Mohammeds revelations- who/what revealed them?

[LDNCatholic]

Wow such a fair question on a Christian Board…

What next are you going to a KKK Neo Nazi board and ask them if Black People are good.

Rayaan why do you continue to assume that everyone on this board is white and racist?

Also I’d like to point out that the KKK have a long history of persecuting Catholics alongside African Americans, Jews and minority ethnic groups.

 

[morning_star777]

mr.swariffin marvelous.you gave a perfect answer.actually all muslim think that.so your answer was a missile to muslims.congrates

 

[morning_star777]

mr swariffin i also told a muslim friend then he just shouted in reply.he addressed me as kafir.lol.that time i was atheist&also muslim

 

[hamba2han]

Yes, the Quran is irrefutable proof because Muhammad says so. How do I know Muhammad is correct, because Quran says so. Yes, Hamba2han this is very easy to remember and easy to tell.

This is just one reason why I say that the Qur’an is the irrefutable proof of the prophet-hood of Muhammad (pbuh).

There are also other reasons why I would say this… perhaps I will start a thread on it sometime soon, God-willing.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I will start a thread on it sometime soon, God-willing.

Why not just tell me what convinced Mohammed it was Gabriel? You quoted a hadith that says: '…you are the Messenger of Allah and I am Jibril.'
I asked what hadith that was and you have not answered.

If that hadith is true then why did Mohammeds first wife go to Waraqa and why was Mohammed still afraid if it said it was Jibril? He told his wife he did not know.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

While he may have warned about false prophets to come, did Jesus (pbuh) ever say that there definitely will NOT come a true prophet after him?

There is no need for anymore prophets, Jesus has revealed the Father of all creation to us. Any one else is a false prophet. The only prophets are those who confirm the Word of God, not change it, or add to it, or invent another. Jesus proved he has the keys to death and life, because he took on flesh, buried it, and raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Who ever has claimed to take life and give it again, only God can do this, anyone else is a false prophet

I do not believe that he ever said that he would be the last prophet to be sent by God.

Jesus did not have to say it, he did it. Besides Jesus did not have to write his message from God, he performed it, and finished it his gospel message. The written part are letters to inform the world by the eyewitness accounts.

In any case, let us analyse the Biblical passage that you quoted.

What is the name of this “other gospel” that Paul was very likely referring to in these verses from the Bible?

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)

In order to determine the answer to this question, we need to examine historical evidence.

The apostle Barnabas died in 61 CE and the gospel that he was widely believed to have wrote was compiled in 51 CE.

The Epistle to the Galatians was not written before 54 to 58 CE and considering that no other gospel was in existence at this time and since it is also known that Barnabas was indeed preaching some “gospel” contrary to that of Paul’s during this period, it is therefore logical to believe that the gospel that Barnabas wrote is very likely indeed to be the “other gospel” that Paul was referring to in Galatians

Most Christians would contend that the Gospel of Barnabas is a fraud but I would submit that given the differences and subsequent parting of ways between Paul and Barnabas, the gospel that Barnabas preached was indeed the gospel that Paul warned about when he wrote his Epistle to the Galatians.

This is very interesting, that I ask you to answer what all of Christendom considers to be the Word of God. And you retort to a discussion to discredit the Epistle of the greatest Evangelist that ever lived.

For one as far as your biblical time table, it would not serve you justice to refute at length what is of an opinion. Because I would like to spare you of my opinions and disagreement of your biblical opinions on dates and opinions.

So I will reveal to you what we label as Sacred Tradition and Oral Tradition, this alone refutes your conflicting dates and authors. You see the dates and authors of opinons does not play the role of belief. The belief is, this Epistle was given by Paul, and the letter was handed on to be taught after the Galatians. In any case this belief was handed down 400 years before Islam, uncontested. Do you think 400 years of this Christian teaching prior to Islam would have survived amidst the Church’s persecution, if it were not of God? Besides the gospel of Barnabas is not a cannonized gospel of the Catholic church, not to mention all of Christendom. So why dispute a book that does not hold any credence to the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. I dont know if Barnabas ever wrote or taught the Galatians. So this other gospel you are wanting to introduce here.

It appears this is wavering tactic from the topic at hand, Their have been numerous new teachings and gospels introduced to christianity, and none of them survived the test of time. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So to bring up the gospel of Barnabas as not being canonized by the Roman Catholic church, is just one of many gospels that did not canonized, This does not mean that Paul was talking about a specific one as you claim. It may have been that Paul was referring to a certain wrong teaching in his time, but this was taught to all Christians to be aware and how to test the Spirits.

One other angle I wish to leave you with, God’s word does not change. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, because it is the Word of God, applies to all ages to the present and future unchanged. This is part of the New Covenant instituted by God himself. So the message of Galatians applies to the first century Christians just the same as it applies to all Christians today and to come.

So how can you answer the Galatians instructions given by Paul, about not accepting any new gospel by an heavenly angel or prophet or teacher? To which Islam has recieved this new teaching 400 years later. You see, this is why it is difficult to receive Islam as authentic, by biblical standards it comes from the father of lies himself dressed as an angel of lite. Can you help me understand differently?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

What is the name of this “other gospel” that Paul was very likely referring to in these verses from the Bible?

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)

In order to determine the answer to this question, we need to examine historical evidence.

The apostle Barnabas died in 61 CE and the gospel that he was widely believed to have wrote was compiled in 51 CE.

The Epistle to the Galatians was not written before 54 to 58 CE and considering that no other gospel was in existence at this time and since it is also known that Barnabas was indeed preaching some “gospel” contrary to that of Paul’s during this period, it is therefore logical to believe that the gospel that Barnabas wrote is very likely indeed to be the “other gospel” that Paul was referring to in Galatians.

Most Christians would contend that the Gospel of Barnabas is a fraud but I would submit that given the differences and subsequent parting of ways between Paul and Barnabas, the gospel that Barnabas preached was indeed the gospel that Paul warned about when he wrote his Epistle to the Galatians.

Secular scholars call the “Gospel of Barnabas” cited by Muslim apologists and found in most mosques is a 18th century fraud written by a disgruntled former Augustinian monk:

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9204fea1.asp

*A Gospel of Barnabas was condemned in a document known as the Decree of Gelasius, which was itself a compilation of various documents from various sources. It was written sometime before the sixth century, though not by Pope Gelasius. It seems certain that the books condemned had not been seen by the author of the decree. This Gospel of Barnabas also appears on the List of the Sixty Books (no. 24 of “such as are Apocryphal”) drawn up in the seventh century, probably using the Decree of Gelasius as a source. The opinion of M. R. James, however, is that “the existence of a Gospel of Barnabas is most doubtful.”(Montague Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1st ed. 1924; reprinted and corrected 1980), 22.) Seeing how these seem to be our first historical references to such a Gospel, James is quite likely correct in questioning whether the condemned gospel ever even existed (much less regularly was “read in the churches until the year 496”).

Our present Gospel of Barnabas surfaced in an Italian manuscript in the eighteenth century, and its author was apparently aware of these references to a condemned Gospel under that name. This Italian fiction should have been entitled The Gospel According to Mohammed, for it presents the “Isa” of the Qur’an, even citing the Qur’an. It also seems to allude in canto 135 to Dante’s Divine Comedy, a fourteenth-century Italian work, by describing hell as having seven levels as in the Inferno.*

 

[inJESUS]

We do not even have to mention the date of that gospel because if you read it, you’d laugh at the authors’ ignorance or geography and theology and history…for Muslims to cling to such writings reveals a very low standard of argument and references.

 

[hamba2han]

Why not just tell me what convinced Mohammed it was Gabriel? You quoted a hadith that says: '…you are the Messenger of Allah and I am Jibril.'
I asked what hadith that was and you have not answered.

If that hadith is true then why did Mohammeds first wife go to Waraqa and why was Mohammed still afraid if it said it was Jibril? He told his wife he did not know.

The hadith is [At-Tabari 2/207; Ibn Hisham 1/237,238] and is considered a weak hadith and therefore I do not think that it is recorded in Bukhari and Muslim.

You can read more about that first encounter in the cave here but somehow I doubt that it will be enough to satisfy your… erm… “curiosity”.

 

[Angelos]

The hadith is [At-Tabari 2/207; Ibn Hisham 1/237,238] and is considered a weak hadith and therefore I do not think that it is recorded in Bukhari and Muslim.

You can read more about that first encounter in the cave here but somehow I doubt that it will be enough to satisfy your… erm… “curiosity”.

Why does the Koran NOT recount Mohammad’s first encounter with Gabriel/Rooh/whatever to solve the mystery?

 

[hamba2han]

Why does the Koran NOT recount Mohammad’s first encounter with Gabriel/Rooh/whatever to solve the mystery?

Believe it or not, that first encounter in the cave is NOT a fundamental pillar of Islam.

Muslims are not taught to attach any special significance to that event.

 

[Verisimilitude]

The hadith is [At-Tabari 2/207; Ibn Hisham 1/237,238] and is considered a weak hadith and therefore I do not think that it is recorded in Bukhari and Muslim.

The foundation of Islam is based upon a weak hadith and it is of little interest to you. Amazing.

You can read more about that first encounter in the cave here but somehow I doubt that it will be enough to satisfy your… erm… “curiosity”.

Correct. It is not enough to satisfy my curiosity. Why does it satisfy yours? That link admits Mohammed tried to kill himself numerous times. It admits there is confusion how long the revelations stopped but it is clear they did not begin again until after Waraqa died. Muslims now say days, when most scholars agree it was maybe 3 years.

 

[hamba2han]

The foundation of Islam is based upon a weak hadith and it is of little interest to you. Amazing.

Correct. It is not enough to satisfy my curiosity. Why does it satisfy yours? That link admits Mohammed tried to kill himself numerous times. It admits there is confusion how long the revelations stopped but it is clear they did not begin again until after Waraqa died. Muslims now say days, when most scholars agree it was maybe 3 years.

FYI, the weakest ahadith are actually a lot stronger than any of the verses of the Bible in terms of their authenticity because of the methodology used in the Science of Hadith when determing their ‘isnad’ i.e. the chain or linkage of human reporters that authenticate the material as deriving from the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions.

Amazing isn’t it?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Believe it or not, that first encounter in the cave is NOT a fundamental pillar of Islam.

Muslims are not taught to attach any special significance to that event.

No kidding. I can see why since IT CAN"T BE PROVED! That event is the only place the spirit would have identified itself. Logic would tell us it would not continue to identify itself during 23 years of communication so it must happen in the begining.

The first pillar of Islam elevates Mohammed to be the mouth of your god allah. Muslims admit Mohammed did not speak on his own behalf but spoke what was revealed to him. It is a fundamental and absolutely neccessary question to answer if Mohammed is to be believed: who spoke to Mohammed?

If the Qur’an does not identify the spirit, and the hadith that do identify him are considered weak and not legitimate- what in the world tells Muslims who spoke to Mohammed?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Amazing isn’t it?

“Amazing” is not the word I would use to describe the Qur’an, hadith or the whole Islamic experience.

 

[Verisimilitude]

“Amazing” is not the word I would use to describe the Qur’an, hadith or the whole Islamic experience.

Foot-in-mouth with post #51.
Dumbfounded was closer to what I was thinking.

hamba2han, I will say I have satisfied something with this post and your help. I no longer wonder why Muslims don’t wonder why they don’t know who spoke to Mohammed; you don’t care. That in itself is bizzare to me.

I do not see the beauty of its poetry. I do not see wisdom in its maxims. Mohammed had a ghost-writer (in more ways than one) with the Qur’an and only because of its outright denial to the core of my faith, and obvious call to self described ‘justified’ violence in the name of God do I engage you. Many new western Muslims have a western view of Islam that seems much more democratic which is promoted as tolerance compared to the Eastern faith. morning_star777 and Sam_777 tell a different story than Sister Amy of what Islam represents (which is closer to its true 1400 yr history) and they seem to have better credentials to describe Islam. You are often a troll.

You might not want to know who told Mohammed these things, but I do. I suspect Waraqa had more to do with the false Christian theology Mohammed had than the demon did after the first visit. When Iblees is quoted in the Qur’an I can believe that since I trust the source is Satan.

How could Satan so vehemently condemn himself? Is it really acceptable to common sense to hold the view that Satan would ask people to do good, to be moral and virtuous, to worship none but God, to not follow Satan or his whispers, and to avoid and struggle against evil?

To hold such a view is clearly repugnant to reason, as Satan has only undermined himself through this means if he is the author. Even the Bible attests:

**“And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.” **(Mark 3:26)

The ‘good’ described in the Qur’an as required by that spirit is mostly limited to Muslims. Please quote a sura that specifically tells Muslims to help non-believers? Don’t you think Satan knows God will win in the end? Particularly after Jesus defeated sin and death and said it six centuries before Mohammed was born. Satan knows of the Last Day too. The Qur’an is unique in one way; it is the only book that quotes the father-of-lies speaking truthfully. The irony should not be missed.

 

[swariffin]

mr.swariffin marvelous.you gave a perfect answer.actually all muslim think that.so your answer was a missile to muslims.congrates

Dear Morningstar,

I was quoted one of the member of this forum, and I think he is right.

 

[swariffin]

FYI, the weakest ahadith are actually a lot stronger than any of the verses of the Bible in terms of their authenticity because of the methodology used in the Science of Hadith when determing their ‘isnad’ i.e. the chain or linkage of human reporters that authenticate the material as deriving from the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions.

Amazing isn’t it?

Dear Hamba2han,

If you believe that the weak hadith is stronger than any verses of the bible, why don’t you answer Versimilitude question?

 

[Angelos]

Believe it or not, that first encounter in the cave is NOT a fundamental pillar of Islam.

Muslims are not taught to attach any special significance to that event.

Dear hamba2han,

I know perfectly well that the Koran recounts several things, none of which are considered a fundamental pillar of Islam by Muslims.

Besides, I have a question for you: Why do you Muslims have your public prayer on Friday?

 

[hamba2han]

I am really, really, really, REALLY curious here.

For those who seem to be so obsessed about determining with 100% certainty the identity of the being in the cave on that momentous night, why don’t you show this same level of burning desire to also determine with 100% certainty, the identity of the being in the vision that Paul supposedly had while on the road to Damascus?

After all, Christianity’s belief in Jesus (pbuh) being everyone’s Lord and personal saviour, rests entirely on what Paul saw and heard in his ‘vision’ that day.