From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity

[robert68]

Very well. My post was a very simple question which you did not answer.

I don’t know if he was good. I never met him, and the stories about him all come from human grapevines, which are unreliable message delivery systems.

[robert68]

But that verse doesn't do that, as ewizacft's question reveals. In fact, given the premise that Jesus is good, which the original audience of Mark's Gospel was surely expected to assume, it presents them with a strong positive support for their belief in his divinity.

I don't agree.

[erowe1]

I don't agree.

Which part don't you agree with? That Mark's original audience was supposed to understand that verse on the assumption that Jesus is good?

[heavenlyboy34]

I don’t know if he was good. I never met him, and the stories about him all come from human grapevines, which are unreliable message delivery systems.

Lots of what we know (or at least think we know) about the ancient world comes to us from human grapevines.

[Muwahid]

What is the difference between Elohim and Jehovah/Yahweh (printed as LORD in the old testament)? I see that you believe Allah to be the same as Elohim. Is Elohim the same as Jehovah/Yahweh?

Elohim is a cognate to Allah is the semitic languages (same root), except Elohim suffixes a plural indicator which denotes respect as well. I believe Christians believe YHWH is a name, in reference to God. Perhaps one of them can expound on the nuance of it, but Eloh, Elohim, Ilah, Allah, all come from one semitic root, and can be traced back to the God the ancient semites thought to be the creator of everything.

[ewizacft]

Elohim is a cognate to Allah is the semitic languages (same root), except Elohim suffixes a plural indicator which denotes respect as well. I believe Christians believe YHWH is a name, in reference to God. Perhaps one of them can expound on the nuance of it, but Eloh, Elohim, Ilah, Allah, all come from one semitic root, and can be traced back to the God the ancient semites thought to be the creator of everything.

Do you believe that Elohim in the old testament is the same as Allah, the God in Islam? If so, do you believe that YHWH is a name or reference of Elohim? I believe the Jews were the ones to use YHWH. I would think studying what the Jews thought of the name would be better.

[Muwahid]

Do you believe that Elohim in the old testament is the same as Allah, the God in Islam? If so, do you believe that YHWH is a name or reference of Elohim? I believe the Jews were the ones to use YHWH. I would think studying what the Jews thought of the name would be better.

Yes of course, the God of the old testament is the same God as Allah, both linguistically and theologically although I'm sure Jews would disagree with the last part. While true Muslims don't take the current bible to be the authoritative text of God as it was originally intended, we still recognize the Christians and Jews as a special status among us, for being monotheists.

[ewizacft]

Yes of course, the God of the old testament is the same God as Allah, both linguistically and theologically although I'm sure Jews would disagree with the last part. While true Muslims don't take the current bible to be the authoritative text of God as it was originally intended, we still recognize the Christians and Jews as a special status among us, for being monotheists.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. What do you mean by true Muslims? What do you mean by current bible? Which is the authoritative text of God and what is the original intent?

[Paulbot99]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. What do you mean by true Muslims? What do you mean by current bible? Which is the authoritative text of God and what is the original intent?

Muslims believe that the Bible was corrupted, though the Quran says for the Christians and Jews of his day to check for the mentioning of Mohammad in their Scriptures. Thus, it leaves the impression that the Bible was changed in Mohammad's time. Otherwise, it would be useless to check the Scriptures.

[Kevin007]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. What do you mean by true Muslims? What do you mean by current bible? Which is the authoritative text of God and what is the original intent?

They think it is corrupted.....

[TER]

Yes of course, the God of the old testament is the same God as Allah, both linguistically and theologically although I'm sure Jews would disagree with the last part. While true Muslims don't take the current bible to be the authoritative text of God as it was originally intended, we still recognize the Christians and Jews as a special status among us, for being monotheists.

I do appreciate the last sentence, which demonstrates the Islamic belief that Christians are monotheists.

Unfortunately, many Muslims call Christians polytheists, when Christians, as you say and as Christians know, are not. Christians worship one Triune God, -Father, Son and Spirit, Who are Uncreated and One in Will, Essence, and Power. And we, in our own essence made in the truine image of God, as His children, with body, soul and spirit. And our commandment is to worship correctly and to love one another, because those who abide in love abide in God.

This salvation has been made possible by His incarnate Word and Logos Who has re-established and indeed glorified our human nature by uniting with our nature and ministering His perfect sacrifice of love on the cross. Christ having overcome all things! Christ as the King of kings and the salvation of our real beings, flesh and all!

This is not, however, a belief which started recently, or in the fourth century. It is the belief of those who touched His flesh and ate with Him after He rose from the dead and saw Him ascend into heaven. And the disciples readily suffered torture and death confessing this truth and belief. It is the belief of the Apostles which has endured by the Holy Spirit AND THIS is why the belief has never been extinguished in the world or never will be according to the lips of this same risen Son of God.

There was one Old Covenant, and there is one New Covenant, and the hope and belief of the things written above is the foundation and very strength of it!

I think that the understanding that Christians indeed worship one God goes a long way in bringing greater peace and understanding, and I thank you for that. If we are to grow in knowledge, we should be able to accept truths from nontruths, as objectively as possible, suspending even what we think we know. We should be prepared to confront truths to those things which do not conform to what we have been taught and have made our own beliefs and seems right according to our logica, and humble ourselves in the knowledge that perhaps we have been misled or there was something missing or there has been a misunderstanding.

We should also not speak as an expert on things which we do not know and have not experienced. This too, would bring greater understanding and peace. And so hopefully this dialogue we are having will have us to grow more in the knowledge of things, knowing that God is the truth and He wishes to make Himself known to us.

The facts as seen by Christians are simple: (They are amazing and utterly full of wonder and of the power and love of God for His children!)

The belief includes this: there is indeed One Body of baptized members who have held firm to the faith as was handed down from the beginning in the persons of the glorified saints of the Church, who by the grace of God in the Holy Spirit, have faithfully passed down undefiled and uncorrupted the apostolic teachings of the holy Apostles. These are the teachings reveled by the risen Messiah Who has come to grant us life and salvation.

And in one communion,

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;" - Ephesians 4:4

Allow me first to emphasize St. Paul's words :"one body". Also that there is one hope which he is referring to.

This one hope is that the awaited Messiah, Who was prophecized from the beginning, Who put the stars in the skies and is the 'firstfruits' of the new creation, has destroyed death by His death and has granted us eternal life. This is the one hope which they believed, confessed, and readily and bravely gave their lives for.

Christ as the God man and resurrected Son of God was the original, ancient, orthodox belief of the Apostles. It also was from the beginning and into time the catholic confession, agreed upon by everyone, by reason of and virtue to the fact that this had indeed been the apostolic hope and confession of the Apostles. And this was held together by one faith in one mind as one body partaking in the One Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In eucharistic worship, and in one mind and faith, they communed in unity and celebration with all the members as one body, including with the heavenly hosts and all the saints.

And we see that this was the faith which overcame first the Empire, and then the entire world. And how quickly!

Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. (1 Peter 3:8)

In one mind, in one confessed faith, as revealed by Jesus Christ and passed down by His Apostles, and in one love as brothers in Christ. This is the blessing of our salvation! All given freely to us by God on account of His love and goodness.

Some of those saved go through more difficult paths than others. Either way, there is one destination, and that is Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, all who are saved have been refined by the fire of the Holy Spirit, as it was on the day of Pentecost when the glorified saints were born of the Holy Spirit, and when they spoke were understood in every language by the miracle of God.

These are proofs of God in the world, these miracles and the holy saints, for these saints they carried within themselves God Himself in the Holy Spirit.

And their fervent prayers raised the dead, and their obedience to Christ gave hope to the masses and converted cities and nations by the demonstration of God abiding in them, in their words and acts of love and sacrifice and mercy and forgiveness.

These are the early members of the one body of believers, who every Lord's Day met in order to confirm their unity of mind and faith with one another and with the world, sealed and strengthened by the very Body and very Blood of Christ. 'The Manna from Heaven' as He said regarding Himself.

The amazing truth is that there has been one such communion which has endured down the ages, the same communion of members who wrote the Scriptures, transcribed the Scriptures, passed them down faithfully, and later canonized them for the protection of the flock. These are the same Scriptures which Muhammad would say seven centuries later were corrupted, and not just in small points, but with the very foundation teachings which was the cause of this great evangelism! With regards to the very hope which carried the writings and the faith through the ages!

And this is why Muhammad's claims must be rejected, for they ignore history and the wonders of the saints of the Church. He makes claims which are unsupported by the historical accounts and by the Holy Tradition of the Church.

That the communion of the same Body and Blood of Christ continues in this world testifies squarely against Islam. That every Lord's day, the Church comes together in space and time, and outside of it, to worship the Holy Trinity, in unity of faith and mind and body and spirit with the saints is proof that the truths have endured in this world. And amazingly, it has, by the power and grace of the Holy Spirit. For this reason we glorify and praise God and give our lives for Him.

[Muwahid]

Muslims believe that the Bible was corrupted, though the Quran says for the Christians and Jews of his day to check for the mentioning of Mohammad in their Scriptures. Thus, it leaves the impression that the Bible was changed in Mohammad's time. Otherwise, it would be useless to check the Scriptures.

There were Christians, before Muhammad claimed prophethood who said he was a prophet. The name used was "Ahmad". The verse in the Qur'an describing this says:

قال عيسى ابن مريم يابني اسرائيل اني رسول الله اليكم مصدقا لما بين يدي من التوراة ومبشرا برسول ياتي من بعدي اسمه احمد (Jesus the son of Mary said, 'O children of Israel! verily, I am the apostle of God to you, verifying the law that was before me and giving you glad tidings of an apostle who shall come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed!) 61:6

Ahmad is from the same root as Muhammad.

Some Muslims postulate that Ahmad was literally translated, because in Arabic it would mean "I praise". In Hebrew it would probably be a translatable word too, not just a proper noun, so in that way it may have been lost in translation.

But what is interesting is that both Christian and Jewish tribes DID believe Muhammad was the next coming prophet. However we do know the Qur'an rejects some of the bible, like what we believe is the heightened status of Jesus into a begotten son rather than a figurative son.

[TER]

But what is interesting is that both Christian and Jewish tribes DID believe Muhammad was the next coming prophet.

Can you provide more information regarding these Christian tribes? I would like to see how it is demonstrated that these such Christians can claim 'Muhammand is the last prophet' to be the apostolic and orthodox faith which the Apostles spread throughout the world.

[TER]

If a tribe of Muslims suddenly proclaim that Christ rose from the dead, is the Savior and Son of God, and that Muhammad was deceived, does that mean that what they were proclaiming was the original and accurate Muslim confession of faith? Of course not!

Neither does a small 'tribe of Christians' living in Muhammad's parts in the seventh century divorced by the communion of the Church be proclaiming the original and accurate Christian confession of faith. In fact, the faith of the ancient Church gives but one prophecy about people like Muhammad, and it actually is a warning.

[robert68]

Lots of what we know (or at least think we know) about the ancient world comes to us from human grapevines.

You don’t speak for “we”. And even if that were somewhat true, it doesn’t imply allowing it or a claim one finds implausible, to govern their life and be their moral compass.

[Muwahid]

Can you provide more information regarding these Christian tribes? I would like to see how it is demonstrated that these such Christians can claim 'Muhammand is the last prophet' to be the apostolic and orthodox faith which the Apostles spread throughout the world.

I should correct myself, I believe there was a Christian diaspora in Arabia, but not whole tribes, there were very prominent Jewish tribes however who affirmed the coming of a prophet from their scriptures.

Of the Christian diaspora perhaps the most famous is the cousin of Khadijah, Waraqa ibn Nawfal. Here's a bit on him

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as God wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" God's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This was the same one who keeps the secrets whom Allah had sent to Moses (angel Gabriel). I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." God's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while

Another was Baheera the monk (Nestorian Christian) whom Muhammad ص met on his way to Sham.

When the Messenger of Allâh was twelve years old, he went with his uncle Abu Talib on a business journey to Syria. When they reached Busra (which was a part of Syria, in the vicinity of Howran under the Roman domain) they met a monk called Bahira (his real name was Georges), who showed great kindness, and entertained them lavishly. He had never been in the habit of receiving or entertaining them before. He readily enough recognized the Prophet and said while taking his hand: "This is the master of all humans. Allâh will send him with a Message which will be a mercy to all beings." Abu Talib asked: "How do you know that?" He replied: "When you appeared from the direction of ‘Aqabah, all stones and trees prostrated themselves, which they never do except for a Prophet. I can recognize him also by the seal of Prophethood which is below his shoulder, like an apple. We have got to learn this from our books." He also asked Abu Talib to send the boy back to Makkah and not to take him to Syria for fear of the Jews. Abu Talib obeyed and sent him back to Makkah with some of his men servants.

As for the Jewish tribes, the likes of Abdullah ibn Salam, a scholar in Jewish scriptures

"When I heard of the appearance of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) I began to make enquiries about his name, his genealogy, his characteristics, his time and place and I began to compare this information with what is contained in our books. From these enquiries, I became convinced about the authenticity of his prophethood and I affirmed the truth of his mission. However, I concealed my conclusions from the Jews. I held my tongue.

Then came the day when the Prophet, peace be upon him, left Makkah and headed for Yathrib. When he reached Yathrib and stopped at Quba, a man came rushing into the city, calling out to people and announcing the arrival of the Prophet.

At that moment, I was at the top of a palm tree doing some work. My aunt, Khalidah bint Al-Harith, was sitting under the tree. On hearing the news, I shouted: “Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!” (God is Great! God is Great!)

When my aunt heard me, she remonstrated with me: “May God frustrate you... By God, if you had heard that Moses was coming you would not have been more enthusiastic.”

“Auntie, he is really, by God, the ‘brother’ of Moses and follows his religion. He was sent with the same mission as Moses.” She was silent for a while and then said: “Is he the Prophet about whom you spoke to us who would be sent to confirm the truth preached by previous (Prophets) and complete the message of his Lord?”

“Yes,” I replied. Without any delay or hesitation, Abdullah went out to meet the Prophet. He saw crowds of people at his door. I moved about in the crowds until I reached close to him. The first words I heard him say were: 'O people! Spread peace...Share food...Pray during the night while people sleep... and you will enter Paradise in peace...' I looked at him closely. I scrutinized him and was convinced that his face was not that of an imposter. I went closer to him and made the declaration of faith that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God. The Prophet turned to me and asked: 'What is your name?' 'Al-Husayn ibn Salam,' I replied. 'Instead, it is (now) Abdullah ibn Salam,' he said (giving me a new name). 'Yes,' I agreed. 'Abdullah ibn Salam (it shall be). By Him who has sent you with the Truth, I do not wish to have another name after this day.' I returned home and introduced Islam to my wife, my children and the rest of my household.

Here's some historical context from a hadith

أن يهود كانوا يستفتحون على الأوس والخزرج برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قبل مبعثه . فلما بعثه الله من العرب كفروا به ، وجحدوا ما كانوا يقولون فيه . فقال لهم معاذ بن جبل ، وبشر بن البراء بن معرور ، أخو بني سلمة يا معشر يهود ، اتقوا الله وأسلموا ، فقد كنتم تستفتحون علينا بمحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ونحن أهل شرك ، وتخبروننا بأنه مبعوث ، وتصفونه لنا بصفته . فقال سلام بن مشكم أخو بني النضير : ما جاءنا بشيء نعرفه ، وما هو بالذي كنا نذكر لكم ، فأنزل الله في ذلك من قولهم : ( ولما جاءهم كتاب من عند الله مصدق لما معهم وكانوا من قبل يستفتحون على الذين كفروا فلما جاءهم ما عرفوا كفروا به فلعنة الله على الكافرين )

Translation: The Jews used to supplicate against the tribes of Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj (Pagan tribes), of a messenger before the prophet (Muhammad) was sent to them. And when Allah send him from among the Arabs, they rejected him and denied what they use to say about him. So Mu'aadh bin Jabl and Bishr bin al-Bara from Bani [tribe] Salamah said to them: 'O People of the Jews, Fear Allah! Accept Islam, for you use to supplicate to Allah about Muhammad ص when we were polytheists, and you would tell us about him, and describe him to us.' Salam Bin Mushkim from Bani Al-Nadeer said: 'He didn't bring us anything we recognize! And he is not who we mentioned!'

So Allah sent down the verse: 'And when there comes to them a Book from God, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of God is on those without Faith'

So it's well known and documented that the Jews warned the Arabs of a new prophet, but they did not accept a prophet who was an Arab, they only wanted an Israeliite.

So the historical record shows, those who accepted and didn't accept Islam affirming the scriptures of the Arabs at least, had a mention of a coming prophet with a full description. It's also possible that the gnostics had similar texts, citing Baheera the monk. Now we of course don't have the same scriptures they possessed. You don't have to accept what in those scriptures as true, but the historical records indicate they did exist. This is why the first converts were Christians, this is why the people telling Muhammad he was a prophet before he even said he was prophet were Christians, and the Jews use to THREATEN the Arabs of an imminent coming of a prophet.

There are many other incidents. There's an interesting story, the king of Yemen named Tub'a, he came about 100+ years BEFORE the prophet, and he learned of the prophet's coming from fighting the Jews of Madinah. Here's the full story of that if interested


We know of this story because of the people of Yethrib (Madinah) keeping this story among them, and the Muslims narrated it in their books.

So again there's significant historical evidence that the Jews and Christians had the idea of a coming prophet named "Ahmad".

[RJB]

Another was Baheera the monk (Nestorian Christian) whom Muhammad ص met on his way to Sham.

A well travelled way indeed and not limited to Muhammad or one belief either.

[TER]

Muwahid, thank you for the interesting information. However, these few examples do not constitute their beliefs as being the ancient, orthodox, catholic and apostolic belief at all. In fact, if anything, it just adds more proof that those Christians held a heretical and innovative belief apart from the Holy Tradition and witness of the Church and are therefore rejected. Can you understand why a person would rejects such claims?

The same goes with the Jews who were waiting for a prophet and then converted into Islam. That does not give any proof that the ancient and universal belief and expectation of the Jews was of Muhammad.

[TER]

So again there's significant historical evidence that the Jews and Christians had the idea of a coming prophet named "Ahmad".

There is no historical evidence to link these beliefs as being the beliefs of the Apostles. Not because it was not written about in the Holy Scriptures (whether you believe in a fantasy that they were completely changed or not) but because the Holy Tradition of the one Church testifies against such claims.

[erowe1]

There is no historical evidence to link these beliefs as being the beliefs of the Apostles. Not because it was not written about in the Holy Scriptures (whether you believe in a fantasy that they were completely changed or not) but because the Holy Tradition of the one Church testifies against such claims.

This also goes back to our earlier discussion about the connection between Mohammed's view of the crucifixion and earlier "Christian" versions of the story.

I think that a lot, maybe almost all, of what the Qur'an says about characters from the Old and New Testaments does come from earlier legends that Mohammed had encountered. A lot of these circulated in oral popular folk story telling among illiterate people with religious affections that were rooted in some kind of mix of Christian, Jewish, pagan, and other ideas. A lot of these are bound to have parallels in extant texts that represent variants of Christianity that most Christians would consider heresy. A lot don't. And then, of course, for all the extant apocryphal texts we do have that tell legends about biblical characters, there were many more in the ancient world that are now lost.

So when Mohammed talked about "Christians" (or Nasraya or whatever he called them) and "Jews" he was talking about the lay people he encountered in Arabia who were identified by that label. Whether the Great Church or the Rabbis of the Talmud would consider those Christians and Jews their own was something Mohammed would have known nothing about.

This is also relevant when the Qur'an talks about the Christian and Jewish scriptures. Yes, it's true that the Bible as we know it had existed for a long time before Mohammed, and in most of the world it had a fairly secure canon and text. However, there were still lots of different apocryphal books circulating and continuing to be revered as scripture by wide varieties of people. So when the Qur'an refers to the injil (or Gospel, from the Greek euangelion), we shouldn't assume that Mohammed was thinking of the New Testament or the 4 canonical Gospels, but rather, as he saw it, those books, whatever they are, that those Christians over there have and call the Gospel, books which may well have included very strange late mythology without any historical basis. Mohammed wouldn't have even known the difference between one kind of gospel and another.

One major reason why Mohammed put so much in the Qur'an that parallels the Christian and Jewish Bibles and that retells the stories in ways that are so obviously later corruptions of the earlier versions that are given in those Bibles, is that Mohammed didn't know any better, and couldn't have.

[TER]

Great post erowe. If I may put it succinctly, the fact that these Nestorian Christians or 'Christians is diaspora' as they were described were not in sacramental communion with the Great Church proves that they held to heretical beliefs and not sharing the unity of mind and faith with the Apostles which was spread everywhere and could right be called the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.

[Muwahid]

erowe1, there's a great simplification in what you said regarding the construction of Islam as a religion. It was a well established fact that Muhammad was born, soon orphaned, lived with a bedouin tribe in his early years (an Arab tradition to 'toughen' up boys), then lived with his uncle Abu Talib, he was not educated, nor was he literate (as many were not), he was not in contact with many outside of his Pagan religion (most of the Jews were from Yethrib, a city he never lived in until they were kicked out of Mecca), and there's simply no accounts of him being around the few Christian scholars of the day.

So why is that biographical information relevant? The question becomes how did he have the information (even if you believe it to be erroneous), in order to write the Qur'an, in which literally hundreds of verses are about Jesus and Mary, and others about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Aaron, John the Baptist, and so on. Where did he obtain such information?

Then how did he take that information and create the poetry of the Qur'an with it? The poetry of the Qur'an was in such a way the Pagans thought it was from sorcery, and today we can just listen to it, and even if you're not a believe you should be able to hear the beauty in it's recitation. But Muhammad ص was not a poet, let alone the best one in Mecca. Poetry was something taken very seriously in Mecca.

Next, we find there is a lot of information regarding certain topics like embryology and biology in the Qur'an. The most famous is the states of embryology. Non-Muslim apologists often cited, a lot of this information was from the Hellenistic medicine, and could have been plagiarized. They can only cite one companion however who would have come in contact with hellenistic medicine as he was a doctor, however he came after those verses were revealed, and more important, the greeks believed a lot of right things about embryology but also some very ludicrous things, like the stages of development were all off but seem to be on point in the Quran.

But lets say he did plagiarize, again he was illiterate, so he would need even more people to teach him, so now we need essentially a committee of people to create this Qur'an... consisting of, doctors, theologians from the Christians and Jews, poets...

This is why I say the Qur'an itself is a miracle from God. If a single person can rationalize its creation, which even a shred of historical proof, then they have a point. But otherwise we see a large book produced, by an illiterate man, with immense knowledge of all the prophets, and messengers, among other things basic laws and commands for Muslims, ways to govern themselves, etc., as well as biological and scientific information, all in the form of poetry... he would have needed quite a bit of help to achieve this, but there's no evidence for that.

~

@TER I understand you take those beliefs as heretical and I wasn't trying to draw a connection between them and the accepted doctrine of the Church, but again I was trying to illustrate such beliefs did exist among some Jews, and Christians. You have placed your faith in the Church and the Churches ability to preserve the gospels, as I muslim im bound by no such biases towards one Christian doctrine or another, and really only look for what the scriptures say.

As people who pursue knowledge we must still question why would Christians and Jews have the coming of a new prophet in their books? By the name of Ahmad? Where did this come from? Where did they get their scriptures from? Surely they didn't write it themselves since we know a lot of what they had was in Hebrew, and many of them learned Hebrew to learn from the Old Testament. It still raises interesting questions.

The reason why I believe it's especially important to consider what other Christians and Jews thought is simply because, the simple truth is there's really no complete copy of the NT untill over 300 years after Jesus, right? So who is to say in those 300 years prior there weren't better/more accurate copies of these books, or, there weren't additional books which could have been included, but were arbitrarily taken out? That's where I think a lot of these discrepancies stem from... and that's not even taking into account the numerous translations, I mean what language did Jesus speak? When he's quoted are those his actual words in Koine Greek... or Hebrew? The language of the Jews, or even Aramaic?

[heavenlyboy34]

You don’t speak for “we”. And even if that were somewhat true, it doesn’t imply allowing it or a claim one finds implausible, to govern their life and be their moral compass.

In this case, I do. "We" being all humans.

[erowe1]

erowe1, there's a great simplification in what you said regarding the construction of Islam as a religion. It was a well established fact that Muhammad was born, soon orphaned, lived with a bedouin tribe in his early years (an Arab tradition to 'toughen' up boys), then lived with his uncle Abu Talib, he was not educated, nor was he literate (as many were not), he was not in contact with many outside of his Pagan religion (most of the Jews were from Yethrib, a city he never lived in until they were kicked out of Mecca), and there's simply no accounts of him being around the few Christian scholars of the day.

So why is that biographical information relevant? The question becomes how did he have the information (even if you believe it to be erroneous), in order to write the Qur'an, in which literally hundreds of verses are about Jesus and Mary, and others about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Aaron, John the Baptist, and so on. Where did he obtain such information?

Then how did he take that information and create the poetry of the Qur'an with it? The poetry of the Qur'an was in such a way the Pagans thought it was from sorcery, and today we can just listen to it, and even if you're not a believe you should be able to hear the beauty in it's recitation. But Muhammad ص was not a poet, let alone the best one in Mecca. Poetry was something taken very seriously in Mecca.

Next, we find there is a lot of information regarding certain topics like embryology and biology in the Qur'an. The most famous is the states of embryology. Non-Muslim apologists often cited, a lot of this information was from the Hellenistic medicine, and could have been plagiarized. They can only cite one companion however who would have come in contact with hellenistic medicine as he was a doctor, however he came after those verses were revealed, and more important, the greeks believed a lot of right things about embryology but also some very ludicrous things, like the stages of development were all off but seem to be on point in the Quran.

But lets say he did plagiarize, again he was illiterate, so he would need even more people to teach him, so now we need essentially a committee of people to create this Qur'an... consisting of, doctors, theologians from the Christians and Jews, poets...

This is why I say the Qur'an itself is a miracle from God. If a single person can rationalize its creation, which even a shred of historical proof, then they have a point. But otherwise we see a large book produced, by an illiterate man, with immense knowledge of all the prophets, and messengers, among other things basic laws and commands for Muslims, ways to govern themselves, etc., as well as biological and scientific information, all in the form of poetry... he would have needed quite a bit of help to achieve this, but there's no evidence for that.

~

@TER I understand you take those beliefs as heretical and I wasn't trying to draw a connection between them and the accepted doctrine of the Church, but again I was trying to illustrate such beliefs did exist among some Jews, and Christians. You have placed your faith in the Church and the Churches ability to preserve the gospels, as I muslim im bound by no such biases towards one Christian doctrine or another, and really only look for what the scriptures say.

As people who pursue knowledge we must still question why would Christians and Jews have the coming of a new prophet in their books? By the name of Ahmad? Where did this come from? Where did they get their scriptures from? Surely they didn't write it themselves since we know a lot of what they had was in Hebrew, and many of them learned Hebrew to learn from the Old Testament. It still raises interesting questions.

The reason why I believe it's especially important to consider what other Christians and Jews thought is simply because, the simple truth is there's really no complete copy of the NT untill over 300 years after Jesus, right? So who is to say in those 300 years prior there weren't better/more accurate copies of these books, or, there weren't additional books which could have been included, but were arbitrarily taken out? That's where I think a lot of these discrepancies stem from... and that's not even taking into account the numerous translations, I mean what language did Jesus speak? When he's quoted are those his actual words in Koine Greek... or Hebrew? The language of the Jews, or even Aramaic?

I don't doubt that Mohammed had the assistance of a spiritual being in composing the Qur'an. I believe it was satanic.

But I also think that the kinds of legends he tells about biblical characters parallel other known legends that circulated about them so that it's simplest to explain them on account of his having heard the stories. He may also have embellished them just as those who came before him had embellished the versions he heard. I'm not talking about stories that came from Christian scholars. I'm talking about folk legends. Just the kinds of things he would have heard in just the upbringing you described.

What you're suggesting would seem to imply that Mohammed got special information that would have set the historical record straight. But that's the opposite of what we have. Instead, the legends of the Qur'an are later corrupted versions of the biblical stories that are historically worthless.

[Muwahid]

I don't doubt that Mohammed had the assistance of a spiritual being in composing the Qur'an. I believe it was satanic.

(Sorry, had to do it :P)

[erowe1]

(Sorry, had to do it :P)

No apology needed. I hate memes. I bet that the prisoners in Gitmo have to look at lots and lots of memes. But that wasn't a bad use of one, as memes go.

I know that what I said could be offensive. But it's what I believe. Mohammed claimed to have been aided by revelations from an angel, and in light of the biblical doctrine of angels, that seems very possible to me.

[Muwahid]

No apology needed. I hate memes. I bet that the prisoners in Gitmo have to look at lots and lots of memes. But that wasn't a bad use of one, as memes go.

I know that what I said could be offensive. But it's what I believe. Mohammed claimed to have been aided by revelations from an angel, and in light of the biblical doctrine of angels, that seems very possible to me.

Well it would be very difficult to convince someone otherwise if they concede to Islam starting from a supernatural source (even if a Satanic one), because then it comes down to faith. And I understand where you're coming from because I believe the Pagan religions were Satanically inspired-- praying to statues, or the moon, or fire; the shayateen would very easily be able to convince mankind to worship these things because they can shapeshift and appear as what we might believe an angel, or god, or goddess may look like.

The only argument I could speak of against Islam being of a satanic source would be looking at the life of the prophet, and his companions, who gave everything for a monotheistic religion. Also it grew to be essentially the worlds largest religion spanning many different cultures and people. I think people have natural instincts towards God, this is why Christianity does so well because although I may disagree with the divinity of Jesus nearly everything else to my ears is a very godly message to mankind, likewise Islam does well for the same reason.

[TER]

@TER I understand you take those beliefs as heretical and I wasn't trying to draw a connection between them and the accepted doctrine of the Church, but again I was trying to illustrate such beliefs did exist among some Jews, and Christians. You have placed your faith in the Church and the Churches ability to preserve the gospels, as I muslim im bound by no such biases towards one Christian doctrine or another, and really only look for what the scriptures say.

My friend, if what the Christians say are true, than we are all bound by the doctrines of Christ.

And what the Christians have always confessed is that Jesus Christ died on the cross, and then three days later He was alive again with the wounds still there (wounds He has now). This was not made up later, this was the very reason why the Apostles and martyrs gave their lives in sweat and blood. The historical testimony of the earliest writers of the Church, the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils, the very Holy Tradition bound by the very Body and Blood of Christ are unanimous and unwavering: Christ is Risen from the dead!

The heretical and innovative beliefs of a small, isolated, excommunicated handful of Arabs which you keep describing as Christian and which you keep trying to apply as proof are not proof. They show no kind of proof at all. In fact, the only thing they prove is the very opposite conclusion you are trying to make. If they did in fact expect a new prophet to come with the name of Muhammad only demonstrates to me the craftiness of the devil and nothing else. To believe otherwise is to curse the Holy Spirit Who has entered into this world and established the Church.

Saying that Muhammad was deceived by a demon is offense to you, and I sincerely do not mean to hurt you by saying that, but that is the most accurate understanding of what happened to him, at least from a Christian perspective. In fact, Muhammed was terrified at the engagement and immediately after the experience with the angel, which demonstrates it was in fact a demon, for this is how an experience with a demon is. The Archangel Gabriel, the Herald of Good News, whose beauty is inspiring and full of peace and hope, never instills such fear to those whom He is giving the good tidings from God. This, theologically, proves it was not the Archangel Gabriel but a deceiving spirit.

There are so many other reasons to prove that Muhammadism has no link to the story to the Holy Scriptures, expect perhaps that he was from the line of Ishmael, and that he would be a wolf in sheep's clothing who Christ prophesized and warned about. Yet let us concentrate for now on the fact that the support you claim is not support at all but just even more greatly demonstrates the inaccuracy of the Quran.

As people who pursue knowledge we must still question why would Christians and Jews have the coming of a new prophet in their books? By the name of Ahmad? Where did this come from? Where did they get their scriptures from? Surely they didn't write it themselves since we know a lot of what they had was in Hebrew, and many of them learned Hebrew to learn from the Old Testament. It still raises interesting questions.

Surely they did in fact write it themselves, and this is the historical proof, because they were unknown and unaccepted anywhere in the rest of the world. This is what the writings from that period demonstrate. It is simply unheard of in the early writings of the Church, yet to consider that is was the faith which was simultaneously spread out in every direction by the Apostles of Christ and were in agreement everywhere else, is beyond stretching the imagination. You say that it's interesting? Yes, interesting in that we can see how the devil works, with patience and cunning, over the course of time and with evil intention.

The reason why I believe it's especially important to consider what other Christians and Jews thought is simply because, the simple truth is there's really no complete copy of the NT untill over 300 years after Jesus, right? So who is to say in those 300 years prior there weren't better/more accurate copies of these books, or, there weren't additional books which could have been included, but were arbitrarily taken out? That's where I think a lot of these discrepancies stem from... and that's not even taking into account the numerous translations, I mean what language did Jesus speak? When he's quoted are those his actual words in Koine Greek... or Hebrew? The language of the Jews, or even Aramaic?

Muwahid, you are soley mistaken in your assertions regarding the New Testament. That there was not yet a canonized corpus does not mean that the ones which were indeed canonized were corrupted. In fact, they became inserted into the canon simply because they WERE the true and regarded teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Council. The proof is because they were accepted writings which the Christians spread throughout nations and regarded as unequivocally genuine and authoritative. This was not actually true for every canonized book, for example, Revelation caused some heavy debate. But with regards to the Gospels, there is no doubt in it's authenticity or charge or claim of corruption in the Church's work of faithfully transmitting without addition or subtraction the writings of these Apostles. They can be considered authentic not because I say so, or because someone else says so. Or even because my local priest or parish says so. They are authentic because the Church as one voice and one mind has said so. There was no debate with regards to the faithful transmission and accurate preservation of the synoptic Gospels, so to claim they were all distorted regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ is to make claims that defy history and logic.

And also, to make a claim seven centuries later in a land of corrupted faiths in every direction, including excommincated Christians and heretical Jews, which went against the fundamental teachings of the remaining 99.99999% of the known Christian world and then claim it is evidence, is unacceptable. So everyone else had to have it completely wrong so that what the angel said to Muhammad can be right. This blasphemes the Holy Spirit which has established the Church by the blood of it's martyrs, and points directly to the evil one as responsible. Those who do convert from Islam to Christianity have shed the indoctrinated lies put upon them, lies which are upheld by the threat of violence and through fear. They see that if one comes to the conclusion that Muhammad was lied to, then the scales fall off their eyes and they begin to see Christ in a new way, a saving way, which brings them the peace and joy of the risen Christ.

I say these things not to humiliate you, but to help you see what you try not to see. For Muhammed to be right, the entire world and historical witness must be wrong (except apparently for a few heretical Jews and excommunicated Nestorians living in Arabia in the seventh century.) A logical, reasonable, and honest man should not fight the truth nor turn away from knowledge which exposes the truth even though it may offend us. The repercussions are too great and yet so are the rewards, namely, our salvation and communion with God.

[Crashland]

Saying that Muhammad was deceived by a demon is offense to you, and I sincerely do not mean to hurt you by saying that, but that is the most accurate understanding of what happened to him, at least from a Christian perspective. In fact, Muhammed was terrified at the engagement and immediately after the experience with the angel, which demonstrates it was in fact a demon, for this is how an experience with a demon is. The Archangel Gabriel, the Herald of Good News, whose beauty is inspiring and full of peace and hope, never instills such fear to those whom He is giving the good tidings from God. This, theologically, proves it was not the Archangel Gabriel but a deceiving spirit.

I am cherry picking one paragraph of your longer response, but it kind of popped out to me. It seems to me that most times in the Bible when an angel appears to someone they are so afraid they nearly have a heart attack.

Luke 1:8-13

Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside. Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear.

Luke 2:8-10

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.

Matthew 28:2-4

There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

The first two were actually Gabriel the same angel you were referring to.

Edit -- let's not forget Daniel's encounter with Gabriel:

Daniel 8:15-17

While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. And I heard a man’s voice from the Ulai calling, “Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision.” As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate.

Daniel 10:10-11

A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.

I don't think Gabriel telling people not to be afraid really helped them all that much. Maybe it stopped them from having panic attack

[TER]

That there is an initial shock is of course expected. The fear is in the beginning, in the surprise of the visitation. But the herald of Good News by Archangel Gabriel (which only applies to your first example and last two) always ends in peace and hope and joyful expectation. Unless of course, the person doubted in disbelief, for example in Zaccharius' case, whereby his disbelief made him mute.

Muhammad's experience after he had his spiritual encounter is of fear not in disbelief, but in belief.

If I am mistaken in this, than I welcome Muwahid or anyone else to correct me. Did Muhammad not believe what the angel told him?