Jump to content
Christianity

Why should I believe in Muhammad over others?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, notme said:

In some cases, simply to emulate the behavior of admired persons. In others where the action is recommended or required, it's an act of obedience, for the purpose of maintaining humility. 

A person won't be damned for eating pork, but they might be damned for willful and arrogant disobedience to The Creator. 

Good answer.....But we have a difference of ideas about what's required , forbidden, etc. (Fortunately for my son-in-law, I don't like pork.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, andres said:

In the Hebrew Bible. Not in the Christian (New Testament) part. 

Actually @andres,  there is. However it doesn't specify to what degree (which is important because you can never actually remove ALL the blood) or that you can't eat actual meat with blood still in it.  Luke documents  in Acts 15:22-29 a letter sent to gentile believers with some basic instructions,  including abstaining from blood. For a people with no kosher laws to follow, I believe this was always understood to mean blood on its own. As in, don't go around drinking blood. 

Edited by Hameedeh
Fixed the quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

@M.IB

Sorry, but I think  it is interesting how some Muslims put their faith in" corrupted " Scripture when they imagine it mentions Mohammed or something else they approve of. Lol. Convenient.

However, funny, we don't believe the Bible to be corrupted 100%, and further more I said "Qumran cave scriptures" and "Dead sea scrolls" which resemble nothing like the modern Bible (by Christian scholars orally witnessing it) which was composed since 2nd century after the council of Nicea which was to establish early Christianity along Roman paganism so the civilians wouldn't actually have to change their whole lifestyle. 

 

Wassalam :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Most modern slaughtering practices bleed out an animal fairly well. Most Christians don't generally worry about food outside of practical common sense concerns. Jewish practices are not considered to bind us in my tradition.

Right. Due to both the words of Jesus, "what comes out of a person's mouth" and also Peter's dream. 

That's fine. Muslims just interpret things differently. 

As far as I recall, Christianity has just three commandments: love God above all things, love your neighbor as much as you love yourself, and go out and spread the good news. You'd be hard pressed to find a Muslim (or perhaps anyone with any religion) who would disagree with these. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

Right. Mine either (evangelical). I was just pointing out that it is in there. I was surprised when I read it recently, I had no recollection of that being there from previous readings.

It's in there, but we also understand that was during a very interesting time in the formation of the early church when decisions were being made regarding the influx of Gentiles into the faith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thegoodman81 said:

Actually @andres,  there is. However it doesn't specify to what degree (which is important because you can never actually remove ALL the blood) or that you can't eat actual meat with blood still in it.  Luke documents  in Acts 15:22-29 a letter sent to gentile believers with some basic instructions,  including abstaining from blood. For a people with no kosher laws to follow, I believe this was always understood to mean blood on its own. As in, don't go arounddrinking blood. 

In my childhood I often had "bloodsausage" with lingonberryjam. Fried animalblood. Today not so often because my wife does not like it. In old days they had not access to as much meat as today so everything had to be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, M.IB said:

However, funny, we don't believe the Bible to be corrupted 100%, and further more I said "Qumran cave scriptures" and "Dead sea scrolls" which resemble nothing like the modern Bible (by Christian scholars orally witnessing it) which was composed since 2nd century after the council of Nicea which was to establish early Christianity along Roman paganism so the civilians wouldn't actually have to change their whole lifestyle. 

Wassalam :)

Persons and histories in the Quran are almost all from Jewish/Christian sources. Histories a little different. I would say the Quran corrupted  Biblical material. The Qumran (or Dead Sea Scrolls) do not contain any of the Christian books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, M.IB said:

However, funny, we don't believe the Bible to be corrupted 100%, and further more I said "Qumran cave scriptures" and "Dead sea scrolls" which resemble nothing like the modern Bible (by Christian scholars orally witnessing it) which was composed since 2nd century after the council of Nicea which was to establish early Christianity along Roman paganism so the civilians wouldn't actually have to change their whole lifestyle. 

Wassalam :)

You were using a quote from at least Genesis ( and others in different threads here have used other Biblical quotes). It appears to be highly subjective and a moving target regarding what is " corrupted". The Dead Sea scroll fragments do contain almost all of the Jewish scripture as well as plenty of other material the authorship of which is unknown, which usually bothers Muslims. The Council of Nicea didn't set the Christian canon and pagan life ways weren't part of the decision-making process. It was based on acceptance of authenticity and orthodoxy  in matters of faith by Christian communities .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I must go to Mass.

@notme ...think I told this story before (your statement regarding Muslims and Christians finding common ground put me in mind of it)

There was this big fight online with some clueless Christuans accusing Muslims of not allowing churches in "Islamic countries".

( The default setting for all Muslim countries is apparently KSA. This needs to stop.)

Finally someone replied in a string of Arabic and then translated 

I'M SITTING HERE RIGHT THIS MINUTE PRAYING IN A CHURCH IN A MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRY YOU IDIOTS!!

plus photos.

:grin:

Talk to you later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

Persons and histories in the Quran are almost all from Jewish/Christian sources. Histories a little different. I would say the Quran corrupted  Biblical material. The Qumran (or Dead Sea Scrolls) do not contain any of the Christian books. 

The scriptures I mentioned above are indeed related to Christianity. I heard that from a person with a degree in Biblical studies who was a Muslim, and he confirmed that the Qumran scrolls indeed contain explicit materials which contradict the modern Christian theology and creed by the witnessing of Christian scholars I remind you again.It also distinctly foretells a coming of mine elect, Ahmad, whom I uphold, and he shall bring judgement to the Gentiles."

An Egyptian Coptic even assured that they don't relate like the modern Christian Bible, and story of Crucifixion is said that Jesus was not on the cross, rather besides Peter.

 

1 hour ago, LeftCoastMom said:

You were using a quote from at least Genesis ( and others in different threads here have used other Biblical quotes). It appears to be highly subjective and a moving target regarding what is " corrupted". The Dead Sea scroll fragments do contain almost all of the Jewish scripture as well as plenty of other material the authorship of which is unknown, which usually bothers Muslims. The Council of Nicea didn't set the Christian canon and pagan life ways weren't part of the decision-making process. It was based on acceptance of authenticity and orthodoxy  in matters of faith by Christian communities .

The quote was from "The Book of Isaiah" chapter 42 verse 1, the ones I referred above where from the Qumran cave scriptures or DSS, and I already explained to the brother above using Hebrew Grammar, these scrolls at least have been 2,500+/3,000 years old.

 

1 hour ago, LeftCoastMom said:

The Council of Nicea didn't set the Christian canon and pagan life ways weren't part of the decision-making process. It was based on acceptance of authenticity and orthodoxy  in matters of faith by Christian communities .

Marie Sinclair, Countess of Caithness, in her 1876 book Old Truths in a New Light, states: “It is generally, although erroneously, supposed that the doctrine of the Trinity is of Christian origin. Nearly every nation of antiquity possessed a similar doctrine. 

Notice how the following quotes document belief in a divine trinity in many regions and religions of the ancient world.

Sumeria

“The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods” ( The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54-55)

Babylonia

“The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god— as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity” (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).

Greece

“In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: ‘All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity’ ” (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197-198).

Egypt

“The Hymn to Amun decreed that ‘No god came into being before him (Amun)’ and that ‘All gods are three: Amun, Re and Ptah, and there is no second to them. Hidden is his name as Amon, he is Re in face, and his body is Ptah.’ . . . This is a statement of trinity, the three chief gods of Egypt subsumed into one of them, Amon. Clearly, the concept of organic unity within plurality got an extraordinary boost with this formulation. Theologically, in a crude form it came strikingly close to the later Christian form of plural Trinitarian monotheism” (Simson Najovits, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 83-84).

 

Egyptologist Arthur Weigall, while himself a Trinitarian, summed up the influence of ancient beliefs on the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by the Catholic Church in the following excerpt from his previously cited book:

“It must not be forgotten that Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon [the Trinity], and nowhere in the New Testament does the word ‘Trinity’ appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely pagan . . .

 

I can go on and on, however I would say you got the idea.

1 hour ago, LeftCoastMom said:

The Dead Sea scroll fragments do contain almost all of the Jewish scripture as well as plenty of other material the authorship of which is unknown, which usually bothers Muslims.

However these manuscripts are much more trustworthy and date back much later than the current version of the Christian Gospels.
authorship is not of actual importance when it comes to knowing what's "inside" the scrolls, usually the content and it's exegesis, authorship may be from a Random Hebrew Israelite Prophet, remarkably prophets:

 

Abraham

Isaac

Jacob

Moses

Aaron

Joshua

Samuel

David

Solomon

Michaiah 

Eliezer 

Hosea 

Mikhah

Elijah

Jonah

Isaiah 

Zephaniah 

Jeremiah

Ezekiel

Zechariah 

Peace be upon them all. 

Wassalam :) 

Edited by M.IB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, andres said:

Do all Muslims eat and drink with the right hand? Also those born lefthanded?

Hi andres.

It was said eating with the left side is makruh(discouraged). 

Wassalam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M.IB said:

The scriptures I mentioned above are indeed related to Christianity. I heard that from a person with a degree in Biblical studies who was a Muslim, and he confirmed that the Qumran scrolls indeed contain explicit materials which contradict the modern Christian theology and creed by the witnessing of Christian scholars I remind you again.It also distinctly foretells a coming of mine elect, Ahmad, whom I uphold, and he shall bring judgement to the Gentiles."

An Egyptian Coptic even assured that they don't relate like the modern Christian Bible, and story of Crucifixion is said that Jesus was not on the cross, rather besides Peter.

I do not believe that any of the Qumran texts deal with the Crucifixion. However it is correct that Judaism and Christianity are two different religions, so of course there are contradictions. Just like there are between all three monotheistic holy books. All three are related of course. But Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Islam has taken a lot from both Christianity and Judaism. Muhammed and his companions converted from paganism, while Jesus first followers converted from Judaism, taking many Jewish traditions with them into Christianity. In that way Christians are more related to Judaism than Muslims are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M.IB said:

Hi andres.

It was said eating with the left side is makruh(discouraged). 

Wassalam.

Not that long ago Swedish children who were born lefthanded were more or less forced to learn to write with right hand in School. Today we have understood that it is not a good idea to fight against nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@M.IB

Your " scholar " is mistaken. You can go look for yourself. There is no NT material in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

As far as the Copts go:

Beliefs of Coptic Christians
The Coptic Church believes much of the same theology as other Christian denominations, including a belief in one God made up of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; that the Bible is the word of God; that Jesus took human form, died and rose again for the salvation of humanity; that Jesus will come again to judge both the living and the dead.

“The Lord Jesus Christ is God Himself, the Incarnate Logos Who took to Himself a perfect manhood. His Divine nature is one with his human nature yet without mingling, confusion or alteration; a complete Hypostatic Union…
… As this union is permanent, never divided nor separated, we say in the liturgy that His Godhead never departed from His manhood for a single moment nor even for a twinkle of an eye.” Pope Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ, 1999

Seems pretty mainstream Trinitarian Christian to me.

 

There were plenty of references to Trinity before Nicea and they had nothing to do with pleasing pagans ( were that the case it would have been better to have developed a Hindu-style being into which the pantheons of plural regional deities could have been folded as " emanations" . As it was, the Church Fathers took their thinking from concepts in Scripture and early church tradition) :

"Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117).  Bishop of Antioch. 
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).


Justin Martyr ( 100-165) 
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).  

Irenaeus ( c. 180)  The Church … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God, the Father … in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit. (Against Heresies I:10:1) 

Tertullian ( c. 200) The simple, (indeed, I will not call them unwise and unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation [of the Three], on the ground that the very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God. They do not understand that although he is the one only God, he must yet be believed in with his own order of things. (Against Praxeas 3) 

Tertullian (160-215).  African apologist and theologian.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind.  They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254).  Alexandrian theologian.  
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority . . . There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit " (de Principiis, 1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification . . . " (de Principii., I. iii. 7)

 

As you can see from above, Arthur Weigall ( what do you know of his actual religious beliefs?) was apparently not much of a church historian. Was better as a stage manager for shows, I hear.  Catholics have fun with him. He thought everything in Christianity was of pagan origin, so I'm assuming that you, too, reject the virgin birth. He did. Would have loved to see his send-up of Islam.

There were plenty of pantheons of threes, twos, multiples all over the world. That does not mean the early Christians folded that in any more than you worship the moon. ( something plenty of detractors of Islam go to great lengths to prove)

I could fill this page with quotes of " scholars" of your own faith that are sure you are not Muslim but a corrupted form of 

* Zoroastrianism

* Judaism

* eastern Christianity

* a mishmash of all of the above

 

I came on here to learn about you folks because whatever "Muslim scholar "wrote the only book on Islam we have  in our tiny town library felt you were only worth a " they are of no importance" passage.

Am I supposed to believe them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, andres said:

Muhammed and his companions converted from paganism

 As far I am concerned, Islam and Judaism both consider Christianity and the Trinity to be not a valid form of monotheism, besides which they have a lot more in common with each other in terms of worship and practice than Christianity has with either Judaism or Islam.

With the exception of the Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic churches, when was the last time your pastor recited/cantillated the Bible by rote, advocated fasting on Easter/Christmas or ritually slaughter a cow or lamb in the name of God? 

Or even gender segregated churches or female members of the congregation wearing some kind of headcovering/veil/hat in your church? 

These are Abrahamic traditions, not pagan practices, that are observed by Jews and Muslims. I don't see many Christians doing this. I am sure that it would be a very foreign concept in Scandinavia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, andres said:

How do we know? Muhammed grew up in a pagan society.  Was he born a convinced Muslim?

Muhammad pbuh was one of those devout believers who loves his Lord and seeks His worship and pleasure. But Muhammad is different from most or all of them as he follows the way of his grandfather Abraham (AS) who stated before,

"I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me [37:99]!”

And Abraham (AS) also said:

“Unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among those who go astray[6:77]."

Muhammad (SA) resorts to Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى directly just like Abraham (AS) who was the first to accept Islam and the first to surrender to Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى directly seeking His guidance. So, Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى made Abraham a prophet and friend and honored and elevated him, and gave prophecy to his progeny and gave him the best and most noble attributes.

Similarly, Muhammad did the same. He resorted to his Lord directly asking for guidance and light and he headed towards it by his own free will, submitting his affairs to Him and seeking His help to take him out darkness and bring Him closer to Him and get to know Him better. He did all that with a surrendering, intact, and humble heart and an anxious soul to meet his Lord!

That is why Muhammad (SA) used to go out to the mountain alone from time to time to be away from the people and stay inside a cave to worship his God alone sincerely and seek his guidance and light. He used to leave his beloved wife and household, his friends and his loved ones, and leave his home and place of comfort…to go out in the darkness of night in the midst of the desert and rocks and mountains…exposing himself to great dangers, beasts, scorpions, snakes, and thieves…to climb the mountain and enter a small dark cave!

All that was for the sake of his Lord and out of love for Him. This amazing scene repeats itself time and time again while Muhammad has all the perseverance to do so for years without being bored or desperate, and with all certainty that Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى will guide and respond to him, just like he responded to his father Abraham (AS). Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى witnesses all that from him day after day and He سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى knows the clarity and sincerity of his heart and his intentions.

You can imagine the amount of love, sincerity, and attraction to the one creator which drove Muhammad, who lived in the midst of idol worshippers, and in the midst of a materialistic, petrified, and luxurious society. After all, there is no place for God or His worship.

Everyone is busy and occupied by his trade, business trips, journeys, livestock, pleasure, entertainment, social gatherings, battles, poems, and idols, and that is all the lifestyle of the community, and nothing else. So why in the midst of all that atmosphere do we find Muhammad attracted to the worship of his Lord and Creator in such a way such that he leaves his family, friends, business, and daily comfort to go out in the desert and dangerous mountains alone, seeking the worship of his true Lord, and desiring to learn more about Him and get closer to Him, and seeking His help and guidance?

No one on the face of earth during that time or even before or after did such an act in such a community and in such circumstances. Why didn’t the historians, writers, and Orientals, whether Muslim or non-Muslims, pay close attention to this unique phenomena?

Why didn't they give it the required attention and focus the spotlights on it and research and study this matter carefully? Everyone passes by this truth quickly without paying much attention, whether intentionally or unintentionally, or out of ignorance.

As a result, this unique phenomenon stayed hidden and ignored in the darkness of history. You can barely see or know its value although it is an important and logical introduction to faith and belief in the prophecy of Muhammad and the divine selection for him to become the Seal of Prophets and Messengers.

After all, if this phenomenon had been studied and presented well, it would've had a great effect in convincing the non-Muslims everywhere that Muhammad was indeed a prophet sent by God, because the prophecy of Muhammad and the divine selection to him did not rise from nothing!

The heart of Muhammad had been totally occupied with the love and worship of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى almost all his life even before his prophecy. He used to sit down to glorify Him with His Praise, contemplate, remember, pray and worship while his heart is very attached to that Great Creator whom the people became misguided from His worship.

The heart and mind of Muhammad was totally occupied and attached to his Lord to the point that we don't find him entertaining and enjoying like the other youth used to do. We don’t find him having any personal ambitions in life. He did not seek to become wealthy or have fame or power or leadership or authority, despite the fact that he had all the capabilities and talent which would enable him to achieve and acquire all that.

Unlike his people and generation at that time, we do not find him having concerns with wealth or women or poetry or travel, or social gatherings, or meetings, or hunting, or any of these things which occupied the minds of his people during that time. Why?

Muhammad was not a merchant but he did trade. Nor was Muhammad a Shepard, but he herd the sheep. Muhammad did not take on a profession or occupation to give it all his time and concern even though he had lots of talent. Why?

The answers to these questions lay in one thing only. It is the heart and mind of Muhammad which was totally occupied by his relationship in getting to know his God and Creator!! This matter dominated his whole being and left no place for any other occupation or concern. It was a secret between him and his Lord, and that is what pushed him to go out secretly at night to a dark cave inside a mountain, in the midst of a tough and endless desert and between imminent dangers! He was alone without any announcement or propaganda.

He was there to freely practice his only hobby which is the love and worship of his creator and seeking help and guidance from Him alone, on the path of his father Abraham (AS). When Muhammad went out to the cave, he was like a lover who would go out to a special date with a dear and beloved one who owned his heart, mind and conscience and preoccupied his self and spirit.

It was as if there was a very special secret between him and his Lord, so he goes out to softly talk to Him without the people knowing that. That is because Muhammad didn’t want anyone to know the secret of his life which took over his heart. Exactly like any loved one does with his lover. He kept his love and relationship with his lover a secret between himself and his loved one in order to protect his love and very special relationship with his loved one.

Muhammad didn't have any hobby, interests, or ambitions in this life except to pray, worship, supplicate, and love His Lord. All that was before his prophecy! For that reason, the luminary and divine part in Muhammad grew and completely dominated him, so it escalated him to a very high rank. Thus, his feelings softened, his manners became perfected, and his self purified. Among his people, he was the truthful and trustworthy one who did commit lies, foolishness, envy, or arrogance.

He was clement, wise, smart, and intelligent. He used to keep contact with his kin and was very hospitable to his guests. He came to the rescue of any one facing tough time. He was very kind and compassionate with the poor, the weak, the children, orphans, servants and slaves. He was loyal to his companions, steadfast in righteousness, and he had dignity and respect.

Everything good in him was reflected first in his household. So he was the best of husbands, the best of fathers, the best of kin, the best of sons, the best of friends, the best of merchants, and the best of companions. He was fair and gave everything its due right. He was easygoing as his parable is that of water flowing freely from a purified spring! This was the state of Muhammad (SA) was before his prophecy.

Such was also the case with the prophets and messengers before Muhammad (Peace be upon him). They were men whose hearts were attached to their creator, so it preoccupied them and kept them busy from giving attention to anything or anyone else. Hence, their hearts were cleansed and purified, so Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى chose them to deliver His Message. He سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى honored them by permitting them to speak on His Behalf and in His Name.

Edited by father

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

 As far I am concerned, Islam and Judaism both consider Christianity and the Trinity to be not a valid form of monotheism, besides which they have a lot more in common with each other in terms of worship and practice than Christianity has with either Judaism or Islam.

With the exception of the Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic churches, when was the last time your pastor recited/cantillated the Bible by rote, advocated fasting on Easter/Christmas or ritually slaughter a cow or lamb in the name of God? 

Or even gender segregated churches or female members of the congregation wearing some kind of headcovering/veil/hat in your church? 

These are Abrahamic traditions, not pagan practices, that are observed by Jews and Muslims. I don't see many Christians doing this. I am sure that it would be a very foreign concept in Scandinavia. 

I also find the Quran and the Hebrew Bible being more similar. The Hebrew Bible being a milennium older than the Quran sets rules for almost everything. The Quran have taken some of it, while the New Testament has very few laws and apeals to its believers to use the consciense given by God.

Slaughter sacrifice is originally pagan. Judaism grew out of paganism. In Judaisms infancy (early first milennium BC) even human sacrifice existed. The Hebrew Bible tell the story, and science confirm it. (Human sacrifice still existed in Sweden when Muhammed lived! )

Christianity evolved from Judaism. The first Christians were Jews. The first followers of Islam were Arabs. In this way Christianity and Judaism is more related. 

Muslims believe Quran is Gods word sent to Muhammed by the angel. Christians do not believe so. Neither do I. I believe Arabs for some reason adapted the personalities and stories from the Bible. Clearly most of it from the Hebrew Bible. This is why Islam is closer to Judaism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

 As far I am concerned, Islam and Judaism both consider Christianity and the Trinity to be not a valid form of monotheism, besides which they have a lot more in common with each other in terms of worship and practice than Christianity has with either Judaism or Islam....

Or even gender segregated churches or female members of the congregation wearing some kind of headcovering/veil/hat in your church? 

These are Abrahamic traditions, not pagan practices, that are observed by Jews and Muslims. I don't see many Christians doing this. I am sure that it would be a very foreign concept in Scandinavia. 

Hi @Gaius I. Caesar. I think the bigger issue is not how Judaism consider Christianity, but rather, are Christians disobeying or deviating from doctrines and practices that they should be following? Particularly in regards to the Christian view of God (triune). What we need to examine is whether there is, within the Old Testament, any demonstrated understanding of God as something other than Tawheed, and later consider whether or not Tawheed is an accurate reflection of Old Testament theology.  

It may be true that Jews would not recognize the Trinity, but it is incorrect to assume that Jews hold to the same tawheed concept as Muslims. There are at least two evidences for this. Evidences, which, do support rather than repudiate the Christian conception of Trinity.

The first is from Genesis 1:1, and throughout the Old Testament. The very first word used for God is "Elohim." This is a plural noun, indicated by the -im suffix. Taken on its own, one could jump to the understanding that the Bible, starting from book, chapter, and verse number one, is going to espouse polytheism. "In the beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth." However, it is not translated that way in most English Bibles because of the treatment of the noun throughout the text. It is treated as a singular noun, evidenced by the following verb conjugated as singular. "In the beginning God created [in singular conjugation] the heavens and the earth." "Elohim" is used as such throughout the Old Testament. God presents himself in the Torah as plural in name, singular in function. 

 

BY THE WAY, I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS IS ALL CROSSING OUT NOW. IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THAT BUT I CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO CHANGE IT (OR HOW IT STARTED IN THE FIRST PLACE). TRY TO IGNORE IT!

So from the very beginning we get a glimpse of the fact that this ONE God is more complex than a singular noun can communicate, though he is one. There is a sense of plurality within him from the beginning. 

The second evidence is the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit; namely, that the Spirit is God himself. Christians, of course, hold the Holy Spirit to be the 'third person of the trinity.' Fully God, yet distinct from the Father and the Son. Muslims assert that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel. So if the assumption that Jews view God as Tawheed is correct, we ought to see distinct evidences in the Old Testament that Jews held the Holy Spirit to be an angel, not God. If they viewed the Holy Spirit as God, then this would mean their conception of God is closer to the Trinity than to Tawheed.

See this page regarding the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. None of them match what happens when an angel appears. If we look at the passages and examine the context, it becomes quite clear that this is not an angel. Angels did not participate in creation, or come upon and 'fill' people. Angels do not empower people to do the impossible, such as Samson's feats of strength. The Holy Spirit does all of these things throughout the Old Testament.

Further, when angels are involved with delivering prophecy (in the OT and the New Testament), they do not 'possess' people with symptoms like we see in Muhammad's case (sense of being crushed, foaming at the mouth, shaking body), but rather they simply speak to the person, or sometimes usher a person through a visionary experience, like a docent. In both cases, when angels bring prophecy, they appear in face-to-face encounters, in every instance I can think of. 

Thus, the Jews had an understanding that the Holy Spirit was God, not an angel. Further, they distinguished between the Spirit and what we would call the Father. The Elohim of the Jews was a complex, single figure with at least two personas (God in Heaven, whom Christians would identify as the Father, and the Holy Spirit). 

Third, even though the Jews did not necessarily verbalize that a third person in the trinity would be later called the Son, they possessed in prophecy the foundational expectations for him within the Old Testament. See Isaiah 9:1-7, critically:

6 For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given,
    and the government will be on his shoulders.
7 And he (the son from verse 6) will be called
    Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, (the Son is God)
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (illustrates unity of this Son and of the Father)
 Of the greatness of his government and peace
    there will be no end.
 

And even more clearly regarding Jesus as that particular figure in Isaiah 7:14. The child of the virgin will be called "God with us." 

All of the elements of the Trinity are found throughout the Old Testament, even if the Jews did not yet recognize them for what they are. In the New Testament, they at last are explained. The New Testament fulfills and answer the expectations and questions raised by the Old Testament. 

As to the covering of women's heads, that feels like a separate issue, one that I would be happy to discuss but probably not relevant to this thread.

Edited by Hameedeh
Removed decoration line-through "strike-through" fonts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, andres said:

How do we know? Muhammed grew up in a pagan society.  Was he born a convinced Muslim?

According to some hadith, he was born a convinced monotheist long before he received revelations from Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى.

@thegoodman81 I thought Elohim was in reference to the Hebrew idols that the Hebrew people used to worship after forsaking the Ten Commandments.

9 hours ago, andres said:

I believe Arabs for some reason adapted the personalities and stories from the Bible. 

The reason why those stories are in the Quran is confirm the truth in the Torah and the Bible, reminding people of the previous covenants established.

Besides the Arabs weren't all pagans, they were also Jewish and Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×