Islam Are Allah and God of the Bible the same Person?

[Limo]

It is correct that that no NT book, as far as we know, was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac; however, it was originally written in Greek, not Latin. Latin copies are also a translation of the Greek.


The NT was written in Greek, not Latin.

'χριστὸς' is a direct translation of the common noun משׁיח; it is not a proper name.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I always mix Latin with Greek.
Good to confirm that there is no NT in Semitic languages.

May I know why using noun משׁיח is improper ?
It would be more convenient if It's translated as is literally Al-Masseh especially it relates him to the OT prophecies.
Regards

 

[Limo]

These are all new issues raised and have nothing to do with Nicaea.
History tells us the NT was written in Greek. you still say Latin.

It like me calling you Loco, and no matter how many time you correct me and say your name is Limo I insist it is Loco. Get the picture!

With regard to your new questions, you have already shown you are incapable to understand anything out side your current false perspective so we are just wasting each other time.

Regards

Thanks Doug
Quran 25:63 "And the slaves of the Most Beneficent (Allah) are those who walk on the earth in humility and sedateness, and when the foolish address them (with bad words) they reply back with mild words of gentleness."

 

[DWA2DAY]

Not Jay Smith? According to the foot note: (Copyright © 1999 by Peter Saunders based on other content from Jay Smith. Originally posted at Debate.org.uk. Used with permission.)

I have already shown it existed First Century A.D.



No evidence is offered only theories. It's a shame Jay doesn't study more:

Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science

Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science

THE ORIENTATION OF THE FIRST MOSQUES

The Prophet Muhammad had said when he was in Medina: ‘What is between east and west is a qibla’, and he himself had prayed due south to Mecca. In emulation of the Prophet, and interpreting his remark as implying that the qibla was due south everywhere, certain Muslims used south for the qibla wherever they were. When mosques were erected from Andalusia to Central Asia by the first generation of Muslims known as the Companions of the Prophet (sahaba), some of these were built facing south even though this was scarcely appropriate in places far to the east or west of the meridian of Mecca. Certain early mosques from Andalusia to Central Asia bear witness to this. One may compare this situation with the eastern orientation of churches and synagogues.

The first mosque to be built in Egypt was built facing winter sunrise, and it was this direction which remained the most popular throughout the medieval period amongst the religious authorities. Likewise some of the earliest mosques in Iraq were built facing winter sunset. These orientations were chosen so that the mosques would be ‘facing’ specific walls of the Ka’ba (Figure 4.2). Throughout the medieval period, winter sunrise and sunset were favoured in Egypt and Iraq respectively as the qiblat al-sahaba.

FINDING THE QIBLA BY NON-MATHEMATICAL METHODS

Simple practical means for finding the qibla by the sun, moon and stars, and even by the wins, are outlined in a wide variety of medieval texts. The methods advocated in these sources are adapted from the notions under lying the folk-scientific tradition which was widely disseminated in the Muslim world throughout the medieval period. This popular tradition of astronomy and meteorology was ultimately derived from pre-Islamic Arabia, but had been embellished by the indigenous as well as the Hellenistic traditions of folk science which had been practised in the areas overrun by the Muslims in the seventh century. It was quite distinct from the scientific tradition of the Muslim astronomers, but was far more widely known and practised.

Documented for the first time in the early centuries of the Islamic era, this astronomical lore was eventually applied on a popular level to be practical problems of organising the agricultural calendar, regulating the lunar calendar and the religious festivals, reckoning the time of day by shadow lengths and the time of night by the positions of the lunar mansions and, what concerns us here, finding the direction of the qibla by non-mathematical means. Aspects of this scientific folklore are practised in agricultural communities in the Near East to this day.

Unlike the ‘astronomy of the ancients’, the popular scientific tradition relied solely upon observation of natural phenomena such as the sun, moon, stars and winds. As the Qur’an states that these celestial bodies and natural phenomena were created by God, and specifically that men should be guided by the stars, folk astronomy, unlike mathematical astronomy and astrology, was not criticised by legal scholars.

Jay uses the work of amateur christian evangelical Researcher Dan Gibson recent book Qur'anic Geography, which lists a number of unfounded controversial theories.

I wonder when Dan Gibson was ever allowed into Mecca to carry out his archaeological dig or is he simply relying on a google maps app on his iphone?

Yes you said so, but how can you view be different from archaeological records. I say there is more weight on the origonal Qibla thann you scholars fabrications.

History of Arabia also show other wise. and at best show people building a Kaaba only in the late 5th century no sooner.

But we going on a round about on this one. The fact is there are more questions than need answers and Muslims care to admit, and the fabricated, unreliable, unfounded and corrupt excuses has run it coarse. We accept that these will be a Muslims defence because nothing my contradict the Quran. If this is your view then the discussion was closed before it started.

Regards Doug

PS My apologies re the NOT Jay Smith comment - I just wanted to ruffle your feathers. Was waiting for the reply and you were kind, Thank you.

 

[Muslim-UK]

You seem to be doing this yourself by trying to make Isaiah 42 fit Mohammad.

As I said, they are open to interpretation.

You seem to be doing this yourself by trying to make Isaiah 42 fit Mohammad.

No more or less than the NT writers who mostly never even met Jesus pbuh

Your opinion that John is the least valid is noted:

It is also the opinion of the majority of NT Scholars. Muslims just repeat the findings of your Scholars.

Your opinion the Luke is not valid is noted:

Luke confirms he is just repeating hearsay at the start of his Gospel.

Your opinion that Paul is irrelevant is noted:

Paul has been debated as the the wolf that crept into the Church for Centuries.

So you believe Mohammad was a man of God because He was a warrior? Would that be why many (not all) in Islam seek to eradicate Christians?

Muhammad pbuh is like Moses pbuh, both led their people and eradicated idolatry.
The followers of Jesus pbuh were marginalised and his teachings corrupted leading to polytheism spreading under the guise of the Trinity.

By the way there are 10's of Millions of Christians living in Muslim Countries.

Paul is not saying the gospel he preached is a lie! Try using just a little discernment and pay attention to the entire context, not pulling one verse out as you did here to try and support a false theory.

That's not quite how the Disciples saw it.

Now since you in your own mind have discredited Matthew, the Torah, John, Luke and Paul there is little left of the New Testament. Why do you use it so much? Oh yeah that is only when you can make it fit your purposes.

You can't deny there has been widespread corruption found in the previous scriptures. I The scroll of Isaiah was found amongst the DSS and can be relied upon to a certain extent.

God did not say no in the text you assume that and insert your interpretation. Verse 9 & 10 show that Paul was delivered by the power of Christ.

Yes Paul finds his own way of explaining his afflictions, that wouldn't have escaped the notice of his audience

Not sure what point you are trying to make here by my opinion is you have very little understanding of who Paul was and what He taught.

Count me as a friend amongst the Millions of Christians who wonder why they follow Pauline Christianity.

Paul was commanded to go to the Gentiles. Are you trying to make something fit your narrative here?

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

You would hardly expect him to admit he was teaching from his own whims and understanding. You never did explain which story one should believe about his encounter with the bright white light on the rd to Damascus.

You originally brought it up in another post to try and show Jesus’s humanity and lack of divinity

Yes and there are plenty of verses which show he was not equal with GOD Almighty, nor would he have ever claimed such a thing.

Even so this is no support for your theory Mohammad is the topic of Isaiah 42. Remember you hold our scripture in contempt; you can hardly use it to prove your theology. If there is so much error in it why should anyone believe what you say about Isaiah 42?

It supports the fact gentiles were not to be preached to. It proves Kedar was in Saudi Arabia, and all goes back to the promise made to Ishmael pbuh. Interesting place Saudi Arabia. Abraham was born nearby in what is today called Iraq, Moses received revelation on the Mountain in Saudi Arabia. It was the place Abraham settled Hagar and Ishmael, pbut and it was the place from which came the Final Messenger of GOD.

I don't recall saying there was error in Isaiah. I don't think it has been perfectly preserved, but I say that, as there is little evidence proving otherwise. I have argued against much of the doctrines of Christianity, as they are not supported by the teachings of Jesus pbuh. I have argued against the supposed authorship of the Gospels, and this is something NT Scholars themselves have grappled with.

I said, "Are you sure new song doesn't mean new covenant? Even your Scholars say, yes it does, though they attribute the new order to Jesus pbuh:"

Even so Mohammad is not found in the pages of the Holy Bible as a messenger from God! You may try to make it fit but it does not!

So just show us who came from the tents of Kedar, as a warrior stirring up jealousy, coming with 10,000 holy men, to whom was given a book with a line here and a line there, a bit here and a bit there, to which he said, 'I can't read!'. Who came from the valley of Baca with a new Covenant? From a House of GOD that is open day and night, from where a single prayer is better than 1,000 elsewhere. It's situated in a valley with a hidden blessed pool.

The only position you can reasonably take is, "I don't believe in Muhammad, and believe I am saved in the blood of Christ and grace alone, so thanks but no thanks!"

 

[DWA2DAY]

Thanks Doug
Quran 25:63 "And the slaves of the Most Beneficent (Allah) are those who walk on the earth in humility and sedateness, and when the foolish address them (with bad words) they reply back with mild words of gentleness."

Limo sorry but I need to correct you again.
I am not a slave of Allah, I am a Child of the Living God, who sent his Son Jesus Christ to die for my sins and give me freedom and everlasting life. I have been baptised in his spirit and thus enjoy the pleasure of addoption and joint hier with Christ in all the riches of my Father (Yahweh- the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob)

 

[DWA2DAY]

Walikom Alsalm
I know it's a new direction. I built it after reading to modern western Christian scholars.
They've reached a convenient point that Jesus-Christ as defined by the Church doesn't exist. It's comply with Islamic view of Al-Masseh as totally different characteristic that we can't group both characters together again.
So, they and I'm totaly agree with them we've Massiac-Christinty (true follower of Al-Masseh) and Pauline-Christinty (true follower of Jesus-Christ) another religion started by Paul
I hope I can spread the knowledge among Muslims.
Regards

Biggest load of junk I have ever read. In my BC day I would be asking what you smoking? As sound like a great trip.

Regards Doug

 

[benelchi]

Yes you said so, but how can you view be different from archaeological records. I say there is more weight on the origonal Qibla thann you scholars fabrications.

History of Arabia also show other wise. and at best show people building a Kaaba only in the late 5th century no sooner.

But we going on a round about on this one. The fact is there are more questions than need answers and Muslims care to admit, and the fabricated, unreliable, unfounded and corrupt excuses has run it coarse. We accept that these will be a Muslims defence because nothing my contradict the Quran. If this is your view then the discussion was closed before it started.

Regards Doug

PS My apologies re the NOT Jay Smith comment - I just wanted to ruffle your feathers. Was waiting for the reply and you were kind, Thank you.

Dr. Patricia Crone in her book Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam noted that the descriptions of Mecca in Islamic literature don’t seem to match the present day location of Mecca.


Here is additional information.

Nabataea.net Home Page

 

[benelchi]

'χριστὸς' is a direct translation of the common noun משׁיח; it is not a proper name.

Sorry, I always mix Latin with Greek.
Good to confirm that there is no NT in Semitic languages.

May I know why using noun משׁיח is improper ?
It would be more convenient if It's translated as is literally Al-Masseh especially it relates him to the OT prophecies.
Regards[/QUOTE]

I was speaking in terms of grammar i.e. a common noun is a noun that doesn't describe a specific person or place i.e. a book, a table, etc... a proper name is a noun that describes a specific person or place i.e. Jesus, Arabia, etc...

 

[Truth light]

He certainly didn't call God Yahweh or Jehovah. "Eloh, Eloh, lama sabachthani?"
The Aramaic Name for God - Elah <<< As you won't accept Sheikh Ahmad Deedat, may Allah swt be pleased with him, Go and listen to a Hebrew speaker saying it out aloud.

Jazakum Allahu khaira
Try this: AaLaHaA Aramaic Dictionary (search for God)

 

[DWA2DAY]

Dr. Patricia Crone in her book Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam noted that the descriptions of Mecca in Islamic literature don’t seem to match the present day location of Mecca.


Here is additional information.

Nabataea.net Home Page

Yes I do believe so and from what I understand it is more similar to Petra.

Regards Doug

 

[benelchi]

Jazakum Allahu khaira
Try this: AaLaHaA Aramaic Dictionary (search for God)

The double Aa at the beginning of the pronunciation guide is used to signify the long A sound, as in 'pray' in other words 'elah' and not 'allah'

 

[benelchi]

Yes I do believe so and from what I understand it is more similar to Petra.

Regards Doug

Yes

BTW - Jay is a friend of mine, and very reliable.

 

[DWA2DAY]

As I said, they are open to interpretation.

For your eyes only, if you thought Jay smith had a radical view, you beter stay away from this:-

http://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/professor_fred_donner.pdf

Regards Doug

 

[SteveCaruso]

He certainly didn't call God Yahweh or Jehovah. "Eloh, Eloh, lama sabachthani?"
The Aramaic Name for God - Elah <<< As you won't accept Sheikh Ahmad Deedat, may Allah swt be pleased with him, Go and listen to a Hebrew speaker saying it out aloud.

Jesus would never have called God "Elah" in direct address, though. In Galilean Aramaic, the vocative form was the emphatic.

Your use of these materials as evidence betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Aramaic grammar. Elah on its own means "(a) God" or "(the) God of".

Additionally he did use the Tetragrammaton and often.

 

[DWA2DAY]

Poll to see the result of the discussion of the thread with the same title.

Please vote your view is important:
Islam - Is the God of the Bible the Same as Allah?

 

[SteveCaruso]

John Shelby Spong, a retired American bishop of the Anglican Church in America,

John Shelby Spong is not an orthodox Anglican. He's marginal to fringe, and by his own admission may not even be Christian anymore.

He cannot be cited as typically Christian in any sense.

 

[SteveCaruso]

The double Aa at the beginning of the pronunciation guide is used to signify the long A sound, as in 'pray' in other words 'elah' and not 'allah'

Correct. This transliteration signifies the East Syriac ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ /ælāhā/ or the West Syriac ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ /aloho/.

Neither of which were how Jesus pronounced it anyways as Syriac wasn't spoken outside of a few travelers from Osroene in and around Jerusalem in the 1st century.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Yes you said so, but how can you view be different from archaeological records. I say there is more weight on the origonal Qibla thann you scholars fabrications.

Yes all good fun for revisionists to attempt to re-write History. Fringe Scholarship as you would say.

History of Arabia also show other wise. and at best show people building a Kaaba only in the late 5th century no sooner.

So that's now 500 years than you previously stated, so we have made progress and shown the Kaaba was in existence before the advent of Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

But we going on a round about on this one. The fact is there are more questions than need answers and Muslims care to admit, and the fabricated, unreliable, unfounded and corrupt excuses has run it coarse. We accept that these will be a Muslims defence because nothing my contradict the Quran. If this is your view then the discussion was closed before it started.

Jay and others used amateur christian archaeologist Dan Gibson's research, and the Dan Brubaker's thesis, Intentional Changes in Koran Manuscripts. Gibson has not done any digging under the Kabaa, nor would he ever be allowed to, and the conclusions drawn beyond the initial orientalist sensationalism of Brubaker's work showed the narrative of the Muslims and our assertion, we have the Qur'an as revealed by the Prophet pbuh is largely correct. Jay Smith knew all this, yet takes the stand and shouts his speech, and then changes subject matters the following week, claiming poor memory:

But what do we expect from someone who's favourite Bible verses is likely:
1 Cor 9:19 Though I am free of obligation to anyone, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the Law), to win those under the Law.

“In analyzing the arguments of scholars who challenge the account of the Islamic sources, Nicolai Sinai of Oxford University observes that epigraphic data and historical evidence “would allow us to take most of what the Islamic sources say at face value, and it is not clear why, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, this should not be our default position?” New Light on the History of the Quranic Text? | The Huffington Post

PS My apologies re the NOT Jay Smith comment - I just wanted to ruffle your feathers. Was waiting for the reply and you were kind, Thank you.

No problem, we try to have an exchange in the best way possible.

 

[Muslim-UK]

For your eyes only, if you thought Jay smith had a radical view, you beter stay away from this:-

http://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/professor_fred_donner.pdf

The author of that article says, we worship the same God. His theory is Christians and Jews came together with Arabs, who all believed the Trinity was nonsense. This he submits, explains why Churches and Synagogues were not destroyed and why the Muslims were so successful in their breathtaking expansion.

Feel free to find more articles that go against you

 

[Muslim-UK]

Jesus would never have called God "Elah" in direct address, though. In Galilean Aramaic, the vocative form was the emphatic.

Your use of these materials as evidence betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Aramaic grammar. Elah on its own means "(a) God" or "(the) God of".

Additionally he did use the Tetragrammaton and often.

I'm just copying and pasting from biblegateway.com - They need your Scholarly input to add footnotes, explaining these things.

John Shelby Spong is not an orthodox Anglican. He's marginal to fringe, and by his own admission may not even be Christian anymore.

He cannot be cited as typically Christian in any sense.

Firstly the Anglican Bishop isn't pouring over Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, he's just forming his opinion based on the books of Scholars in the field, like Professor Ehrman. Secondly it's hardly surprising that he would, after reading such 'enlightening' material start questioning what it means to be a 'Christian'. May Allah swt guide him to the truth.

Btw is it just Aramaic you specialise in, or do you study other Semitic languages too?