Mohammed the Prophet?

[GaryTaylor]

Seal of the Prophet, interesting thought though. What fulfilled prophecies are recorded in the Quran by Mohammed?

 

[Augustine3]

I don’t find that at all disturbing. It only indicates that the story of the clay birds had long been part of the oral tradition regarding Christ. I also don’t think it matters much whether it really happened. The Qur’an uses these stories to make a point in the present.

There is no evidence that suggests this was once part of the oral tradition. In fact the only time this miracle recording is found outside the Quran is in the gospel of Thomas. If this gospel has been falsely attributed to Thomas, I wonder how many other lies are in this book?

There’s more evidence against you than in your favour. This is the second time you base Quranic teachings on shaky ground…

 

[johnnyjones]

In the Quran we are told of the miraculous splitting of the moon attributed to Mohammed. There are hundreds of miracles proclaimed in the hadiths. I know it’s tempting to discount the hadiths but if we did, we would have to discount the Church Father writings in order to avoid using a double standard…

But how can you trust a “weak” Hadith vs. a strong one. That is a terminology used by Muslims. When they are challenged by various things such dreaming about a black person, they slip into , “thats a weak Hadith.” Christians hold up scripture, and never does it have “weak” writings.

 

[Darryl1958]

Mohammed is not the first person to proclaim this alleged miracle. This is also found in the infancy narrative of the gospel attributed to the apostle Thomas, chapter 2. The disturbing thing is this gospel was discovered to be a fraud written in the 2nd century well after the apostle Thomas’ death. Unless you can prove otherwise, we must conclude Mohammed burrowed this from a heretical source and claimed it to be the inspired word of God.

I think it is far to say that the sources of these stories are Christian fiction and Christian fables. There is no kind of historical precedent for these kind of stories, where contemporaries of Jesus would have been the first hand witnesses. Instead, they come centuries later.

In a Christian context, the message of these apocryphal fables are clear enough. This is an allusion to Christ as Creator, fashioning birds like Adam out of the clay, breathing the Spirit of Life into them. In Islam though, what is being affirmed about Christ with one breath is then denied. Just like the other prominent apocryphal fable of the talking newborn proclaiming his resurrection, what is confirmed is then denied, for in order for the resurrection to be affirmed, Christ’s death must be affirmed.
It is a hodge-podge dodge. The implications of believing this kind of Christian or pseudo Christian fiction and fable is to be drawn out of the sphere of Jewish and Ismaeli monotheism into the Christian understanding of God.
That of course is contrary to the intent and political direction that the Koran lays out for the new official religion of the Islamic Empire. Instead, the implications of these verses must be denied, and obfuscated into lip-service to Christian truths, with taking the logical conclusions of those insights being forbidden as a path to the fires of hell.
It makes sense as a political document that aims to amalgamate Christian populations into the new empire. As a theology, it is both sketchy and contradictory.

 

[MartinJordan]

In a context, the message of these apocryphal fables are clear enough. This is an allusion to Christ as Creator, fashioning birds like Adam out of the clay, breathing the Spirit of Life into them. In Islam though, what is being affirmed about Christ with one breath is then denied. Just like the other prominent apocryphal fable of the talking newborn proclaiming his resurrection, what is confirmed is then denied, for in order for the resurrection to be affirmed, Christ’s death must be affirmed.

This is said magnificently well. Much better way than what I tried to explain with my talks with a Muslim colleague of mine when subject came up when we discussed our Faiths. I’ll use this version next.

MJ

 

[smaneck]

There is no evidence that suggests this was once part of the oral tradition. In fact the only time this miracle recording is found outside the Quran is in the gospel of Thomas. If this gospel has been falsely attributed to Thomas, I wonder how many other lies are in this book?

You do realize that most of the books in the Bible are pseudepigrapha?

 

[Telestia]

Muhammad has no biblical credential, although muslims try to blaspheme the holy spirit in verses like John 14 by saying Muhammad is the comforter (apparently muhammad must have been 600 years old before he began his military and prophetic career).

But on a deeper level there is a fundamental divide betwene islam and Chrisitanity. Islam unlike Chrisitanity developed independantly on loose stories of the biblical prophets which came into arabia. Christianity was intimately familiar with its Judaistic heritage as is shown by the numerous references in the bible to the Old testament as well as the aposltes being devout believing Jews. So while there is also a disconnect between the strict judaism of today which has rejected CHrisitanity and the Christianity which has rejected Judaism, we can ground ourselves properly on the scriptures that came before as well as the judaic world view the new testament originated in. Muslims can’t do this because their predecessors were not Christians or jews, but Pagans and a reliance on stories that came their way that more often than not reflect an anacrhonism (IE the quran suggesting Pharoah crucified people and the Quran calling Mary a member of the trinity in Christian belief as well as the sister of Moses).

My two Cents.

It is highly likely, IMO based upon certain facts, that Muhammad is a descendant of Abram and Hagar through Ishmael, Abram’s 1st born child. Ishmael had 12 male Children, just as Jacob had 12 male Children.

According to the Jewish Midrash, Hagar was a princess, a daughter of the Pharoah of Egypt, therefore Ishmael is actually a prince, and this could be why Genesis 17:20 refers to Ishmael as the father of 12 mighty princes. To this date this is why the offspring of Ishmael make claim to the Holy Land. However, God gave the Holy Land to Israel (Jacob’s new name), born of the free woman, the son of Sarah and Abraham (note their name changes), for the Land belongs to God.

The descendants of Ishmael were the first to embrace Islam. Their geneologies are established and where they settled.

Today, we have messianic Jews who accept Jesus as the only begotten Son of God and as their Messiah and Saviour. And there are Orthodox Rabbi’s who perceive that Yeshua is God’s Messiah to the Gentiles, but not their Messiah. This is about to Change, as we near the prophecies by Paul in Roman Chapter 11, regarding the salvation of the Jews. All true Israel will be saved.

I currently attend, with my wife, a Messianic Jewish Temple on Saturday mornings. The service is very Yeshua centered, and very honoring to Yahweh.

We also go to Church on Sundays. Love both.

 

[vskipper]

A bit of clarification:

1. Muhammad (s.a.w.) was illiterate so it would have been an impressive feat for him to read anything
2. the Qur’an does not teach that Mary was part of the holy trinity, that would be a myth

Next questions:

1. John 14:15-21 speaks of the comforter which many attribute as the Holy Spirit.

The problem with this theory is that we are taught by Christian tradition that the Holy Spirit was already there with Mary and Elizabeth as John and Jesus meet via the womb and in other instances as well

1. Matthew 5:17-20
   Jesus, pbuh, teaches us about obeying the law.

Meanwhile Galations 2:19-21
Paul teaches that we are dead to the law

1. If Jesus was the only way to heaven then why is it that Elijah went to paradise?
2. When the pharisees come to John the Baptist they ask him if he is the messiah, they ask him if he is Elijah and then they ask him if he is the prophet.

Who is the famed prophet they spoke of?

1. Psalms 91 is referred to by Satan during the temptation of Jesus in the desert.
   Psalms 91 does appear to be talking of Jesus, pbuh, but it also seems to mention the idea of God rescuing Jesus, pbuh, from this horrible scenario

 

[Darryl1958]

A bit of clarification:

 

[Augustine3]

You do realize that most of the books in the Bible are pseudepigrapha?

That is what liberal Christians and Muslims like to tell us but they cannot prove absolutely speaking certain books of the bible are pseudepigraphical.

The councils used a very careful and strict criteria to ascertain which books are considered inspired and part of the bible canon. This is one of multiple assurances we have.

 

[Augustine3]

Next questions:

1. John 14:15-21 speaks of the comforter which many attribute as the Holy Spirit.

The problem with this theory is that we are taught by Christian tradition that the Holy Spirit was already there with Mary and Elizabeth as John and Jesus meet via the womb and in other instances as well

Further to Darryl’s post, St Thomas Aquinas comments “Then when he says, whom the Father will send in my name, he refers to the mission of the Spirit. We should not think the Spirit comes by a local motion, but rather by being in them in a new way in which he was not before”.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Next questions:

1. John 14:15-21 speaks of the comforter which many attribute as the Holy Spirit.

The problem with this theory is that we are taught by Christian tradition that the Holy Spirit was already there with Mary and Elizabeth as John and Jesus meet via the womb and in other instances as well

In John 14, Christ is speaking of the function of the Holy Spirit (who is clearly identified as the Comforter in Jn 14:26) coming after Pentecost, and what He would do in the foundation of the new covenant church and the apostles. Christ was in no way implying that the Holy Spirit was sitting up in heaven twiddling His thumbs for thousands of years before Pentecost.

1. Matthew 5:17-20
   Jesus, pbuh, teaches us about obeying the law.

Meanwhile Galations 2:19-21
Paul teaches that we are dead to the law

Actually, Christ is saying that he has come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, concerning his status as Messiah and the righteous atonement of God. He was to fulfill every single one, which no man could do, as the verses after verse 20 show, when Christ exposits the Law and looks at it inwardly, in the heart. His statement “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (v. 20) is not a command to be better than the Pharisees, but an admonition that one would have to find righteousness greater than the Pharisees, who relied upon the Law. That righteousness was found in Christ alone, who obeyed the Law perfectly and sacrificed Himself as the righteous Lamb of God. Christ nowhere denies the Law, as if God made a mistake, but makes us aware that we have all fallen short of God’s glory, and no man has been able to keep the Law perfectly.

With the apostle Paul, “dead to the law” refers to the idea that we are justified by the works of the Law, which is what the epistle to the Galatians was about. Our righteousness is not through our works, but through the righteousness of Christ, as Paul says later on: “if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” (v. 21). Paul’s point is actually in line with what Christ said, for he recognizes that we cannot truly be saved by the Law, but we are saved by the righteousness of Christ alone. In Christ, we can have righteousness greater than the Pharisees, for no one was more righteous than the Pharisees than Christ.

Let me ask you, my friend: if you want to keep the Law, do you keep the whole Law? Have you ever been unnecessarily angry or quarrelsome with someone? That makes you a murderer in the eyes of God (Mt 5:21-26). Have you ever lusted after a woman? That makes you an adulterer in the eyes of God (Mt 5:27-30). Have you ever taken the Lord’s name in vein, either in an oath or a curse? Have you ever stolen? Have you ever lied? If you have said yes to any of these things, then you are greatly guilty in the eyes of God, because he who transgresses one commandment is guilty of transgressing them all (Jam 2:10). In the Old Testament, they would commit animal sacrifices to atone for their sins before God (cf. Lev 16) - what sacrifice do you present before God? What animal will you bring forward?

There already is an atoning sacrifice, and it was made by Christ, for the sins of men (Mt 20:28; Lk 24:46-47). He shed his blood so that those who repent and believe would be atoned for, and be kept in the arms of God for the day of resurrection and judgment (Col 3:3-4). In him you can find peace before God, and comfort that your sins and conscious are cleansed (Heb 10:19-22).

1. If Jesus was the only way to heaven then why is it that Elijah went to paradise?

Jesus is the only way to heaven because…well…because he said so (Jn 14:6). So did the earliest Christians (Acts 4:12).

As for Elijah, Elijah was a special case, and was taken to heaven because of his position before God, and to present a shadow for the coming of John the Baptist, who was the Elijah that would return and precede the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:5-6).

1. When the pharisees come to John the Baptist they ask him if he is the messiah, they ask him if he is Elijah and then they ask him if he is the prophet.

Who is the famed prophet they spoke of?

The prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:15 and following, which was believed to be a reference to the Messiah, and which the apostle Peter identified as Christ (Acts 3:19-22).

 

[smaneck]

That is what liberal Christians and Muslims like to tell us but they cannot prove absolutely speaking certain books of the bible are pseudepigraphical.

It is what academic scholarship tell us.

The councils used a very careful and strict criteria to ascertain which books are considered inspired and part of the bible canon. This is one of multiple assurances we have.

Inspiration and authorship are very different issues.

 

[Augustine3]

It is what academic scholarship tell us.

You mean academic liberals? :tsktsk:

Inspiration and authorship are very different issues.

Yes I realise that. I was preparing for a possible pre-emptive strike from you. Usually Muslims attack authorships of the bible as a basis to prove the bible is not inspired. If this isn’t your intent then where are you going with this pseudepigraphical claim?

 

[smaneck]

You mean academic liberals? :tsktsk:

I mean those who accept the methods of academic scholarship.

Yes I realise that. I was preparing for a possible pre-emptive strike from you. Usually Muslims attack authorships of the bible as a basis to prove the bible is not inspired. If this isn’t your intent then where are you going with this pseudepigraphical claim?

I merely pointed it out because people were criticizing the Qur’an for containing stories that appear in pseudopigrapha gospels. If Christians disregard material that is pseudopigrapha their own Bible will be might thin. But in my mind works like the Deutero-Isaiah are clearly inspired, whoever wrote it.

 

[Augustine3]

I merely pointed it out because people were criticizing the Qur’an for containing stories that appear in pseudopigrapha gospels. If Christians disregard material that is pseudopigrapha their own Bible will be might thin. But in my mind works like the Deutero-Isaiah are clearly inspired, whoever wrote it.

The Church has methods, procedures and a criteria to ascertain what is or isn’t authentic. Deuteronomy and Isaiah are authentic, the gospel of Thomas is not.

You’re obviously free to accept this or reject it, just like I’m free to accept or reject the conclusion that Mohammed burrowed a story from a fraudulent gospel.

 

[Augustine3]

But in my mind works like the Deutero-Isaiah are clearly inspired, whoever wrote it.

BTW – If you believe the book of Deuteronomy is inspired then you may want to reflect on this passage:

If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer who promises you a sign or wonder, urging you to follow other gods, whom you have not known, and to serve them: even though the sign or wonder he has foretold you comes to pass, pay no attention to the words of that prophet or that dreamer; for the LORD, your God, is testing you to learn whether you really love him with all your heart and with all your soul. – Deuteronomy 13:2-4

Well what do you know Mohammed performed miracles and committed the sin of shirk, that’s a big no no for me. Don’t argue with me, the Satanic Verses are from Islamic sources not Christian. The problem is these Islamic sources are amongst the earliest Islamic writings. The rule of scholars states “generally the earlier the evidence the more reliable it is”.

Anyway I was hoping to get more answers from Christians in this thread; I found myself debating which is not what I want to do. I’m out.

Brother Abdullah I’m very glad you took the road most Muslims don’t take and have come here to this forum to seek the truth. May God bless you and give you the answers you are looking for!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

.

I don’t see why it would have to be a patristic.

Please provide the early gnostic interpretation which im sure none of us will agree to and will agree is absurd like all of gnostic thought.

. Here is the problem. In one of his epistles John refers to Jesus as the Comforter as well.

And thus we need to examine the context of the comforter in John 14 in order to know if the use of the term in regaurds to Jesus in his epistles is the same of John 14. There are facts which exclude this option, Jesus must leave that the comforter may come. So it would an absurd interpretaion to say that Jesus is the comforter in John 14 or other verses in the same gospel.

. Muhammad was not concerned with who was or was not Nicene.

Well he should of, they were the dominant Christians at that time, they were the ones who prevailed in the Homoousian, Homoiousian and Heteroousian controversies of the third century. And the quran says the true followers of Jesus were the ones who prevailed, as I mentioned in another book. Not the mention they were the vast majority. And if Muhammad never wants to argue against the trinity then I suggest muslims need invent some new arguments.

Now as for the collyridians, surely allah in his wisdom would have known that they were minor at best, so insignifficant as to history and existence that all traces of them have ceased to exist. Saint John damascus mentions them in the 7th century but doesnt say much more than that they offered cakes unto mary, but we also have earlier patristic testimony from Saint Epiphanius and they seem more more major. So while you might interpret these surahs as a responce to teh collyridians, I think its far more likely that Muhammad misidentified the honouring of the theotokos by devout trinitarian Christians than it is that he came into contact with a sect we don’t even know existed at that time. Certaintly as a traveller at first Muhammad must have had some experience near or close to byzantine settlements. Seems more reasonable to me, though its just a theory.

. Apparently they were not insignificant in Arabia.

The collyridians or the Orthodox Christians? Sorry I forgot the context to this. Yes, Christians as in orthodox Nicene christians had little presence in arabia though there were at Muhammads time some prominent tribes it seems, you had the Christians of Najran (who in an interesting encounter leaved Muhammad rather beaten in terms of arguments and thus the surah for abrogation was revealed or the unclear meanings of the quran). There were certain monastic centres in Arabia, I think one of the more prominent is the still in existence is Saint Catherine’s monastary, and even in the tradition of the monastary Muhammad was said to have offered his personal protection to the monastary after seeing a mosque built in there.

 

[smaneck]

The Church has methods, procedures and a criteria to ascertain what is or isn’t authentic. Deuteronomy and Isaiah are authentic, the gospel of Thomas is not.

If authentic means that a text is written by the person to whom it is ascribed, then their methods were faulty. But hey, I don’t want them to throw out the second half of the Book of Isaiah. God forbid! As I indicated, it is inspired whether Isaiah wrote it or not. That much is clear from its contents. That is largely what determined the church’s choices as well.

 

[smaneck]

Well what do you know Mohammed performed miracles and committed the sin of shirk, that’s a big no no for me. Don’t argue with me, the Satanic Verses are from Islamic sources not Christian.

To rely on a weak hadith is basically the same as relying on a non-canonical gospel.