Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

[tonyfish58]

That passage is referring to the Holy Spirit who guides the Catholic Church, not Mohammad.

Oren is a Person of very few words, God Bless and may the Glory of Muhammad be shown unto you

Regards Tony

 

[Servant19]

So on the one hand, he did not prophecy anything, but later you defend his
words as though they were prophecy? What if Abdu’l-Baha was/is wrong a-
bout all the peace, fellowship, unity, etc?

Its not Abdu’l-Baha who taught all about peace, fellowship etc.

It was Baha’u’llah, his father, who by the way is, as I pointed out before, the First Person of the Trinity

Baha’u’llah is the Father, and Jesus is sitting in heaven to His right…

.

 

[Oren]

Oren is a Person of very few words, God Bless and may the Glory of Muhammad be shown unto you

Regards Tony

The Lord Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I believe in the Holy Trinity. I hope one day you will believe in the way, the truth and the life.

 

[Servant19]

That passage is referring to the Holy Spirit who guides the Catholic Church, not Mohammad.

…the Paraclete is also a reference to Muhammad

God bless you Oren

 

[tonyfish58]

The Lord Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I believe in the Holy Trinity. I hope one day you will believe in the way, the truth and the life.

God Bless and thank you for this “I hope one day you will believe in the way, the truth and the life”.

Regards Tony

 

[Servant19]

Metaphysically that doesn’t work. God created all things, yes,
but timelessness is empty of Creation, so you can’t make the
point that "God created timelessness because timelessness
does not exist, that’s the point of “-LESS-”.

(Did you just call the Father Baha’u’kkah?)
​

The Moment God Created, Time then Existed. No Creation before that. No one was in the Beginning with God unless HE IS GOD. Listen: In the Beginning was the Word, &
the Word was With God, and the Word Was God (John1:1). None of the other the so-
-called prophets were in the beginning with God.

Actually timelessness and eternity are very much created concepts. If you can put a word to it, it was created, (except God)

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

The definition, which was adopted by the Schoolmen, at least as applying to eternity properly so called, that of God, implies four things: that eternity is

-a life,
-without beginning or end,
-or succession, and
-of the most perfect kind.

If eternity is “a life” then it is created…
If eternity is “perfect” then it is created, for God is beyond perfections…

.

 

[Servant19]

That is really a lot to get into, but I would at least cite
Micah 5:2, Isaiah 16:5, Daniel 9:26, Psalm 22:16,
Psalm 110:1 (as seen in older versions), just to
name a few crucial prophecies.

Hopefully others will enter this part of
the discussion and help prove Jesus
with God’s Word.

You gave us 4 passages where the OT proves Jesus

I think Daler gave you just as many NT passages to prove Baha’u’llah.
I’m sure if you wish to start a thread on NT passages relating to Baha’u’llah, our dear friend daler can literally inundate you with references…plus more

.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Two things Judas:

1. Can you show me where this has been mentioned “multiple times”? and,
2. Can you show where this understanding was first written about please? How did this interpretation of the quote from Jesus come about, and why?

Thanks

I am not aware of “multiple times” in relation to what I was talking about, but Christians are
not interested in quantitative evidence. If the Bible says something one time, its true, if the
Bible says something else seemingly counter to the prior, we check the rest of the Bible to
allow the Bible to explain to us, that’s the way we read the Bible.

I’m only a revert, so I can’t say when the differences in offices was first mentioned,
but I can talk about the Scriptures and what it says about it. Jesus said that the
Father is greater than he is, yet in chapters like John 1, we find that Jesus is in
fact God and was with the Father in the beginning. When we read further in the
Bible, we find that the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit each take on different roles,
all for the One Purpose for our salvation. The Son submits to the Father, the
Holy Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit’s job is
to draw attention to the Son, the Son means to justify the faithful, bringing
the saved souls to the Father.

Consider also where Paul tells the Philippians to be like minded, to let “this mind”
be in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the FORM of GOD humbled
himself, even unto death. Jesus is in the Form of God, the* ‘Form of God’ *being es-
sentially “What God Is,” so whatever God Is, so Is Jesus, Because Jesus Is God.
Jesus set aside his glory, however, and veiled it in the likeness of men, becoming
obedient to the Father, even to death on a Cross, all for our salvation.

Just read the Bible.

 

[tonyfish58]

So on the one hand, he did not prophecy anything, but later you defend his
words as though they were prophecy? What if Abdu’l-Baha was/is wrong a-
bout all the peace, fellowship, unity, etc?

During the last six thousand years nations have hated one another, it is now time to stop. War must cease. Let us be united and love one another and await the result. We know the effects of war are bad. So let us try, as an experiment, peace, and if the results of peace are bad, then we can choose if it would be better to go back to the old state of war! Let us in any case make the experiment. If we see that unity brings Light we shall continue it. For six thousand years we have been walking on the left-hand path; let us walk on the right-hand path now. We have passed many centuries in darkness, let us advance towards the light.

(Abdu’l-Bahá, Abdu’l-Bahá in London, p. 127)

Regards Tony

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Its not Abdu’l-Baha who taught all about peace, fellowship etc.

It was Baha’u’llah, his father, who by the way is, as I pointed out before, the First Person of the Trinity

Baha’u’llah is the Father, and Jesus is sitting in heaven to His right…

.

Abdu’l-Baha didn’t prophecy that 20th Century bit, it was Baha’u’llah?

So you say that Baha’u’llah is the Father? The Father as in God?

 

[Servant19]

I am not aware of “multiple times” in relation to what I was talking about, but Christians are
not interested in quantitative evidence. If the Bible says something one time, its true, if the
Bible says something else seemingly counter to the prior, we check the rest of the Bible to
allow the Bible to explain to us, that’s the way we read the Bible.

I’m only a revert, so I can’t say when the differences in offices was first mentioned,
but I can talk about the Scriptures and what it says about it. Jesus said that the
Father is greater than he is, yet in chapters like John 1, we find that Jesus is in
fact God and was with the Father in the beginning. When we read further in the
Bible, we find that the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit each take on different roles,
all for the One Purpose for our salvation. The Son submits to the Father, the
Holy Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit’s job is
to draw attention to the Son, the Son means to justify the faithful, bringing
the saved souls to the Father.

Consider also where Paul tells the Philippians to be like minded, to let “this mind”
be in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the FORM of GOD humbled
himself, even unto death. Jesus is in the Form of God, the* *'Form of God’ being es-
sentially “What God Is,” so whatever God Is, so Is Jesus, Because Jesus Is God.
Jesus set aside his glory, however, and veiled it in the likeness of men, becoming
obedient to the Father, even to death on a Cross, all for our salvation.

Just read the Bible.

Why would God be “obedient to the Father”?

 

[Servant19]

Abdu’l-Baha didn’t prophecy that 20th Century bit, it was Baha’u’llah?

The quote you gave was from Abdu’l-Baha. I do not believe it was a prophecy relating to the 20th century, it was a prophecy realting to the Age heralded by Baha’u’llah…

So you say that Baha’u’llah is the Father? The Father as in God?

Yes, Baha’u’llah is the Father. Yes the Father, as in the Person who sent Jesus to us on earth…and to whom Jesus ascended to …

Please read my post #750 again

.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Why would God be “obedient to the Father”?

Because the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit it God ,
each is a distinct person, yet all are One God. So the Son submits
to the Father as seen in Philippians.

WHY?
Because That is how God chooses to save us sinners.

And No, the Father is not Baha’u’llah. That is Blasphemy, thinking Baha’u’llah is the Father.

 

[Servant19]

Anyway, after all these pages, I still see no evidence that can be presented to an objective court of law that proves in any way that the Jesus of the Bible differs from the Jesus of the Quran, given the context in which both Revelations were dispensed…

God bless

 

[Servant19]

May I also add that the Revelation of Muhammad has no need to be within the context of the New Testament.

The Old Testament was not given in the context of any previous religious Books.

Both the Quran and the Old testament were set within a creation of a Nation context. The Israelites and the Arabians.

The fulfilment of both these religious Teachings were found in Christianity and the Baha’i Faith.

If one were to look objectively one would see this similarity in the Jewish and Islamic Faiths, and the “advancement” and “fulfilment” seen within the Christian and Baha’i religions…

All religions are perfectly valid within their own setting and context.

**“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future” **- Baha’u’llah

.

 

[nmgauss]

I believe that Psalm 83:1-18 appears to clearly break any cosy or tidy Islamic link between Ishmael, God and Islam. There is also no reference or historic proof, outside of later Islamic sources, that Ishmael ever went as far as Mecca.

It seems very possible/likely that the story of Ishmael was cut and pasted into the early Islamic narrative to add gravitas and ‘legitimacy’.

This is likely to have happened also in the Bible. After all, scholars have identified four sources for the Pentateuch. Whoever gathered all the sources and filled in the blanks had a great opportunity to add gravitas and ‘legitimacy’. The entire sequence from Deuteronomy through Kings was composed as one multi-chaptered narrative. To have it hang together, filling in the blanks would give it a good story. Then Chronicles comes along and rehashes all the points, but in a brief manner.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

But ya see, Judas, that there are always these
little things that pop up, like “Not My will, but Thine…” don’t cha
know. So for a lot of people there are ways of looking at this stuff
without feeling like they have to submit to some sort of shell game of
“now ya see me, now ya don’t”,

or if I can say this without meaning to offend anyone, its ends up
sounding like, “now I’m god, now I’m not”, etc… Do you follow the
difficulties that some of us have with it?

Note: I started writing this response on Friday, but got busy over the weekend and didn’t get a chance to finish it until now, so if this has already been addressed since then, sorry.

Your difficulties are understandable and your questions are reasonable. The answer lies in an explanation of the Christian understanding of God as Trinity and further the hypostatic union of the two natures of Jesus.

First however, I think it is incumbent to explain that Christians use the term “God” in different ways and depending on the context it can mean different things. I will try to point this out as I go through my explanation.

Christians believe in one God. We believe that this one God is triune (consisting of three in one) in nature, that is to say that the one God exists in three co-equal and co-eternal persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these persons is fully and completely God, meaning that the Father is 100% God, the Son is 100% God, and the Holy Spirit is 100% God. At the same time, however, each person is separate and distinct from the other two, meaning that the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. These are the basics of the Trinity, but we have to get more nuanced to even begin to grasp what these basics mean (and even when we understand the Trinity to the full extent that our limited human minds can understand it, we’ve only just begun to scratch the surface of the fullness of the truth.)

Here is where I should clarify how when Christians use the term “God” we can mean different things. Christians often refer to the Father, the First Person of the Trinity, simply as “God.” However, when we say Jesus is God, we do not mean that Jesus is the Father. Rather, we mean that Jesus is divine. He is the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. He is the same God that the Father is, but mysteriously, in a way that we cannot understand, he is not the Father.

Now, Christians believe that in addition to being fully God, Jesus was also fully man. We believe Jesus has two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. We believe that Jesus has existed in his divine nature from all eternity as the Son, the second person of the Trinity. We believe that when Jesus came down to earth he kept this divine nature but also took on a human nature so that he truly became man, one of us. Therefore we say that Jesus is at the same time both 100% God and 100% man. These two natures exist in perfect harmony, yet remain distinct from one another. We refer to this existence as the hypostatic union. We further believe that because Jesus has two natures, he also has two wills, a divine will and a human will. Again, as with his two natures, the divine will and the human will exist in perfect harmony, yet remain distinct from one another. This is why, while Jesus is God, he says things such as “Not My will, but Thine…” In such instances, he is speaking in his human nature and referring to his human will, while at the same time still retaining his divine nature and divine will.

So while it may sound like “now I’m god, now I’m not,” it really is “now I’m God, and I’m not.”

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Anyway, after all these pages, I still see no evidence that can be presented to an objective court of law that proves in any way that the Jesus of the Bible differs from the Jesus of the Quran, given the context in which both Revelations were dispensed…

God bless

The Jesus of the Bible is the Creator, why do you think Muslims don’t like Paul’s letters?

The Jesus of the Bible, as foreseen in the Old Testament, is God Himself.

The Jesus of the Bible is the Messiah who saves us from our sins, not the Jesus of the Qur’an.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

May I also add that the Revelation of Muhammad has no need to be within the context of the New Testament…

That actually betrays your previous statement when you said, " I still see no evidence that . . . the Jesus of the Bible differs from the Jesus of the Quran . . ."

The Old Testament was not given in the context of any previous religious Books.

Because the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob is not the same God of Zarathustra,
Krishna, Buddha etc. The Old Testament is the first Testament, there was no pre-
previous book.

If one were to look objectively one would see this similarity in the Jewish and Islamic Faiths, and the “advancement” and “fulfilment” seen within the Christian and Baha’i religions…

Christianity fulfills Judaism, follows after Judaism, yes.
The same with the Baha’i Faith and Islam, I’m sure.
But for the Baha’i Faith and Islam even to be true, they must follow after Christianity which neither of them do.

All religions are perfectly valid within their own setting and context.
**“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future” **- Baha’u’llah

God is One, therefore the Truth must be One. Doesn’t work with the God of Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, Christianity AND Islam, etc.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I don’t believe any prophet of God makes errors. Only our interpretation of their statements have a possibility of being wrong.

Do I know the meaning of every statement of every prophet? NO.

Well I suggest you come up for a meaning for his statement.