in chapter 2 of the Gospel of John. It is not mentioned at all in the synoptic gospels. Since the event mentions Jesus’ disciples the first of whom were originally disciples of John, the Baptist, it had to have occurred after Jesus’ baptism.

I am not sure of “Christ talking with the elders”. Where is that passage?
Click to expand...
(I was lost a moment too)…Don’t you remember when Jesus was a child? Mary and Joseph
lost Jesus on their way back home from Jerusalem, they go back, and find him talking with
the elders on the Scriptures and so forth.
 
Thank you, (name removed by moderator). This passage tells of an incident that portrays Jesus’ parents as uncaring. It is surprising to learn that a whole day passed before they missed him. Also, when he said “my Father’s house”, it is apparent that he was a devout Jew and recognized that Yahweh lived in the Temple. If he identified with Yahweh, it is also surprising that he had no revelation directly from Yahweh while in the Temple.

The fact that he was obedient to his parents after the incident indicates that his allegiance was first to his parents, not Yahweh.
 
tonyfish58 said:
Sorry but the question you posted is not what I read from those quotes. 🤷

"The Son, Who declares the Spirit proceeding from the Father through Himself and with Himself, shining forth alone and by only-begetting from the unbegotten light, so far as the peculiar notes are concerned, has nothing in common either with the Father or with the Holy Ghost’.

I see Baha’u’llah’s explanation of the Three Persons in One projecting from this and all the statements posted above.

Frame of Reference my Friend - Google that and one starts looking outside the box 😉

Regards Tony
Click to expand...
You have to isolate such verses Basil wrote away from the verses I quoted. Jesus for Basil is of the same substance as God the Father, that is indisputable. Bahai deny this. I do however want you to tell me that you think throughout the entire Christian history Basil has been read, admired and commented on, canonised and etc, that Christians have made a non trinitarian a saint. I said before I have no intimate knowledge of Basil and I reccomended an introduction to his work against Eunomious in order to get an educated understanding of Basil.

You have Basil totally figured out from reading a few verses you have taken from the internet? How arrogant can you get? Or do you believe as a bahai you have the right to interpret any text however you want so long as teh means justify the end?
 
nmgauss said:
Thank you, (name removed by moderator). This passage tells of an incident that portrays Jesus’ parents as uncaring. It is surprising to learn that a whole day passed before they missed him. Also, when he said “my Father’s house”, it is apparent that he was a devout Jew and recognized that Yahweh lived in the Temple. If he identified with Yahweh, it is also surprising that he had no revelation directly from Yahweh while in the Temple.

The fact that he was obedient to his parents after the incident indicates that his allegiance was first to his parents, not Yahweh.
Click to expand...
Uncaring? Have we considered that he might have been travelling with a large group of people and that there were likely the step brothers and family of Jesus along with the mass of other pilgrims returning home from the feast? Why automatically go to the worst possible conclusion?

And why is Jesus going with his parents supposed to render him loyal to them and not to God? Honour your mother and father? By honouring them he honoured God.
 
nmgauss said:
Thank you, (name removed by moderator). This passage tells of an incident that portrays Jesus’ parents as uncaring. It is surprising to learn that a whole day passed before they missed him. Also, when he said “my Father’s house”, it is apparent that he was a devout Jew and recognized that Yahweh lived in the Temple. If he identified with Yahweh, it is also surprising that he had no revelation directly from Yahweh while in the Temple.

The fact that he was obedient to his parents after the incident indicates that his allegiance was first to his parents, not Yahweh.
Click to expand...
Have you ever been to Jerusalem between 10 BCE to 10 CE? It was crazy during the festival!
If parents today can lose their children in a Walmart store, then the losing of Jesus for a mo-
ment is not that surprising. And yes, Jesus did recognize that God lived in the Temple. I am
afraid that I don’t understand your last point in the first paragraph, what exactly do you mean
by:
If he identified with Yahweh, it is also surprising that he had no revelation directly from Yahweh while in the Temple.
Click to expand...
:confused:

Also on:
The fact that he was obedient to his parents after the incident indicates that his allegiance was first to his parents, not Yahweh.
Click to expand...
Jesus did his job at the Temple and one of the Ten Commandments is to Honor Your Father
and Your Mother, which Jesus did. If you wonder about the first instance in which Mary and
Joseph lost Jesus, Jesus was doing his job for his Father, first and foremost, and he did not
actually disobey his human parents the first instance, then when given NEW directions from
Mary and Joseph, Jesus continued to obey. To obey his parents was obeying the Ten Com-
andments was obeying God.
 
Islam is an Abrahamic Religion, whose linage is through Abraham’s son, Ishmael.

**And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. **(Gen 17:20)

Islam doesn’t need to conform to Judaism or Christianity to be truthful. The Truth that exist in Islam comes directly from God through the Prophet Muhammad.
 
It doesn’t need to conform to Judaism but it does on certain things, as we have similar origins, Abraham.

Both Jews and Muslims don’t see God as a man.
Both Jews and Muslims reject the idea of God incarnate.
Our beliefs are very similar.

But it doesn’t need to conform, in that it is not necessary that Muslims need to do everything that Jews do or believe. If there are similarities that is fine, nothing wrong with that. But it doesn’t need to, because we have our own Prophet.
 
TheSufi said:
Islam is an Abrahamic Religion, whose linage is through Abraham’s son, Ishmael.

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. (Gen 17:20)

Islam doesn’t need to conform to Judaism or Christianity to be truthful. The Truth that exist in Islam comes directly from God through the Prophet Muhammad.
Click to expand...
I respectively acknowledge Islam as an
Abrahamic Religion, but it being true is
another matter.

Nothing in that passage suggests that a
promised religion would come through.

Islam most surely does have to appropriately follow Judaism and Christianity to be truth–
ful. Why? Well if a religion claims to succeed another but that other refutes it as wrong it
has two options**:** Justify its proper succession or refute the predecessor as having been
wrong the whole time. Choosing the latter doesn’t disqualify Islam from being counted as
an Abrahamic Religion, but it does put Islam in an awkward position in the World Religion.

Judaism and Christianity can prove themselves in history,
but Islam, like Mormonism, cannot verify, prove, or rightly
testify itself as a truthful religion.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
I respectively acknowledge Islam as an
Abrahamic Religion, but it being true is
another matter.

Nothing in that passage suggests that a
promised religion would come through.

Islam most surely does have to appropriately follow Judaism and Christianity to be truth–
ful. Why? Well if a religion claims to succeed another but that other refutes it as wrong it
has two options**:** Justify its proper succession or refute the predecessor as having been
wrong the whole time. Choosing the latter doesn’t disqualify Islam from being counted as
an Abrahamic Religion, but it does put Islam in an awkward position in the World Religion.

Judaism and Christianity can prove themselves in history,
but Islam, like Mormonism, cannot verify, prove, or rightly
testify itself as a truthful religion.
Click to expand...
Christianity deviated from a lot of Jewish beliefs, beliefs that Muslims adhere and retained. So the deviation isn’t on the part of the Muslims but the Christians.
 
TheSufi said:
Islam is an Abrahamic Religion, whose linage is through Abraham’s son, Ishmael.

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. (Gen 17:20)

Islam doesn’t need to conform to Judaism or Christianity to be truthful. The Truth that exist in Islam comes directly from God through the Prophet Muhammad.
Click to expand...
That passage is correct as Ishmael has made a very great nation. Are muslims binded by Gen 17? If so, who first ever quoted it in Islamic history and what do you make of the next passage?

21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year. "

Does the covenant still belong to the Jews? If not then who?
TheSufi said:
Christianity deviated from a lot of Jewish beliefs, beliefs that Muslims adhere and retained. So the deviation isn’t on the part of the Muslims but the Christians.
Click to expand...
Christians accept “every stroke of pen” in the Jewish Torah and Tanakh. The New Testament quotes it hundreds of times. Can the same be said about the Qur’an?
 
dronald said:
That passage is correct as Ishmael has made a very great nation. Are muslims binded by Gen 17? If so, who first ever quoted it in Islamic history and what do you make of the next passage?

21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year. "

Does the covenant still belong to the Jews? If not then who?
Click to expand...
There are many covenants. Not just one.
 
dronald said:
Is that what Genesis is saying? Also, where is the first person in Islam to quote Gen 17?
Click to expand...
There is more than one verse in the bible.

I don’t know the first person who quoted Gen 17, and I don’t really care, it is an unimportant question.
 
Well, Christians are wrong in believing Jesus is God. You believe Muslims are wrong in believing Jesus is not God.

Jews also believe Jesus is not God.
 
TheSufi said:
There is more than one verse in the bible.

I don’t know the first person who quoted Gen 17, and I don’t really care, it is an unimportant question.
Click to expand...
I’m just discussing the passage you brought up since it’s binding on Muslims, correct?

Also, I thought maybe Allah through the Qur’an or Muhammad would have said something about this passage. If not, that’s fine; I just like to think Muhammad would have thought this passage was important like you do.
 
I don’t need salt to eat food, but I like the flavor of salt, so I use it.

There is a lot of wisdom in the bible and insights as well. While what Prophet Muhammad brought is sufficient for me to attain paradise, I don’t see a problem with me reading the bible from time to time.
 
dronald said:
I’m just discussing the passage you brought up since it’s binding on Muslims, correct?

Also, I thought maybe Allah through the Qur’an or Muhammad would have said something about this passage. If not, that’s fine; I just like to think Muhammad would have thought this passage was important like you do.
Click to expand...
A Muslim is only obligated to follow the Quran.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top