₦airaland Forum

mukina2:
my Oustass just told me that the Holy book came down with Ink, whip and writing stick .

And you believed him?

There's another al-Taqiyya. . . he lied to you, and sent koboko on your back!! And you took it almost gratuitously because he "just told" you so.

@davidylan,

The whole wahala-chat started when someone mentioned something about the religion of Chrislam - a syncretistic religion blending Christianity and Islam.

Next thing, my pally hissed and opined that chrislam is becoming old-fashioned, and the in-thing now is the Baptist-Muslim movement!    I chuckled and thought he was just playing pinocio. . . but what was my surprise when he roled up his sleeves and engaged us full circle debating this issue. He initmated that the movement started with this verse in the Qur'an:

Q.2 vs.138 - (Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.

Then he expounded blah-blah about how many adherents the movement now has; why the imams have failed to live up to the "baptism of Allah"; the reason why the Hadiths have been manufactured to make Muhammad look and sound bad. . . and why only "idiots" believe in the Hadith and refuse baptism, etc.

More astonishing is his claim that the movement is now growing in the UK - which is why I asked if anyone knows anything about this chap's claim at all. I have sweated it out trying to burst his bubble, googled it and nothing came up. . . but he's so concrete that I had to let him be.

Infact, that's the first time I saw that verse in the Qur'an about the "baptism of Allah!" 

davidylan:
An islamic baptist? This taqqiya is going too far.

Bros, I tire for my pally. The guy dey thrash me with his so-called "proof" that there is such a thing as Baptist-Muslims nowadays. Major difference is that they do not believe in the Hadiths, and bla-bla. Does anyone have a remote idea what this chap is yapping about?

jerrymania:
and fellas theres another proclamation of stupidity in southern china (i think so) about a woman (i'm not sure too) who they call almighty god. she has the power to forgive sins and save the world! Idiots!

She's called 'almighty God' of the Eastern Lightning cult:

The Development and Beliefs of the Eastern Lightning Cult

Cases Involving Eastern Lightning Cult

   

I knew that question was going to pop up sooner than later. Okay, I'm a Christian who knows where I belong.

In retrospect, my pally just hinted me that there's such a thing as a Baptist-Muslim nowadays. I'm unable to convince him otherwise, even though I strongly feel he's kidding. Can you help? 

Yesterday
Two types of sinners: (a) those who repent (b) those who do not repent.

Today
Three types of sinners: (a) those who repent (b) those who do not repent (c) those who tell us the difference between (a) and (b) but will argue for neutrality.

Okay, we know these things anywayz.

More amusements.

tonte:
bros 4 get that stuff it ain't no sin after all god created it 4 sum inspiration that nuffin else gives feel mii now and after this comment i gatta get like 2 wraps out man

Nope, 2 wraps are not enough to send you on 'speed' travel. Make that em. . . like 22 wraps??

Topic: Hello My Fallow Muslims

Okay, I'm just amusing myself - but shouldn't that have been "Fellow Muslims"?

@misright,

I certainly know where I belong. It's only a matter of days that yours becomes apparent.

misright:
Hello there, im here to invite you to surrender your will to your creator, the one, the only one most mercifull and generous whos every good attributes belong to who created humans from mud, threw a catch to heven and a catch to hell , nobody ask why because nobody existed then but we will be asked on that day when the good guys get what they deserve and the bads too

Make una dey deceive una sef. If na stimulus post that harrumph, you will still praise me, even if I had lied that I was a Baptist as misright did. No wahala, al-Taqiyya (the Islamic tenet of lying) is hardly a secret today.

LiquidMind:
Please Stop Smoking Weed Brethren Befor Somthing Strange Happen

Smoking Weed may cause you to tell people over and over again that you love them and they should advice you,

Na today? Something strange already happened when the topic raiser made his first post. The stranger thing is that he happens to keep people going - and he's enjoying it. I've said it before, and again I say: he should smoke the wet weed: there's 'speed' in that brand: then we shall all see the real STRANGE stuff!

@ishmael,

ishmael:
@stimulus
What do you understand by " he will be a wildman"?? Don't give a literal meaning to it, you hear??

Okay, I hear you. So, please give us your own abstract meaning and let's hear more.

ishmael:
and what do you understand by "he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren"?? Who are his brethren??

I've made the case already in another thread that besides Isaac by Sarah, Ishmael had other half-brethren from Abraham's second wife, Keturah. Their names are Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah (Gen. 25:1-2 and I Chron. 1:32). Are we to argue again that those were not a "literal meaning" as well?

Further, in Gen. 25:6, Abraham sent away the other sons 'eastward, unto the east country'; while Isaac dwelt at Lahairoi in the south country (vs. 11; and Gen. 24:62), which was located between Kadesh and Bered (Gen. 16:14).

The expression "he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren" points to Ishmael's original or native country/people - the Arab Egyptians.

"These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations. And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, an hundred and thirty and seven years: and he gave up the ghost and died; and was gathered unto his people. And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: and he died in the presence of all his brethren" (Gen. 25:16-18).

Here is the gist: 'all his brethren' is in particular reference to his native people the Egyptians ("gathered unto his own people", and not narrowly in reference to Isaac's progeny. Hagar was from Egypt (Gen. 16:1); the political boundaries defined for the Ishmaelites were around Egypt (ch. 25:18); and the covenant son Isaac dwelt rather in the south country (Gen. 24:62). Therefore, when you read that clause "he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren", do not mistake it for the same geographic spot, or an idea of intermingling of peoples in the same confines.

Now, if you really want to settle this greasy windscreen of Ishmael worshipping Jehovah God, may I ask you once more to kindly advance your texts for them and then I'll oblige you the very essence of what you've been missing out. If otherwise, you are not obliged to proffer any answers since you have no texts ready to your defence. Hence, you may retract on your assertions until otherwise when you can present something more to the point.

Ciao!

@babs787,

babs787:
@stimulus

The simple premise is for you to challenge and investigate the claims of the dressed-up article you reposted from that website. Those gentlemen are misleading the public reader into believing their linguistic re-engineering of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words into Arabic idiosyncracies, which is shamefully dishonest.

If anyone is being "cornered", take an honest and bold step to challenge those articles (the same thing I do in challenging even "Christian" writers) - then you will see how my assertion stands that those chaps are disingenuous.


Thanks but no thanks for the advice. The topic should have been "what is His name"

Astonishing as it may sound, it is an admitted fact that prior to the sixteenth century, the word "Jehovah," was unheard of. Have you noticed that Hebrew Language is being read from right to left as in Arabic).

The Christians claim that they have in their possession over twenty-four thousand so-called "originals" of their Holy Writ in the Greek language, and yet not a single parchment has "Jehovah" written in it. Curiously this "name of God" (?) has been sacrilegiously replaced by the Greek words ky'ri.os and the.os', which mean 'Lord' and 'God.'

Have you ever received any Jehovah witness?They have made the word JEHOVAH famous. They knock at people's doors, asking the question - "What is His Name?" The orthodox Christian replies - "God." They say, "God is not a name, it is an object of worship.

Stimulus, I have questions for you on the word 'jehovah"

1. Did Jesus heard the word Jehovah?

2. What is the word for 'God' in Aramaic and Hebrew?

3. How did Y H W H become Jehovah

4. What is a 'tetragrammaton'

As you are answering the questions, let us look at the below lists:


THE HEBREW ARABIC ENGLISH
Elah Ilah god
Ikhud Ahud one
Yaum Yaum day
Shaloam Salaam peace
Yahuwa Ya Huwa oh he


Thanks

It seems you're still dripping wet with the same arguments that haven't helped your case. If you can't take my advise, is it any wonder that you perhaps might be a little unsettled as to discover the painful truth? When you claim that the name of God has been sacrilegiously replaced by the Greek words ky'ri.os and the.os', what exactly was His original Name before the 'replacement'?

The philological argument you're advancing still show the difference between Hebrew and Arabic, regardless the closeness. What I have pointed out still holds: the claim of the author whose article you dressed up that Genesis 1:1 uses "Allah" is false. That is a re-engineered lingusitic blooper that won't stand scrutiny.

@babs787,

stimulus:
Anyhow, me and you still far from our wish - and I'm patiently waiting for someone to mistake me for that brilliant mind - shahan! I don try so tey, dictionary sef don tear for my hand!! And no one is saying anything sef!

No worry: me, I go just be mysef from now on. (Maybe if to say I put "f" as a female for my profile, I go don receive emails plenty)!

No vex, abeg no vex for me at all.
I didn't see this thread where you had already posted something about the above.

In fair exchange, I still stand by my statement that I enjoy your recent posts. Enjoy!

babs787:
It is not your fault if not for the pc. At times it goes and at times it got muddled up telling me that the pop-up is blocked, so I have decided to be using it like that.Or what is your headache there?

Good observation oluwatosin.

On a lighter note, I agree with mrpataki that your posts of recent are a bit more enjoyable. Infact, they make for easier reading and are eye-catching for me to pick the salient points to address when you itemize and highlight them.

Anyhow, me and you still far from our wish - and I'm patiently waiting for someone to mistake me for that brilliant mind - shahan! I don try so tey, dictionary sef don tear for my hand!! And no one is saying anything sef! 

No worry: me, I go just be mysef from now on. (Maybe if to say I put "f" as a female for my profile, I go don receive emails plenty)!   

Cheers.

@babs787,

babs787:
I'm sorry to read that Muslims understand 'CHRIST' as merely a title, and yet have not been bold enough to use it for Muhammad as well. In the same way, I may assume that Muhammad's title as the 'Rasool of Allah' is a mere title that non-living things were called. Not even the Qur'an assumes the "Messiah" is as you claim.


I was about leaving the thread when I re-read your above post. If you do not accept the word' christ' as being a title, let me have your meaning of it.

Below are verses where the word 'anointed’ is used

Genesis 31 v 13: ,,, I am God of Beth-el, where you anoint a pillar ,,,,


Leviticus 4 v 3: if the priest that is anointed do sin ,,,,

Leviticus 8 v 10: and Moses,,, anointed the tabernacle and all things that was therein ,,,,

Ezekiel 28 v 14: thou art the anointed cherub

Etc….

My point was direct and plain - the UNIQUNESS of Jesus as the CHRIST is undebatable - not even the Qur'an debates that. If I was mistaken, then followed my challenge as to why no right-thinking Muslim had dared to refer to any other Islamic prophet as "CHRIST" - not even used for Muhammad.

This  political foible that it was merely a title as applied to Jesus would have been applicable by extension to Muhammad. The fact that it was otherwise should offer Muslims the opportunity to reconsider the UNIQUENESS of the only One addressed as the Messiah - JESUS.

babs787:
Now on the issue of title. Every prophet of God is an anointed one of God – the title ‘messiah’ or ‘masih’ or its translation ‘christ’ is exclusively reserved for jesus in both islam and Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific titles which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage, like ‘Rasul-lullah’ meaning ‘messenger of God’ which title is applied to both moses (Quran 19 v 51) and Jesus (Quran 61 v 6) , yet ‘Rasul-lullah’ has become synonymous only with the prophet of Islam among muslims.

This is interesting. I only want to know why Muhammad was never referred to as "an anointed one of God" - especially since you claimed that every prophet of God is such (I assume you're making a case for prophets in Islam). Muhammad knew who was "the CHRIST" (or, the MESSIAH); he knew that title could never apply to him as he was not "the CHRIST" nor anointed of God.

babs787:
Every prophet is indeed a ‘friend of God’ but its Arabic equivalent ‘Khalil-lullah' is exclusively associated with father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God’s friend. ‘Khalimul-lah’ (One who spoke with God’) is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with all His messengers including Jesus and Muhammed (May Allah’s peace and blessing be on them all). Associating certain names to a certain personality does not make them exclusively unique in any way. We honour all in varying terms.

Take care

With regards to the last line of your comment ['Associating certain names to a certain personality does not make them exclusively unique in any way'], I have this to say:

(a) by extension, Muhammad is not unique in any way, regardless whatever claim is made of him in Islam. He is not the "last prophet" nor did he have any unique status in Islam;

(b) by extension, if Jesus was not exclusively "The CHRIST/MESSIAH" as claimed even in the Qur'an, then Muhammad should have been able to claim it for himself! If he failed to make such a claim, then you premise is flawed.

It is clear that there's ONLY ONE UNIQUE Person called "the CHRIST" in both the Qur'an and the Bible - JESUS. There's none other recognized as such.

Enjoy!

@babs787,

babs787:
Am not here to argue blindly with you because no matter what you are being told, be it the truth, you will never accept as long as it is not in your favour.

For your sake, I really do hope that we don't lead this discourse into blind arguments. However, have you not been doing the very same thing of wringing muddled ideas and pass them off as 'truth' as long as they were in your favour?

babs787:
So am not posting to win argument or whatever but for others to read and judge.

As long as we do so in all fairness - which by way of challenge I've severally offered that you check out and investigate the dressed-up articles you have been reposting on the Forum.

babs787:
I wonder why you lay claim to some prophecy in the bible despite the fact jesus was never mentioned but very quick at rebuffing that of the prophet of Islam. Have you for one day gone through the Aramaic bible to verify my claim? Am leaving you to your drivel but will like to correct your spurious post

I rebuffed, indeed tried to dissolve, the idea of parading Muhammad as the Prophet of Deut. 18 simply because he wasn't there. And not even in the Aramaic Bible was Muhammad mentioned there either. The spurious linguistic re-engineering of the Hebrew language with which most Muslim apologists diddle the public reader today is modelled after the Islamic tenet of lying (al-Taqiyya).

babs787:
#1. Father and mother would also mean that there were many prophets who qualified as much, and not only Muhammad.

Jesus did not qualify for the prophecy here which you are very aware of. Muhammed qualified more than Jesus. Why bringing the issue of other prophet when we are comparing the three prophets? We are looking at the things in common with the three prophets

Which again is a misnomer of 'similarities'. My point was and is that, to use 'father and mother' as a criteria would not only disqualify Muhammad, but would heighten the chances of any other prophet born of 'father and mother' as more qualified than Muhammad. If you seriously want to look at "things in common" with them, what then would disqualify other prophets who were born of fathers and mothers, as if those are not common of men in general?

babs787:
#2. What is the miraculous birth between Moses and Muhammed?

Were the two of them (Moses and Muhammed) not conceived through the normal intercourse between husband and wife? Is that the situation of Jesus too? Was he conceived through intercourse between husband and wife?

You had listed that as part of the "Eight similarities between Moses and Muhammad" - and my question followed: "What is the miraculous birth between Moses and Muhammed?" If you already knew that they were "conceived through the normal intercourse between husband and wife", why list a 'miraculous birth between Moses and Muhammad' as a similarity?

babs787:
#3. Marital status is no criteria; as in the case with #1, many prophets also were married. Besides, that would even be a disimilarity between them, because Moses had only one wife while Muhammad was said to have more than a dozen.

It is not a disimilarity. Do you equate someone that marry regardless of the number of wives to someone that doesnt? Moses married, though one wife and Muhammed married too but more than one wife while jesus didnt even marry at all. What can be infer here is that they both married but one having a wife and another more than one, while Jesus never marry. Is someone that has married the same as someone that has never?

Don't try to flog the issue on the marital status. Other Jewish prophets were also married and had only one wife each as did Moses. Claiming that Muhammad's marriage to many wives as a similarity to Moses' monogamy is actually unwittingly stressing the dissimilarity between them.

Now, if marital status is to be a criteria at all, then the question of the type of marriage should be raised as well since you are claiming a stretched emphasis between someone who has married and one who never had. As concerning someone who has married, what is the similarity between polygamy and monogamy? You could also include the following types of 'gamos' (marriages), if you please and ask if these are "similar": adelphogamy - (form of marriage in which brothers share a wife or wives); bigamy; cenogamy (state of a community which permits promiscuous sexual intercourse among its members); and pangamy (marriage without limitation as to spouses).

There are no similarities between the various 'gamos' listed above; and making Muhammad's poly[/b]gamy similar to Moses' [b]mono[/b]gamy is to arrive from blind argument rather than open consideration of issues.

babs787:
#4. Does the rejection of Jesus by His own people establish the similarities between Moses and Muhammad?

So you don't know that it has? Moses and Muhammed were first rejected by their people but accepted during their life while jesus was never accepted during his lifetime.

Jesus was NEVER accepted during His lifetime? This is another argument from mere denial. See:

"Then [b]many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. . .Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus. . .Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him" (Joh 11:45; 12:11).

babs787:
#5. Already discussed earlier; this fails to make Muhammad the prophet of Deut. 18.

There are instances in the bible of persons who were given gift of prophecy only but they were not in a position to implement their directives. Some of these holy men of God who were helpless in the face of stubborn rejection of their message were Jonah, Daniel, Ezra, John the Baptist etc. They could only deliver the message but could not enforce the law. The Holy prophet jesus belonged to this category. It was confirmed in the Gospel when he was dragged before the Roman Governor, Pilate. Conclusively, both Moses and Muhammed not only delivered message but also enforced it. They were kings, ruler etc during their time and were feared by their followers.

First, a "prophecy" is not the same thing as a "directive". It is God's prerogative to bring about the fulfillment of the prophecies He gives through His prophets; but it is rather man's responsibility to obey the divine 'directives' or commands issued from Him to guide their lives.

Second, I applaud your magical re-drafting of events; but they simply hold no persuasion at all, unless you're recycling the Islamic re-interpretation given by Muhammad, just as Joseph Smith attempted with his re-invention of Biblical narratives.

However, the Bible shows the results of Jonah's preaching - 'the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them' (Jon. 3:5). Daniel was in captivity (Dan. 1:1, 6), but through his ministry palace officials were delivered from death, and the king himself was astonished (ch.2 ). Further, Daniel's prophetic interpretation of the king's dream came to pass, causing the king to praise God (ch. 4). Daniel's ministry also caused the king himself to make certain pronouncements: "Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort" (ch. 3:29). Did you call that "helpless in the face of stubborn rejection"?

John the Baptist came preaching "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4); and was also sent as "a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe" (John 1:7). The results of his ministry? Here: "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matt. 3:5-6). You can re-invent that as "helpless in the face of stubborn rejection"?

As for Jesus whom you described as being in the same category of "helpless", I only have to offer you the same answers as above: "Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. . .Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus. . .Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him" (Joh 11:45; 12:11). When He stood before Pilate, this was His remarkable statement: "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." (John 19:11).

From the foregoing, one cannot draw the inference you made earlier; unless they are being forcefully dishonest in their denials.

babs787:
#6. No new Laws - as a similarity between Moses and Muhammad?

Yes if you do not know. Moses and Muhammed came with new laws while Jesus came to act on the already existing laws. (Mathew 5 v 17 - 18)

I think you're missing the whole gist out of desperation. You listed "no new laws" as a "similarity" between Moses and Muhammad - and you still came back sweating it out. If you hold on to that idea, then you're simply saying that Moses and Muhammad had "no new laws" - which is a huge contradiction to your arguments.

However, Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17) - He knew exactly what He came to accomplish. Note two things here: (a) Deut. 18 did NOT state that the Prophet would bring "new laws" - in the sense that such laws would contravene God's Word; (b) the word "prophets" in Matt. 5:17 is in the plural, which means that several prophets spoke of Him besides Moses' prophecy (see again Luke 24:44). This establishes the principle that at the testimony of two or three every matter is established (John 8:17 and Deut. 19:15b ).

Now, if Muhammad's "new laws" were different from and contradictory to that already given by Moses, then it disqualifies the Arab prophet all the more - and this is evident on so many counts.

Just one example: what did Muhammad know of the holy Jewish feasts of the LORD, such as the Passover (Lev. 23:5 and Mark 14:12)? Without even so much as a clear statement on the intricacies of the established Law, Muhammad wanted people to gullibly believe that he was that "Prophet" in Deut. 18; and Muslim apologists now parade this criteria of "new laws" as a qualification in his favour. If such arguments hold at all, then by all means, every other non-Jewish and non-Arab prophet who brought different laws should qualify as well - and even much more than Muhammad.

babs787:
#7. The departure of Muhammad was very unlike that of Moses.

How? Both of them died natural death while Jesus was crucified as put by christians.

Muhammad was poisoned by a Jewess - is that a "natural" death?

babs787:
#8. If 'heavenly abode' counts, then where is Jesus Christ - is He not in heaven?

Hey, am not saying that he is not. Moses and Muhammed both lied buried in earth while Jesus was not. Moses and Muhammed did not arise after third day while Jesus did as put by christians.

Same thing could be claimed for all other prophets who lived, died, and lay buried in their tombs and sepulchres. So, there's nothing uniquely exclusive to just Moses and Muhammad in that criteria.

misright:
Not one christian could defend this claim that Jesus was historical when they failed to answer simple questions and back this claim with historical evidence instead of subjective opinions and self testimony.
- - -
For once I'd like to see Christians actually answer these simple questions to back their false claims, it should be simple if he's real, but since he's not you guys will never answer these questions without fumbling miserably.

And who is this fictitious character called 'misright' who goes about fumbling miserably with false claims that she is personally a Baptist? So much for intelligence and honesty! If "not one Christian" could defend her rantings, that must include this self-styled "Baptist".

TV01:
Without overstepping the mark, we should be free to question and scrutinise, the doctrines and practices of all who claim to be followers of Christ. We do it amongst ourselves (and the various traditions) here on Nairaland all the time. Why are those with a high profile, following or "ministry" exempted?

Precisely well-said; and where my views are challenged instead of swallowed wholesale, I'd be all the happier to learn and grow beyond my present maturity in Christ.

I don't need to wait and be asked: Juanita Bynum is a commercial prophetess who has perfected the art of snakeoil salesmanship. I pity those who 'rub her oil on their skins' (so to speak) - the next you know, we shall be hearing of snake-scales as well.

Perhaps I over-reached myself there. However, people should settle down and prayerfully read the Bible before celebrating any minister/ministry. Noise and hype aside, the chaff looks like the wheat; but the substance is not the same. I wish there was a way I could load up the full-length tapes and CDs of some of these grifters so readers could hear stuff for themselves.

May God bless me first - by opening my eyes more to His truth; before I pray that prayer for anyone else! Bless up brethren!

@babs787,

babs787:
@stimulus


I had the premonition that you were going to reharsh already weathered arguments here as in previous threads. Rest your heart, as it's not my style to push for unsubstantiated lingusitic misconceptions paraded by Muslim so-called 'scholars' who have no idea of the Hebrew language. That is why your efforts to sweat out their misconceptions is untenable here.


You know what, thats just the problem with most christians here on nairaland. You believe that you are the most knowledgeable. You always think that yours should be the most acceptable, thereby ignoring others.

It is not new for christians to utter the above when they are being cornered.

Did Jesus ever heard the word 'Jehovah' during his ministry? Was Jehovah part of Aramaic language.

I am leaving you in your drivel. Its a free world.

okay.

Haba, babs787. . . I did NOT claim to be the most knowledgeable.

Infact, if I ever did, then I should NOT have had to post the disclaimer that I am NOT a Hebrew scholar:

stimulus:
In Genesis 1:1, the word used for God is אלהים ['ĕlôhîym - el-o-heem'], not "Allah". I am not a Hebrew scholar; but here's a website that could offer sound help from those who know the language well enough: Hebrew Names of God. Then you will understand why such dishonest transliterations by disingenuous fellows are not worth the noise they make.

The simple premise is for you to challenge and investigate the claims of the dressed-up article you reposted from that website. Those gentlemen are misleading the public reader into believing their linguistic re-engineering of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words into Arabic idiosyncracies, which is shamefully dishonest.

If anyone is being "cornered", take an honest and bold step to challenge those articles (the same thing I do in challenging even "Christian" writers) - then you will see how my assertion stands that those chaps are disingenuous.

Cheers.

@ishmael,

You're trying to play a very infantile game with your drivel, and it's not such a bother to keep you busy at it. I've offered you several challenges:

#1. Extract from the Bible the verse that stipulates that Ishmael worshipped Jehovah God, and then you can rest your heart.

#2. To the question: "Is Allah Not The Arabic Word for Jehovah God?" I've offered you that there's no word as 'JEHOVAH' in the Arabic language. If there is, please point it out.

#3. When you bear out the texts that establish your assertion that Ishmael worshipped Jehovah God, then I'll point out just the sort of man he in the Genesis account; and what impact that had on his progeny.

If you're so lame in your defence as to offer textual evidence for your misconceptions, you can as well shout many pages in this thread about the same misconceptions - it won't change anything.

ishmael:
Thank God that you agree and acknowledge that God Blessed Ishmael because of Abraham's prayer(s) for him; He was Blessed that's it!! Was it not God's Blessings that was poured upon him?? Or is there any Blessings more than God's Blessings?? did the blessings transform into curse?? Or did God reverse the blessings??

Edit or modify it as many times as you want, God answered the prayers of ABRAHAM - not Ishmael's prayers. The rascal was only a mocker whose career was clearly spelt out in Genesis 16:12 - "And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren".

It's quite easy to rest your arguments. As soon as you adduce texts for the personal devotion of Ishmael towards Jehovah God, then I will spell out the rest for you of the sort of man he was. Sorry he's your name sake; but it won't change anything bro.

Regards.

@babs787,

Just a few more comments on the misconceptions you posted earlier.

babs787:
That’s the hypocrisy we have been talking.
Somebody will go scot free for saying something so far he/she is a christian but muslims will always be penalised for the same act.

By "the same act" you make it sound like you're actually engaging in what was alleged against you. There's really no point in making all those statements just to assure your readers that you're not lifting articles from other websites. The same could be said of anyone until proven otherwise; but what is important is that posters on the Forum should be able to reason for themselves.

babs787:
Moses was not a Jew but a Levi

exodus 2 v 1-2: During this time, a man and woman from the tribe of Levi got married. The woman became pregnant and gave birth to a son.

Your first assumption only shows how narrowly you debate issues. As pointed out earlier, it is like saying Muhammad was not an 'Arab' but a Quraish. What is the difference between a 'Jew' (common name for the Israelites) and a Levite (one of the tribes of Israel)? If 'Jews' and 'Israelites' are two different nations, please show us.

babs787:
The name ‘Jacob’ was changed to Israel after wrestling with God. The descendants of Jacob were Israelites consisting of the twelve tribe. Judah was nicknamed ‘jew’ so that only Judah’s descendants were called Jews originally.

You're correct in that inference from II Kings 16:1 & 6. Although that seems the case, the Bible also shows that the Jews were known to include all twelve tribes of Israel (Jer. 34:9). Mordecai was a Benjamite (another tribe of Israel) and was called a Jew (Esther 2:5; 5:13).

babs787:
So Moses was not a jew because he did not descend from Judah but a Levite. He was a ‘law giver’ to the children of Israel.

Now, since it is rather difficult for you to see this point, let's take Moses for what the Bible says he was actually called - a Hebrew (Exo. 2:6). The Israelites were also called Hebrews - from their heritage in connection with the name of God (Exo. 5:3); and this brings us back to what Abraham was called - a Hebrew (Gen. 14:13). You find here that Abraham, the Israelites, and Moses were not known as Arabs; and this fact should make you realize that Muhammad was not at all the Prophet like unto Moses in Deut. 18:15 & 18.

Levi descended from Jacob and was also part of the twelve tribes known collectively as the Jews (Jer. 34:9). No stranger from outside the twelve tribes could possibly have been chosen to give the Law unto the Israelites.

Further, Moses also was clear as to what he meant by 'thy brethren' in Deut. 18:15 - he was referring to the Israelites themselves, and not to the Arabs. Compare this with Deut. 15:12 - "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman. . ." Now since this establishes the fact that the Prophet like unto Moses was to be a Hebrew also, the question to ask is: was Jesus Christ from the Hebrews (that is, from the Jews/Israelites); or, was He an Arab? And if Muhammad was not a Hebrew or Jew, how do you force-fit him into Deut. 18:15 & 18, especially as noted that NO ARAB was appointed/anointed as prophet or priest to Israel?

babs787:
#2. Moses was a Monogamist while Muhammad was a polygamist.

Well, both of them married while Jesus never did. You claimed that Muhammed preached Polygamy while Jesus and Moses preached Monogamy, can you please bring out from the bible where it is said that you must not marry more than one wife as said by both of them.

Marital status is not a criteria in profiling who the Prophet was according to the prophecy of Deut. 18. For references about monogamy as taught by Moses and Jesus, please see Gen. 2:24; Mark 10:3-8. Moses himself had one wife (Exo. 4:20 & 18:2, 5); unlike Muhammad who had several.

babs787:
#6. No one knows where Moses was buried, while Mohammeds grave is known.

Here, they were all buried but Jesus rose the 3rd day (as put by Christians) while muhammed and moses never did that.

At least it is recorded that Moses was present on the mount of transfiguration with Jesus (Luke 9:30) - which was not at all recorded about Muhammad being with either of them.

babs787:
#7. Moses had numerous eye witnesses to his divine encounters while Muhammad had nothing.

Muhammed did too.

This is why it is important to ask if Muhammad actually performed miracles in such powerful manifestations as was the case in the identical miracles of Moses and Jesus. Other prophets in the Bible also performed miracles (Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, to name a few). But the miracles between Moses and Jesus are so identical and powerful that Muhammad could not boast of the same qualifications as to assume the fulfillment of Deut. 18.

Also, it is commonly held in Islam that Muhammad performed no miracles.

babs787:
#9. Moses performed miracles, while Muhammad did not.

He performed many miracles just like in the above

a. Water coming out of his finger in which it was used for ablution for many people.
b. He made the moon split into two
c. His ascension to heaven to bring the five daily compulsory prayers

Could you please delineate the "many miracles" you believe Muhammad performed besides those three? These 'miracles' are no miracles at all that would qualify Muhammad as the prophet of Deut. 18. It is arguable that the moon was split in two other than a mere claim in Islam. Even so, these miracles do not model those performed by Moses, and therefore Muhammad clearly fails to meet any criteria here.

babs787:
#10. Moses saw God face to face while Muhammad did not.

Muhammed saw God too during his ascension to heaven

Read:
Quran 17 v 1

Almighty Allah had said: Glorified (and Exalted) be He (Allah) (above all that evil they associate with Him), Who took His slave Muhammad for a journey by night from AL Masjid al Haram (at Makka) to the farthest mosque (in Jerusalem), the neighborhood whereof We have blessed, order that We might show him (Muhammad) of Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, etc.). Verily, He is the All Hearer, the All Seer."

I had hoped to read in that ayat(?) that Muhammad saw 'God face to face' - but where did it say so? It is clear he did not. If it was only a matter of being shown Allah's ayat, how does that equate to seeing God face to face?

Now, as regards the question of your bold assertion, I would say that some Muslims today for argument sake claim that Muhammad saw God (or Allah) "face to face" just like Moses did. To be honest with you, only very few rascally Muslims take that view; whereas, Islamic sources deny that Muhammad ever saw God/Allah. Let me reference a few texts:

In the Qur'an, we read in Sura 6: 102-103:
"That is Allah, your Lord! there is no god but He, the Creator of all things: then worship ye Him: and He hath power to dispose of all affairs. No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things."
Although Muslims may argue that verse whichever way they choose, here are a few clear pointers in the Hadith that reveal the testimony of Muhammad's favorite wife Aisha on the matter:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.9, Book 93, # 477

Narrated Masruq:
'Aisha said, "If anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen his Lord, he is a liar,
for Allah says: 'No vision can grasp Him.' (6.103) And if anyone tells you that Muhammad
has seen the Unseen, he is a liar, for Allah says: "None has the knowledge
of the Unseen but Allah."

See also Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 60, #378 where the same thing is expressed in greater detail.

Please note that I'm not, and never was, a Muslim; nor am I claiming to be an authority on the Qur'an. However, no honest soul would check the references offered and come away denying what they reveal against the brazen assertion that Muhammad saw God. Therefore, as is commonly held in Islam that no one could see God, this clearly negates your claim that Muhammad saw Him.

babs787:
In the twelfth year of his mission, the Prophet made his night journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, and thence to heaven. His journey, known in history as Miraj (Ascension) was a real bodily one and not only a vision. It was at this time that Allah ordered the Muslims to pray the five daily prayers.

Sorry, but that verse you quoted mentions nothing about Muhammad ascending to heaven. It simply claims that Muhammad was taken to Jerusalem, and no more.

babs787:
If you have read the verse very well, you would have seen the phrase, 'Like unto thee". Like unto thee here means that the prophet that the phrase refers to must have similarities with jesus.

What verse are you about - Deut 18: 15 & 18? And perhaps you meant to say instead, 'must have similarities with Moses'?

babs787:
So here, you are being one sided, acting on my unlikes to derive your own unlikes and never bother to go into the similarities between moses and jesus.

Okay, your allegation is noted. In due course the similarities will follow.

babs787:
For better clarification, below are the similarities again:

Eight similarities between Moses and Muhammed

1. Father and Mother
2. Miraculous Birth
3. Marriage Ties
4. Jesus rejected by his people
5. Other worldly kingdom
6. No new laws
7. How they departed
8. Heavenly abode.

You're reharshing the same argument already discussed; but let me offer you soundbite responses again:

#1. Father and mother would also mean that there were many prophets who qualified as much, and not only Muhammad.
#2. What is the miraculous birth between Moses and Muhammed?
#3. Marital status is no criteria; as in the case with #1, many prophets also were married. Besides, that would even be a disimilarity between them, because Moses had only one wife while Muhammad was said to have more than a dozen.
#4. Does the rejection of Jesus by His own people establish the similarities between Moses and Muhammad?
#5. Already discussed earlier; this fails to make Muhammad the prophet of Deut. 18.
#6. No new Laws - as a similarity between Moses and Muhammad?
#7. The departure of Muhammad was very unlike that of Moses.
#8. If 'heavenly abode' counts, then where is Jesus Christ - is He not in heaven?

@Backslider,

Certainly, the Bible urges us to expose the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11) and to do so in a spirit of meekness to the brethren (Gal. 6:1). It's not my style to denounce you or anyone as a false prophet - until you qualify as one.

We are not ignorant of the duplicity of many televangelists and the insidious seed of the "Prosperity Gospel" (more appropriately, the "Gospel of Greed" they propagate. My concern, however, is that many 'apologists' are dishonest in their attempts at exposing the mishaps. An example is your reference on the Trinity issue.

I've actually heard worse from other "WOF" (Word Of Faith) televangelists. Creflo Dollar's mentor (Kenneth Copeland) once referred to God as a 6ft man with a hand span of 9 inches! Benny Hinn at one time referred to the Trinity as consisting of "9 of them!" No, these are not things I was told - I have their tapes in my library.

Bottomline line is: let's have the decency to be honest with a pure motive when disavowing herecies pretenciously laced as "Christian". More than that, let us be careful ourselves - yea, let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest. . .!!"

ishmael:
And the same Bible did not record that Ishmael was not a worshipper of the true God Jehovah. the Bible did record it that the true God Jehovah blessed Ishmael and was with him through out till death.

Very simple: produce your texts and let's rest this smokescreen you're recycling. Ishmael's blessings were based on Abraham's prayer for him - the Bible states it so clearly. Nowhere is it recorded that Ishmael worshipped Jehovah God.

As soon as you proffer texts for your convictions about Ishmael, then I'll show you what you've missed.

batu:
@Stimulus,
I think you are taking Backslider too seriously; you should not. Backslider is somebody whose knowledge is now setting him for 'backward sliding' through pride. He is now so ignorant that a casual look through his TD Jakes copy and paste shows somebody picking an arguement with somebody due to his own poor understanding and comprehension.

I applaud your wisdom.

ishmael:
Take it or leave it, the truth is that the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob is also the God of Ishmael, meaning that the God of Christians is also the God of the Muslims.

Just one premise will suffice: If MUSLIMS themselves are willing to confess the same God whom Jesus Christ called "Our FATHER in Heaven", then you would have a case.

@ishmael,

ishmael:
@stimulus
The Bible did not talk much about the life of Ishmael after he and his mother Hargar went into the wilderness. Read the Quran for more stories about the life of ishmael; the Quran talks much about him than the Bible; and there is no where in the Quran where ishmael was said to worship a god other than the true God. If at all Ishmael and his mother Hargar worshipped a god other than the God they and Abraham worshipped in Abraham's house the Bible would have pointed it out. for God to have abided with him meant he still worshipped the living God his father Abraham worshipped. The Bible talked more about Isaac than Ishmael, so you would never get answers to some of your questions about Ishmael in the Bible. The Quran focuses more on Abraham & Ishmael than Isaac.

No matter how one looks at the issue, it still stands that you cannot substantiate your claims from the Bible - at least, not as yet. It would be interesting to see some more effort towards this, if you may; but after several rejoinders on the same question, you are yet unable to solidly rest your assertions.

Nonetheless, does it not rev your credulity that you'd offer to settle your arguments on the Qur'an instead? Something is seriously unbalanced in this type reasoning. Muslims cannot trust the Bible; why should the Qur'an be trusted for its unsubstatiated accusations against the Bible? The point here is that, your query does not presuppose discussants take their answers from the Qur'an, but rather from the Bible. How so? Let me explain:

The topic asks a question: "Is Allah Not The Arabic Word For Jehovah God?" The answers that have trailed that question is a resounding NO. There is no word as "JEHOVAH" in the Arabic language; and batu's reply succinctly tackles the question intelligently. However, as far as the name Jehovah has been severally mentioned in your posts, it suggests that readers fetch their answers from the Bible - and that is what I have challenged you to do several times.

Bottomline is that Ishmael is not recorded in the Bible as a worshipper of Jehovah God. The Qur'an may tell you otherwise; but there again, ask Muslims if Muhammad knew God by the same Name and identity in your query. There may be several attempts to reply with a 'YES'; but at the end of the day, they still have no answers to proving that he did.

@babs787,

babs787:
@stimulus


Tell me that "Allah" is Hebrew, then you would have made a point in your linguistic misconceptions.

Exodus 6:3 - "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."

I asked you some questions above. I am still asking you, did Jesus use the word 'Jehovah' during his time?

Can you show me anywhere in the NT where the word 'Yahweh' is used?

Jesus in the NT referred to GOD Almighty as "Elaw," which is the Aramaic word for The GOD, which is a sister word of the Arabic "Allah":

1- Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God (Elaw) alone.

2- Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God (Elaw), and serve him only.' "

And so on,

Not only that, but the NT even records Jesus saying "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani," which translates as "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?" Eloi is derived from Elaw and Allah.

"Yahweh" in Hebrew means "The LORD" or the "The GOD". It is not a name. Let us look at the following quotations from Christian and Jewish resources:

"Judaism teaches that while God's name exists in written form, it is too holy to be pronounced. The result has been that, over the last 2000 years, the correct pronunciation has been lost." (Mankind's Search for GOD, p. 225).

Here we clearly see that the pronunciation for the original name for GOD Almighty had been lost, and the Jews have no idea what the exact pronunciation is from their Holy Scriptures and resources.

"About 3,500 years ago, God spoke to Moses, saying: 'Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: The LORD [Hebrew: YHWH], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: This shall be My name forever, this My appellation for all eternity.' (Exodus 3:15; Psalm 135:13)" (Mankind's Search for GOD, p.225).

", the four Hebrew consonants YHWH (Yahweh) that in their Latinized form have come to be known over the centuries in English as JEHOVAH." (Mankind's Search for GOD, p.225).

So the word "YHWH" or "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" is not the ORIGINAL name, but the appellation (title) for the Almighty GOD. This is perfectly fine, because Jews, Christians and Muslims call on to GOD Almighty as "The LORD" or "The GOD", which means "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" in Hebrew and "Al-Rab" in Arabic. "Al-Rab" in Arabic and "Yahweh" in Hebrew and the other translations in all other languages are indeed GOD Almighty's title. But they are NOT His original Name!

Let us look at what Exodus 3:15 and Psalm 135:13 from the NIV Bible say: "God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, `The LORD [Notice that they didn't write Jehovah. "The LORD" in only a title], the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation. (From the NIV Bible, Exodus 3:15)"

"Your name, O LORD, endures forever, your renown, O LORD, through all generations. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 135:13)"

So as we clearly see from the above Verses from the NIV Bible, the original name for GOD Almighty is not "Yahweh". The title "The LORD" is only a title and a nick name (if you will) that we give to GOD Almighty. But "Yahweh" is definitely NOT THE ORIGINAL NAME for GOD Almighty.

"Allah" on the other hand is a name. It is the name of GOD Almighty.

Beside the crystal clear proofs above about Yahweh or Jehovah being just a title or "appellation" (Exodus 3:15) for GOD Almighty, I would like to raise this simple question, and simple common sense test:

How can any title that begins with "the" be a name?

If I call you "the man", as it is a common slang for a person to be called that here in the US, would that really make your name "the man"?

In Hebrew, Yahweh not only means "The LORD" or the "The GOD", but it also means "The Eternal" (according to the New Dictionary of the Bible). That's all perfect with me.

The Eternal, Yahweh or Jehovah, means "Al-Samad" in Arabic. Allah Almighty called Himself "Al-Samad" in the Noble Quran (Noble Verse 112:2). I am willing to address Allah Almighty from now on by the "Al-Samad" title (Yahweh in Hebrew) and not by "Allah Almighty" (His Holy Name) if that's going to make Christians understand Islam and embrace it!

How difficult is it to comprehend that a title beginning with "the" can never be a name! Let alone being an original name!

"Yahweh" in Exodus 3:15 was only a title and not a name, and it means "The LORD", "The GOD" and the "The Eternal" (according to the New Dictionary of the Bible).

Now, let's assume for a second that "Yahweh" is a name, which is really ridiculous since its English translation starts with "the". This still doesn't prove that GOD Almighty's original name is Yahweh! Exodus 3:15 that Christians are so big on using was revealed to Prophet Moses peace be upon him. How many years are there between Adam and Moses peace be upon them? Probably thousands! If not even millions!

So according to the Christians' logic, GOD Almighty was Nameless from the time of Adam until the time of Moses where He, the Almighty, supposedly had finally found Himself and His identity. Correct? Wrong! That's all a bunch of nonsense!

GOD Almighty's original Holy Name is clearly "Allah" or "Elaw"! Like I said above, when Jesus peace be upon him was put on the cross, he cried to GOD Almighty and said "Eloi", which is derived from "Elaw" or "Allah". He didn't say "Yahwahoi"!

The newest edition by the International Bible Society starts out "fi al-Bid'i khalaqa ALLAH al-samawati wal-ardha." The normal word for God, moreover, is "Allah," in the Christian dialects of Arabic as well as in the Jewish dialects,

To further prove my point, let us look at Genesis 2:4:

"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 2:4)"

So as you can clearly see, "Yahweh" is clearly a title that means "The LORD" and not a Name for GOD Almighty.

The closest Hebrew word to the Arabic Allaah (alif-lam-lam-ha) would be the Hebrew Allah (alef-lamed-lamed-heh), which is used by Hebrew speaking Muslims, and has been used by Arabic Jews. That is the closest possible Hebrew word to the Arabic Allah. It is the exact same word, and it has been part of Hebrew for at least 15 centuries (though I do concede it was almost certainly adopted from Arabic).

Several points to learn:

1. "elahh" is the way the word "hhla" (spelled from right to left as it is Aramaic) is pronounced.

2. The words "Elahh", "hhla (read from right to left)" and "Allah" all have the "h" letter and pronunciation in them.

3- "Allah" in Arabic is pronounced as "Al-lawh" or "Al-lah" depending on the sentence that it is used in. In Arabic, the sound of the word "Allah" could be thicker (Allawh) or thinner (Allah) depending on the sentence.

4- The Aramaic word "hhla (read from right to left)", which is transliterated as "elahh" which means "GOD" is pronounced as "El-aw" as show above.

5- The Aramaic word "hla (read from right to left)", which is transliterated as "elah" which means "oak" is pronounced as "Ay-law" also as shown above.

6- "Allah" in Arabic is pronounced as "Al-lawh" or "Al-lah" depending on the sentence that it is used in. In Arabic, the sound of the word "Allah" could be thicker (Allawh) or thinner (Allah) depending on the sentence.

7- The Hebew word "Elohim" is the plural of "Elowah", which is derived from the Aramaic word "Alaha", or "Elahh"; the same as the Arabic word "Allah" or "Allawh" in pronunciation.

If we pronounce the words "Allah" in Arabic and "Elahh (pronounced as 'El-aw')" in Aramaic, then we would hear almost the same exact word

In the case of the Aramaic word "El-law (hhla)" above, if you pronouce the word, then you will notice a slight pronunciation of the letter "h". The pronunciation of the word "El-law" is pronounced heavily as "El-law" or "El-la", but it is also pronounced slightly as "El-lah" or "El-lawh" or "Al-lah" or "Allah". Arabic as I said inserts the letter "h" at the end of the words that end with the "a" pronunciation, thus making "Osama" be "Osamah", "Maria" be "Mariah", "Alla" be "Allah", etc,

"El-law" or "El-lawh" in Aramaic means "GOD", while "Eloi" in Aramaic means "My GOD" as Jesus used the word "Eloi" when he was put on the cross and said "My GOD My GOD why have you forsaken me? (Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?), (Mark 15:34)"

In Arabic, "GOD" means "Allah", and "My GOD" means "Ilahi" or "Elahi" which is derived from the word "Allah".

In Iran, the word "Allah" is pronounced as "Allawh". In the Arabic alphabets, which is used in the Iranian (Persian) language, there is no writing for the pronunciation of the letter "l" as "law". The addition of punctuation to the letter "l", can make it be written in the Arabic alphabets as "la" or "laa" or "li" or "lee" or "lo" or "loo", but never "law". "law" in Arabic is written as "la". In Arabic as I mentioned above, "Allah" can be pronounced also as "Allawh". However, in Iran, it is almost always pronounced as "Allawh".

By the way, the two "l"s in "Allah" are written in Arabic as one "l". In Arabic, if the letter is pronounced twice after each others such as the "m" in "Muhammad", then it is written only once, and a special punctuation called "al-shaddah" is applied on the top of the letter to indicate that it is a double pronunciation. So the point is, the Arabic "Allah" is written with one "l" and not two "l"s. Perhaps the old Aramaic thousands of years ago was like that too, and maybe that's why "Allah" is written with one "l" in Aramaic.

The point is that the slang of "el-aw" in Aramaic and the slang of "Allawh" in Arabic sound the same, thus making the name of GOD Almighty in both Arabic and Aramaic be "Allah".

I conclude thus:

Holy Qur'aan 17:110

SAY: "CALL UPON ALLAH,
OR CALL UPON RAHMAN
BY WHATEVER NAME YE CALL UPON HIM (it is well):
FOR TO HIM BELONG THE MOST BEAUTIFUL NAMES

Are you ok sir?

I had the premonition that you were going to reharsh already weathered arguments here as in previous threads. Rest your heart, as it's not my style to push for unsubstantiated lingusitic misconceptions paraded by Muslim so-called 'scholars' who have no idea of the Hebrew language. That is why your efforts to sweat out their misconceptions is untenable here.

Let me illustrate: the Swedes have a lot of words that carry English spellings, but one who is neither Swedish nor Scadinavian will parade himself/herself as an expert translator and mislead ignorant readers. For example, the Swedish word for 'bath' is bad (and our English "bathroom" is called badrum in Swedish). Since Swedish and English are Germanic languages, you could imagine someone passing himself/herself off as a linguist and misleads ignorant readers into believing that "badrum" is simply referring to RUM that is BAD in English!

That is exactly the case with the so-called "transliterations" of Hebrew expressions you have pandered from disingenuous fellows passing themselves off as linguists and forcefully twisting words to accredit Muhammad's prophethood that is non-existent in the Bible.

Anyone reading that dressed-up drivel you reposted from another website can see already that it has an Islamic slant to it. The author of that article referred to another Muslim link in bold, red fonts: "This excellent article shows from Hebrew sources that Genesis 1:1 said "Allah".

My question: Is "Allah" a Hebrew word at all? That's just one of the linguistic re-engineering Muslim apologists use to confuse themselves; and if you had even a weak grasp of the Hebrew language, you would not expose such ignorant rantings in a public place.

In Genesis 1:1, the word used for God is אלהים ['ĕlôhîym - el-o-heem'], not "Allah". I am not a Hebrew scholar; but here's a website that could offer sound help from those who know the language well enough: Hebrew Names of God. Then you will understand why such dishonest transliterations by disingenuous fellows are not worth the noise they make.

davidylan:
Judas must have said the same thing to Peter.

I am a disciple like you brother.

We all know where he ended up.

Una sef - I don laugh tire!!

@babs787,

babs787:
Brother, your post amaze him. How could you be equating God with ordinary person? Jesus was the Mighty God that transformed himself and took the shape of man while Moses never did this

This is why I stated earlier that debates and arguments do not interest me just for the mere sake of them. Jesus was not an 'ordinary person', for if He was simply that, then Muhammad could easily have done the very same things He did.

babs787:

Quote from: babs787 on Today at 10:21:47 AM
#John 6:14 - 'Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.'

John 7:40 - 'Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.'#


The verses actually are referring to the Prophet long expected according to Deuteronomy 18. Proof - exactly as stated in those verses.

Again, the above verses do not refer to Deut. 18 v 18. Was Jesus th only prophet that was prophesised?

Jesus was not the only prophet prophesied in the OT - Elijah was also prophesied to come as His forerunner (Matt. 17:10-13). That said, Muhammad does not qualify as the Deut. 18 Prophet.

babs787:
In the New Testament times, we find that the jews were still expecting the fulfilment of the prophesy of ONE LIKE MOSES", refer John 1 v 19 - 25. When Jesus claimed to be the Messiah of the Jews, the Jews began to enquire as to where was Elias? The Jews had a parallel prophecy that before the coming of the Messiah, Elias must come first. Jesus confirms thsi Jewish belief:

Mathew 17 v 11-13: ,,, Elias truly shall first come and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias is come already and they knew him not,,,then the disciples understoood that he spake unto them of John the baptist.

Like I stated earlier, Elijah was to come as the forerunner, and that prophecy was fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist in the same reference quoted which you have partly cited (Matt. 17:10-13).

Notice also that the prophecy of the second prophet like Elijah is as John the Baptist himself testified - "He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias" (John 1:23). That answers the question of the disciples in Matt. 17:10 - 'Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?'

babs787:
So the above verses do not state that that it has any relationship to that of the book of Deut 18 v 18.

That may be as far as verbatim statements go. Neither does your assumption of Muhammad in Deut. 18:18 bear any substance. However, it is significant that in the same Matthew 17, Moses appeared on the mount with Elijah (vs. 3). Have you given that some consideration?

babs787:
The fact that Moses proclaimed Him as 'Prophet' should not mean that the other roles be negated. I wonder why the Qur'an recognizes that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ) even though Moses did not call Him the Messiah. So, how did Muhammad get the idea that Jesus must be the Messiah, and then again Muslims have no idea what that appellation 'CHRIST' means.

Muslim do understand but maybe you are the one that do not understand
"Messiah" is just a title given to Jesus and no special attribute given to it. Non-Living things were also given that name.

I'm sorry to read that Muslims understand 'CHRIST' as merely a title, and yet have not been bold enough to use it for Muhammad as well. In the same way, I may assume that Muhammad's title as the 'Rasool of Allah' is a mere title that non-living things were called. Not even the Qur'an assumes the "Messiah" is as you claim.

babs787:
The word 'christ' is derived from the Hebrew word 'messiah", Arabic 'Masih". Root word masaha, meaning 'to rub', to massage', to anoint. Priests were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translation, Grecian form 'christ', it seems unique. befitting jesus only.

Messiah in Hebrew means anointed. The Greek word for anointed is 'christos'. Just remove the 'os' from christos and you are left with christ!. Now change the little 'c' to a capital C and you will have created a unique name!

Christos means Anointed and anointed means Appointed in its religious connotation. Non Living things were also anointed.

There - the uniqueness of Jesus as the Christ is not something to be debated endlessly as to assume your earlier claim. By the way, I wonder why Muhammad was not "anointed" as a Prophet, since anointed simply means "Appointed".

babs787:
FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN

Moses and his people, the jews are here addressed as a racial entity and as such their 'brethren' undoubtedly be the Arabs. The holy bible speaks of Abraham as the 'friend of God'. Abraham had two wives - Sarah and Hagar. Hagar bore Abraham a son - His first born - ;; And Abram called his son's name which Hagar bare, Ishmael (Gen 16 v 15). And Abraham took Ishmael his son,,, (Gen 17 v 23) . And Ishmael his son was 13 years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin (Gen 17 v 25). Up to the age of 13 Ishmael was the only son and seed of Abraham, when the covenant was ratified between God and Abraham. God grants Abraham another son through Sarah named Isaac, who was very much the junior to his brother.

If Ishmael ad Isaac are the sons of the same father Abraham, then tye are brothers. And so the children of the one are the Brethren of the children of the other.

The children of Isaac are the jews and the children of Ishmael are the Arabs - so they are brethren to one another. The bible affirms .

and he (Ishmael) shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren (gen 16 v 12)

,, and he Ishmael died in the presence of all his brethren (gen 25 v 18)

The children of Isaac are the brethren of the Ishmaelites. In like manner Muhammed is from among the brethren of the Israelites because he was a descendant of Ishmael the so of Abraham

This is exactly as the prophecy has it - 'from among their brethren' (deut 18 v 18). There the prophecy distinctly mentions that the coming prophet who would be like Moses must arise NOT from the 'children of Israel' or from 'among themselves' BUT from 'among their brethren'

Fascinating how you derive this idea. It seems plausible, but lacks substance in as far as you throw back on the affinity between Isaac and Ishmael, while leaving out the core patriarch from whom descended the Jews - JACOB.

Besides, to argue the filiation back to Abraham between Isaac and Ishmael is to ignore the other sons of the patriarch. Abraham had other sons by his second wife Keturah: they were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, Shuah (Gen. 25:1-2). Are these not brethren to Isaac as well; and therefore could also have contended the same case of being the "brethren to one another"?

But what about the Muslim argument that the phrase "from among their brethren" must be pointing to the Arab descendants of Ishmael? Actually, this argument is unsubstantiated and untenable for two reasons:

#1. It is obvious that the phrase was particularly addressing the twelve tribes of Israel in Deut. 18:15 & 18. In issues of Jewish theocracy, God appoints Jews (not Gentiles or non-Jews) as kings, priests and prophets unto Israel. This is borne out in Deut. 17:15 -

"Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren[/b]shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest [b]not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother." (See also Lev. 25:46 - "your brethren the children of Israel"

It is clear that 'from among their brethren' points to Jews and not to non-Israelites. In any case, no Arab was ever appointed as prophet or priest over the Jews.

#2. Secondly, that Deut. 18 was not pointing to the Arab descendants of Ishmael is borne out by the fact that, there were others who were far more qualified to be called "brethren/brothers" to the Israelites.

Ishmael was the Egyptian half-brother of Isaac, rather than brother to JACOB (Gen. 25:12). It is rather Esau that was brother to Jacob (Gen. 25:25-26; and Deut. 2:4 - "the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir". It is also from Esau that the Edomites descended (Gen. 32:3; 36:1, 8 & 9). That is why the Israelites could speak of the Edomites (rather than the Ishmaelites) as "brother" --

"And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us" - Num. 20:14.

For simpler illustration:

ISAAC  ==(brethren)== ISHMAEL

JACOB ==(brethren)== ESAU (EDOMITES)

Now we can see how so very glaring it is that Deut. 18:15 & 18 was not pointing to the Arabs (Ishmaelites) nor Edomites. Rather, the Jews understood that the Prophet was to emerge from their midst - from among the twelve tribes of Israel, as no Arab was appointed as 'prophet' or 'priest' over israel.

babs787:
From here, I will move to 'words in his mouth'

Do so. Cheers.

@Backslider,

Don't sweat it. You actually made no point at all, and the references I pointed out to you stand as posted. Check them out, and you may come away a bit more enlightened. Cheers.