Abraham was a Muslim, according to the Koran

[Jude3b]

The Koran teaches that Abraham was not a Jew but a Muslim. "No; Abraham in truth was not a Jew, neither a Christian; but he was a Muslim..."

But the Jews consider Abraham a Jew.

The Christians consider Abraham a Jew.

Jesus Christ himself considered Abraham a Jew.

All the world considers Abraham a Jew - everyone except Muslims and their book - the Koran.

How can anyone believe that the Koran is reliable or that it is the Word of God?

[Timothy Leary]

Abraham was not a Jew in the strict sense of the word. He was rather the forefather of Jews. Can you cite a scripture calling him a Jew?

[kiwimac]

As I understand it Abraham was NOT a Jew. He was their Spiritual ancestor. As for the Qu'ran. The word Muslim means "one who submits themselves to God." I would have considered that a textbook definition of Abraham.

Kiwimac

[Jude3b]

Abraham was not a Jew in the strict sense of the word. He was rather the forefather of Jews. Can you cite a scripture calling him a Jew?

Don't strain at a nat!

Isaiah 41:8;


The statement was that the Jews consider Abraham to be a Jew:
"And he said, "men and brethren and fathers, listen: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran," (Acts 7:2)

[BlackOpal12]

One more time, Jude3b.

Short rehash: "Muslim" in this context means "One submitting to God."
Abraham submitted to the will of God - hence, Muslim.

Get it?
How about now?
Do I need to say it 40 or 50 more times?
Or will you stop with this nonsense and chicanery now, and save us all the agitation at your pointless meanderings?

[Krusader]

Muslim means someone submitting to "Allah." Allah was the pre-Islamic moon-related deity. Abraham never submitted to this false god, but was called out of Ur by YHWH, who has no relationship whatsoever to Mohammed's Allah.

[Kristian Joense]

Muslim means someone submitting to "Allah." Allah was the pre-Islamic moon-related deity. Abraham never submitted to this false god, but was called out of Ur by YHWH, who has no relationship whatsoever to Mohammed's Allah.
Allah, simply means God in Arabic and is also used in the arabic translation(s?) ot the Bible.

If Allah God, becuase of some "pre-Islamic moon-reatead deity", is irrelevant.

[BlackOpal12]

Muslim means someone submitting to "Allah." Allah was the pre-Islamic moon-related deity. Abraham never submitted to this false god, but was called out of Ur by YHWH, who has no relationship whatsoever to Mohammed's Allah.

Can you prove this?
Where is your imperical evidence?
I could very well point out that the Jewish tribes were polytheistic, and assume thereby that the very "moon-god" you refer to is, in fact, the same as the Judeo-Christian god, post-monotheistic transformation.

The burden of proof is yours on the claim of Allah's supposed illegitimacy - lets see you substantiate it.

[Krusader]

Can you prove this?
Where is your imperical evidence?
I could very well point out that the Jewish tribes were polytheistic, and assume thereby that the very "moon-god" you refer to is, in fact, the same as the Judeo-Christian god, post-monotheistic transformation.

The burden of proof is yours on the claim of Allah's supposed illegitimacy - lets see you substantiate it.
I won't give you "imperical" evidence, but empirical nevertheless.

Go to: http://muhammadfarms.com/Grea%20Debate.htm

[Krusader]

Make that:

http://muhammadfarms.com/Great%20Debate.htm

[BlackOpal12]

Make that:

http://muhammadfarms.com/Great%20Debate.htm

In this essay, it is made evident that the writer believes Allah to be a foreshortened version of the word "al-ilah," translated, "the god." It then expounds that Muhammad told the worshippers of the Moon God that his version of Allah was the true one, of which they worshipped an incarnation. This is the basis of your accusation? That Muhammad used a pre-existant belief to coerce and then convert other persons into his belief system?

This is the same method used by Christianity for centuries - see: Chine, Japan, Africa. Identifying the monotheistic diety with an understood extant diety does not revoke the religious legitimacy of that monotheistic "God." Its a simple conversion technique.

Why do you think the most common image of the Christian god looks so much like Jupiter? Because Jupiter was the "king of gods," and that's how the Christians portrayed him. Why do you think that Christian missionaries called their God "t'ein" in China? Because that's what the Chinese knew. This is not even a legitimate attempt to argue on your part, Crusader. This is simple conversion tactics, and if they invalidate Islam, then they also invalidate Christianity.

[Krusader]

In this essay, it is made evident that the writer believes Allah to be a foreshortened version of the word "al-ilah," translated, "the god." It then expounds that Muhammad told the worshippers of the Moon God that his version of Allah was the true one, of which they worshipped an incarnation. This is the basis of your accusation? That Muhammad used a pre-existant belief to coerce and then convert other persons into his belief system?

This is the same method used by Christianity for centuries - see: Chine, Japan, Africa. Identifying the monotheistic diety with an understood extant diety does not revoke the religious legitimacy of that monotheistic "God." Its a simple conversion technique.

Why do you think the most common image of the Christian god looks so much like Jupiter? Because Jupiter was the "king of gods," and that's how the Christians portrayed him. Why do you think that Christian missionaries called their God "t'ein" in China? Because that's what the Chinese knew. This is not even a legitimate attempt to argue on your part, Crusader. This is simple conversion tactics, and if they invalidate Islam, then they also invalidate Christianity.
Mohammed's father was named Abdullah, meaning "servant of allah." Mohammed's tribal allegiance was to this moon god, prior to his claiming to receive revelations of the Quran. By taking the idol, allah, and claiming that he is the only god, Mohammed simply imposed monoidolatry - worship of one god. This is not monotheism, worship of one God.

Mohammed's relgioin was a syncritistic blend of Judaism, Christianity and various Arabian folk religions. The Ka'ba, itself, was a pre-Islamic shrine used to house Arabian idols. It had nothing to do with Abraham or Ishmael. In fact, God instructed Abraham to go east, not west (see the Bible).

Mohammed had only a smattering of knowledge regarding Christianity, and this is why he was confused about such essential Christian doctrine as the Trinity (thinking it was the Father, Son and Mary) for instance.

Islam is an invented religion - and there is no empirical evidence that Mohammed ever saw an angel or received revelations. He was a petty dictator that made his fortune by having his followers attack caravans. He used his revelations to justify his rather insatiable urge for sexual encounters with young women (even children), and duped his followers into believing he was hearing directly from the moon god, Allah.

Mohammed's is entombed in Medina. Where is the Lord Jesus' body?

[kiwimac]

There is NO, repeat NO empirical evidence that 'Allah' was a pre-Islamic Moon God.

This rubbish all stems from the balderdash that Robert Morley wrote. This theory of his has been debunked by both religious and secular paleo-linguists and archaeologists.

Kiwimac

[BlackOpal12]

Alright, my meager-minded friend, lets try this again.

Mohammed's father was named Abdullah, meaning "servant of allah."

"Servant to god" - wow... how original. What does this tell us? Oh, wait... nothing. The word "God" existed before the concept of "One God" - get over yourself.


Mohammed's tribal allegiance was to this moon god, prior to his claiming to receive revelations of the Quran. By taking the idol, allah, and claiming that he is the only god, Mohammed simply imposed monoidolatry - worship of one god. This is not monotheism, worship of one God.

So... let me check this again. "You shall have no other gods before me" is monotheism, i.e. Judaism and Christianity, but "You shall have no other gods before Allah" is monoidolatry. Interesting. Wait, no... duplicituous. That was what I was thinking.


Mohammed's relgioin was a syncritistic blend of Judaism, Christianity and various Arabian folk religions. The Ka'ba, itself, was a pre-Islamic shrine used to house Arabian idols. It had nothing to do with Abraham or Ishmael. In fact, God instructed Abraham to go east, not west (see the Bible).


Actually, the Ka'ba is the "House of the Rock" wherein set the rock upon which Daniel is said to have laid his head around the time he wrestled with Gabriel - you know, the Angel of the Lord. Nobody said the Ka'ba had anything to do with Abraham. Considering that Islam is supposed to be the follow-up to Judaism and Christianity, it makes sense that it shares some traits with them. Make a point, or get off the pot.


Mohammed had only a smattering of knowledge regarding Christianity, and this is why he was confused about such essential Christian doctrine as the Trinity (thinking it was the Father, Son and Mary) for instance.


What's amusing is that it appears that Muhammad knew a whole lot more about Christianity than you do about Islam.


Islam is an invented religion - and there is no empirical evidence that Mohammed ever saw an angel or received revelations.

And the empirical evidence that Mary, mother of Christ, did? Or that Jesus of Nazareth did? How about Paul? Or Moses?

Stop yabbering - you're wasting our time.


He was a petty dictator that made his fortune by having his followers attack caravans.

Is that so? I'm pretty sure that his fortune came from his wife, an independently wealthy businesswoman... but somehow I doubt you care about reality.


He used his revelations to justify his rather insatiable urge for sexual encounters with young women (even children), and duped his followers into believing he was hearing directly from the moon god, Allah.

Speaking of empirical evidence, how about you give some here? You just accused him of pederasty - unless you have rock-solid proof, I suggest you withdraw that slander.

I could say that Jesus was in the habit of touching little children, too, and I actually have doctrinal proof - sitting on the lap, at least. You, however, are just pulling anything you can out of the air to support your baseless accusations, founded in your own massive ignorance. So stop.


Mohammed's is entombed in Medina. Where is the Lord Jesus' body?

MOHAMMAD WAS JUST A MAN - NO ONE CLAIMED HE WAS THE CHRIST, YOU FOOL. STOP THIS NONSENSE. You have no legitimate basis, no empirical evidence, and CLEARLY no knowledge of Islam. So just stop wasting our time with your fallacious pedantry.

[Krusader]

Are you serious? The Ka'ba had nothing to do with Abraham? Please explain?

I think my five year old grandson knows more about Christianity than Mohammed ever did. Prove, for instance, that Christians ever considered the Blessed Virgin to be part of the Trinity? Prove, for instance, that Christ's disciples ever referred to themselves as "Muslims," (in Mohammed's fantasies, possibly).

Prove that Mohammed ever had any revelations, for that matter, since he never once demonstrated the legitimacy of his call by any miraculous signs (as did the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Lord Jesus Christ).

Prove that Jesus never died upon the cross - as Mohammed claimed - even though this is even attested to by secular writers.

Prove that Jesus never rose from the grave - find His body! (Hint: you won't find it in Medina - that's where Mohammed's body is entombed)!

[BlackOpal12]

Are you serious? The Ka'ba had nothing to do with Abraham? Please explain?

I think my five year old grandson knows more about Christianity than Mohammed ever did. Prove, for instance, that Christians ever considered the Blessed Virgin to be part of the Trinity?


Once again, Muhammad was only a man - no one claimed that his knowledge of Christianity was complete. It has been a long time since legitimate Muslim scholars claimed that the Virgin Mary had anything to do with the Trinity. Check your sources.


Prove, for instance, that Christ's disciples ever referred to themselves as "Muslims," (in Mohammed's fantasies, possibly).

Did they claim to follow the will of God? Or be a follower of God? Then, when translated into Arabic, they were "Muslims." End of story. The terminological definition of "muslim" is not as the post-Qu'ranic definition of Muslim. Get over it.


Prove that Mohammed ever had any revelations, for that matter, since he never once demonstrated the legitimacy of his call by any miraculous signs (as did the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Lord Jesus Christ).


Can you prove that he didn't? No, you can't. Just as you cannot prove to me that the "miracles" of your bible are anything but legends and myths. Once again, get over yourself.


Prove that Jesus never died upon the cross - as Mohammed claimed - even though this is even attested to by secular writers.


Actually, this was a common claim among Christian splinter sects, including the well-known Gnostics. The relative legitimacy of this claim is inconsequential, in the context that Muhammad was only a human, and not divine.


Prove that Jesus never rose from the grave - find His body! (Hint: you won't find it in Medina - that's where Mohammed's body is entombed)!

Can you prove that he did? As for missing bodies, can you tell me where the body of my great-granduncle is located? I sure can't. But I can tell you that he had one.

Oh, and again, regarding Muhammad's body - no legitimate source claims that Muhammad was anything but human. The existence of a corpse is expected, and has absolutely no worth to your argument. This is like me asking you why we know where Ronald Reagan's body is, because, if he was truly a good man, it would be gone. Get it? IT DOESN'T MATTER - HE'S ONLY A HUMAN, HE ONLY EVER WAS A HUMAN. Anyone who claims messiah status for Muhammad has clearly failed to read the Qu'ran, study Islamic tradition, or even bother looking at resources not specifically designed to propagandize against the "terrible Muslims."

Get over yourself - even your name shows your bias.

[Timothy Leary]

Muslim means someone submitting to "Allah." Allah was the pre-Islamic moon-related deity. Abraham never submitted to this false god, but was called out of Ur by YHWH, who has no relationship whatsoever to Mohammed's Allah.

Come on now. "Allah" is a generic word that simply means "G-d". It is the equivalent of the hebrew "El". It is a historic fact that the word "Allah" is the only word that has been used as a translation of El and Elokiym in bible translations.

[Timothy Leary]

Don't strain at a nat!

Isaiah 41:8;


The statement was that the Jews consider Abraham to be a Jew:
"And he said, "men and brethren and fathers, listen: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran," (Acts 7:2)

Jude,

I do not disagree that Avraham was the father of Jews. This, however, is different than saying that Avraham was a Jew. Avraham was also the father of Ishmael, and thus, Islam.

Let me give another, similar analogy. G-d is the father of all. Does that make him a Jew, or a Pakistani, or an American? No.

[Krusader]

You just don't get it. Yes, "Allah" has been tranformed into the modern Arabic word for God. However, in pre-Islamic times, the god, allah, was a moon-related deity. Mohammed claimed that this allah was the only god (but that does not make him YHWH, anymore than, say, Shiva of the Hindus, is YHWH).

For further clairification, see: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/skm30804.htm

[Timothy Leary]

You just don't get it. Yes, "Allah" has been tranformed into the modern Arabic word for God. However, in pre-Islamic times, the god, allah, was a moon-related deity. Mohammed claimed that this allah was the only god (but that does not make him YHWH, anymore than, say, Shiva of the Hindus, is YHWH).

For further clairification, see: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/skm30804.htm

No. It is not only the Modern word for G-d, but also the word for G-d used previously! As an example, all Bible translations, regardless of age, into the arabic language, have used that word for "G-d". It is linguistically equivalent to "El". There is no other word that can be used, IIRC.

[Jude3b]

Jude,

I do not disagree that Avraham was the father of Jews. This, however, is different than saying that Avraham was a Jew. Avraham was also the father of Ishmael, and thus, Islam.

Let me give another, similar analogy. G-d is the father of all. Does that make him a Jew, or a Pakistani, or an American? No.

The fact remains Yoshiyah that the Koran states that Abraham is not a Jew, Abraham is not a Christian, rather ABRAHAM IS A MUSLIM.

Based on your answer - you have shown that the Koran is corrupted, because based on your statement, Abraham is NOT MUSLIM - even if it is true that he fathered Ishmael. Ishmael was not Muslim either!

How can you say that Ishmael started Islam? It did not even start until the 7th century A.D.!

[BlackOpal12]

The fact remains Yoshiyah that the Koran states that Abraham is not a Jew, Abraham is not a Christian, rather ABRAHAM IS A MUSLIM.

Are you blind, Jude3b?
The definition of Muslim is thus - "One who submits to the will of God." It doesn't matter whether the person is a professed Muslim or not - it is the submission to God that matters. If you, Jude3b, submit to God's will, then you are a Muslim. If I, BlackOpal12, the Buddhist, submit to the will of God, then I am a Muslim. This is not a discussion of religion, but of terminological semantics - which seems to be beyond your comprehension. No one is claiming that Abraham was not a Jew - they are claiming that he was a Jew who "submitted to the will of God" - a [note the lower-case "m"] muslim.

Here's a parallel - I play upright bass. I do not normally sing, or I may normally sing; however, I consider myself, first and foremost, a bassist. If someone sees me singing, however, they might call me a singer - and that would not be incorrect, as I am "one who sings." The fact that I am a bassist does not mean that I do not sing, nor vice versa.

This terminology is the equivalent of the English word "faithful." There are, for Christians, "The Faithful," i.e. Christians; there are "faithful Jews," i.e. Jews who act faithfully; etc. From a Muslim perspective, there are "Muslims," i.e. Muslims; and there are muslim "Others," i.e. those who submit to the will of God without professing what we would call "Islam."

I say this in all open-heartedness - if you were to be called a "muslim Christian," in Arabic, it would be a compliment. You would be a "faithful Christian." Likewise, Abraham was a "muslim Jew," in Arabic, a Jew who was properly submissive to God.

In this context, "muslim" is an adjective, not a noun. K?


How can you say that Ishmael started Islam? It did not even start until the 7th century A.D.!

Who said that Ishmael started Islam, as a religion? Certainly not the Muslims! However, returning to our terminological consideration, Ishmael (or Isaac, take your pick, doesn't matter to me) also exhibited "islam," i.e. submission to the will of god. He practiced "islam," (note the lowercase "i," meaning submission to god) but no one claims that he accomplished the logical impossibility of following the religion of a man born centuries later. Okay, man?

Think in terms of upper-case and lower-case terminology - the capitalized "Muslim" is a practioner of the modern religion called "Islam." The uncapitalized word "muslim," and its counterpart conjugation, "islam" are simply descriptive words regarding a person's attitude towards the will of God.

For purposes of expediency, please consider the following examples of terminological substitution:
1a. Abraham submitted to the will of God.
1b. Abraham was a muslim.
2a. Abraham practiced submission to the will of God.
2b. Abraham practiced islam.

This is exactly the kind of statement that got you started on this whole thread - and its nothing more than common translatory connotation problems.

[Krusader]

Black Opal, your reasoning is circular. For instance, you state that "Mohammed was only a man" and subject to human frailities. However, he claimed divine sources for his revelations, and therefore the Quran should be free from error. Obviously, when one sees gross errors in the Quran, especially dealing with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Trinity, it is obvious that Mohammed's "spirit" was not from a divine source.

Therefore, since the Quran claims that the Christian Trinity is the Father, Jesus and Mary, let Muslim apologists prove that Christians ever held to that view.

Furthermore, Gnostics were not a Christian sect - study history already.

For over two-thousand years non-believers, such as yourself, have been attempting to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Where is the proof? Where is the body? Roman soldiers guarded their charges under penalty of death. Do you think that the Roman guards would have turned over the Lord's body to his followers? If so, you are deluded.

Mohammed's character does not match up to that of his supposed calling. Aisha, is favorite wife, was married to him as a young child. We have a name for that in this country, don't we. And you, with your slogan of "be a voice for an abused child" should be aware of that!

Crusader means "one who bears the cross." If you have a problem with that, too bad.

[BlackOpal12]

Black Opal, your reasoning is circular. For instance, you state that "Mohammed was only a man" and subject to human frailities. However, he claimed divine sources for his revelations, and therefore the Quran should be free from error. Obviously, when one sees gross errors in the Quran, especially dealing with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Trinity, it is obvious that Mohammed's "spirit" was not from a divine source.

And this would be a problem of your interpretation - I do not care a whit about whether or not the Qu'ran was divinely inspired. This is the claim of the Muslims, and that theological misassumption on their part is their responsibility to deal with. However, the issue of Allah as a moon-god is simply ridiculous - hence, my involvement.


Therefore, since the Quran claims that the Christian Trinity is the Father, Jesus and Mary, let Muslim apologists prove that Christians ever held to that view.

Actually, depending who you ask (including Jude3b, the originator of this thread), that is exactly what the so-called "Romanists" do through veneration of the Virgin Mary.


Furthermore, Gnostics were not a Christian sect - study history already.


Gnosticism was a heresy, and not heathenism. That definition alone provides all the evidence necessary - heresy is within a religion. While we now consider Gnostic theology a total departure from Christian traditionalism, at the time of its emergence, it was simply a heresy. Study theology already.



For over two-thousand years non-believers, such as yourself, have been attempting to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Where is the proof? Where is the body? Roman soldiers guarded their charges under penalty of death. Do you think that the Roman guards would have turned over the Lord's body to his followers? If so, you are deluded.


Actually, in terms of the burden of proof, it is the Christians' job to prove that he did rise from the grave. It is no more logically possible to prove a non-extant like resurrection than it is to prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns.


Mohammed's character does not match up to that of his supposed calling. Aisha, is favorite wife, was married to him as a young child. We have a name for that in this country, don't we. And you, with your slogan of "be a voice for an abused child" should be aware of that!

Yes, we do have a name for it - culture. The marriage of grown men to pubescent and pre-pubescent females was a cultural legacy in many premodern cultures. Just because I believe that it is wrong now does not mean that it was understood the same way then - it is still wrong, but it was not the result of his personal choice to commit pederasty alone, it was social.


Crusader means "one who bears the cross." If you have a problem with that, too bad.

Unfortunately for you, terminology has two parts - the denotation and the connotation. You are correct - the denotation of "crusader," from the root language, is "one who bears the cross." However, the indelible connotation worldwide is "one who attacks Muslims in the name of Christ."

Welcome to basic linguistics, Crusader.

[Krusader]

And this would be a problem of your interpretation - I do not care a whit about whether or not the Qu'ran was divinely inspired. This is the claim of the Muslims, and that theological misassumption on their part is their responsibility to deal with. However, the issue of Allah as a moon-god is simply ridiculous - hence, my involvement.



Actually, depending who you ask (including Jude3b, the originator of this thread), that is exactly what the so-called "Romanists" do through veneration of the Virgin Mary.



Gnosticism was a heresy, and not heathenism. That definition alone provides all the evidence necessary - heresy is within a religion. While we now consider Gnostic theology a total departure from Christian traditionalism, at the time of its emergence, it was simply a heresy. Study theology already.




Actually, in terms of the burden of proof, it is the Christians' job to prove that he did rise from the grave. It is no more logically possible to prove a non-extant like resurrection than it is to prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns.



Yes, we do have a name for it - culture. The marriage of grown men to pubescent and pre-pubescent females was a cultural legacy in many premodern cultures. Just because I believe that it is wrong now does not mean that it was understood the same way then - it is still wrong, but it was not the result of his personal choice to commit pederasty alone, it was social.



Unfortunately for you, terminology has two parts - the denotation and the connotation. You are correct - the denotation of "crusader," from the root language, is "one who bears the cross." However, the indelible connotation worldwide is "one who attacks Muslims in the name of Christ."

Welcome to basic linguistics, Crusader.
Please provide verifiable evidence that the Roman, Greek, Nestorian, etc. Churches ever taught the same Trinity as found in the Quran.

Please provide verifiable evidence that allah was not the pre-Islamic moon-god.

Please provide verifiable evidence that Gnostic doctrines were ever part of Christianity.

Please provide verifiable evidence that all those who went on Crusades wantonly murdered Muslims.

[Jude3b]

Are you blind, Jude3b?
The definition of Muslim is thus - "One who submits to the will of God." It doesn't matter whether the person is a professed Muslim or not - it is the submission to God that matters. If you, Jude3b, submit to God's will, then you are a Muslim. If I, BlackOpal12, the Buddhist, submit to the will of God, then I am a Muslim. This is not a discussion of religion, but of terminological semantics - which seems to be beyond your comprehension. No one is claiming that Abraham was not a Jew - they are claiming that he was a Jew who "submitted to the will of God" - a [note the lower-case "m"] muslim.

Here's a parallel - I play upright bass. I do not normally sing, or I may normally sing; however, I consider myself, first and foremost, a bassist. If someone sees me singing, however, they might call me a singer - and that would not be incorrect, as I am "one who sings." The fact that I am a bassist does not mean that I do not sing, nor vice versa.

This terminology is the equivalent of the English word "faithful." There are, for Christians, "The Faithful," i.e. Christians; there are "faithful Jews," i.e. Jews who act faithfully; etc. From a Muslim perspective, there are "Muslims," i.e. Muslims; and there are muslim "Others," i.e. those who submit to the will of God without professing what we would call "Islam."

I say this in all open-heartedness - if you were to be called a "muslim Christian," in Arabic, it would be a compliment. You would be a "faithful Christian." Likewise, Abraham was a "muslim Jew," in Arabic, a Jew who was properly submissive to God.

In this context, "muslim" is an adjective, not a noun. K?




Who said that Ishmael started Islam, as a religion? Certainly not the Muslims! However, returning to our terminological consideration, Ishmael (or Isaac, take your pick, doesn't matter to me) also exhibited "islam," i.e. submission to the will of god. He practiced "islam," (note the lowercase "i," meaning submission to god) but no one claims that he accomplished the logical impossibility of following the religion of a man born centuries later. Okay, man?

Think in terms of upper-case and lower-case terminology - the capitalized "Muslim" is a practioner of the modern religion called "Islam." The uncapitalized word "muslim," and its counterpart conjugation, "islam" are simply descriptive words regarding a person's attitude towards the will of God.

For purposes of expediency, please consider the following examples of terminological substitution:
1a. Abraham submitted to the will of God.
1b. Abraham was a muslim.
2a. Abraham practiced submission to the will of God.
2b. Abraham practiced islam.

This is exactly the kind of statement that got you started on this whole thread - and its nothing more than common translatory connotation problems.

Don't play games here. When I post about a MUSLIM - I mean a member of the MUSLIM religion. You need not give me the worn out statement that it means "submission." We are discussing members of the Muslim religon here, not playing word games.

[kiwimac]

Actually Jude,

You're playing the word games because you are refusing to understand WHAT the word 'Islam' means. Just as "Christian" means 'a follower of Christ', "islam" means 'submitted to God'

Kiwimac

[Krusader]

Again, Islam means "submitted" to the false, moon-god Allah. Neither Abraham, Moses, the Apostles or the Lord ever submitted to this entity. Allah is a false god no matter how much Mohammed tried to dress him up and pretend he was YHWH.

[BlackOpal12]

Please provide verifiable evidence that the Roman, Greek, Nestorian, etc. Churches ever taught the same Trinity as found in the Quran.

I didn't say that they did, Crusader - though Jude3b, in many threads, maintains that the Church of Rome worships Mary as an equal of God. If you actually read what I wrote, you'd know that.


Please provide verifiable evidence that allah was not the pre-Islamic moon-god.


Please provide verifiable evidence that invisible pink unicorns don't exist.
But really, did you not read the questions I posited to you? The archeological and anthropoligical evidence of Allah not being the moon-god is implicit within those questions, i.e. tribal diety Wadd, northern "al-ilah" as Sun god, etc. Learn to read.


Please provide verifiable evidence that Gnostic doctrines were ever part of Christianity.


This is basic theology, Crusader. The Gnostic doctrines are heresy - not paganism, by definition within the Church. Please see all early references to the "Gnostic heresy." The denomination of "heresy" defines the Gnostic ideological deviance as a (mis)development of Christianity, which implicitly evidences the accepted "Christian," though deviant, nature of the Gnostic heresy. Welcome to the Christian Tradition 101.


Please provide verifiable evidence that all those who went on Crusades wantonly murdered Muslims.

Let me introduce you to a little thing called "history." The Crusades sought to "reclaim the Holy Land from the infidels" - do you think that this reclamation was to be enacted through mutual discourse and tea parties? Try again, recidivist. The Crusaders not only slaughtered Muslims, but Orthodox Christians, Jews, and anyone else who happened to look vaguely like the Muslims. This is not conjecture, this is historically established fact. Pull your head out of your cloudy, idealized dream world, and enter into a world where we actually think about the realities of history. The Crusaders were not holy men, they were not even legitimate soliders in the modern sense of the term - they slaughtered non-militant villages of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. I'm sorry if that bothers you, or upsets your image of the paladin in shining armor, but reality sucks - get a helmet.

Oh, and Crusader?
How about you try answering my questions.

[BlackOpal12]

Again, Islam means "submitted" to the false, moon-god Allah. Neither Abraham, Moses, the Apostles or the Lord ever submitted to this entity. Allah is a false god no matter how much Mohammed tried to dress him up and pretend he was YHWH.

To both you and Jude3b - you are applying anachronistic interpretation of the words "muslim" and "islam" to the situation, which is logically fallacious. The contextual meaning of both is submission. The Muslims, as a religion, believed that Moses and Abraham, etc. were submissive to God's will. Whether or not that God was YHWH, Allah, or Morey's imaginary moon-god, is immaterial. Just because you do not appreciate having your own historical figures adopted by a religion that you personally dislike is not anyone else's problem - its yours. And as I have stated before - life sucks, get a helmet.

EDIT:

Here, Crusader... in case you forgot about the other thread where I provided you the evidence and you promptly disappeared without answering - here's the exact text of that response again.


Crusader, please provide your evidence regarding the following points about Arabian religion before the advent of the Islamic community:

1. In southern Arabia, including Qatab and Saba, the god Wabb was the recognized moon-diety. There is massive epigraphical evidence of this point, and the following. In the northern sections of Arabia, including Mecca, Jawf, Sin, and Petra, "Allah" (i.e. "The God") was used as the titular name of the sun-diety. In neither region of Arabia was "Allah" the moon-god - yet this is the claim you have repeatedly staked. How do you explain this?

2. In the northern parts of Arabia, it is also a well-established fact that the moon-god of pre-Islamic culture was not a moon-god, but a moon-goddess; i.e. the total inversion of the masculinized sun-god. For modern Islam's Allah to be the moon-god of pre-Islamic northern Arabia (i.e. Mecca), a divine sex-change would be mandatory. Can you explain this?

3a. In Aramaic, the terminology for God is "elah." Who do we remember who spoke Aramaic? And referred to God a lot? Oh, now I remember - it was your god. It is not an coincidence that the Aramaic word for God is so similar to the Arabic word, Crusader. Was Jesus of Nazareth referring to the "moon-god," as you claim?

Perhaps you'd believe myself and kiwimac better if I gave you a Christian source saying the exact same thing.

I quote,



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vine's Complete Exposition Dictionary

elah - This Aramaic word is the equivalent of the Hebrew eloah. It is a general term for "God" in the Aramaic passages of the Old Testament, and it is a cognate form of the word allah, the designation of diety used by the Arabs. The word was used widely in the Book of Ezra, occuring no fewer than 43 times between Ezra 4:24 and 7:26. On each occassion, the reference is to the "God" of the Jewish people, whether or not the speaker himself was Jewish.




3b. When your Christ referred to elah, was he simply referring to the "moon-god" of Islam, in cognate terminological format? If elah, i.e. Allah, is nothing more than a moon-god, then what were Ezra and Daniel worshipping?

3c. Arabic Christians, Arabic-translated Bibles, and Arabic Christian mythology all call their God "Allah." They have done so since they first emerged in Arabic civilization. Are all Arabic-speaking Christians, then, committing idolatry?

4. When you refer to your "archeological evidence," what exactly is that evidence? I assume you are referring to the Statue at Hazor, which Morey decided was an idol of "Allah," the "moon-god." Stefan Wimmer, of the University of Murich, would like to point out a few things:

i: The statue which Morey claims is an idolatrous image of the moon-god is a figure kneeling, with arms outstretched - designed with the inscription of a holy symbol on a necklace, and an offering cup in the right hand. What gods do you know who's image is in a state of supplication to itself? The statue is a depiction a shaven-pate, robed priest offering supplication to his god - it is much akin to remembering warriors through statuary representations of their greatest deeds.

ii: The aforementioned statue was located in the leftward fringes of the temple - rather than the central or elevated positions reserved for images of divinity. This is not the location for a revered idol, but the location of a pretty decoration - and if you know anything about pre-Islamic polytheism, it was never considered wise to offend any diety - much less the Sun-God's counterpart. In the organization of the temple at Hazor, the central stelae are smooth, phallic - common representations of the "undescribable." The outermost items are, on the left, the statue (of a priest, which Morey called Allah), and on the right, a tablet with the religious tenets of the shrine. The statue that Morey so proudly waves around is nothing more than the immortalized depiction of proper clerical conduct.

Your turn, Crusader. I'd like you to find solid scientific evidence that refutes these points, peer reviewed, without referencing any Christian researcher, and get back to me once you've delineated it. Have a good time - see you never.

[Krusader]

Black Opal, your former posting said that Christian splinter sects had denied the crucifixion of Christ. What splinter sects? What Christians? Gnostics are not Christians, and have never been accepted as such. This would be like calling Christian Scientisits orthodox believers.

Sure, some of the crusades were horrible, I agree. But not all. Furthermore, Islamists are always referring to westerners as "crusaders." Thus my appellation. By the way, did you know that those who have the surname of "Palmer" have a crusader in their background? When crusaders returned from their exploits, they were greeted by the town fathers with palms, which they bore in parades.

Also, there is enough scientific and archeological evidence to conclude that Mohammed's allah was associated with the astrological deity of the Ka'ba. If you reject that evidence - oh well.

By the way, I've taken theology/compar. relgion courses. Gnosticism pre-dated Christianity. Many were, in fact, pagan. Those groups which absorbed Christian thought simply modified it according to their pagan formulas.

We can see that Gnostics also impacted some Christians, resulting in various heterdox teachings which survive to this very day, such as Unity School of Christianity, Science of Mind and Christian Science.

I really hope you will research the allah-moon god issue. It is very important to make the distinction between YHWH of the Jews and the usurper, allah.

[Timothy Leary]

Black Opal, your former posting said that Christian splinter sects had denied the crucifixion of Christ. What splinter sects? What Christians? Gnostics are not Christians, and have never been accepted as such. This would be like calling Christian Scientisits orthodox believers.

Au Contraire, all of the world has accepted that they were an early sect, albeit heretical, of Christianity.

[Timothy Leary]

My challenge still stands for one of you people (who seem not to know any Arabic) to provide a word that means "G-d" other than "All-h".

[Krusader]

Elohim

[kiwimac]

Crusader,

I'm glad you've taken theology and comparative religion courses. But I worry about the content of these courses if what you post is what you learned.

Kiwimac, whose first doctorate was in comparative religion

[Krusader]

Crusader,

I'm glad you've taken theology and comparative religion courses. But I worry about the content of these courses if what you post is what you learned.

Kiwimac, whose first doctorate was in comparative religion
Ad hominen attacks will get you nowhere. Deal with the issues......of course, maybe you need some more college courses to deal with the issue of inter-personal relationships.....no degree in psych, I suppose!

[Bill the Cat]

Crusader,

I'm glad you've taken theology and comparative religion courses. But I worry about the content of these courses if what you post is what you learned.

Kiwimac, whose first doctorate was in comparative religion

:offtopic: Hiya Kiwi! Long time no see! You doing well?

[Timothy Leary]

Elohim

Clarification - In arabic!

[Krusader]

Please tell me why you are asking? No one disputes that TODAY allah equates with God in Arabic. However, we are discussing the origin of allah - which was astrological worship in Arabia.

The whole point, my friend, is the origin of allah, not what the word came to mean in the mind of Arabs.

[Timothy Leary]

I'm saying that even back then it equated with "G-d" (in a generic sense). If not, what was the word they would have used? There must have been one, unless "All-h" meant "G-d", even back then!

But even so, do you realize the same argument you are using is used by atheistic scholars to "prove" that "E l" and "Eloh-ym" were originally "pagan" gods?

[Krusader]

I understand what you are asking. Do you have any historical evidence that Allah was not associated with moon-worship, and did not have three daughters according to Arabian mythology - and that these three daughters were the object of the Satanic verses originally revealed to Mohammed but later expunged?

The allah referred to by Mohammed was an astrological deity.

Oh, by the way, I think atheists and skeptics would have a hard time proving that YHWH was a tribal war god, etc. I've seen the stuff - it doesn't fly.

YHWH of the O.T. revealed Himself gradually to the Israelites. Remember how Moses asked, "Who shall I tell them has sent me?" God answered, "I am, that I am" was the one sending Moses. The O.T. God was a God of continuing, ongoing revelation - the final revelation of Himself being in the Incarnation: Jesus Christ.

[Timothy Leary]

I understand what you are asking. Do you have any historical evidence that Allah was not associated with moon-worship, and did not have three daughters according to Arabian mythology - and that these three daughters were the object of the Satanic verses originally revealed to Mohammed but later expunged?

The burden of proof rests upon the affirmative. But I'm not arguing that "All-h" wasn't an appellation used to refer to a Moon god. I'm arguing that it was not a word that refferred only to this "god".

[Krusader]

I agree with you that the term has come to mean the Supreme Deity, and is used by Middle-Easterners.

However, there are some Christians who speak Arabic, who have sought to replace the term "Allah" with a word less associated with Islam. A book written by a wonderful Nigerian Christian was published a few years ago dealing with this very subject.

[Krusader]

Au Contraire, all of the world has accepted that they were an early sect, albeit heretical, of Christianity.
Maybe in your world, not in mine. Gnostics could, at best, be called cultic groups - much as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are today. They would not be called Christian "sects."

Properly understood, a sect relates to a denomination of Christianity, a cult to an aberrational group calling itself Christian but not Christian.

In Mohammed's day there were Christian sects - primarily he encountered the Nestorians who probably provided him with some of his views of Christianity. There is one Muslim hadith which has Mohammed defeating by his vast wisdom Nestorians with whom he was discussing the Trinity. After reading it, one can readily see that the whole narrative was bogus.

Well, you can believe that allah was related to moon god worship, if you want. But, it's pretty apparent that historical evidence is on my side. If allah had nothing to do with moon-worship, why is it that Mohammed integrated the pagan rituals of moon-worship into Islam?

[Krusader]

Black Opal, final paragraph of previous posting should read:

you can believe that allah was not related to moon god worship, if you want.

[kiwimac]

:offtopic: Bill!

Good to see you! Where've you been?


AAARGH THE DANCING BROCCOLI OF DOOM~!~~

Take that :carrot: and that :apple: and that :cirrobot:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I do not fear you, Broccoli of doom!
Kiwimac

[Timothy Leary]

I agree with you that the term has come to mean the Supreme Deity, and is used by Middle-Easterners.

However, there are some Christians who speak Arabic, who have sought to replace the term "Allah" with a word less associated with Islam. A book written by a wonderful Nigerian Christian was published a few years ago dealing with this very subject.

You are misunderstanding me. I am saying, that "All-h" was the same word used BEFORE Islam as a generic word meaning "G-d". Now, if your thesis is true, and "All-h" refered specifically to a Moon-god, and was not a generic word that could be applied to any "god", please cite an arabic word that could have been used in those times as meaning "g-d".

[Timothy Leary]

Maybe in your world, not in mine. Gnostics could, at best, be called cultic groups - much as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are today. They would not be called Christian "sects."

Christian = One who follows Christ.

Whether or one not one follows your Messiah correctly is a different topic. They were all early sects which claimed to follow Jesus Christ. Same Messiah, same family, etc. But that's a debate for another thread.

But, it's pretty apparent that historical evidence is on my side.

Please. Stop with the ego-feeding statements.

If allah had nothing to do with moon-worship, why is it that Mohammed integrated the pagan rituals of moon-worship into Islam?

Such as?

[BlackOpal12]

Crusader, I am still waiting for your attempted rebuttal of the evidence I have supplied in both threads now. Please answer the questions, since I have provided you the archeological and anthrolopological evidence which makes Morey's theory supremely suspect.

As to the last question you asked, I would need to know which explicitly lunar-worshipped based rituals you would be referring to. Otherwise, you're just continuing to blow vaguities into the wind.

[Jude3b]

Dear Crusader:

I have read and heard that when Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Kaaba in 630 A.D. and cleared it of idols, that he wanted to create his own religion. Since he needed the backing of his powerful tribe, he picked Allah, the moon-god which they worshipped, to be the one god and he declared himself to be Allah's prophet. Do you agree with this?

I have also heard and read that the Sabeans in Arabia woshipped the moon-god who was married to the sun-goddess. They supposedly gave birth to 3 goddesses who were called Al-lat, Al-uzza and Manat. They became idols and were worshipped throughout that part of the world as "Daughters of Allah." Do you find this to be true?

It is obvious that the cresent moon symbol is everywhere in Islam, that is a fact! Why would they have the symbol of the cresent moon everywhere in Islam???

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader:

I have read and heard that when Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Kaaba in 630 A.D. and cleared it of idols, that he wanted to create his own religion. Since he needed the backing of his powerful tribe, he picked Allah, the moon-god which they worshipped, to be the one god and he declared himself to be Allah's prophet. Do you agree with this?

I have also heard and read that the Sabeans in Arabia woshipped the moon-god who was married to the sun-goddess. They supposedly gave birth to 3 goddesses who were called Al-lat, Al-uzza and Manat. They became idols and were worshipped throughout that part of the world as "Daughters of Allah." Do you find this to be true?

It is obvious that the cresent moon symbol is everywhere in Islam, that is a fact! Why would they have the symbol of the cresent moon everywhere in Islam???
Of course I believe that Mohammed's Allah was derived from the pre-Islamic moon deity. On the thread, "The Moon and Mohammed" I have posted a link to a prettty scholarly website giving archeological evidence of this.

Here is another link dealing with Islam that you may find interesting:

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

The liberal establishment and so-called "progressives" in such denominations as the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches have established "friendship" and religious dialogue committees to explore cooperation between liberal Christians and Muslims. For instance, one Episcopal Church has actually put a Muslim on the staff. Sadly, these liberals have no desire to reach Muslims with the Gospel at all. You can see this liberal slant here on the board. People are just not aware of the foundational teaching of Islam or its origin. They simply deny it. The Roman pope has actually kissed the Quran as a symbol of friendship - he actully kissed a book which states that it is an "abomination" to believe that God has a Son!

Well, down the road we'll be witnessing the One-World Religious system (already started under the name "United Religions Initiative," by an Episcopal bishop - Bp. Swing of CA.), alongside the One World Government. Of course, non-believers phoo-phoo these things, but the time is obviously coming.

Even so, when you see these things come to pass, look up, for your redemption draweth nigh!

[Timothy Leary]

It is obvious that the cresent moon symbol is everywhere in Islam, that is a fact! Why would they have the symbol of the cresent moon everywhere in Islam???

While I don't know for sure, they follow - like Judaism - a lunar calender.

[kiwimac]

Careful Yoshiyah,

You'll be accused of worshipping the moon-god Yahweh shortly!

Kiwimac

[Krusader]

Just the kind of answer I'd expect from a "theologian!"

[Krusader]

See my postings under the Moon and Mohammed thread.

[Jude3b]

Dear Crusader:

Thank you for providing the link about the prophet of Doom. Wow! What an eye opener.

[Timothy Leary]

And the Kivlei Adham feed each other...

[kiwimac]

Crusader,

Glad I could live up to your expectations. It is a duty I relish. Yoshiyah, Yup we sure do don't we?

Kiwimac

[heaven]

Crusader,

Glad I could live up to your expectations. It is a duty I relish. Yoshiyah, Yup we sure do don't we?

Kiwimac



Abraham preexisted Islam by 2,700 years. Abraham walked by faith and is he

father of the Jews and Christians , all those who walk by faith.

Abraham was the father of Isaac by Sarah and Isaac was the father of

Jacob, who was given the grace name Israel.

[Snarf]

Black Opal, your reasoning is circular. For instance, you state that "Mohammed was only a man" and subject to human frailities. However, he claimed divine sources for his revelations, and therefore the Quran should be free from error. Obviously, when one sees gross errors in the Quran, especially dealing with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Trinity, it is obvious that Mohammed's "spirit" was not from a divine source.

Neither is the Bible free from error (like bats being called "birds", and the contradicting accounts of Judas's death) but that doesn't stop you from believing it to be God's word, does it? The "Trinity" is also not mentioned in the Bible, therefore it is not Biblical.

[Snarf]

Again, Islam means "submitted" to the false, moon-god Allah. Neither Abraham, Moses, the Apostles or the Lord ever submitted to this entity. Allah is a false god no matter how much Mohammed tried to dress him up and pretend he was YHWH.

Since "Allah" means "God," and if the Muslims believe that there is only one God, and Abraham and Moses and Jesus also believed in one God, then all agree that there is one God, and they are all following one God. Since "Allah" does not mean "moon-god," your statement wrong. Why do you insist on maintaining your error that "Allah" means "moon-god?"

[Snarf]

Abraham preexisted Islam by 2,700 years. Abraham walked by faith and is he

father of the Jews and Christians , all those who walk by faith.

Abraham was the father of Isaac by Sarah and Isaac was the father of

Jacob, who was given the grace name Israel.

What I find amusing is that certain Christians here think that Muslims are going to hell for not believing in Jesus. But neither do Jews believe in Jesus. So, by the theology of those who believe that muslims are going to hell for not believing in Jesus, the folowing statements are true:

JEWS ARE GOING TO HELL.

Repeat
JEWS ARE GOING TO HELL.

Why don't the worshipful followers of Jesus ever like to mention this? Don't they believe that Jesus is the only Way? Why do you call Jews the followers of God when they cricified Him?

[Sparko]

What do YOU believe Snarf? Are the Jews going to heaven without Jesus? Are the Muslims going to heaven without Jesus? How about the pagans, Hindu's, Atheists, et?

What is it that you believe? Tell us so we can stop guessing.

[Snarf]

What do YOU believe Snarf? Are the Jews going to heaven without Jesus? Are the Muslims going to heaven without Jesus? How about the pagans, Hindu's, Atheists, et?

What is it that you believe? Tell us so we can stop guessing.

I have told you before, I believe in Jesus as Lord.

For myself, I do not pretend to know that anyone is going to Heaven or Hell, this is up to God. For members of other religious groups, God has complete say over eternal fate, I will not speak for Him.

My point here is this, that there are many threads which are derogatory of Muslims. There are also those who emphasize that Muslims are going to hell, and because of their lack of belief in Jesus as God. Yet these same speakers speak very kindly of Jews, as if they are believers in the same God as Christians.

But, if one believes that only belief in Jesus as God in the way defined by evangelical Christians will save, and Muslims are evil for rejecting Jesus, then so are Jews for they reject Him too and will share the same fate. By the evangelicals' definition, Jews are worshiping a god as false as Allah.

In short, I would like to see those hateful of Muslims for being enemies of God confront what their belief says of Jews, and stop playing this "let's be nice to poor little Jews" nonsense. If they don't like to hear the results of their logic, too bad, they stop and think about what Muslims who may be reading this site feel when they are told that they are hell-bound.

Jews and Muslims should be treated with equal respect, which means not having their religious beliefs insulted. Lumping Jews together with Christians is an insult to many Jews, who do not accept Jesus as God and consider the Trinity to be blasphemy.

My desire is to defend those who are not here to defend themselves.

[InChristAlways]

In short, I would like to see those hateful of Muslims for being enemies of God confront what their belief says of Jews, and stop playing this "let's be nice to poor little Jews" nonsense. If they don't like to hear the results of their logic, too bad, they stop and think about what Muslims who may be reading this site feel when they are told that they are hell-bound.

Jews and Muslims should be treated with equal respect, which means not having their religious beliefs insulted. Lumping Jews together with Christians is an insult to many Jews, who do not accept Jesus as God and consider the Trinity to be blasphemy. Blasphemy is also believing in God and disobeying His commandments of Loving God and Others. roman 2:23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? 24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written. Christian dispensationlism is what leads to hatred of muslims and palestinians and that doctrine also believes Christ is returning just for the jews!!!!! That is false as can be.
Whether one believes in Christ or not, it is God who determines who is saved and who isn't. The fact I believe the bible is all fulfilled makes my faith in God through the name of Jesus even stronger. I make no distinction between muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists or any other persons and I treat everyone equally, with love, compassion, and Truth. Those who do not Love others are not of God period, whether it be of Christ, Allah or God.

matt 22:36 "Teacher, which the great commandment in the law?" [i]37 Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 "This is [the] first and great commandment. 39 "And [the] second like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'


Evidently, the jews feels this is a false prohecy as this was made BEFORE the 2nd temple was destroyed by God using the roman army (as prophecied). Hopefully, muslims will see this as fulfilled through Christ.

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. [i]2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take [it] to heart. [i]3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread DUNG on your faces, The DUNG of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.

[Sparko]

I personally believe NO ONE will get to heaven without Jesus.

I don't know which individuals will be going there and which won't, that is between them and God, but those that faithfully follow Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc and reject Jesus as their savior will not be among those in heaven. And this is not MY opinion, but Jesus' own words:

John 14:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And there are many who profess to be Christian but are not and they won't be going to heaven either.

Again, Jesus' words:

Matthew 7:21-23
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’



(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)

[heaven]

I have told you before, I believe in Jesus as Lord.

For myself, I do not pretend to know that anyone is going to Heaven or Hell, this is up to God. For members of other religious groups, God has complete say over eternal fate, I will not speak for Him.

My point here is this, that there are many threads which are derogatory of Muslims. There are also those who emphasize that Muslims are going to hell, and because of their lack of belief in Jesus as God. Yet these same speakers speak very kindly of Jews, as if they are believers in the same God as Christians.

But, if one believes that only belief in Jesus as God in the way defined by evangelical Christians will save, and Muslims are evil for rejecting Jesus, then so are Jews for they reject Him too and will share the same fate. By the evangelicals' definition, Jews are worshiping a god as false as Allah.

In short, I would like to see those hateful of Muslims for being enemies of God confront what their belief says of Jews, and stop playing this "let's be nice to poor little Jews" nonsense. If they don't like to hear the results of their logic, too bad, they stop and think about what Muslims who may be reading this site feel when they are told that they are hell-bound.

Jews and Muslims should be treated with equal respect, which means not having their religious beliefs insulted. Lumping Jews together with Christians is an insult to many Jews, who do not accept Jesus as God and consider the Trinity to be blasphemy.

My desire is to defend those who are not here to defend themselves.

===================================================


The Jews are already in God the Father. ..............under the prior covenants................................................When we become christians,
we come to know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, YHVH, God the
Father, through Jesus. .......................The Jews are the Bride in the
Hebrew Scriptures and He has not given a writ of divorce. Christians are the Body of Christ.
Now think hard about the Bride and the Body of Christ.
Romans 9 , I believe calls the Jews Beloved because of the Patriarchs, the
election.
One Hebrew christian that I know of laments for the jews , though having the same Father God, they are missing the beauty of knowing the Messiah
Yeshua and believes that thely can therefore be easily deceived, since they are not on the Rock and therefore could be deceived and suffer as a
consequence.:smile:

[heaven]

I have told you before, I believe in Jesus as Lord.

For myself, I do not pretend to know that anyone is going to Heaven or Hell, this is up to God. For members of other religious groups, God has complete say over eternal fate, I will not speak for Him.

My point here is this, that there are many threads which are derogatory of Muslims. There are also those who emphasize that Muslims are going to hell, and because of their lack of belief in Jesus as God. Yet these same speakers speak very kindly of Jews, as if they are believers in the same God as Christians.

But, if one believes that only belief in Jesus as God in the way defined by evangelical Christians will save, and Muslims are evil for rejecting Jesus, then so are Jews for they reject Him too and will share the same fate. By the evangelicals' definition, Jews are worshiping a god as false as Allah.

In short, I would like to see those hateful of Muslims for being enemies of God confront what their belief says of Jews, and stop playing this "let's be nice to poor little Jews" nonsense. If they don't like to hear the results of their logic, too bad, they stop and think about what Muslims who may be reading this site feel when they are told that they are hell-bound.

Jews and Muslims should be treated with equal respect, which means not having their religious beliefs insulted. Lumping Jews together with Christians is an insult to many Jews, who do not accept Jesus as God and consider the Trinity to be blasphemy.

My desire is to defend those who are not here to defend themselves.
Jesus is the way to the Father (God), which God, the Father of Abraham,
Isaac by Sarah and Jacob(grace name Israel).
Therefore, the jews are already in Father God. Christians come to know
Father God in Jesus Christ.

They are beloved because of the patriarchs and the election. according to
Romans 9.

It is God's will that the Jews and muslims come to know Jesus the Christ or
Yeshua.

What will happen to the jews is known to God, Father God acknowledges
them.

What will happen to the moslems is more difficult to answer.:smile:

[bhukkadakota]

I am not a christian but im going to heaven. There are billions of people that are not christian but will also be going to heaven.

[heaven]

I have told you before, I believe in Jesus as Lord.

For myself, I do not pretend to know that anyone is going to Heaven or Hell, this is up to God. For members of other religious groups, God has complete say over eternal fate, I will not speak for Him.

My point here is this, that there are many threads which are derogatory of Muslims. There are also those who emphasize that Muslims are going to hell, and because of their lack of belief in Jesus as God. Yet these same speakers speak very kindly of Jews, as if they are believers in the same God as Christians.

But, if one believes that only belief in Jesus as God in the way defined by evangelical Christians will save, and Muslims are evil for rejecting Jesus, then so are Jews for they reject Him too and will share the same fate. By the evangelicals' definition, Jews are worshiping a god as false as Allah.

In short, I would like to see those hateful of Muslims for being enemies of God confront what their belief says of Jews, and stop playing this "let's be nice to poor little Jews" nonsense. If they don't like to hear the results of their logic, too bad, they stop and think about what Muslims who may be reading this site feel when they are told that they are hell-bound.

Jews and Muslims should be treated with equal respect, which means not having their religious beliefs insulted. Lumping Jews together with Christians is an insult to many Jews, who do not accept Jesus as God and consider the Trinity to be blasphemy.

My desire is to defend those who are not here to defend themselves.
=====================================================

Christians come to know the God of the jews, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or

God the Father , through Jesus Christ.

The jews are beloved of God the Father according to Romans 9 by election

because of the patriarchs.

Christians and jews worship the same God.

It is the commission of Jesus to the church to tell the moslems of the Good

News of Jesus, the Gospels so that they may worship God the Father too

and know Jesus Christ, who said "No man comes to the Father, but by me".

It is God's will that the jews come to know Jesus, their Messiah, which

prophecy says will happen , which will result in the salvation of the whole

world. Jesus prayed to the Father "I pray that they may all be one, just as

you and I are one". Now that is love and unity.

[heaven]

I am not a christian but im going to heaven. There are billions of people that are not christian but will also be going to heaven.
==========================================================

Dear bhukkadakota,

The issue is, the body of Christ on earth will be with Christ in heaven, but if

you are not baptized and a member of the Body of Christ, I cannot tell you

where you are going.

[InChristAlways]

The jews are beloved of God the Father according to Romans 9 by election

because of the patriarchs.

Christians and jews worship the same God. Um, the christians and jews don't worship the same God. My God has the name of Jesus Christ, the jews don't believe in Jesus, and according to acts, no other name under heaven can one be saved exept thru the Name of Jesus Christ. So the jews are in essence "atheists" according to scripture.. So they are in the same boat as muslims, hindus, japaneses, buddhists etc. And the jews are cursed in malachi unless they come to the cross(see deut 28 on the curses) and have lost their heritage according to jeremiah 17.
Abraham was a gentile as there were no jews or Israelites until after Jacob was born.


acts 4:10 "let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 "This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' 12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

) Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take to heart. [i]3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread refuse on your faces, The refuse of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.

Jeremiah 17:1 "The sin of Judah [is] written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond [it is] engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars, 2 While their children remember Their altars and their wooden images By the green trees on the high hills. [i]3 O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder your wealth, all your treasures, [And] your high places of sin within all your borders. 4 And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger [which] shall burn forever."

[Jude3b]

I am not a christian but im going to heaven. There are billions of people that are not christian but will also be going to heaven.

Dear bhukkadakota:

Please, if you are willing, share with us why you are so sure you are going to heaven?

Also, if you are willing can you tell us what religion you belong to?

[Krusader]

I am not a christian but im going to heaven. There are billions of people that are not christian but will also be going to heaven.

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death."

Prov. 16:25

[InChristAlways]

Hi all.
Can anyone tell me where it says Abraham was either a jew, Israelite, egyption or arab?? The thing is, what does it MATTER!!!!!! Abram was the title of the one to be a Father to ALL NATIONS AND PEOPLES!!! Do the muslims understand these verses? The unbelieving jews sure don't, because they don't believe in the NT and they falsely interpret the sacred scriptures to show Christ didn't come, but surely muslims can read this in their own scripture. The Lord appeared to Abram before his name was changed and before he became circumcised along with Ishmael.

Matthew 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ/annointed, the Son of David["beloved"], the Son of Abraham["father of multitudes"]: "Beloved father of multitudes".

Gene 15: 3 Then Abram("exalted father") said, "Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!" 4 And behold, the word of the LORD [came] to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body/innards shall be your heir." 5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

[heaven]

Hi all.
Can anyone tell me where it says Abraham was either a jew, Israelite, egyption or arab?? The thing is, what does it MATTER!!!!!! Abram was the title of the one to be a Father to ALL NATIONS AND PEOPLES!!! Do the muslims understand these verses? The unbelieving jews sure don't, because they don't believe in the NT and they falsely interpret the sacred scriptures to show Christ didn't come, but surely muslims can read this in their own scripture. The Lord appeared to Abram before his name was changed and before he became circumcised along with Ishmael.

Matthew 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ/annointed, the Son of David["beloved"], the Son of Abraham["father of multitudes"]: "Beloved father of multitudes".

Gene 15: 3 Then Abram("exalted father") said, "Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!" 4 And behold, the word of the LORD [came] to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body/innards shall be your heir." 5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

InChristAlways,

Have you read Romans? It states that the jews are the enemy of the gospels for your sake. The New Testament was a New Covenant with the
jews , Jesus was a jew, and the Apostles and Disciples were jews. You
as a gentile, are the unnatural branch grafted in to Israel. Jesus said, "No
man comes to the Father but by me". The Father is the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, and the Father of the christians. Same God. Jesus is the
begotten Son of God from before the foundation of the world and was incarnated in the womb of a jewish virgin, Mary and Jesus was circumcized
according to the law from the covenant with Abraham according to Sarah.
So as the Scriptures state "Salvation is of the jews".
Rabbinical judaism is the problem, since the earlier Rabbis misinterpreted
the Scriptures and know nothing of Jesus. However, the jews celebrate the covenants, which are still enforce, and pray to Father God (same God).
Will continue the post.

[InChristAlways]

InChristAlways,
Have you read Romans? It states that the jews are the enemy of the gospels for your sake. The New Testament was a New Covenant with the
jews , Jesus was a jew, and the Apostles and Disciples were jews. You
as a gentile, are the unnatural branch grafted in to Israel. Jesus said, "No
man comes to the Father but by me". The Father is the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, and the Father of the christians. Same God. Jesus is the
begotten Son of God from before the foundation of the world and was incarnated in the womb of a jewish virgin, Mary and Jesus was circumcized
according to the law from the covenant with Abraham according to Sarah.
So as the Scriptures state "Salvation is of the jews".
Rabbinical judaism is the problem, since the earlier Rabbis misinterpreted
the Scriptures and know nothing of Jesus. However, the jews celebrate the covenants, which are still enforce, and pray to Father God (same God).
Will continue the post.Hi Heaven. Thanks for the reply, as I am here mainly for muslims. I know, the jews became God's sacrificial meal shortly after Christ was crucified(ezekiel 39) so that was a salvation from the corrupt house of Judah and the rulers. And their temple is no longer standing(isaiah 28 shows wrath coming after Jesus shows up). And that pretty Gold Dome in Jerusalem may last a long time.
Anyone can become a "jew" just by joining judaism, so how does that make them of the house of Judah/Jews.
I myself came from Adam and Eve so I have no idea who I come from after that. earthly Adam(Adamite?) was the first man, spiritual adam/Jesus Christ(christian) was the second man. Do muslims understand what Paul is saying here?1 corin:47 The first man [was] of the earth, [made] of dust; the second Man [is] the Lord from heaven.No one in between, you are either of adam or of the Lord Jesus.
The Rabbis/jews need to "ditch" their pagan Talmud for one thing and the muslims need to ditch their Koran, and christians need to ditch their "endtime" books. Just my humble opinion. The jews are still between a rock and a hard place as they have no temple for the Lord to even come to anymore.

Malachi says this and even a 10 yr old knows this is the Lord Himself coming to his temple (Herod's temple).

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.

The house of Judah/Levi are cursed. Bad news for jews.

Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests(JUDAH/LEVI, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take [it] to heart. [i]3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread refuse on your faces, The refuse of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.

Since these curses are only for "jews", us gentiles/muslims don't have to fear, but it should make "jews" really nervous because of Malachi 2.

Deut 28:15 " But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: 16 "Cursed [shall] you in the city, and cursed [shall] you [be] in the country.

And the "jews" of Judah have LOST THEIR HERITAGE!!!!!

Jeremiah 17:1 "The sin of [b]Judah [is] written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond [it is] engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars, 2 While their children remember Their altars and their wooden images By the green trees on the high hills. 3 O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder your wealth, all your treasures, [And] your high places of sin within all your borders. 4 And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger [which] shall burn forever."

[heaven]

Hi Heaven. Thanks for the reply, as I am here mainly for muslims. I know, the jews became God's sacrificial meal shortly after Christ was crucified(ezekiel 39) so that was a salvation from the corrupt house of Judah and the rulers. And their temple is no longer standing(isaiah 28 shows wrath coming after Jesus shows up). And that pretty Gold Dome in Jerusalem may last a long time.
Anyone can become a "jew" just by joining judaism, so how does that make them of the house of Judah/Jews.
I myself came from Adam and Eve so I have no idea who I come from after that. earthly Adam(Adamite?) was the first man, spiritual adam/Jesus Christ(christian) was the second man. Do muslims understand what Paul is saying here?No one in between, you are either of adam or of the Lord Jesus.
The Rabbis/jews need to "ditch" their pagan Talmud for one thing and the muslims need to ditch their Koran, and christians need to ditch their "endtime" books. Just my humble opinion. The jews are still between a rock and a hard place as they have no temple for the Lord to even come to anymore.

Malachi says this and even a 10 yr old knows this is the Lord Himself coming to his temple (Herod's temple).

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.

The house of Judah/Levi are cursed. Bad news for jews.

Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests(JUDAH/LEVI, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take [it] to heart. [i]3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread refuse on your faces, The refuse of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.

Since these curses are only for "jews", us gentiles/muslims don't have to fear, but it should make "jews" really nervous because of Malachi 2.

Deut 28:15 " But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: 16 "Cursed [shall] you in the city, and cursed [shall] you [be] in the country.

And the "jews" of Judah have LOST THEIR HERITAGE!!!!!

Jeremiah 17:1 "The sin of [b]Judah [is] written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond [it is] engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars, 2 While their children remember Their altars and their wooden images By the green trees on the high hills. 3 O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder your wealth, all your treasures, [And] your high places of sin within all your borders. 4 And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger [which] shall burn forever."

Hi inchrist:

The jews are letting go of their heritage today, pressured by the US, James
Baker, in charge, by the Gaza pull out and acquiescing to indefensible borders. Condi Rice speaks of a contiguous palestinian state, which would
then divide Israel.
Joel 4:1-2
Yes, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah
and Jerusalem,
I will assemble all the nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehosaphat(rift valley by ancient Edom)
And I will enter into Judgment with them there on behalf of my people and
my inheritance, Israel;
Because they have scattered them among the nationss, and divided my land.

The jews are returning from among the nations and there is intense
pressure for dividing up the sliver of land of Israel, which God calls my land
and Israel , the jews, my inheritance.:pray:

[heaven]

Once again, Muhammad was only a man - no one claimed that his knowledge of Christianity was complete. It has been a long time since legitimate Muslim scholars claimed that the Virgin Mary had anything to do with the Trinity. Check your sources.



Did they claim to follow the will of God? Or be a follower of God? Then, when translated into Arabic, they were "Muslims." End of story. The terminological definition of "muslim" is not as the post-Qu'ranic definition of Muslim. Get over it.



Can you prove that he didn't? No, you can't. Just as you cannot prove to me that the "miracles" of your bible are anything but legends and myths. Once again, get over yourself.



Actually, this was a common claim among Christian splinter sects, including the well-known Gnostics. The relative legitimacy of this claim is inconsequential, in the context that Muhammad was only a human, and not divine.



Can you prove that he did? As for missing bodies, can you tell me where the body of my great-granduncle is located? I sure can't. But I can tell you that he had one.

Oh, and again, regarding Muhammad's body - no legitimate source claims that Muhammad was anything but human. The existence of a corpse is expected, and has absolutely no worth to your argument. This is like me asking you why we know where Ronald Reagan's body is, because, if he was truly a good man, it would be gone. Get it? IT DOESN'T MATTER - HE'S ONLY A HUMAN, HE ONLY EVER WAS A HUMAN. Anyone who claims messiah status for Muhammad has clearly failed to read the Qu'ran, study Islamic tradition, or even bother looking at resources not specifically designed to propagandize against the "terrible Muslims."

Get over yourself - even your name shows your bias.


Black Opal

Abraham was Abram in Mesopotamia and Abram heard a voice that

continued to speak to him and brought him into the land of Caanan. That

same voice later manifested Himself to the Israelites and Moses and

continued to commune with the Israelites in the tabernacle in the

wilderness and continued in the temple of Solomon and continued with

King David and continued in the temple of Herod and was manifested as

the Lord Jesus Christ and after His death came the Holy Spirit upon the

disciples of Jesus and upon their successors and upon the catholic

church through the Apostolic Succession of Peter and later the catholic

church determined the canons of Scripture, which is the bible. Jesus

founded a church and passed on His presence through the Holy Spirit to

that church and embued same with the fire of the Holy Spirit. Christianity

is not founded on a book, it is founded by Jesus and is blessed with the

Holy Spirit, which wrote the canons of Scripture. Christianity is not

founded on the bible , it had the sacred writings of the Hebrew Scriptures

and correctly compiled the canon of the New Testament by the Holy

Spirit. Thus christianity was passed onto the catholic church as the

Apostolic Succession by the laying on of hands and the transmission of th3

Holy Spirit.

[InChristAlways]

Thus christianity was passed onto the catholic church as the

Apostolic Succession by the laying on of hands and the transmission of th3

Holy Spirit. Abraham was simply the father of All nations/multitudes, all of those in Christ.
How do you reckon christianity was passed unto the Catholic Church?!?!?! Where in the "Bible" does it show that?
They practice Mary worship, even Judaism, statues, altars, incense, priestly robes and molesting of children etc.
We worship Jesus in Pure Spirit, and that could be under a tree, an old barn or even a shack, as where 2 or more are gathered, Jesus is in the midst of them.
I fled the Catholic church decades ago as I felt I was in more of a jewish temple than pure place of worship. I hope the muslims just view worshipping God in the name of Jesus as sufficient and no matter where they are on earth, Christ will always be with them because He dwells in them!!!!

2 corin 6:[i]16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among [them.] I will be their God, And they shall be My people."

[Krusader]

Black Opal

Abraham was Abram in Mesopotamia and Abram heard a voice that

continued to speak to him and brought him into the land of Caanan. That

same voice later manifested Himself to the Israelites and Moses and

continued to commune with the Israelites in the tabernacle in the

wilderness and continued in the temple of Solomon and continued with

King David and continued in the temple of Herod and was manifested as

the Lord Jesus Christ and after His death came the Holy Spirit upon the

disciples of Jesus and upon their successors and upon the catholic

church through the Apostolic Succession of Peter and later the catholic

church determined the canons of Scripture, which is the bible. Jesus

founded a church and passed on His presence through the Holy Spirit to

that church and embued same with the fire of the Holy Spirit. Christianity

is not founded on a book, it is founded by Jesus and is blessed with the

Holy Spirit, which wrote the canons of Scripture. Christianity is not

founded on the bible , it had the sacred writings of the Hebrew Scriptures

and correctly compiled the canon of the New Testament by the Holy

Spirit. Thus christianity was passed onto the catholic church as the

Apostolic Succession by the laying on of hands and the transmission of th3

Holy Spirit.

Heaven, I would agree with you that Christianity certainly is not the result of the compilation of the Bible (NT). It was founded as a direct result of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; the coming of the Paraclete at Pentecost (50 days after the Ascension) which enabled the Apostles to fufill the Great Commission to go out into all the world, preach the Gospel and baptize believers. The New Testament is the witness of the early church, which accurately records Christ's life, death and resurrection; the "acts" of the Apostles, the establishment of the Church, and gives doctrinal instruction to the believers.

However, to say that Christianity passed to the "catholic church," is correct only in the sense of seeing the word "catholic" as universal and not necessarily "Roman." When it became "Roman," it ceased being "catholic." We cannot discount the ancient witness of the eastern churches (the disciples, were after all, first called "Christians" at Antioch - far from Rome), and the witness to the present day of those holding the fulness of the Christian faith outside of the Roman Church (often referred to as anabaptists - they never recognized Rome's authority).

As for "apostolic succession," I once believed in this doctrine. Look at the Anglican Church, which (despite Rome's protestations) has a valid succession of bishops straight back to Rome; but one has only to examine its condition today to realize there has been no succession of faith (or that the succession of faith has been destroyed by the revisionist bishops with supposed "apostolic succession). After really studying the matter, I believe the only "apostolic succession" we can trust, is that of the succession of the apostolic faith.

[MakeMineJesus]

Jude 3b
Abraham was not a Jew nor was he a Christian(as The Christ had not come then). The word Jew comes from the Tribe Judah which the Kingdoms were divided into two separate part then converged into one nation. The people were called jew from then on. Abraham was classified as a Hebrew which crossing over ( from the Red Sea event). As for the Koran Or Quran this was printed only 500 or 400 years ago and has been revised so may times. The Holy Bible stands for much longer and has had fewer errors in it.

[heaven]

Heaven, I would agree with you that Christianity certainly is not the result of the compilation of the Bible (NT). It was founded as a direct result of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; the coming of the Paraclete at Pentecost (50 days after the Ascension) which enabled the Apostles to fufill the Great Commission to go out into all the world, preach the Gospel and baptize believers. The New Testament is the witness of the early church, which accurately records Christ's life, death and resurrection; the "acts" of the Apostles, the establishment of the Church, and gives doctrinal instruction to the believers.

However, to say that Christianity passed to the "catholic church," is correct only in the sense of seeing the word "catholic" as universal and not necessarily "Roman." When it became "Roman," it ceased being "catholic." We cannot discount the ancient witness of the eastern churches (the disciples, were after all, first called "Christians" at Antioch - far from Rome), and the witness to the present day of those holding the fulness of the Christian faith outside of the Roman Church (often referred to as anabaptists - they never recognized Rome's authority).

As for "apostolic succession," I once believed in this doctrine. Look at the Anglican Church, which (despite Rome's protestations) has a valid succession of bishops straight back to Rome; but one has only to examine its condition today to realize there has been no succession of faith (or that the succession of faith has been destroyed by the revisionist bishops with supposed "apostolic succession). After really studying the matter, I believe the only "apostolic succession" we can trust, is that of the succession of the apostolic faith.


Dear Crusader,

The passing of the Apostolic Faith was by laying on of hands from the

Apostles to their successors, the bishops of the early church to the

bishops of the catholic church. The pope is recognized as the head bishop

of Rome, which church received much evangelization from Peter and Paul,

and was considered the most excellent of the churches. Along with this

excellence, the primacy of Peter, noted in his speaking on behalf of the

churches in acts gave this church it's primacy. The splintering of the

catholic church began with the schism of 1054 between Rome and

Constantinople,. The eastern churches suffered greatly from heresies and

the spread of Islam andwere almost eclipsed without the help of the

western church at Rome.

The church at Rome called itself the catholic church and the eastern churches

called themselves the Orthodox church. This has been a terrible wound

greatly weakening the then catholic christian church. The healing of the

wound is primary to the unity of the christian churches world wide.

The Episcopal bishops, by embracing homosexuality and diverging from the

faith is evidence of apostasy and not an example of Apostolic Succession.

The Apostolic Succession places a nice frame around the Apostolic Faith,

one the visible, the other the invisible church.

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader,

The passing of the Apostolic Faith was by laying on of hands from the

Apostles to their successors, the bishops of the early church to the

bishops of the catholic church. The pope is recognized as the head bishop

of Rome, which church received much evangelization from Peter and Paul,

and was considered the most excellent of the churches. Along with this

excellence, the primacy of Peter, noted in his speaking on behalf of the

churches in acts gave this church it's primacy. The splintering of the

catholic church began with the schism of 1054 between Rome and

Constantinople,. The eastern churches suffered greatly from heresies and

the spread of Islam andwere almost eclipsed without the help of the

western church at Rome.

The church at Rome called itself the catholic church and the eastern churches

called themselves the Orthodox church. This has been a terrible wound

greatly weakening the then catholic christian church. The healing of the

wound is primary to the unity of the christian churches world wide.

The Episcopal bishops, by embracing homosexuality and diverging from the

faith is evidence of apostasy and not an example of Apostolic Succession.

The Apostolic Succession places a nice frame around the Apostolic Faith,

one the visible, the other the invisible church.

Heaven, I understand your belief in Apostolic Succession, I once embraced it as well. However, what of the Anglican Church (which today is so apostate)?
Can you find the Apostolic faith there? You can sure find the apostolic succession there - and as far as their apostasy, haven't you ever read narratives of what went on with some of the popes in the middle ages?

No, laying on of hands is a biblical tradition, I'll grant you; but it does not guarantee a transmission of apostolic faith (as reading a non-biased history of the Roman Church will surely show you).

[InChristAlways]

Hi all. Back to the original topic of whether Abam/Abraham was a jew, gentile, muslim, christian, african american. Here is the first covenant with Abam. I think even I am included in this somewhere, but not sure if I am a descendant of Abraham or not. Do any muslims think they might be a descendant of Abraham and thus share in his blessings and land? Also, I guess it is important to know whether you are of Ishmael or Isaac [though the Christ was to come "through" Isaac]. Or if you are from Jacob and Esau, or from one of the twelve sons from Jacob, and if you are from Judah [which became a nation by itself], then you would actually belong to the same house Jesus came from and of course be a jew [as only those of the house of Judah are considered the OT jews].
So everyone get out birth records dating back say about 4000yrs. Then of course there is Levi, so only those from that tribe can serve as priests I think.

Genesis 12:7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." And there he built an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

genesis 7:5 "No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 "I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 7 "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 "Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

[heaven]

Once again, Muhammad was only a man - no one claimed that his knowledge of Christianity was complete. It has been a long time since legitimate Muslim scholars claimed that the Virgin Mary had anything to do with the Trinity. Check your sources.



Did they claim to follow the will of God? Or be a follower of God? Then, when translated into Arabic, they were "Muslims." End of story. The terminological definition of "muslim" is not as the post-Qu'ranic definition of Muslim. Get over it.



Can you prove that he didn't? No, you can't. Just as you cannot prove to me that the "miracles" of your bible are anything but legends and myths. Once again, get over yourself.



Actually, this was a common claim among Christian splinter sects, including the well-known Gnostics. The relative legitimacy of this claim is inconsequential, in the context that Muhammad was only a human, and not divine.



Can you prove that he did? As for missing bodies, can you tell me where the body of my great-granduncle is located? I sure can't. But I can tell you that he had one.

Oh, and again, regarding Muhammad's body - no legitimate source claims that Muhammad was anything but human. The existence of a corpse is expected, and has absolutely no worth to your argument. This is like me asking you why we know where Ronald Reagan's body is, because, if he was truly a good man, it would be gone. Get it? IT DOESN'T MATTER - HE'S ONLY A HUMAN, HE ONLY EVER WAS A HUMAN. Anyone who claims messiah status for Muhammad has clearly failed to read the Qu'ran, study Islamic tradition, or even bother looking at resources not specifically designed to propagandize against the "terrible Muslims."

Get over yourself - even your name shows your bias.



HaShem had a son, Yeshua, and Yeshua was the Messiah and the Son of

God.

[InChristAlways]

Jeremiah 17:1 "The sin of Judah written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond [it is] engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars, 2 While their children remember Their altars and their wooden images By the green trees on the high hills. 3 O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder your wealth, all your treasures, [And] your high places of sin within all your borders. [i]4 And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger [which] shall burn forever." Hi. According to Jeremiah 17, the jews of Judah have lost their heritage because of SIN, how do muslims view this? Also, I was wondering of all those who want to live in Jerusalem or sorrounding areas are forced to believe or practice in the religion of judaisim in much the same way that those in arab countries are forced to practice Islam or be shunned?
Are palistinians/arabs in anyway descendants of Abraham, whether they are Jewish Israelites or Hebrew Israelites? And how do muslims view themselves as being descendants of Abram as compared to Christ?

Gene 12: 2 I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you ALL the families of the earth shall be blessed."

http://www.islam-online.net/iol-english/dowalia/news-2000-april-12/topnews1.asp
Wednesday, April 12, 2000
BOSTON (IslamOnline) – More than 500 Palestinian Americans came from all parts of the country and converged in Boston last weekend for a day-long conference on, “The Right of Return.”


The conference discussed possible scenarios for the 3.6 million Palestinian refugees – over 1 million of whom live in refugee camps – and prospects for long-term stability in the Middle East.

Background
In 1947 and 1948, fighting by Jewish gangs pushed out about 800,000 Palestinians from 531 towns and villages in what soon became Israel. Many Palestinians fled after hearing about massacres in neighboring villages, such as Deir Yassin, near Jerusalem.

Most of the refugees settled in ad hoc tent camps that soon came under a U.N. agency created especially to look after them, the U.N. Refugee and Works Agency (UNRWA). Today these camps still exist, and the tents have given way to more permanent structures – too permanent, as three generations of families have known nothing but their camps in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan and Lebanon (and to a lesser extent, Syria and Egypt).

Refugees who could leave left the camps and dispersed throughout the world in search of a livelihood. Today, only about 3 million Palestinians live in historic Palestine (just under 1 million in Israel, just over 2 million in the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Another 3 million live around the world, with a high concentration in Jordan, where they make up more than half the population.

Hundreds of thousands, especially those still living in camps, are determined to return to their original homes, even though 52 years has passed since their expulsion. But Israel, supported by the rest of the world, has never entertained the thought, arguing that an influx of Palestinians would dilute or end the Jewish-ness of the state, in which 4 million Jews live.

The peace process, began in 1991 in Madrid, has generally ignored the refugees except to set up a multilateral committee to discuss their situation and/or to defer serious discussion indefinitely.

“Right of Return Conference”
Now with the peace process approaching the point when devastating decisions will have to be made regarding core issues such as Jerusalem and the refugees, most Palestinians feel that these issues will not be resolved satisfactorily due to the imbalance of power in the region between Israel and the Arabs, especially the Palestinians.

“Many Palestinians are concerned that the final negotiated solution [will] compromise the Palestinian refugees’ right to return,” wrote Lamis Andoni, a prominent Palestinian-Jordanian-American journalist who is a co-founding member of the Trans-Arab Research Institute, which organized the conference.

The conference featured prominent Palestinian-American intellectual Edward Said, along with a myriad of experts such as MIT professor Noam Chomsky, The Independent reporter Robert Fisk, London-based refugee expert Salman Abu Sitta, and a number of university professors.

Said decried Palestinian negotiators’ “extraordinarily gifted power of forgetting” when dealing with their Israeli counterparts, but acknowledged “No simple solution exists in the foreseeable future.” The end result is that the Palestinians, as a nation, suffer from “dislocation and distortion,” he said.

He said that whatever negotiated settlement was reached, it would not fulfill aspirations on the Arab side. “It’s going to take a great deal of phony logic to convince people that the deal about to be made is not an abrogation of Palestinian rights.”

Israeli professor Ilan Pappe, the director of the International Relations Department at Haifa University, argued that unless the right of return is granted to Palestinian refugees – whether they choose to act on it or not remains their choice – “the conflict in Palestine will be far from settled.”

Another scenario floated these days by various parties, including the United States, is that the refugees registered with UNRWA (no one knows how many others there are) be compensated for the loss of their land. But it is improbable that they will be compensated for the agony and wasted lives they have suffered.

The financial compensation model is touted as an alternative to the right of return and not a complement, and is thus rejected by many refugees, who generally were not represented in the conference. And even under this model, Israel refuses to take any blame for causing the refugee debacle. It insists that it will not pay restitution, but that any compensation funds be collected internationally and managed and disbursed by Israel.

Several speakers spoke of the hypocrisy of the West, which worked hard to pressure Swiss banks last year to pay restitution to Holocaust survivors, while supporting Israel in its neglect to acknowledge any responsibility for the tragedy it inflicted on millions of Palestinians.

Other speakers focused on the need for the American public to know more about the refugee situation, in order to pressure future U.S. governments to change their position on this historic problem. “The U.S. point of view has near-decisive impact on what happens in that part of the world,” said Chomsky. In this regard, the Arab lobby in the United States was lambasted for its historic inability to help Americans become aware of the problem, among other shortcomings.

[heaven]

Once again, Muhammad was only a man - no one claimed that his knowledge of Christianity was complete. It has been a long time since legitimate Muslim scholars claimed that the Virgin Mary had anything to do with the Trinity. Check your sources.



Did they claim to follow the will of God? Or be a follower of God? Then, when translated into Arabic, they were "Muslims." End of story. The terminological definition of "muslim" is not as the post-Qu'ranic definition of Muslim. Get over it.



Can you prove that he didn't? No, you can't. Just as you cannot prove to me that the "miracles" of your bible are anything but legends and myths. Once again, get over yourself.



Actually, this was a common claim among Christian splinter sects, including the well-known Gnostics. The relative legitimacy of this claim is inconsequential, in the context that Muhammad was only a human, and not divine.



Can you prove that he did? As for missing bodies, can you tell me where the body of my great-granduncle is located? I sure can't. But I can tell you that he had one.

Oh, and again, regarding Muhammad's body - no legitimate source claims that Muhammad was anything but human. The existence of a corpse is expected, and has absolutely no worth to your argument. This is like me asking you why we know where Ronald Reagan's body is, because, if he was truly a good man, it would be gone. Get it? IT DOESN'T MATTER - HE'S ONLY A HUMAN, HE ONLY EVER WAS A HUMAN. Anyone who claims messiah status for Muhammad has clearly failed to read the Qu'ran, study Islamic tradition, or even bother looking at resources not specifically designed to propagandize against the "terrible Muslims."

Get over yourself - even your name shows your bias.


Most central to the God of the jews and christians, is the attributes of

this God.

Jesus said "To see(know) me is to see(know) the Father."

This is not based on tricky words or definitions, but is based upon a heart

knowledge, a supernatural revelation...................Thus YHVH or Yeshua

is a God in relationship with His people, a God who is intimately known in

the very recesses of the spirit of that person...........The Hebrew

Scriptures devolve into an Aaronic priesthood and the New Testament is

the Melchizak priesthood.....................................where does Allah or

Mohammed fit into this?:wink:

[Pythagoras]

Asasala Malikom Friends.

Sorry to disappoint but it's impossible for Abraham to have been a Muslim. For one, Islam and Muhammad didn't even come into being until thousands of years after the death of Abraham.

Good Luck,

[bhukkadakota]

Asasala Malikom Friends.

Sorry to disappoint but it's impossible for Abraham to have been a Muslim. For one, Islam and Muhammad didn't even come into being until thousands of years after the death of Abraham.

Good Luck,

He was a muslim in the sense that he submitted his will to god. You would have known this if you read the whole thread as many people have already posted this.

[Krusader]

He was a muslim in the sense that he submitted his will to god. You would have known this if you read the whole thread as many people have already posted this.


Abraham submitted his will to YHWH. Allah, the Muslim imposter, is not YHWH.

[bhukkadakota]

Abraham submitted his will to YHWH. Allah, the Muslim imposter, is not YHWH.

Yeah he is, YHWH told me himself this morning.

[Pythagoras]

He was a muslim in the sense that he submitted his will to god. You would have known this if you read the whole thread as many people have already posted this.

Well, if that's the criterion for being Muslim, then you can make virtually everybody into = a Muslim, including Geroge H.W. Bush, because Bush claims to be in submission to the will of God as well.


Good Luck buddy. We need more than that.

[Krusader]

Yeah he is, YHWH told me himself this morning.

If he told you that, I wonder who you're listening to.

[Undomiel]

In this essay, it is made evident that the writer believes Allah to be a foreshortened version of the word "al-ilah," translated, "the god." It then expounds that Muhammad told the worshippers of the Moon God that his version of Allah was the true one, of which they worshipped an incarnation. This is the basis of your accusation? That Muhammad used a pre-existant belief to coerce and then convert other persons into his belief system?

This is the same method used by Christianity for centuries - see: Chine, Japan, Africa. Identifying the monotheistic diety with an understood extant diety does not revoke the religious legitimacy of that monotheistic "God." Its a simple conversion technique.

Why do you think the most common image of the Christian god looks so much like Jupiter? Because Jupiter was the "king of gods," and that's how the Christians portrayed him. Why do you think that Christian missionaries called their God "t'ein" in China? Because that's what the Chinese knew. This is not even a legitimate attempt to argue on your part, Crusader. This is simple conversion tactics, and if they invalidate Islam, then they also invalidate Christianity.

My personal belief is that Al'lah was derived from the sumerian annunaki named, Enlil. The ancient sumerians, akkadians and babylonians believed Enlil was one of several gods but that he was the leader of the gods for this planet, followed up shortly by his brother, Enki (depending on which part of the annunaki timeline you study).

[Pythagoras]

Hi Undomiel,

My personal belief is that Al'lah was derived from the sumerian annunaki named, Enlil. The ancient sumerians, akkadians and babylonians believed Enlil was one of several gods but that he was the leader of the gods for this planet, followed up shortly by his brother, Enki (depending on which part of the annunaki timeline you study).

Interesting..

On another note, Al-Lat was the chief deity at the kabbah which housed 360 idols. Mohammad knew the idol addicted Beduins would never part with all their gods so he took one, Al Lat and outlawed the rest. And the rest is history.

I will get into detail when time permits, perhaps start a thread here.. Did you konw even Herodotus, the Father of History, wrote that the Beduins were great idol worshippers?

best,

[bhukkadakota]

Muhammad got his revelations through angel gabriel who passed it on directly from god himself. Therfore the holy koran is gods word and the new testament is a unauthorised piece of work written by mere mortals who cannot compare to the power and glory and wisdom of allah (thats god himself).

I see Allah has taken away your ability to see and think clearly, but may he grant you a long and peaceful life anyway.

[Krusader]

Muhammad got his revelations through angel gabriel who passed it on directly from god himself. Therfore the holy koran is gods word and the new testament is a unauthorised piece of work written by mere mortals who cannot compare to the power and glory and wisdom of allah (thats god himself).

I see Allah has taken away your ability to see and think clearly, but may he grant you a long and peaceful life anyway.

Obviously guy you are not familiar with the teachings of your own prophet, Mohammed, who said that God Himself gave the "Injil" to the Christians. You contradict your own Book!

[InChristAlways]

Muhammad got his revelations through angel gabriel who passed it on directly from god himself. Therfore the holy koran is gods word and the new testament is a unauthorised piece of work written by mere mortals who cannot compare to the power and glory and wisdom of allah (thats god himself).

I see Allah has taken away your ability to see and think clearly, but may he grant you a long and peaceful life anyway.Hi bhukka. You and the jews need to compare your Koran to the jews' Talmud then figure out how Abraham was to be a Father to ALL NATIONS, not just jews, muslims or christians. Are you saying Abraham was just the father of the muslims?:ahem: The OT only mentions ONE MESSIAH coming, not 2!!
The jews of Judah of course transgressed God's laws so they were punished by having their temple and city destroyed in the first century then scattered all over the world. Maybe muslims should study on that event a little more as the jews of today are still awaiting on a messiah that already came. God bless.

Anyway, there is only One God over all and only one NAME in which one can come to Him, Jesus, not muhammed. As we can see, the jews use their Talmud instead the of OT. Oh well, to each his own.

gene 17:4 "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. 5 "No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a Father of many Nations.
Matthew 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:
The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the black Ethiopian Jews.

I do have studies on revelation which is that event of Jerusalem being destroyed in revelation if you are interested[yes, I believe the bible is mostly fulfilled in Christ]. I don't know how the muslims view revelation and would love to hear their views on that book.

http://newjerusalemministriesboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=82

[Pythagoras]

Hi Crusader,

Obviously guy you are not familiar with the teachings of your own prophet, Mohammed, who said that God Himself gave the "Injil" to the Christians. You contradict your own Book!

Good point. ... Anyhow here's some scholarly info:



About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ... a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad the holy prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)


The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah".
"al-ilah" was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad began promoting his new religion in 610 AD.
There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as "Allah".
When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name "Hubal" but retained the generic "Allah".
Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism.
best wishes,

[Krusader]

Hi Crusader,



Good point. ... Anyhow here's some scholarly info:


About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ... a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad the holy prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)


The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah".
"al-ilah" was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad began promoting his new religion in 610 AD.
There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as "Allah".
When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name "Hubal" but retained the generic "Allah".
Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism.
best wishes,Great point Pyth. Are you aware that some refer to Islam as monotheistic idolatry?

[Pythagoras]

Crusader,

Great point Pyth. Are you aware that some refer to Islam as monotheistic idolatry?

Nope.. An intriguing concept...

On another note, I was watching Larry King tonight and was surprised to find out the Koran teaches the Virgin birth of Jesus.

They ofcourse do not believe Jesus was the Son of God.

[bhukkadakota]

The christian bible has become corrupted thats why muhammad was given the holy koran. They started thinking jesus was gods son.

Then Allah will say: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind: "Worship me and my mother as gods beside Allah?"'

'Glory to You,' he will answer, 'how could I say that to which I have no right? If I had ever said so, You would have surely known it. You know what is in my mind, but I cannot tell what is in Yours. You alone know what is hidden. I spoke to them of nothing except what You bade me. I said: "Serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord."
Sura 5:110,115

Anyway im not a muslim, i happen to be a bhukkan, its my own religion i made up last week and its fully authorised and licenced under god.

[Krusader]

The christian bible has become corrupted thats why muhammad was given the holy koran. They started thinking jesus was gods son.

Then Allah will say: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind: "Worship me and my mother as gods beside Allah?"'

'Glory to You,' he will answer, 'how could I say that to which I have no right? If I had ever said so, You would have surely known it. You know what is in my mind, but I cannot tell what is in Yours. You alone know what is hidden. I spoke to them of nothing except what You bade me. I said: "Serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord."
Sura 5:110,115

Anyway im not a muslim, i happen to be a bhukkan, its my own religion i made up last week and its fully authorised and licenced under god.

Allah asks Jesus whether or not Jesus and Mary wanted to be worshipped as other gods? What happened, wasn't Allah omniscient enough to know the answer. The whole thing is obviously bogus - simply an attack on the Deity of Christ, something wich Mohammed totally misunderstood. How anybody can consider those vss. as inspiried is beyond me. One only has to compare the beauty of the Bible with the contrived nonsence of the Quran to see that Mohammed's book has its origin in the human mind and not from the Spirit of God.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Crusader,


One only has to compare the beauty of the Bible with the contrived nonsence of the Quran to see that Mohammed's book has its origin in the human mind and not from the Spirit of God



The bible is indeed beautiful but the Trinity makes a mockery of it.

[heaven]

Once again, Muhammad was only a man - no one claimed that his knowledge of Christianity was complete. It has been a long time since legitimate Muslim scholars claimed that the Virgin Mary had anything to do with the Trinity. Check your sources.



Did they claim to follow the will of God? Or be a follower of God? Then, when translated into Arabic, they were "Muslims." End of story. The terminological definition of "muslim" is not as the post-Qu'ranic definition of Muslim. Get over it.



Can you prove that he didn't? No, you can't. Just as you cannot prove to me that the "miracles" of your bible are anything but legends and myths. Once again, get over yourself.



Actually, this was a common claim among Christian splinter sects, including the well-known Gnostics. The relative legitimacy of this claim is inconsequential, in the context that Muhammad was only a human, and not divine.



Can you prove that he did? As for missing bodies, can you tell me where the body of my great-granduncle is located? I sure can't. But I can tell you that he had one.

Oh, and again, regarding Muhammad's body - no legitimate source claims that Muhammad was anything but human. The existence of a corpse is expected, and has absolutely no worth to your argument. This is like me asking you why we know where Ronald Reagan's body is, because, if he was truly a good man, it would be gone. Get it? IT DOESN'T MATTER - HE'S ONLY A HUMAN, HE ONLY EVER WAS A HUMAN. Anyone who claims messiah status for Muhammad has clearly failed to read the Qu'ran, study Islamic tradition, or even bother looking at resources not specifically designed to propagandize against the "terrible Muslims."

Get over yourself - even your name shows your bias.


The historical writings verify that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of

Aramathea and that he was not there in the tomb............but was seen

walking about and visiting with his disciples after he died.....Jesus

ressurected from the dead ...and ascended bodily into heaven.

[bhukkadakota]

The historical writings say no such thing except in the new testament. Maybe you could name a source outside the bible where it claims jesus was buried in a tomb donated by joseph of aramathea?

[Krusader]

The historical writings say no such thing except in the new testament. Maybe you could name a source outside the bible where it claims jesus was buried in a tomb donated by joseph of aramathea?

Oh, so I guess the Bible (written by eyewitnesses to Christ's death, burial and resurrection) is not historical?

[bhukkadakota]

i think you would have trouble supporting they were written by eye witnesses.

[Sparko]

Just a heads up... If you guys want to discuss the reliablility of the gospels in depth, please take it to another area of the site. This area is for discussing Islam

[InChristAlways]

bhukkadakotaThe christian bible has become corrupted thats why muhammad was given the holy koran. They started thinking jesus was gods son.

Then Allah will say: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind: "Worship me and my mother as gods beside Allah?"' Anyway im not a muslim, i happen to be a bhukkan, its my own religion i made up last week and its fully authorised and licenced under god.Hmm. Someone says the christian bible is corrupted and says his religion is his "own religion", but yet quotes the Koran, which he calls "holy", much like the jews quote their Talmud which they believe is "holy".
I guess that means God wrote 3 different bibles, His True Bible of the Book of the Life of the Lamb/Jesus Christ, the babylonian Talmud for the jews, the historical book called the Koran.
Do you believe the Book of Revelation is an Inspired book? Because I don't see the name muhammed in it, but I do see Jesus the Christ, Son of God. I really don't know who the jews are still waiting on to tell you the truth.
Revelation is one book that would be hard to have been corrupted, because no has been able "to figure it out" for almost 2000yrs. But since you have your own religion, then you must not believe in any of the OT or NT, right? God bless.Reve 2:18 " And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write, ' These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass:


Genesis 22:17 "blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which [is] on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

[heaven]

Abraham was the father of Ishmael...............One of Ishmael's descendents was

Mohammed or one of the descendants of Katurah was Mohammed................Since

thousands of years had elapsed....One can expressly say that Abraham was not a

moslem........Mohammed had not been born yet.

[A.AngelAnthony]

Abraham was not muslim end of story he was not a muslim.

[heaven]

Abraham was not muslim end of story he was not a muslim.

Abraham heard the one true God and obeyed Him.

The moslems do not have an ongoing relationship with allah, who is unknowable and does not speak to the people!

Mohammed was not born then, so it follows that Abraham for this reason was not a moslem.

[barnasha]

Abraham heard the one true God and obeyed Him.

The moslems do not have an ongoing relationship with allah, who is unknowable and does not speak to the people!

Mohammed was not born then, so it follows that Abraham for this reason was not a moslem.

Your arguments, with all due respect, are unreasonable.

How could you say Abraham did not submit to God? He was a submitter to him (a 'muslim').

What makes you think submission began with Muhammed?

Submission began with Adam, because Adam was the first one to fall from the garden of eden, to lose perfection, to as to implicitly give existence to the idea of a rejoining with God, an obeying of God, a submission to God.

That is why in Islamic tradition, Adam himself is the first prophet of Islam. (peace be upon him.)

[SpiritWoman]

To all whom I have observed opinions on this Thread with respect,

How to begin. In the middle East.

All Muslim, Christian, and Judaism began in the land of the birth of Adam as proclaimed in all of their doctrine and spirals out like a spider web in the vortex of time, migration, and evolution of humankind.

Judaism, being the Rock/Birth of a God whom all of it's follower's proclaim to be son's and daughters thereof. Each teaching war, slavery, prejudice, aimed at the Infidels/Non-believers.

Judaism being the chosen people migrated out of Egypt to escape slavery, only to war with the peoples they stole land from, enslave them, murder their children and women in the name of their God.

Christians, in the name of Jesus Christ, mutilated his message in biblical works to Demonize the Jews and Pagens to justify their wars, murders and slave practices while migrating to the west in the name of God to spread his message as truth and their quest for gold and riches.

Muslims, well, it appears to me they adopted all of the above only their quest is still ongoing and has yet to become fruit.

If I were the God of this creation, the sons and daughters of Adam, I would be heartbroken. Completely vanquished of power. For my Love and Wisdom was not enough to conquer the sibling rivalry corrupting my family, my creation, my blood, all that I Love.

My tears would flow from the heavens each time a child of mine dies not of old age. How long will it be before my own emotions turn to Anger, then uncontrolled emotion or justified punishment?

After all, my being the parent, it is my duty to teach my children that in order to survive, it is our duty to Love our Brothers and Sisters unconditionally to survive the evils of this world. And to create Harmony in our Home, which was provided and maintained by our beloved Parent.

After all, wasn't this the true meaning in the story of Cain and Abel? The God did not destroy Cain. In the Parent's misery, Cain was punished with Mercy and lived out the remainder of his days in Exile and Guilt of his betryal of his Parent.

In myths, formed and told or written by Humans through visions, there always is a form of defiant ridicule, and almost always violence when judging the outcome of tribulation/sin. It is the Human condition that must be overcome, to truly reach into ourselves and find the true meaning behind the Wisdom of our Parent.

May the Great Mystery Bind Us All in Wisdom and teach us Love and Freedom
as it was meant to be In the Beginning.........

Peace Brothers and Sisters.

[barnasha]

After all, my being the parent, it is my duty to teach my children that in order to survive, it is our duty to Love our Brothers and Sisters unconditionally to survive the evils of this world. And to create Harmony in our Home, which was provided and maintained by our beloved Parent.

(...snip...)

Peace Brothers and Sisters.

and peace be unto you

you have a very productive way of seeing things, I admire it.

I think the key difference here is that Judaism and Christianity (and even Islam) came to be something different than what Moses and Jesus taught. Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muhammed only taught to obey God and encourage peace, and after they died, people started to refigure, unconsciously, what their message was or what the cultural identity of their following was.

so there are worldly and heavenly aspects of each of the ideas...

Christianity is being like the Christos.
Islam is submitting to the loving parent and allowing his will to be done our of your free will.

OR

Christianity is a history
Islam is a history.


The prophets themselves never founded a culture, they only imparted this divine wisdom.

Judaism was not a religion, this term was used by outsiders. Jews were a people.

I hope nobody mistakes these comments as pedantic, I hope to drive home the inner meaning of the teachings in hopes that we can separate them from the phenomena which are associated with the ideas.

and it wasn't until Adam/Mankind fell that there was free will. but since there is, those which have free will that choose to worship God Almighty are more precious to Him/It than anything else.

and peace be upon you,
b

[SpiritWoman]

and peace be unto you

you have a very productive way of seeing things, I admire it.

I think the key difference here is that Judaism and Christianity (and even Islam) came to be something different than what Moses and Jesus taught. Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muhammed only taught to obey God and encourage peace, and after they died, people started to refigure, unconsciously, what their message was or what the cultural identity of their following was.

so there are worldly and heavenly aspects of each of the ideas...

Christianity is being like the Christos.
Islam is submitting to the loving parent and allowing his will to be done our of your free will.

OR

Christianity is a history
Islam is a history.


The prophets themselves never founded a culture, they only imparted this divine wisdom.

Judaism was not a religion, this term was used by outsiders. Jews were a people.

I hope nobody mistakes these comments as pedantic, I hope to drive home the inner meaning of the teachings in hopes that we can separate them from the phenomena which are associated with the ideas.

and it wasn't until Adam/Mankind fell that there was free will. but since there is, those which have free will that choose to worship God Almighty are more precious to Him/It than anything else.

and peace be upon you,
b

Greetings barnasha,

Thank you for the compliment and thank you for your understanding my ranting/thoughts.

I agree with your response. My only observation is to remind us all what the ultimate goal of the prophets were and that we as humans are all related both in blood as well as spiritually.

Kindness, and respect go along way, even in the world of philisophical debate, where the religions in question are truly related.

Where this realization could end strife between cultural divides and we can still learn from the prophets how to be "one body" again. And hold their names with the respect that they deserve.

Mitekuye Oyisin!!! (We are All Related)

Peace be with you

[barnasha]

Where this realization could end strife between cultural divides and we can still learn from the prophets how to be "one body" again. And hold their names with the respect that they deserve.

Mitekuye Oyisin!!! (We are All Related)

Peace be with you

amen


and also with you


blood is red

[heaven]

amen


and also with you


blood is red

All men have a common destiny.

At times I have noticed that the moslem faith subscribes to some pretty tough parenting, such as the taliban concept and shari'ia law, and evangelization by brut force as well.
Christianity has it's roots in the Hebrew peoples and was once a sect until it became predominantly gentile.
The moslem religion is based upon the teachings and live of Mohammed and is closely linked to state governance!

[barnasha]

All men have a common destiny.

At times I have noticed that the moslem faith subscribes to some pretty tough parenting, such as the taliban concept and shari'ia law, and evangelization by brut force as well.
Christianity has it's roots in the Hebrew peoples and was once a sect until it became predominantly gentile.
The moslem religion is based upon the teachings and live of Mohammed and is closely linked to state governance!

well originally this had to be the case... islam was founded in the middle of warring, tribal arabia and was constantly under attack and fighting for their lives.

i disagre with the current 'islamic states' and how they act, stoning people for adultery and things like this.. it's unislamic (ignores the clear punishment for adultery in quran which is 100 lashes, not barbaric stoning).

'islam' as a society has been corrupted, even if it is only a minor corruption. this does not take away from the wonderful teachings of the prophet muhammed which included respect even for one's enemy and taught to have good manners and always act in the name of God and not yourself.

you need governments or you get wiped out... read about the mongol empire and the mamluks for a more recent example (within context of the last two centuries)

sharia has clear separation of church and state

for example if you dont obey USA laws, it is against sharia, which says you must follow the rules of whatever country you are in - and if they are unislamic you shoudl try to leave.

[heaven]

Once again, Muhammad was only a man - no one claimed that his knowledge of Christianity was complete. It has been a long time since legitimate Muslim scholars claimed that the Virgin Mary had anything to do with the Trinity. Check your sources.



Did they claim to follow the will of God? Or be a follower of God? Then, when translated into Arabic, they were "Muslims." End of story. The terminological definition of "muslim" is not as the post-Qu'ranic definition of Muslim. Get over it.



Can you prove that he didn't? No, you can't. Just as you cannot prove to me that the "miracles" of your bible are anything but legends and myths. Once again, get over yourself.



Actually, this was a common claim among Christian splinter sects, including the well-known Gnostics. The relative legitimacy of this claim is inconsequential, in the context that Muhammad was only a human, and not divine.



Can you prove that he did? As for missing bodies, can you tell me where the body of my great-granduncle is located? I sure can't. But I can tell you that he had one.

Oh, and again, regarding Muhammad's body - no legitimate source claims that Muhammad was anything but human. The existence of a corpse is expected, and has absolutely no worth to your argument. This is like me asking you why we know where Ronald Reagan's body is, because, if he was truly a good man, it would be gone. Get it? IT DOESN'T MATTER - HE'S ONLY A HUMAN, HE ONLY EVER WAS A HUMAN. Anyone who claims messiah status for Muhammad has clearly failed to read the Qu'ran, study Islamic tradition, or even bother looking at resources not specifically designed to propagandize against the "terrible Muslims."

Get over yourself - even your name shows your bias.


**************************************

Abraham walked by faith and not submission.

[Cynic Sage]

**************************************

Abraham walked by faith and not submission.
That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can't have faith without submission. It's like saying Abraham had fingernails but didn't have fingers.

[Krusader]

That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can't have faith without submission. It's like saying Abraham had fingernails but didn't have fingers.

Heaven is right. It is faith that saves, not submission. Buddhists submit to Buddha. Muslims submit to Allah. Submission is part of a works system of salvation that has been devised by men since the beginning of time.

Faith, on the other hand, is the means of salvation provided to mankind as a wonderful gift: Read Ephesians 2:8-9.

If you cannot understand this, then you have yet to experience it.

[Cynic Sage]

Heaven is right. It is faith that saves, not submission. Buddhists submit to Buddha. Muslims submit to Allah. Submission is part of a works system of salvation that has been devised by men since the beginning of time.

Faith, on the other hand, is the means of salvation provided to mankind as a wonderful gift: Read Ephesians 2:8-9.

If you cannot understand this, then you have yet to experience it.
Crusader, you don't understand. You can't walk by faith without submitting to God. I wasn't saying anything about being saved by submission. When Abraham left his father's house to travel to Canaan with his wife because God told him to he was submitting to God.

[Krusader]

Crusader, you don't understand. You can't walk by faith without submitting to God. I wasn't saying anything about being saved by submission. When Abraham left his father's house to travel to Canaan with his wife because God told him to he was submitting to God.

Are you always obedient to God? Thank God that our salvation is not contingent upon our personal obedience. You should know that by submission the Muslim is speaking of submission to all the rules and regs Mohammed outlined in the Quran: these are known as the pillars of Islam. Furthermore, jihad or holy war is another part of that Quranic submission.

You need to be very careful of your terminology when dealing with those of other faiths - but this advice comes from me, that terrible apologist, so you can take it with a grain of salt.

[heaven]

Crusader, you don't understand. You can't walk by faith without submitting to God. I wasn't saying anything about being saved by submission. When Abraham left his father's house to travel to Canaan with his wife because God told him to he was submitting to God.

Abraham heard the voice of God, not the voices of the surrounding idols and demons and he believed God and he was obedient to God, and so Abraham walked by faith believing that what God said to him was the truth and the way.
Abraham had a choice , there was no coercion nor forced obedience and faith.