|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 13, 2013 11:18:01 GMT -6
This is mostly for Muslims members like Woodro, but everyone is welcome to participate
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 14, 2013 6:51:33 GMT -6
While non-Muslims will disagree that Muhammad(saws) was philosophised in Jewish Scripture (What Christians call The OT) When read in Hebrew it is clear Muhammad was named. Also in the NT if the words attributed to Jesus(as) are the actual words of Jesus(as) he did foretell the coming of Muhammad. There are some very good scholars that have addressed this issue. From what I find to be the best source: SOURCE |
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 14, 2013 7:26:17 GMT -6
That does not seem persuasive to me. The preceding paragraphs tell us that God's people are about to enter the land that the Lord is giving to them. They are not to practice sorcery, nor to use charms, nor to consult spirits, etc like the people they are dispossessing. No, unlike them, God's prophet will speak the word of the Lord. The Lord says:
You shall be whole-hearted with the Lord your God. For these nations that you are about to dispossess heed soothsayers and spellers of charms, but you, the Lord your God has not given such. A prophet like me from your midst, from your brothers, the Lord will raise up ... and I shall put My words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I charge him.
From a Christian perspective, the prophet was Jesus. "Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work." (John 14:10). But Israel had prophets who spoke the word of the Lord through out its history. One thinks of Isaiah, Hosea, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 14, 2013 8:29:57 GMT -6
That does not seem persuasive to me. The preceding paragraphs tell us that God's people are about to enter the land that the Lord is giving to them. They are not to practice sorcery, nor to use charms, nor to consult spirits, etc like the people they are dispossessing. No, unlike them, God's prophet will speak the word of the Lord. The Lord says:
You shall be whole-hearted with the Lord your God. For these nations that you are about to dispossess heed soothsayers and spellers of charms, but you, the Lord your God has not given such. A prophet like me from your midst, from your brothers, the Lord will raise up ... and I shall put My words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I charge him.
From a Christian perspective, the prophet was Jesus. "Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work." (John 14:10). But Israel had prophets who spoke the word of the Lord through out its history. One thinks of Isaiah, Hosea, etc.
We both see things from a different perspective. If we both had the same perspective we would both be following the same religion. We each must follow that which we find to be true. All we can ask of every person is that they make informed choices, of their own free will and understand they alone are responsible for the consequences of their choices. |
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 19, 2013 14:42:53 GMT -6
Woodrow,
One might say that you as a Muslim, believe that the Bible was changed and modified, How do you know the verses you quote about the Bible was not changed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 19, 2013 16:28:00 GMT -6
Woodrow, One might say that you as a Muslim, believe that the Bible was changed and modified, How do you know the verses you quote about the Bible was not changed? First I do not claim all of the bible was changed. Most of it is of no concern as the only Books that are scripture are the Torah. Psalms, Injil and Qur'an. I do not know for certain what parts of the Fist 2 books were changed,. But is probable that the parts that do not conflict with the Qur'an are close to what the original was. The Injil basically vanished. No written book believed to have been spoken by Jesus(as) exists anymore. The Injil was probably never written but revealed only orally and was replaced by the NT before anyone wrote it. There are different ways of looking at the OT and the NT. ` The OT is different from the Jewish Bible/Torah/ Pslams.. But to find the differences it is best you ask a Jew. Most Jews will admit that there are words in the Torah and Pslams the meaning for was lost. It is interesting to see how the Torah and Pslams differ from the OT versions. From a Jewish site: SOURCEYou may notice in that site it is acknowledged there are at least 2 versions of the Talmud (Oral torah) and it is not known which is the accurate version. You should also notice that the OT does contain differences from Jewish scripture. there are changes that took place before the OT was written. The Talmud was not written by Jews until the 2nd century CE. Long after the Oral was revealed The next Book Muslims recognize as scripture is the Injil. The gospel of Jesus) it does not remain at all all that exists are Commentaries on what Jesus(as) said in the 4 Biblical gospels. Now how do I as a Muslims determine what parts of the Scriptures (Torah, Psalms and Injil) been Changed? I can't for certain. I can only assume that which does not conflict with the Qur'an might be part of the original revelation. We have no part of the Injil existing in it's original form. Not even erroneous versions. The only evidence we have of it are the 4 Gospels which may contain parts of it in Quotes of Jesus(as) It is very probabable the Books of the NT still do exist in their original Koin Greek form. but they are not scripture and are not direct Quotes from what God(swt) said. They are not the Tauret, Psalms or Injil. Changes or no changes in the NT are meaningless as to the Injil. On a personal note I do not think the NT has changed. But it is not scripture and has ne bearing on the Torah. Psalms or Injil, except it is not any of them. |
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Sept 24, 2013 7:39:12 GMT -6
It is my understanding that the geneologies of the Jews was destroyed when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 CE. How can anyone claim to be a descendent of anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by francis on Oct 26, 2013 11:07:42 GMT -6
Hello Woodrow...
I don't think anyone (least of all Maggie) believes differently than what you just wrote in the above quote of yours.
I think the real issue is that not all perspectives (or "informed" choices) can equally be true... if they contradict each other. Either your perspective (informed choice)... or Maggie's perspective (informed choice)... (or neither of you)... is correct. Or at the very least... one of you has the better reasoned and substantiated perspective and approach.
I applaud what you said above... and I would have liked to have seen what your "informed" approach was. That is to say... what are the intellectual reasons and arguments that grounds your perspective?
If you alone are responsible for the consequences of your choices (i.e. choosing Islam for example)... and if you are interested in truth... and if you are interested in making an informed choice... (and I believe that you are on all accounts)... then I would have liked to have seen a more reasoned argumentation for the basis for your perspective... which contradicts Maggie's perspective.
Simply telling Maggie that you see things from a different perspective than she does... it does nothing to show us that your perspective is rational or justified to begin with. Can you see that?
I've been away for awhile... and I do plan to start a new thread where we can discuss our differences (as per your generous and gracious agreement in our brief email exchange which we had earlier). And I hope than can be soon. But the point of the new thread would be to do what I didn't see you do with Maggie in this thread. And that was to get you to really dig intellectually deep and show us why you have the perspective that you do have.
Now... I know you are intelligent... and that you are on a lot of other forums (even as a moderator)... and that you have written a lot of good stuff. So maybe you felt that this thread wasn't worth responding to Maggie with a more informed reasoned argumentation to support your perspective... (maybe because you have dealt with the issue somewhere else). I don't know.
For example... You said that: "There are some very good scholars that have addressed this issue. From what I find to be the best source:"
And then quoted from that source. But the problem is threefold:
(1)... I couldn't find who this scholar(s) is (or what their credentials are) who wrote what you quoted. I couldn't find a name attached to the source you gave. I couldn't even find a name (or the person(s) credentials) attached to the website that the source was on. So how do I know that this piece came from "very good scholars" as you claim?
(2)... the source you give is from an Islamic perspective!! So what you've done is to quote an Islamic perspective to support your Islamic perspective in response to Maggie's Christian perspective. That is hardly persuasive... is it?
And (3)... the source you quoted doesn't tell us why or how those verses are speaking of Muhammad... and not someone else. It just makes the claim that it does refer to Muhammad.
That is what I was hoping this forum would do... which is to force us... or encourage us to support our respective perspectives with reasoned, logical argumentation and facts. Especially in light of your continual refrain that we (and you) alone are responsible for the consequences of our choices.
Indeed... Maggie is saying that Jesus fits into those exact same verses that your sources are using to support your claim (perspective) that the OT was talking about Muhammad.
Therefore... if both Jesus and Muhammad fit those verses... then how do you know which person those verses are referring to? You can't use those verses to support your perspective if those verses support the Christian Perspective as well.
You have to go beyond those verses that your Islamic source uses... to arrive at a better conclusion... or to support your conclusion (perspective)... which contradicts Maggie's perspective. Can you see that?
That is to say... if the verses from the quote you gave us... is ambiguous enough that it can fit either Muhammad or Jesus... or someone else entirely... and if there are no supporting arguments/facts (you have not give us any) to know who those verses are referring to... then those verses can't intellectually be used to answer this threads OP... or to support your claim (or be used as proof) that the OT and the NT does refer to Muhammad.
Isn't that rationally correct?
Anyway... I respectfully submit this humble reply... with the intention of being gracious.
Francis
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Oct 26, 2013 11:28:27 GMT -6
Nicely said. I would be interested in pursuing the subject more deeply, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiahanie on Oct 26, 2013 13:13:55 GMT -6
I appreciate that Christians and Muslims read backward into the Hebrew scriptures and use insights there to illuminate their own religious perspectives. But I think there is little to be gained in a discussion of Jewish scripture that quotes Islamic sources to justify Islamic understandings, and Christian sources to justify Christian understandings. Jewish scripture is probably best understood in the context of the people who gave rise to it and have interpreted it for millennia. When that is understood, there is a rich lode of real meaning that can enlighten other religious (and non-religious) peoples.
The same is true for the scriptures of other religions (Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, etc): there is illumination for us all when we read them in the Light in which they were written, in the historical, cultural, and spiritual contexts that nourished those traditions.
|
|
