Jesus is not muslim

[sainted]

Why do muslims try and paint the whole history and the world islam? It does seem that it is insecured of itself by itself. Isn’t your belief enough for you people. You even call us muslims only that we haven’t reverted yet. That is mere nonsense.

Why can’t you accept the name “prophet” given to those extraordinary men which they have been called as for centuries? Why can’t you leave Jesus Christ as it is than labeling him as a muslim? Please don’t try tell us how to call them they are as perfect as they have been for centuries. ‘Prophet’ or ‘Jesus’ no muslim attached is just as perfect

Your prophet believed in Him and accepted Him as the greatest. Is it proper for us then to call Muhammad a Chrisitan or more specifically a Protestant Chrisitian. Of course not! You wouldn’t like it. For the same reason please please don’t call our prophets and us muslims.

Just a comment about this paragraph though. It is contradictory.

r.gonzales:

for us muslims, we know that the prophets and messengers as a whole are the best of creation and that prophet muhammad is the seal of prophethood, the chief of the prophets and messengers.

How does the line in bold justify what you said down here?

as for this pissing match of “my prophet was better than yours” you can get into that if you like.

Instead of the ‘pissing match’ you spoke of you have already ruled out your conclusion above which is indeed unreal and unfounded.

i myself, however, will refrain from such idle speech

,

the one above in bold is an example of it.

 

[r.gonzales]

sainted:

It is contradictory.

there’s no contradiction there. do you even know what “the seal of prophethood and the chief of the prophets and messengers” means???

prophet muhammad was the last of a long line of prophets and messengers sent to mankind, all of who called the people to the religion of Allah, islam. there are no prophets or messengers that will be sent after him. thus, he is the seal of prophethood. he is the chief of the prophets and messengers because he sending was the culmination of Allah’s message to mankind, to worship Him alone, not associating anything with Him in that. his message and the revelation he was sent with is the final revelation that was sent to mankind and everyone is obligated to follow him. the laws and legislations he was sent with is the most complete and the most perfect of those sent with other prophets.

as to who is better or who lived life better or the comparisons between the behaviour and actions of one prophet compared to another, just as many of you christians try to do between prophet jesus and prophet muhammad. this is the pissing match and idle speech i was referring to.

 

[jaydog77]

Does the sun still set in murkey waters?

I’m not up to date on the latest interpretation of the koran.

At the end of the world, are trees and rocks still supposed to come to life when jews hide behind them and call out to the muslim “Oh serant of Allah, there is a jew hiding behind me, come and slay him!”

(of course, translations vary by edition)

Are suicide bombers going to hell?

Sometimes I forget the answers to these questions

 

[jaydog77]

sainted:

Instead of the ‘pissing match’ you spoke of you have already ruled out your conclusion above which is indeed unreal and unfounded…

How can it be a pi$$ing match between prophets? One rose from the dead, the other is a oil/water mix of judaism and gnostic gospels spread by the sword

Let them call Jesus a muslim. The first incidence of Jesus being called a muslim was the 7th century when islam was invented. Meanwhile, secular history verifies the gospel accounts of Jesus being worshiped as God, dying for His people, condemning paganism and requiring faith in Him for our salvation repeatedly thru the first few centuries of Christianity. Of course, the koran simply chalks this up to God apparently deliberatly making the world THINK Jesus died when he didn’t and replacing Jesus with someone else so Jesus wouldn’t die. Then evil paul just made up the rest!

 

[jcaz]

Then evil paul just made up the rest!

Congrats, you got one part right.

 

[De_Maria]

r.gonzales:

Allah says, certainly those who said that Allah is the messiah, son of mary, have disbelieved. say, “so who would be capable of anything against Allah if He wanted to destroy the messiah, his mother and all of those on the earth? and Allah’s is the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills and Allah is capable of everything.” (5:17)

certainly those who said that Allah is the messiah, son of mary, have disbelieved. and the messiah said, “o children of israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. surely, whoever associates anything with Allah [in His worship], then Allah has made paradise forbidden to him, and his abode will be the fire. and there are not any helpers for the oppressors.” (5:72)

We don’t submit to the teachings of the Quran because:

1. Muhammed claimed it was presented to him by an angel and the Bible says:

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

Therefore, since the Quran contradicts the Gospel, if an angel truly presented the Quran to Muhammed, then the angel is condemned.

1. Muhammed was the only one privy to these alleged visions and revelations.

The Christian Gospel and the accompanying revelations to the Prophets were witnessed by many and written by many. They are consistent and logical.

In contrast, the Quran was dictated to many by one person, one human being. In ordinary life, we accept the testimony of many over the testimony of one. Therefore Muhammed’s single testimony is proved false by sheer number.

1. The Quran contains numerous errors of logic (which I have already discussed with you) and also many historical errors like claiming that Mary is Aaron’s sister, yet they were separated by centuries.

For many reasons, the Quran is proven false and therefore Islam is proven false.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[jkatpc]

At the risk of castigation by my fellow Christians (and what fun is life without it), I believe that Mohammed has a close place with God in heaven and good Muslims, Jews, Christians and even others who are “invincibly” ignorant enjoy happiness there. God, in his infinite wisdom, knows us better than we know himself and has provided paths for each of us. This is NOT to say every creed is equal to another, but a recognition that we are not equal in our abilty to accept what God is and what he wants. Heaven can, indeed, consist of varying degrees of happiness; the marvel is that each is as happy as he can be because he is face to face with his God.

 

[StMarkEofE]

jkatpc:

At the risk of castigation by my fellow Christians (and what fun is life without it), I believe that Mohammed has a close place with God in heaven and good Muslims, Jews, Christians and even others who are “invincibly” ignorant enjoy happiness there. God, in his infinite wisdom, knows us better than we know himself and has provided paths for each of us. This is NOT to say every creed is equal to another, but a recognition that we are not equal in our abilty to accept what God is and what he wants. Heaven can, indeed, consist of varying degrees of happiness; the marvel is that each is as happy as he can be because he is face to face with his God.

Jesus said Himself that ‘No one comes to the Father except through Him’. So who is invincibly ignorant?

StMarkEofE

 

[MrS]

jcaz:

Jesus, peace be upon him, worshipped and called upon ONLY his Lord. …" Jesus, peace be upon him, worshipped and called upon ONLY his Lord, and this is what makes him a Muslim linquistically. Post Council of Nicea Christians do not fit into this category.

Wrong. Elizabeth said " how is it that the mother of my Lord…"
and the New Testament shows that Jesus IS Lord. He never calls God the Father His Lord.

Jesus will was not different from His Father’s. Jesus acknowledged and agreed with the will of the Father. He could never disagree, or debate it, and then give in , or submit to it.

“As the Father and I are ONE”

 

[jcaz]

De Maria,

You post so much, it is very hard to respond to everything, which makes me think that you hope the sheer volume of your posts will make it seem like your point(s) stand victorious.

Yet each and every one of your false accusations have been answered in the past. Yet you continue to post this garbage. What are we to do? Does you feel that your continuing of posting the same material all of a sudden makes it truthful speech?

Oh well.

For now, here’s the response regarding Mary “being the sister of Aaron”, which was answered previously. And I know, you will surely wait a couple of weeks and then post this again, so my typing this is probably a waste and in vain…for you, that is. Hopefully others will have eyes that can see and hearts that can perceive the truth.

So does the Quraan say that Mary is the actual sister of Aaron?

Allaah says in the Quraan:

“At length she brought The (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: ‘O Mary ! Truly an amazing thing Hast thou brought ! O sister of Aaron ! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!’” 19:27-28

There are no errors in the above Noble Verses!.

Let us look at what Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said regarding this Noble Verse:

Mughira b. Shu’ba reported: “When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read “O sister of Harun (Aaron)” (i. e. Mary) in the Qur’an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book on General Behaviour (Kitab Al-Adab), Book 025, Number 5326)”

As we clearly see from the Saying (Hadith) of our beloved Prophet, this issue was brought to him before and he clearly responded to it. The false claim made against our Prophet about him meaning that Mary was a biological sister of Aaron is clearly refuted.

The People of Isreal used to call people by either their last names, or by adding words such as you “Son of…” or “Brother of…” or “Sister of…” When they called people “O Son of…” they didn’t mean for that person to be the actual biological son of the person whom they used his name. The other person could be a simply in the family tree or a last name.

When Jesus was called “Jesus the son of David”, are you going to tell me that there is an error in the Bible, for verily, Jesus was not the actual son of David. The Jews didn’t mean to call Jesus the actual biological son of David. Similarily, when they called Mary “O sister of Aaron”, they were not referring to her as an actual biological sister. Rather, it was referring to her as a sister in faith.

Here’s a link for your reading pleasure:
Mary, the Sister of Aaron?

Regards,

jcaz

 

[MrS]

jcaz:

Allaah says in the Quraan:
There are no errors in the above Noble Verses!.

jcaz

Sorry, but this is not convincing. Joseph Smith tried the same thing as Muhammad… claiming to be a prophet (one who speaks the Truth)

But there is only one Truth, … and it is not something, it is Somebody, and His Name is Jesus Christ.

 

[MrS]

I asked this question before and don’t remember getting a response:

If I said to you,

• I do not accept Allah as the one God, nor can I accept Muhammed as the prophet of God.

I worship one the true triune God, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ is Lord and God, One with the Father, in union with the Holy Spirit*

Would I be considered an infidel?

 

[StMarkEofE]

jcaz:

De Maria,

You post so much, it is very hard to respond to everything, which makes me think that you hope the sheer volume of your posts will make it seem like your point(s) stand victorious.

Yet each and every one of your false accusations have been answered in the past. Yet you continue to post this garbage. What are we to do? Does you feel that your continuing of posting the same material all of a sudden makes it truthful speech?

Oh well.

For now, here’s the response regarding Mary “being the sister of Aaron”, which was answered previously. And I know, you will surely wait a couple of weeks and then post this again, so my typing this is probably a waste and in vain…for you, that is. Hopefully others will have eyes that can see and hearts that can perceive the truth.

So does the Quraan say that Mary is the actual sister of Aaron?

Allaah says in the Quraan:
There are no errors in the above Noble Verses!.

Let us look at what Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said regarding this Noble Verse:

As we clearly see from the Saying (Hadith) of our beloved Prophet, this issue was brought to him before and he clearly responded to it. The false claim made against our Prophet about him meaning that Mary was a biological sister of Aaron is clearly refuted.

The People of Isreal used to call people by either their last names, or by adding words such as you “Son of…” or “Brother of…” or “Sister of…” When they called people “O Son of…” they didn’t mean for that person to be the actual biological son of the person whom they used his name. The other person could be a simply in the family tree or a last name.

When Jesus was called “Jesus the son of David”, are you going to tell me that there is an error in the Bible, for verily, Jesus was not the actual son of David. The Jews didn’t mean to call Jesus the actual biological son of David. Similarily, when they called Mary “O sister of Aaron”, they were not referring to her as an actual biological sister. Rather, it was referring to her as a sister in faith.

Here’s a link for your reading pleasure:
Mary, the Sister of Aaron?

Regards,

jcaz

The Christian bible states that Joachim and Anna were baren and only through the grace of God did Anna become pregnant with St. Mary. Joachim and Anna made the promise to God that if they were to have A child that that child be dedicated to God and to God alone. Mary was that only child. No Aaron here at all.

StMarkEofE

 

[jcaz]

Originally posted by De Maria:

Muhammed was the only one privy to these alleged visions and revelations.

The Christian Gospel and the accompanying revelations to the Prophets were witnessed by many and written by many. They are consistent and logical.

In contrast, the Quran was dictated to many by one person, one human being. In ordinary life, we accept the testimony of many over the testimony of one. Therefore Muhammed’s single testimony is proved false by sheer number.

Again, as usual, you “make” certain standards for the authenticity of the Quraan, yet you choose not to apply them to your own Bible.

Muhammad, according to Islaam, received revelation and there were many, many “witnesses” who were with him and saw his reactions to these revelations. And further, Muhammad, peace be upon him, was well known, even among the pagan arabs, as being an upright and honest person, as being the best of the people. Even non-Muslim historians do not deny this. This is why many of the pagans converted immediately because they knew him to be the most truthful of the people. So although they may not have liked the message, they accepted it based on his credibility and known history of honesty and integrity.

BUT, you say that is not good enough and since it is essentially his word, it cannot be believed. Okay, great.

So let us go look at your buddy boy Mr. Paul. He was on the road to Damascus, fell of his donkey/horse, “had a vision”, mind you, the stories of which in the NT contradict each other, and this person, who did not even know Jesus has written or influenced over half of the NT, the book you claim to be the word of God. WOW.

So let us use your standards and let us chose to believe or not believe based on YOUR STANDARDS. Were there any witnesses who shared in this revelation that also received revelation? NOPE. There were people who SUPPOSEDLY, key word supposedly, witnessed the revelation event itself, but they were not privy to the “revelation”. Further, the accounts of the witnesses are contradictory, and that has been discussed on this forum. Secondly, let us look at Paul’s history. Was he an upright, honest, good person? NOT. Rather, according to Christians, he was a persecuter of Jesus, peace be upon him. There was no reason to believe him and his fabricated stories. And to say that his 180 degree turnaround is evidence in and of itself is reaching for a pie in the sky and it proves you nothing. Paul didn’t know Jesus, peace be upon him. He made up a story, and he couldn’t even make up the story of the witnesses properly, as their accounts are even fabricated. So, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, not mine, BUT YOUR LOGIC, you absolutely cannot accept Paul as truthful. GREAT. WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!

As a side note…

So Jesus, peace be upon, came here and taught the truth. He had twelve hand picked diciples who lived with him, ate with him, cried with him, and suffered with him. Yet their actual writing are barely seen within the NT. And please do not claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote those gospels, as Catholic scholars admit this is not the case. So we have so little of their writtings, the people who were worthy of writting testimonies. But instead, we have epistle after epistle after epistle of this false person and his fabrications, all based on his own personal testimony of having had a vision. That is no different than me saying I had a vision that Jesus came to me and told me to change Christianity and teach the people some new message altogether. That would be equally incredible and should be equally discredited. …And this is your word of God.
:tiphat:

 

[jcaz]

MrS:

Would I be considered an infidel?

First let us clarify one thing. Christians love to use the word infidel and try to give the impression that the word infidel has come from Islaam. Rather, the word infidel was used by Christians to refer to those who did not believe in Christianity.

So to answer your question, if you did not believe in one God, but rather believed in some Trinity, and if you do not believe in the Prophethood of Muhammad, peace be upon him, then you would be considered a disbeliever according to Islaam. The arabic word word be “kaafir” which is linguistically translated as one who turns away, so you would be one who turned away from the message of Islaam. Kaafir is translated as infidel.

But also one difference is the ettiquetes with Islaam. We would and should address you as Allaah addresses you, and this is by calling you “a person of the Book”.

Hope this answers your question.

 

[jcaz]

Originally posted by MrS

He never calls God the Father His Lord.

Pretty interesting to say considering Jesus, according to you in your Bible, says: “Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Mark 12:29)


You then used this verse:
“As the Father and I are ONE”

And make sure that if you apply a rule to interpreting a verse, that the same rule is to be applied to all verses. So if “the Father and I are ONE” means truly one, then the same rule must be applied here, where Jesus says that he, his Father, and all his disiples are one:
“20 ’I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-22)

Sounds like a big lovefest to me.

I know triune refers to a three part God. But do you know the word for a fifteen part God? Probably a tongue twister!

 

[MrS]

jcaz:

So to answer your question, if you did not believe in one God, but rather believed in some Trinity, and if you do not believe in the Prophethood of Muhammad, peace be upon him, then you would be considered a disbeliever according to Islaam. The arabic word word be “kaafir” which is linguistically translated as one who turns away, so you would be one who turned away from the message of Islaam. Kaafir is translated as infidel.

But also one difference is the ettiquetes with Islaam. We would and should address you as Allaah addresses you, and this is by calling you “a person of the Book”.

Hope this answers your question.

so, the injuction to “Kill the unbelievers where ever you will find them” might apply to me?

The credibility of Christianity stands or falls on Jesus Christ.

The credibility of Islam stands or falls on the person of Muhammed.

The problem with Islam , IMHO, is not so much with Muhammed, who had a great impact on history, but more with the claim that his words and acts provide a valid, credible standard of morality for all men in all ages.

But… Allah “does not love the unbelievers”

Further, Islam must deny free will, and not even a Muslim knows where he will end up, even though Muhammed says “all people are born as true Muslims” so… Allah must be served out of fear… therefore there is no reason to love.

I realize that no change can be made in the words of Allah… unless Allah makes them. How convenient is that? And why accept a man’s word for new interpretations?

The true God, as worshiped by Christians, gives love, and desires all to use their free will to repent. His Word is unchanging, and it is only with His guidance that we can have ears to hear, and eyes to see.

 

[MrS]

jcaz:

Originally posted by MrS
Pretty interesting to say considering Jesus, according to you in your Bible, says: “Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Mark 12:29)


You then used this verse:
“As the Father and I are ONE”

And make sure that if you apply a rule to interpreting a verse, that the same rule is to be applied to all verses. So if “the Father and I are ONE” means truly one, then the same rule must be applied here, where Jesus says that he, his Father, and all his disiples are one:
“20 ’I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-22)

Sounds like a big lovefest to me.

I know triune refers to a three part God. But do you know the word for a fifteen part God?** Probably a tongue twister**!

That is the beauty and grace of Catholicism. “We” as individuals, don’t apply the rules. God, the same God who gave us the Church and the inspired Word in Scripture, gave us the teaching body of the Church which is protected from declaring as a Truth, error in matters of faith and morals. Truths cannot change, so I guess it would be redundant to say that a Truth is Truth in all time and in all ages, for all of mankind.

Tongue twister…no… it is called paganism, and it is the “religion” Muhammed was before his self-proclaimed revelations. It is also the “religion” we all are until we are baptised into the body of Christ.

 

[jcaz]

That is the beauty and grace of Catholicism. “We” as individuals, don’t apply the rules. God, the same God who gave us the Church and the inspired Word in Scripture, gave us the teaching body of the Church which is protected from declaring as a Truth, error in matters of faith and morals. Truths cannot change, so I guess it would be redundant to say that a Truth is Truth in all time and in all ages, for all of mankind.

That made just abou zero sense. You seem quick to point out “Quraanic problems”. Yet your reply to actual Biblical inconsistencies is that the “teaching body of the church is protected from errors.” I hope this is not your reply when actual errors are presented to you. Very circular logic.

You: There are no errors in the Bible.
Response: Here’s an error.
You: the teaching body of the church is protected from errors.
Response: So what about this error
You: the teaching body of the church is protected form errors.
:whacky:

 

[jcaz]

Mr S - a struggling Apologist

I will not disagree with you here.