Muhammad rejected Christianity/Jesus

[bsroufek]

No, with the tribe of Isaac, it is quite specific. It could not be the People of the Book because, not everybody among the people of the book are of the tribe of Isaac.

You say, quite correctly, that the covenant is held with Isaac. But, you say that Ishmael will be a great nation, and Muhammad is supposedly of the Ishmaelites. A promise of prosperity was made to the Ishmaelites but the covenant is held with Isaac.

Thus, TheSufi, if you are trying to say that the (old) covenant is held with Muhammad and his people, you aren’t making a good argument.

In the OT, God says His name is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But you reject Jacob, if I’m not forsaken but you also accept the OT pretty much verbatim, right?

I’m confused on the Muslim idea of the covenants and promises of God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

MartinJordan;10766623]

Thanks for the response. I would like to have any link on this if you can find it.

Sure; there are many; read paragraph #6 here; ttp://www.scripturecatholic.com/islam_and_christianity.html

Father Mitch Paqwa has a talk on the history of Islam. Father Mitch Paqwa gives details of Muhammad’s wife and her brother were Arian Christians.

Wasn’t it till early 20th century Islam was also known as Mohammedism?

NO, Mohammedism, has many different spellings (see wikepedia). It is considered an insult to Islam when addressed as Mohammadems, because that term places their prophet Muhuammad ahead of Allah. So I don’t think any one used it except for when Islam first was recognized as a Christian heresy by the Church , history records Islam as Mohammadism = Christian heresy. After 700’s it is officially known as Islam and not a christian heresy from the Catholic Church.

The Church begins to call Islam members Saracens, but I don’t think the term Mohammedism ever reached the 20th century to identify Islam or Muslims.

 

[JerryZ]

From a quotation of Muhammad in an online article, that it is blasphemy indeed to call Allah Christ the Son of Mary, it would seem to me that Muhammad had been exposed to Christianity and rejected it.

Any thoughts on this?

This does NOT mean that I’m against dialogue with Muslims: I’m just conjecturing that Muhammad had directly rejected Christ.

He also read the Bible, possibly this is where he learned about Jesus. But perhaps he could not accept a God that would subject Himself to such a way to die.
Even today muslims have ingrained in them that to die or even being buried in a certain way forfeits Heaven for them.

 

[MartinJordan]

Try reading before Genesis 17

Genesis 16…

11 And the angel of the Lord said to her,

“Behold, you are pregnant
and shall bear a son.
You shall call his name Ishmael,[c]
because the Lord has listened to your affliction.
12 He shall be a wild donkey of a man,
his hand against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.”

Right. Why always this skipping parts and picking parts?

Christianity has every answer Muslims throw at it. We are dead set on Truth and nothing not even Satan (not that Im calling anyone Satan) can stand against the Church (we are people of the Word Made Flesh Jesus Christ). Without Jesus Heaven wouldn’t not have opened.

Sorry to get so touchy. But I will defend Christianity with my life.

MJ

 

[buffalo]

Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins

             **Are jihadists dying for a fiction? Everything you thought you knew about Islam is about to change.**

Did Muhammad exist?
It is a question that few have thought—or dared—to ask. Virtually everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, takes for granted that the prophet of Islam lived and led in seventh-century Arabia.
But this widely accepted story begins to crumble on close examination, as Robert Spencer shows in his eye-opening new book.
In his blockbuster bestseller The Truth about Muhammad, Spencer revealed the shocking contents of the earliest Islamic biographical material about the prophet of Islam. Now, in Did Muhammad Exist?, he uncovers that material’s surprisingly shaky historical foundations. Spencer meticulously examines historical records, archaeological findings, and pioneering new scholarship to reconstruct what we can know about Muhammad, the Qur’an, and the early days of Islam. The evidence he presents challenges the most fundamental assumptions about Islam’s origins.
Did Muhammad Exist? reveals:

• How the earliest biographical material about Muhammad dates from at least 125 years after his reported death
• How six decades passed before the Arabian conquerors—or the people they conquered—even mentioned Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islam
• The startling evidence that the Qur’an was constructed from existing materials—including pre-Islamic Christian texts
• How even Muslim scholars acknowledge that countless reports of Muhammad’s deeds were fabricated
• Why a famous mosque inscription may refer not to Muhammad but, astonishingly, to Jesus
• How the oldest records referring to a man named Muhammad bear little resemblance to the now-standard Islamic account of the life of the prophet
• The many indications that Arabian leaders fashioned Islam for political reasons

Far from an anti-Islamic polemic, Did Muhammad Exist? is a sober but unflinching look at the origins of one of the world’s major religions. While Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to searching historical criticism for more than two centuries, Islam has never received the same treatment on any significant scale.
The real story of Muhammad and early Islam has long remained in the shadows. Robert Spencer brings it into the light at long last.

 

[Reuben_J]

According to the bible He made it with Isaac. Are you of the tribe of Isaac?

It does not matter and after a few thousand years it is hard to know which tribe we belong. It matters though in so far we can trace the lineage to Isaac or Ishmael.

According to general wisdom Jesus was from the lineage of Isaac and for Christians that can be verified by the Bible narrative which tells us his ancestors all the way to Isaac and even more. On the other hand, Mohammad was from the lineage of Ishmael (according to Islamic belief).

Thus it is through Jesus that the plan and promise of God materialized, not from Mohammad. Yes, he promised to make the tribe of Ishmael a great nation but really the question is, for what? When God speak of them as a donkey of a man, perhaps their greatness is only by their number and not through the revelation of God. Since by the covenant God made with man, it has to be through the lineage of Isaac and that is where they will be blessed.

Mohammad by rejecting Jesus as to who he actually is, is probably an action of a donkey of a man. Remember we are not saying that but God himself.

 

[TheSufi]

You say, quite correctly, that the covenant is held with Isaac. But, you say that Ishmael will be a great nation, and Muhammad is supposedly of the Ishmaelites. A promise of prosperity was made to the Ishmaelites but the covenant is held with Isaac.

Thus, TheSufi, if you are trying to say that the (old) covenant is held with Muhammad and his people, you aren’t making a good argument.

In the OT, God says His name is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But you reject Jacob, if I’m not forsaken but you also accept the OT pretty much verbatim, right?

I’m confused on the Muslim idea of the covenants and promises of God.

It appear there were several covenants that God made in the bible.

1. Noachic Covenant
2. Abrahamic Covenant (General covenant – for all the children of Abraham)
3. Isaaic Covenant (Specific covenant – for the children of Isaac)

Abrahamic Covenant

“Covenant of circumcision"

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:9-10)

And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. (Genesis 17:23)
**
Commentary:**

Ishmael is definitely under this covenant.

“The Covenant with Isaac”

And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. BUT my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. (17:20-21)
**
Commentary:**

This word BUT, makes it appear that Ishmael is excluded from the covenant, it is obvious that Ishmael was circumcised thus part of the Abrahamic covenant, so it cannot mean that. This word BUT could mean, in addition to my covenant with the children of Abraham (which includes Ishmael), I will establish a special covenant with Isaac.

The Hebrew word being used for BUT is VAV which has several meaning “but, and therefore, also, then, yet”

 

[TheSufi]

It does not matter and after a few thousand years it is hard to know which tribe we belong. It matters though in so far we can trace the lineage to Isaac or Ishmael.

According to general wisdom Jesus was from the lineage of Isaac and for Christians that can be verified by the Bible narrative which tells us his ancestors all the way to Isaac and even more. On the other hand, Mohammad was from the lineage of Ishmael (according to Islamic belief).

Thus it is through Jesus that the plan and promise of God materialized, not from Mohammad. Yes, he promised to make the tribe of Ishmael a great nation but really the question is, for what? When God speak of them as a donkey of a man, perhaps their greatness is only by their number and not through the revelation of God. Since by the covenant God made with man, it has to be through the lineage of Isaac and that is where they will be blessed.

Mohammad by rejecting Jesus as to who he actually is, is probably an action of a donkey of a man. Remember we are not saying that but God himself.

Muslims don’t reject Jesus, we just don’t accept the Orthodox and Catholic understanding of Jesus. If there were no Christians in the history of Christianity that didn’t reject reject the divinity of Jesus, you might have a case.

Prophet Muhammad isn’t bringing anything new, he is just validating one Christian sect over another.

 

[TheSufi]

It does not matter and after a few thousand years it is hard to know which tribe we belong. It matters though in so far we can trace the lineage to Isaac or Ishmael.

Linage doesn’t mean anything to you, nor does it mean anything to me. But to the Arabs, Jews, and the Semitic people , it means a lot. So they know.

Go to any Arab country and their name is Muhammad, son of Mahmud, son of Ibrahim, son of Hasan etc etc etc. all the way back. They know their linage.

We, but they do. It is very important to them.

In fact according to Islam, that is the reason sex before marriage is forbidden, to protect one’s linage.

 

[Reuben_J]

Linage doesn’t mean anything to you, nor does it mean anything to me. But to the Arabs, Jews, and the Semitic people , it means a lot. So they know.

Go to any Arab country and their name is Muhammad, son of Mahmud, son of Ibrahim, son of Hafrom Ishmael. n Mohammad belic etc. all the way back. They know their linage.

We, but they do. It is very important to them.

In fact according to Islam, that is the reason sex before marriage is forbidden, to protect one’s linage.

I agree with you. It does not mean that an Arab cannot be blessed by God. But from the covenant God made, it was through the lineage of Isaac that his promises and covenanted love came to pass. That culminated in Jesus. Those who believe in Jesus will be saved. Not from Ishmael.

Mohammad belief of Jesus contradicted that of the apostles of Jesus and thus likely to be flawed since the revelation of Jesus was to the apostles who were with him; not to Mohammad.

Mohammad belief of Jesus was flawed. It is more believable that the Jewish disciples of Jesus would have first hand knowledge of what Jesus told them rather than the revelation to Mohammad that seemed to correct what the apostles believed.

 

[Reuben_J]

It appear there were several covenants that God made in the bible.

1. Noachic Covenant
2. Abrahamic Covenant (General covenant – for all the children of Abraham)
3. Isaaic Covenant (Specific covenant – for the children of Isaac)

Abrahamic Covenant

“Covenant of circumcision"

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:9-10)

And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. (Genesis 17:23)
**
Commentary:**

Ishmael is definitely under this covenant.

“The Covenant with Isaac”

And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. BUT my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. (17:20-21)
**
Commentary:**

This word BUT, makes it appear that Ishmael is excluded from the covenant, it is obvious that Ishmael was circumcised thus part of the Abrahamic covenant, so it cannot mean that. This word BUT could mean, in addition to my covenant with the children of Abraham (which includes Ishmael), I will establish a special covenant with Isaac.

The Hebrew word being used for BUT is VAV which has several meaning “but, and therefore, also, then, yet”

The series of the covenants mentioned were progressive as God continued to appear and be with his chosen people.

As children of Abraham, it was possible that he was circumcised. But the convenant was very clear. Isaac was chosen for this and through him would the Messiah eventually came.

 

[TheSufi]

The series of the covenants mentioned were progressive as God continued to appear and be with his chosen people.

As children of Abraham, it was possible that he was circumcised. But the convenant was very clear. Isaac was chosen for this and through him would the Messiah eventually came.

So a special covenant made with Isaac is that Messiah would come through Isaac. Muslims have no problem with that at all, in fact, we agree that the Messiah would be of the tribe of Isaac. Where’s the contradiction?

There was a covenant was made with the children of Abraham (plural, not just one).
And then Isaac had a special covenant, perhaps it is the covenant of the Messiah, that is fine. We as Muslims await the return of the Messiah Jesus.

 

[TheSufi]

Mohammad belief of Jesus contradicted that of the apostles of Jesus and thus likely to be flawed since the revelation of Jesus was to the apostles who were with him; not to Mohammad.

Mohammad belief of Jesus was flawed. It is more believable that the Jewish disciples of Jesus would have first hand knowledge of what Jesus told them rather than the revelation to Mohammad that seemed to correct what the apostles believed.

That is a matter of debate. The council of Nicea is not scripture.

 

[MartinJordan]

The series of the covenants mentioned were progressive as God continued to appear and be with his chosen people.

As children of Abraham, it was possible that he was circumcised. But the convenant was very clear. Isaac was chosen for this and through him would the Messiah eventually came.

Yes. Once again let me reiterate the consistency of God’s promises. He said “but my covenant will be with Isaac” It can be seen in Genesis 21 The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned**.

MJ**

 

[MartinJordan]

That is a matter of debate. The council of Nicea is not scripture.

Sufi, right Because scripture wasn’t fully compiled till 397 AD at the Council of Carthage which also clarified all the books.

MJ

 

[Reuben_J]

So a special covenant made with Isaac is that Messiah would come through Isaac. Muslims have no problem with that at all, in fact, we agree that the Messiah would be of the tribe of Isaac. Where’s the contradiction?

Hi TheSufi. You seem to be quite reasonable rather than blindly protecting your position. Thanks for that.

Of course the obvious contradiction is about Jesus being divine and mere prophet.

There was a covenant was made with the children of Abraham (plural, not just one).
And then Isaac had a special covenant, perhaps it is the covenant of the Messiah, that is fine.

And so it was. Abraham had many sons. That’s the song we use to sing during Sunday school. Yet, among the many children, Isaac was chosen. This is very consistent with how God chose prophets. David was chosen among his many brothers and he was not even the oldest or the strongest. Somehow God worked that way.

We as Muslims await the return of the Messiah Jesus.

Again Islam has a flawed understanding of the Messiah. Now, I am merely saying this because of the differences in our belief respectively.

The mission of the Messiah is to save mankind from sin so that they will be able to unite with their Creator once again as sin separates them from God. The second coming of the Messiah is on the last day where he would be a judge of the living and the dead. So of course only God can be a judge of humankind.

Muslims understanding of the Messiah is of course different.

 

[Maria_Candice]

Yes, Muhammad had been exposed to Christianity since Muslims have the notion of infidels and they have referred to Christians as infidels. By considering Christians (and Jews) as infidels, Muhammad had directly rejected Christ.

 

[Reuben_J]

That is a matter of debate. The council of Nicea is not scripture.

And so it was not. The formation of belief preceded the council. The Church is dynamic. Lots of beliefs were not written until such a time when there was confusion about what it was; or when heresy inadvertently came up. When that happened, the Church Fathers would specify belief and so only then it was documented.

The source of Christians’ faith were the apostles themselves. Thus since they were the ones (or their disciples) that set up the Church, Christians’ belief was always guarded. In the Catholic Church, we see an interrupted line of successions that can be traced back to the first apostles.

Unlike what protagonists may say that the apostles distorted the belief, this is not likely and unreasonable. Why would they do that?

The apostles could be compared roughly with Mohammad’s sahabas except that the former was blessed and empowered by God to carry out their witnessing and work for God. Do you think the sahabas would distort Mohammad’s teaching? Not likely. There is no reason for them to do so. And similarly for the apostles of Jesus. There is no reason for them to do so.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes. Once again let me reiterate the consistency of God’s promises. He said “but my covenant will be with Isaac” It can be seen in Genesis 21 The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned****.

MJ