• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Mohammad in the bible

Discussion in 'Christianity and World Religion' started by habibii zahra, Mar 10, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. loNe

    loNe Member

    115
    +18
    Christian
    Private
    Sure. Why not 'Wallmart', or "Trump".
    Thats what you types do anyway, no, "rewriting texts".
    You types are Feeding-Off upon others, and are too stubborn [=spelled] to even realize it.

    Then you types, after the occult ritual you call HAJJ [='spell' = occult ritual],
    "encircle the cube",
    in the serpent-coil of engraving, a mass running around that square

    that is PTEH', the egyptian potter god attribute, rootmeaning 'to engrave' by rotation :
    what ?
    im so glad you asked :

    the place of rule over Eden, compare the new-jerusalem which is cube, also ;
    encircled in dimensional coils of Saturn, working like some 3D printer aróund that place,
    sucking Off all the aspects of eden they need, by copying them,
    the encirceling called SHEN

    You are so, so, so incre-dible being used by all the entire evil pantheon,
    masking as 'allah' ,
    yet you are too stubborn to even consider you re lied to.
     
  2. danny ski

    danny ski Newbie

    +482
    Judaism
    Private
     
  3. danny ski

    danny ski Newbie

    +482
    Judaism
    Private
    The NT does not fulfill the OT. The NT does not explain the OT. If it did, I would not ask the questions you did not answer. As for Paul, with all due respect, his opinions on the OT are as valid as yours. Which is to say, he had no authority of any kind.
     
  4. habibii zahra

    habibii zahra Well-Known Member

    812
    +92
    Muslim
    Single
    I wouldn't mind reading the torah and the bible at they end they are books revealed from god and I believe in them
     
  5. habibii zahra

    habibii zahra Well-Known Member

    812
    +92
    Muslim
    Single

    The etymology of the word Allāh has been discussed extensively by classical Arab philologists.[17] Grammarians of the Basra school regarded is as either formed "spontaneously" (murtajal) or as the definite form of lāh (from the verbal root lyh with the meaning of "lofty" or "hidden").[17] Others held that it was borrowed from Syriac or Hebrew, but most considered it to be derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the deity", or "the God".[17] The majority of modern scholars subscribe to the latter theory, and view the loanword hypothesis with skepticism.[18]

    Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[19] The corresponding Aramaic form is Elah (אלה), but its emphatic state is Elaha (אלהא). It is written as ܐܠܗܐ (ʼĔlāhā) in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlâhâ) in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply "God".[20] Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural (but functional singular) form Elohim (אלהים), but more rarely it also uses the singular form Eloah (אלוהּ).

    The Aramaic word for "God" in the language of Assyrian Christians is ʼĔlāhā, or Alaha. Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God".[10] The Christian Arabs of today have no other word for "God" than "Allah".[29] (Even the Arabic-descended Maltese language of Malta, whose population is almost entirely Roman Catholic, uses Alla for "God".) Arab Christians, for example, use the terms Allāh al-ab (الله الأب) for God the Father, Allāh al-ibn (الله الابن) for God the Son, and Allāh al-rūḥ al-quds (الله الروح القدس) for God the Holy Spirit. (See God in Christianity for the Christian concept of God.)

    Arab Christians have used two forms of invocations that were affixed to the beginning of their written works. They adopted the Muslim bismillāh, and also created their own Trinitized bismillāh as early as the 8th century.[30] The Muslim bismillāh reads: "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful." The Trinitized bismillāh reads: "In the name of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, One God." The Syriac, Latin and Greek invocations do not have the words "One God" at the end. This addition was made to emphasize the monotheistic aspect of Trinitarian belief and also to make it more palatable to Muslims.[30]

    ALLAH is the name of God in Arabic ALLAH is the great lord of Muslims so as jews and christians..

    In Islamic tradition, there are 99 Names of God (al-asmā’ al-ḥusná lit. meaning: 'the best names' or 'the most beautiful names'), each of which evoke a distinct characteristic of Allah.[12][48] All these names refer to Allah, the supreme and all-comprehensive divine name.[49] Among the 99 names of God, the most famous and most frequent of these names are "the Merciful" (al-Raḥmān) and "the Compassionate" (al-Raḥīm).[



    The Quran is a divinie book revealed of ALLAH...search in the whole world about a Quran different than the other you will not find yet search about the bible you will see many bibles in the whole word

    The Quran stated the belief in god the one the unique the god of jews and christians and Muslims..isn’t a book that calls to believe in all monotheistic religions books and prophets is worth to be followed and to believe in it more than any other??

    The Quran is a revelation from god it serves god and never anything else

    God ALLAH the father the supreme being the most powerful...all these names reflects God who is ALLAH

    Tell me plz which Surah and which verse that says: we gave him dominion over earth

    There are so similarities between the bible and the Quran

    Especially believing in one god the god of the universe
     
  6. Mediaeval

    Mediaeval baptizatus sum

    854
    +175
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    The source I gave for Muhammad fearing he was possessed and trying to kill himself was the well-known Muslim source al-Tabari. True, it is based on hearsay just like the ahadith. The “chains of narration” you mention are also based on hearsay, again hundreds of years after the time of the alleged original utterances. So if you want to be consistent with your own recommended criterion, you should reject all hearsay and so reject the chains of narration in addition to the ahadith, along with the early Muslim biographies. At least you will no longer have to worry about Ramadan or about which foot you enter the lavatory with, and you won’t have to feel guilty about yawning anymore.

    If you read the book of Jonah in the Bible, you will see that Jonah did not try to commit “self-murder.” He simply told his companions that throwing him overboard would make the sea grow calm. Floating in a calm sea is not lethal in itself.

    The feminine Hebrew word emeth (not “ehmeth”), is derived from “aman” whose Hebrew trilateral root is aleph-mem-nun and whose Arabic cognate is alif-mim-nun (as in Arabic “amn” & “iman” & “amniyet” etc). Meanwhile, Arabic ahmed’s trilateral root is he-mim-dal. It is thus not a cognate of Hebrew aleph-men-nun. Moreover, there is only one consonant in common between “emeth,” which is not a man’s name but a feminine noun, and the Arabic name “ahmed.” Claiming there is a connection between “emeth” and “ahmad,” and especially a connection pointing to Muhammad, is gratuitous and arbitrary. And the Spirit promised by our Lord, if you were to read John 14-16 carefully, obviously cannot be a man named ahmed, but only the Spirit who fell upon the disciples at Pentecost in fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy and of our Lord’s promise.

    “The Spirit of truth” in John 14:17 is translated in the Hebrew New Testament as רוּחַ הָאֱמֶתruach ha-emeth” but “emeth” is nowhere said to be the Spirit’s name as “Jesus” is our Lord’s name. To see how arbitrary it is to assert that Muhammad is in view, just consider what our Lord said of Himself earlier in the same chapter, John 14:6, “I am the truth” — in the Hebrew NT הָאֱמֶת again — thus He said, “I am the emeth.” Jesus Himself was thus more “obviously a man named eh'-meth."

    Christians are not divided into “more than 45,000 Christian denominations, each claiming they alone are guided by the ‘Spirit of Truth.’” There are basically only three communions in Christendom: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant; and we generally consider each other brethren in Christ and in His Spirit. A Catholic or an Orthodox, for example, would be welcome to worship at my Protestant church anytime.

    The Samaritan Pentateuch, however useful as an ancient text, was never the standard by which all other copies of the Torah are judged. The Samaritans were, in fact, the notorious heretics of their day. And there is no evidence that the Masoretes took liberties with and distorted the Hebrew text like your jpeg blatantly did. Historically, it is well known that the Jews were careful custodians of the Hebrew Scriptures. Our Lord never faulted the Jews of His day for corrupting the text of the Bible. He Himself read from the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue, He quoted from them, argued from them, and faulted the religious authorities of the day for not knowing those very same Scriptures. But He never condemned them for distorting the Scriptures. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke, our Lord affirmed that the rich man’s brothers still “have Moses and the prophets” and that these Scriptures were still available to be listened to (Luke 16:29). Our Lord’s high regard for the Scriptures is what we are called to imitate as His followers. And as I must keep pointing out, God is faithful. Everything ultimately depends on God’s faithfulness. None of us have the originals, and none of us alive in the 21st century heard the words when they were first uttered. But if God is faithful, we can trust Him to preserve His words for us (Isaiah 40:8). As another pointed out here, even the Quran agrees that no human being can change God’s words. Unbelieving scholars can conjecture all they want about the Bible, but there is no way to prove the Bible was corrupted unless you can produce the original text and compare it with the copies we have today and see if anything essential was left out. And again, even if the essential message of the Bible was lost, it would not prove the Quran was true, for as I mentioned earlier (post #139), there is no reason to believe a man who merely snorts in a cave and comes out saying, Believe me or else!

    Whoever made your jpeg did not allege forgery, as you said. But rather, whoever made the jpeg engaged in deliberate forgery himself!

    2 Peter was written by Peter without an amanuensis, which accounts for the less classical style of 2 Peter as compared with 1 Peter. Peter was originally a fisherman, of course, not a trained Greek orator.
    The authorship of Hebrews has been discussed somewhat already. The author of Hebrews was Paul according to one ancient tradition in the early church, but it could have been another early Jewish apostle or apostolic companion. The work was known in the first century as it is quoted as authoritative already in Clement of Rome’s first epistle, which is commonly dated to around A.D. 95 but arguably predates A.D. 70. The book of Hebrews itself shows internal indications of being written prior to A.D. 70, since one of the main themes is apostasy back into late Temple Judaism, which was not as much of an issue after A.D. 70. It also mentions by name the apostle Paul’s associate in ministry, Timothy. The great familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures and with the Temple as well as the themes of the book bespeak Jewish authorship, however fine the author's mastery of Greek was.
    2 Corinthians consists of the apostle Paul’s correspondence and is preserved just as his other genuine correspondence is.
    Early church history uniformly states that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the authors of the Gospels that bear their names. There was no competing tradition in the early church that the books were the work of others.
    The fact that some parts of the early church initially questioned some of the later books of the New Testament shows how careful the early church was when it came to admitting books into the canon. But once assured of their apostolic character, the churches acknowledged them as canonical.
    I addressed Mark 1:1, Mark 16 and 1 John 5:7, in HZ’s previous thread, post #242, the name of Mohammad in the Old testament
    In sum, we have the New Testament in the same way that the Israelites had the Old Testament. God’s providence faithfully working through His people and committing to them His oracles. Our Lord is the good shepherd (Psalm 23:1) and has always provided for His people. Blessed be God!

    On comparing Matthew with Mark, the differences show that there was no collusion between them. The independent and complementary character of their accounts is therefore a plus, just as the complementary testimony of independent witnesses in a court case makes their testimony all the weightier. If Matthew and Mark were worded exactly the same, then we might suspect that the uniformity between them was forced—just like the forced Quranic uniformity that Uthman strove for when he deliberately got rid of all Quranic variants but one. In each of the passages you quoted, where Matthew had already stated something, Mark simply gave a briefer version of the same account. According to early church history, Matthew, not Mark, was written first, and the passages you quoted are consistent with that view: Mark may have given a shorter version of events because his gospel presupposes Matthew’s more lengthy treatment. In any case, according to the “Q” hypothesis among textual critics, Mark was not the source of the material shared in common with Matthew and Luke, but rather another source known as “Q.”

    Arabia is not "the daughter of Babylon" in the Bible, although the Babylonians may have conquered Arabian territory. If you read the OT prophets in context the daughter of Babylon refers to the Babylonian empire, just like "the daughter of Zion" refers to the Israelites or the kingdom of Judah. According to the prophet Daniel, the Babylonian empire fell to the Medes and Persians. In the book of Revelation, Babylon is symbolic.

    On Isaiah 41, if you keep reading, the prophet explains who is meant. We are not left to guess who the “one from the East” might be. The answer is given in Isaiah 45:1-3. It is a great example of how the Bible explains itself.

    On surah 7:157, we can infer a couple of things. First, the Bible has been preserved according to this verse also of the Quran. Otherwise, why would the Quran appeal to a corrupt book to give attestation to Muhammad’s otherwise unattested prophethood? Secondly, Muhammad or whoever fabricated that ayah, was either deceived or a deceiver. As my fellow Bible-readers here will attest, Muhammad is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, except in the sense that false prophets are mentioned.

    Surah 3:85 does not refute my contention and that of Professor Saeed (and the Muslim scholars he names) that the Bible has been preserved. The ayah shows that the Quran is at odds with itself, confirming the Bible and yet at the same time contradicting the Bible’s teachings.

    You claimed, “There's plenty of evidence showing no one was crucified,” but our Lord’s crucifixion is not doubted by even secular scholars. The historical evidence flatly contradicts the Quran. Even hostile critic Bart Ehrman says, “The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life.”
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017
  7. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +15,499
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    You mean Osiris the Egyptian god of the underworld? Osiris wasn't a solar deity, Egyptian solar deities include Ra, Atum, and Amun-Ra; not Osiris.

    According to the Osiris myth Osiris was the divine king of Egypt and the brother-husband of Isis. In a jealous fit his brother Set slew Osiris and his body parts were scattered across Egypt, Isis then gathered all the members of Osiris' body, but was unable to find his phallus and so she created one, putting together his body she used magic to bring Osiris back to life in order to copulate with him, which resulted in her becoming pregnant with Horus. Osiris was then reborn as the king of the underworld.

    Claims such as this are easily demonstrated false by a rudimentary investigation into the myths themselves. This is on par with claiming that Allah was a pagan Arabian moon god--it's nonsense.

    Repeating easily demonstrable nonsense is not going to help whatever argument you would like to make.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  8. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    The changes are in explained in the NT to put it another way from the scripture I previously gave you.
    Romans 2:14
    14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

    Reference Jeremiah 31

    Yes. Jesus made statements about how we approach the Sabbath. Jesus made statements about too many man made traditions had been piled on the Sabbath and that he was lord of the Sabbath.

    which Prophet ? Please explain ?

    I did explain this in Post # 220 to muslin uk which you jumped in on which I don't mind at all. I appreciate having a dialog with you. The problem is you didn't really read it much.
    The law of Moses was God inspired. It's Holy and God found no fault with it. Some points about it.

    It was a covenant law for the administration of the Nation of Israel. As well as the moral laws it has many laws specific for Israel.
    It is a conditional Covenant. It has blessings and very severe curses. I challenge you to go back to post # 220 look at the curses and look at Israels history and think about those curses in relation to Israel up to last century. Duet 26 6Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.' And all the people shall say, 'Amen.'
    The fault is that people just can't keep all those laws. The Israelite's weren't keeping the law and a time of Judgement came on them after crucifixion. The levite Priest hood covenant was broken and New covenant was given by Jesus Christ.

    Jesus kept Old Testament law had discussions with people about it while he was alive. But he was also preparing,training the disciples in the New Covenant. Jesus fulfilled many things written about him in the OT.

    God blessed.
     
  9. ewq1938

    ewq1938 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,041
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    Promotion of Islam is not allowed.

    thread closed permanently.png
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...