Page 6 of 7

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:24 am
by Eagle
All historical records available show that the prophet Muhammad had made only three trips outside Mecca before his Prophethood: At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Medina. Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria. At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria. Like with the discredited and improbable claims regarding Waraqa and the Christian scribe of Mecca, it is highly imaginary to assume there was any meaningful contact and religious dialogue between him and anyone, like Bahira, that led to the developement of any of the Quran's intricately well knit discourse on any of the Christian themes and figures, conviniently discarding all the historical blunders and improbabilities of both canonical and apocryphal scriptures that allegedly were the subjects of discussion. And which testimonies are there to corroborate the conspiracy claim? Who witnessed the exchange and why did that other private teacher equally recognize the prophet hood of Muhammad? It is to be noted that there was at the time great hope and anticipation among the monotheist communities of the Hijaz and the wider region that a prophet and salvific figure fulfilling the prophecies of the HB and the NT would soon rise, hence the zealous acceptance of Muhammad who obviously fulfills them

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:56 am
by Centaur
when someone gets full of their own subjective opinions.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:21 am
by manfred
So as usual, all evidence is simply called "discredited" without a shred of evidence, just by fatwa from eagle....

All you need to do is look at the Qur'an and the texts given. But that is a "conspiracy", right?

Apart from Waraqa and Bahira, we also seen other Christian figures in contact with Mohammed who even in the hadith are described as people Mohammed "listened" to, as previously pointed out. I do not need to prove precise details of every interaction, all that is needed is to show that oral transmission of the apocryphal texts was easily available for Mohammed, and this is something that really cannot be disputed.

So according to you, all that stuff he taught about Jesus and Christianity does not come from the sources shown, but from his invisible friend. And that is reasonable to you, right?

Pathetic, specially since all I have presented is a very short summary of the findings of all critical studies of the Qur'an recently published.

As to alleged "blunders" in Christian texts, they add nothing to the topic, they are your attempt to derail the topic. This is not about what Christian texts say, it is about where Mohammed got his "revelations" from.

It is incredible that you dismiss the evidence presented off hand and insist on eye witnesses and the like, while at the same time you have no issue with Mohammed's ridiculous claim of the angel Gabriel whispering things to him. Where are the eye witnesses for that?

It is to be noted that there was at the time great hope and anticipation among the monotheist communities of the Hijaz and the wider region that a prophet and salvific figure fulfilling the prophecies of the HB and the NT would soon rise, hence the zealous acceptance of Muhammad who obviously fulfills them.


Now, this is one of the daftest thing you wrote in a long time. Where is Mohammed predicted in any biblical texts? Muslims looked for even a slight hint of this for 1400 years and not found none. That is why many claim they have been removed, taking about "conspiracies"....

So Mohammed "obviously" fulfils non-existing prophecies? :lotpot:

And, as we have already shown in detail, the gospels or NT texts were not even available to Mohammed, that is why his teachings about Christianity are warped.

I see you agree with Frankie, though, as you decided not to to reply.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:55 am
by Centaur
No one knows for sure how many trips mohd made to syria, trade or otherwise. if recorded history registers only 2 visits, that does not mean that he had only visited Syria 2 times. it could be 2 times or many more. The main point here is the cultural interaction with the Syrians, one didn't need to make so many round trips to Syria to get accustomed to syrian culture and their stories, but can simply hear it from people. Meccans were not farmers but caravan traders and Mohammed was employed by his boss khadija to do caravan trading which was mostly centred around syria and Damascus.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:04 am
by frankie
Eagle wrote:The Hebrew understanding of the notion of God as a fatherly figure has nothing to do with the Christian one. In their monolatrous concept of God, Jews are the preferred sons above all nations charged with being the torch bearers of the truth, and their father is in charge of educating them throughout that process, sometimes in the harshest of ways. To Christians God is the father firstly in relation to the son/Jesus whom he has begotten and of whom he is the head in the trinity. The 2 concepts have nothing to do with oneanother and Jews loath that misappropriation of the term by trinitarian Christians. Even the extension of God as a paternal figure to regular Christians has nothing to do with the notion as described in relation to the Jewish nation.

The Quran rebukes the people of the book for that attitude, abusing the phrase "son of God" metaphorically on themselves 5:18, with each claiming a special relationship with God while his mercy and guidance do not belong to a race or group but to all, and neither does His justice discriminate among any group regardless of their claims.


Eagle

Denial of your sources does not alter anything, the Quran is still in error when it tells Muslims Christians believe in three gods, when they don't.

The Hebrew understanding of the notion of God as a fatherly figure has nothing to do with the Christian one


Yes, it does, Christians pray to the same God Jesus prayed to, His Father, God the Father, the first Person of the Trinity, they still pray the prayer that Jesus gave His disciples when they asked Him how they should pray, He gave them the prayer called the Our Father.

Jesus did this because of what His Jewish scriptures say about the nature of God, who is a Father to mankind who are His children, not in a carnal sense, but a spiritual one.

Muslims cannot pray to Allah as a father, because it is against Allah's existence to be a father to anyone, which indicates clearly Allah cannot be the same god that Jews and Christians pray to, which in turn, turns the Quran into a fraudulent book, because it claims the God of the Bible for its author, which clearly cannot be the case.

Its a simple case of logic and reason Eagle,of which you are completely void, nevertheless, the truth is plain to see for those who do possess these faculties.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:16 pm
by Eagle
Nothing was shown as to the nature of the discussions between the prophet Muhammad and those 3 supposed sources and even if religious in nature, nothing has been shown as to the topics, just empty assumptions and conspiracies. And one still needs to account for the illogical notion of these people recognizing the prophethood of their pupil or one whom they supposedly introduced to the religion, as well as the Quran's affirmation, well known and never challenged that he was ignorant of the religion prior to his call. They accepted him so readily because to them he embodied the prophecies which they knew and anticipated.

Religions claim to come from an "invisible friend", which isn't the case for the weak conspiracy theories involving humans as described above. So to say that the standard of evidence is the same in both cases is poor reasoning.

As stated in the last revelation to mankind, there are physical and spiritual senses of perception and while the former can perceive the evidence of the divine in things, it is the latter that plays the major role. Spiritual perception always has an element of trust in it, but it isnt blind trust.
Humans are creatures endowed with the capacity to derive correct conclusions from causes they experience. Once a belief in God and the Hereafter is established, the remaining realities of the unseen necessitate a belief based on trust. You trust the one who informed you of this information and so you accept it as truth without observation. This kind of belief is not limited to religious belief but to everything around us. We believe many things that scientists tell us without scrutinizing their evidences. Much of scientific theory is rooted in the unseen. These 'unseen' phenomenon are based upon observable evidence. For example, one does not see gravity, but one argues it exists based upon the interaction of objects in space. One actually guides his life by this reality for much of his affairs. People go to college and get degrees, because they believe it will earn them a sound future, though this fortune is not necessarily guaranteed. This future is also part of the unseen, per the Quran. To argue that one must believe only when one sees is actually living against common sense and experience, and the Quran condemns such an attitude. Things are left 'unseen' because life is a test, meaning God has left these things unseen, so that he uses his reason and intellect and develops them, and shows his trust in this ability to guide him. Islam actually holds reason and judgment on a much higher level than any secular or other religious philosophy.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:05 pm
by manfred
Nothing was shown as to the nature of the discussions between the prophet Muhammad and those 3 supposed sources


For the last time:

This is what I set out to show:

a) Mohammed had access to at least oral versions of Christian apocrypha stories. They existed at his time and he had opportunity to hear them.

b) The these stories found their way into the Qur'an. This means that Mohammed passed off existing legend and stories as personal "revelations".

Both of these objectives were clearly met. You whining and repeating over and over that there is no "proof" does not alter that.

You are simply twisting the argument into something I never said: That specific people formally "taught" Mohammed these stories. All that was needed is to show that these stories existed at the time of Mohammed, and that he could have accessed them. This is clearly the case.

Then we can plainly see that in reality he DID access them. For that we only need to look at the Qur'an.

And somehow it does not strike you absurd that you demand pretty much that I not only supply the names of his contacts (some of them we know, and were given), but the time and place of the interactions, the exact words even, minute by minute, and possibly, if that were available, the colour of Mohammed's underwear at the time.

But when it comes to Mohammed's invisible Angel friend, hey why evidence, Mohammed said that so that is proof enough.

I have repeated asked you think about what evidence a teacher would need to conclude that an essay had been plagiarised. Would he need to have a video recording of the the process, as it happened? Know when and where things were copied, to the minute?

No. All is needed is to establish that opportunity was there (i.e. access to the text or source) and that the two version coincide. If the opportunity existed, then the fact that the sources were used proves the plagiarism.

This has been done in Mohammed's case, so I am afraid the case is closed.

Islam actually holds reason and judgment on a much higher level than any secular or other religious philosophy.


:lotpot: Then you must be a VERY bad Muslim....

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:03 am
by Eagle
There hasnt been 1 example of the prophet of God learning any so called apocrypha from anyone, then reproducing it in the Quran. What was shown were that
-one of his scribes apostised and claimed he used to fabricate the revelation. It was shown how that was highly unlikely. In addition no hint was given as to this scribe's sharing knowledge of any apocrypha with the prophet
-Waraqa was an old Christian in Mecca who knew the prophet in his youth and believed in him before his death. No evidence of the 2 having exchanged any information on the si called apocryphas and it was also shown how the probability of such a thing even happening was highly unlikely.
-a Christian monk was located in a remote location to where the prophet of God travelled in total 3 times his whole life on a business trip with a caravan and a delegation of people. Besides showing that this monk recognized the future prophet, nothing in the reports that were presented even hinted at a religious exchange between the 2, much less on the issue of the apocrypha.
-2 slaves used to read the scriptures in a language foreign to Arabic, and the prophet used to listen whenever he passed by and heard them doing so. Here again, nothing but empty suppositions as to the nature of those scriptures, the prophet's intentions such as him having knowledge of foreign languages or him going around asking people to translate for him whatever was being read, or memorizing from an advanced foreign tongue then having it translated by some unknown team of linguists.

It has also been explained why the request of tangible evidence in religious matters and the parrallel made with the dissertation scenario does not apply.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:06 am
by manfred
There hasnt been 1 example of the prophet of God learning any so called apocrypha from anyone, then reproducing it in the Quran.


I cannot help it if you don't read what has been posted.

I now explained the steps of evidence 3 times:

a) show that Mohammed had access to apocryphal Christian texts. Were they around? This was proved.
b) show that Mohammed used apocryphal texts claiming that they were his "revelations". Several examples where given. Only one is needed. The fact that he USED them prove that he obviously had access to them.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:22 am
by Hombre
Eagle wrote:All historical records available show that the prophet Muhammad had made only three trips outside Mecca before his Prophethood: At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Medina. Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria. At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria. Like with the discredited and improbable claims regarding Waraqa and the Christian scribe of Mecca, it is highly imaginary to assume there was any meaningful contact and religious dialogue between him and anyone, like Bahira, that led to the developement of any of the Quran's intricately well knit discourse on any of the Christian themes and figures, conviniently discarding all the historical blunders and improbabilities of both canonical and apocryphal scriptures that allegedly were the subjects of discussion. And which testimonies are there to corroborate the conspiracy claim? Who witnessed the exchange and why did that other private teacher equally recognize the prophet hood of Muhammad? It is to be noted that there was at the time great hope and anticipation among the monotheist communities of the Hijaz and the wider region that a prophet and salvific figure fulfilling the prophecies of the HB and the NT would soon rise, hence the zealous acceptance of Muhammad who obviously fulfills them
One quick question.
What is your understanding of, and signs of schizophrenia & Epilepsy?

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2018 11:16 am
by Fernando
Eagle wrote:the Quran's affirmation, well known and never challenged that he was ignorant of the religion prior to his call.
Well of course, he would be ignorant of the religion - until the time that he made it up. Equally, of course, he would not have been ignorant of the bits of other religions that he plagiarised and tacked on to his invention.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2018 6:01 pm
by manfred
Oh, Eagle, I hope you have not gone into hiding again...

I do have one extra little quibble, something SAM alterted me to...
The Qu'ran claims that Jesus predicted Mohammed...

And (remember) when 'Isa , son of Maryam , said: "O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah unto you confirming the Taurat [which came] before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed . But when he came to them with clear proofs, they said: "This is plain magic."


Qur'an 61.6

This "prediction" is entirely unheard of in any Christian tradition or text. There is no reference of Mohammed anywhere in the bible, not in the HB nor in any New Testament texts, nor any apocryphaor any pre-Muslim tradition of any kind. And there would be no reason to "remove" such a thing in texts pre-dating Mohammed, would there?

So this assertion made by MOHAMMED that Jesus foretold him is a brazen lie, told by Mohammed to raise his position. He knew his immediate followers were in no position to to a proper check, and he did not really care what would happen about Islam after his death, I, mean, he did not even arrange for a properly written copy of the Qur'an....

As we know about this lie, how trustworthy does that leave his account of Waraqa "confirming" as a prophet, spread about shortly after his death, so that nobody could check?

Suppose Waraqa had expressed the view that Mohammed was a fraud... how long would have stayed alive? Mohammed was ruthless with his critics... Maybe Waraqa was one of Mohammed's first victims, or maybe he died of natural causes, we will never know for sure, both are equally likely.

So let's give Mohammed the benefit of the doubt and assume he did not murder him. But the news of his death was an opportunity too good to be missed.

Given the other big lie about Jesus fortellingMohammed is by now painfully obvious, how must trust can you place in Mohammed's version of his meeting with Waraqa after the "cave" adventure?

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:08 pm
by Hombre
Sorry amigos, here I am with eagle. Jesus DID speak the coming of Muhammad - though indirectly. What eagle fails to articulate is that Jesus - much like previous Jewish leaders spoke of "be aware of false prophets" in the likes of Muhammad..

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:29 pm
by Eagle
If one seeks to identify true from false prophets, then one needs to identify first and foremost what is the pattern of the prophets.

Through the stories of ancient nations and prophets, the Quran establishes a common pattern by which to distinguish the truthfulness of an envoy from God. Besides uprightness in character and an unflinshing, uncompromising stance as regards his mission, to have been foretold by previous prophets, that all his prophecies come true, the one that is most emphasised is that nations being punished for fighting and opposing their Messengers was a well-known Semitic tradition and the Quran places Muhammad inside that pattern at a time when none, not even the nascent Muslim community whose fear and reluctancy to engange in military confrontation is related in the Quran, could have imagined for him and his small band of followers to become victorious and establish themselves 37:171-182. Muhammad then effectively rises up and says to his tribe that they will meet a similar fate, they oppose the message and prevent the people from it and get punished by the sword. End of the matter. None after him came with any of the following and was able to back his claims up:

1) comes from a common background yet claims to be a Messenger, in fact the Final Messenger of God
2) warns his people of Divine chastisement
3) the chastisement comes home to roost and the partisans of the Prophet are established in the land

This is the exact process that occurred with the Bani Israil in the time of Moses, with the drowning of the host of Pharaoh and the deliverance of the Israelites, with the uprooting of the Canaanites and the establishement of the way of God. Not to mention, the Quranic invitation to the Arabs to see or recall for themselves the fate of the deniers of Nuh, Lut, Saleh, Shuayb, Hud... It is a Book of Warning that has already delivered its judgment in this world
53:36"This is a warner of the warners of old"
54:42-5"Are the unbelievers of yours better than these, or is there an exemption for you in the scriptures?...Soon shall the hosts be routed, and they shall turn (their) backs"
. As said in Deuteronomy regarding the awaited prophet
"If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it".


God Almighty says that Prophethood has ended with the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet bore witness to the unity of God, and his deniers were punished in this life. For those who claimed to be Prophets after him did they remain unvanquished as per the tradition of Allah, did they emerge as triumphant leaders or does their life and death fail to bear witness to their claims?

For example Musaylima emerged shortly after the Prophet's death and was killed under the orders of Abu Bakr. Another one was Bahaullah - though later his followers branched off into the Bahai faith which is based on the nice concept of unity of religions- he died a prisoner of the Ottoman Empire. There is also Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from Qadian, Punjab - his death is widely cited to be from either one of these diseases - cholera, diarrhoea, plague, or dysentery. Besides numerous prophecies regarding the timing and manner of his death were left unfulfilled - though Ahmadis now intrepret those in a metaphorical manner- but the manner of death is hardly inspiring for one claiming to be a Prophet.
There is then Rashad Khalifa who was a modern claimant based on his theory of the number 19's pattern in the Quran. Well, besides being accused of paedophilia, he was assassinated and his theories entirely discredited.
But above all, their theories did not prevail and either remained confined to a small number of followers or were simply lost and forgotten shortly after their death.
Another modern claimant was Joseph Smith in the US who started the Latter Day Saints movement and is the founder of Mormonism. He too was unfortunately assassinated. As a side note even the Mormon story has more grounds to stand on from the point of view of authenticity, than the NT story, in that there are actually known then-living individuals who executed an affidavit saying that they had, themselves, seen something of the Mormon story whereas the NT is written by anonymous people with no first hand information decades after the alleged, unsubstantiated life of the NT Jesus.

Of all the new religions that have sprung up after Islam, one may perhaps say Sikhism is also there. But Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, never claimed for himself Prophethood. Also, Sikhism emerged as a reform movement intertwined between Hinduism and Islam. The holy book Guru Granth contains quotes from Sufi saints as well.

One may also mention the case of Paul of Tarsus, but that is another topic.

On the face of it, finality of Prophethood seems to be a tenuous claim. After all, potentially anyone can stand up and say that he is a Prophet of God - but so far all the instances in which this has happened has failed to even come close to the scale and scope of the Prophet Muhammad's mission. Also, if we examine the entire career of these claimants - they have singularly and absolutely failed to match the life-chart of Prophet Muhammad and moreover their death poses even more questions than their life. What is even more interesting that none of them claimed to be the final Prophet, much less Jesus who predicted the coming of a powerful figure after him, the Paraclete, that shall bring justice to the world.

Once there is agreement to the above pattern, we can start looking up the prophecies of the past that predicted the coming of Muhammad, prophecies so clear that people of the time who were versed in the scriptures and free from prejudice and pride, eagerly recognized him. To the Quran the matter is settled to the extent that it emphatically says, concerning Muhammad's contemporaries,
2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons"

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:28 am
by manfred
. After all, potentially anyone can stand up and say that he is a Prophet of God


Indeed. In reality, when Mohammed made that claim, he was some 1400 years out of date... "Prophets" were a phenomenon of ancient Israel between about 800 BC and 400 BC. Generally they were fierce critics and robust preachers about what they saw as corruption in religion or political malpractice at their time. They tried to get people to "return to their roots" with some pretty strong words, but also at times with consoling ones.

In Rabbinic literature, some other biblical characters kind of retro-actively were called "prophet", Moses for example, but strictly, that is an anachronism.

So, as you say, anyone can make all kinds of claims, how can we decide who is telling the truth.

Mohammed did not fulfil the criteria spelled out in Deuteronomy: he predicted some things that did not come to pass, and he taught what is different from the teachings of the other prophets.

Mohammed was mots like people like David Koresh, for example:

He had complete control over his followers, demanded absolute obedience of his followers, threatened people wanted to leave his group with death, used his position for sex, made himself rich with the property of his followers, and used violence against "non-believers".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

Some of his followers, like Timothy McVeigh, committed murderous terror acts in his name.

You also mention Adam Smith, the founder of the Mormons...

He claims to have "translated" a set of "golden tablets" nobody ever saw, even though the only language he could speak was English. Sounds familiar? Some guy in a cave in Mecca, also said he read stuff even though he could not read.

He also made himself a ruler over the group of his followers, he became rich with their property and he had sex with over 20 women.

And both of these men taught things diverging from traditional beliefs, and made obedience to them an article of faith.

It is in this company Mohammed belongs. Many did what he did before him, and as you say yourself, many also after him.

The have this in common:
a) unverifiable claims that "God" gave them a "message"
b) the message boils down to "do all I say"
c) they develop a position of power which they then abuse.

You also mention Guru Nanak. Now there is a contrast. This man did not make ANY claims to be anything other than being a religious teachers. His followers only later suggested that he must have been specially gifted by God, but based on his teachings and his conduct in life. He lived a simple life and taught that guidance comes in the end through meditation.

Sikhism is "not about hearing voices from God, but it is about changing the nature of the human mind, and anyone can achieve direct experience and spiritual perfection at any time". Guru Nanak emphasised that all human beings can have direct access to God without rituals or priests.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Nanak

So while Mohammed enslaved his followers by making their salvation dependent on obedience to him in person, and in everything, Gura Nanak set people free by suggesting that the path to God is open to all, and you do not need "prophets" or such things.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:06 pm
by Eagle
There is no ending of prophecy alltogether, until the institution was explicitly sealed and emphatically stated so by Allah through the last prophet sent for all of mankind, as explained above. That Ishmaelite prophet fits the pattern of prophethood to the letter, as shown, and none of the superficial parallels and slanders attempted above fit him more than they would fit the past prophets of the HB. And we are not getting yet into the discussion of how he fulfills the prophecies of past scriptures and which caused those among his contemporaries well versed in their texts to "recognize him as they recognize their own sons", people like Waraqa or Bahira.

A prophet in JEwish belief doesnt have to be explicitly labelled "prophet" for him to fit the function, in the same way as, contrary to Christian belief, the promised messianic figure to come at the end of times is never labelled "the messiah". Both have to fit a certain description to qualify, and for a prophet, he has to be first of all cleared from what constitutes the criteria of a false prophet Deut13,18 and then he has to have some type of communication with the divine, through the ruach hakodesh (lit. the spirit/wind of holiness). It is the pre-condition for prophethood, endowing an individual with divine intuition, wisdom Job32:8, warnings and glad tidings, as well as the ability to communicate God's direct words 2Sam23:2. Such person becomes God's representative on Earth and then either reforms or leads the Israelites to victory. All this parallels in many ways with the Quran's description of the RUH that is carried down to the prophets to give them inspiration.

As to the cessation of prophethood, to be more exact, the timeframe of prophecy according to Jewish tradition starts with Adam and ends when the first Temple was destroyed in 586 BCE (1Kings25:8,Jer52:12), except that it still continued for those true prophets who were alive at that time, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, until they passed away. But before they did, and as they saw the decline of holiness amidst their people due to their helenization, scattering and assimilation into the cultures they were supposed to guide, they realized prophecy would decline and ultimately disappear. This is linked to the traditional belief that prophecy is contingent upon the people's unity and high level of holiness.

In answer to the degrading spirital condition of the people and consequent dimming of prophecy in their midst, the prophet Ezra called a Sanhedrin which came to be known as the Men of the Great Assembly. Besides canonizing certain books and rejecting others, and "finalizing" the Hebrew bible, they requested the end of prophethood, and prepared the Jews for the move from the era of Prophecy or the Biblical Period where prophecy was a general phenomenon experienced by all Jews, where miracles were open and obvious to all, to the Talmudic Period (also called the "era of knowledge" where prophecy shall temporarily cease, the era we are still in today, until messianic times. This means the prophets spoken of in the NT such as Zechariah, John the Baptist, or even Jesus and ultimately Muhammad are false prophets. In fact this is one of the reason why Daniel isnt considered a prophet and his Book included in ketuvim/writings rather than neviim/prophets in the Hebrew Bible based on the Masoretic text, and his story described briefly in order not to lay too much stress on his obvious depiction as a prophet.
The Septuagint on the other hand, which was partly redacted by Christians, describes him with much more length and includes his Book with those of the neviim/prophets since evidently Christians do not consider prophecy to have ended with Malachi.

Psalms 74:9 is cited as proof by Jews that prophecy ended long ago and for an indefinite time
"We have not seen our signs; there is no longer a prophet, and no one with us knows how long"
and will reappear in the future messianic era Joel3:1.

That prophecy was "long gone" prior to Jesus or Muhammad is undeniable and it says more of the Israelites state of spiritual degradation and consequent divine disapproval, than about prophecy having ended altogether. Nothing in Psalms 74:9 hints to a complete cessation of prophecy until the end of times and in fact not only Malachi3:23 states that Elijah the prophet will return prior to the messianic era but the Talmud as well as eminent Rabbinical comentaries say that the prophet Mordechai Bilshan came after Malachi.

The Quran recognizes that prophethood had been suspended for long, that is to the ISraelites, and so urges them to hearken this ultimate reminder of the truth
5:19"O followers of the Book! indeed Our Messenger has come to you explaining to you after a cessation of the (mission of the) messengers, lest you say: There came not to us a giver of good news or a warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a warner; and Allah has power over all things"

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:41 pm
by manfred
This means the prophets spoken of in the NT such as Zechariah, John the Baptist, or even Jesus and ultimately Muhammad are false prophets.


Eagle, so is humanity divided in to only two kinds of people "prophets" and "false prophets"?

Zechariah is one of the twelve "minor" prophets in the bible. Note how he did not make himself rich, "borrowed" his son's wife, or went on any murderous rampages.

John the Baptist is at best a prophet in the very loosest of senses. He was a preacher who called people to repentance. Note how he did not make himself rich, "borrowed" his son's wife, or went on any murderous rampages.

And Jesus, well he is a lot of things to a lot of people, to the Jews mostly a 1st century annoying wandering preacher, causing trouble with the government, to Christians he is certainly not a "prophet", he is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, the word made flesh, the incarnation of God, God's final revelation, the one that made "prophets" redundant. Note how this one too did not make himself rich, "borrowed" his son's wife, or went on any murderous rampages.

Only to Muslims he is a "prophet", a minor one before the "real" messenger, a man who was given a "book" called the "injeel" which he managed to loose, and who by Muslim accounts failed so miserably at being a "prophet" that Allah saved him by deception, deliberately starting a false religion.


And then, along comes Mohammed, "hey I am prophet, old waraqa said so, no you can't ask him he is dead. You have to do everything I say. So go and raid caravan, loot and rape, (the second bit optional) but I get 20% of all the valuables. As to women, I get first pick. Oh, and Jews and unbelievers are vermin, so kill them whenever you can."....

Some "prophet"...

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:46 pm
by sum
Hello Eagle

Your quote -
...and so urges them to hearken this ultimate reminder of the truth

A "reminder" is what people knew in the past and is now made aware to them once again. The Koranic message is new. different, not given to the people previously and so does not fit the description of a "reminder".

The Koranic message is completely new and a total contrast to what had gone before. Muhammad was simply imposing a completely new ideology on mankind.

sum

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:58 pm
by Eagle
When the last revelation speaks of itself as the reminder, it is in line with the teaching that, contrary to the previous scriptures stating that God wanted the knowledge of good and bad to remain hidden from humanity, Allah gave this knowlegde to mankind from the begginning as it was crucial for the fulfillement of the role of morally accountable vicegerent for which it was created, then settled man on the earth in full light that he might fulfill his role in righteousness. The Torah contains dim remnants of that reality, but thhat is another discussion. Then afterwards man began neglecting the prayers which is the true connection between him and God, the first sign of degeneration of a people 19:59 despite the repeated warnings of the prophets. This openned the way to the incitements of Satan and the following of one's lusts. Then Allah sent His Messengers over and over again to re-establish God's way 42:13, erase that mischief and set the people aright 7:74,85 invite the people to come out of darkness into light and to refrain from disorder. Mankind was therefore originally
2:213"one single nation"
but this unity disintegrated in the face of man's subsequent development.

In Jewish tradition, mankind's spiritual straying initiated when in the time of Enoch, son of Adam's third son Seth Gen4:25, people neglected Adam's guidance and began to make images and statues to remind them of God, which they began worshiping.

So as pledged to Adam as he was sent to earth, divine guidance was sent to remove these conflicts that cannot be erased naturally
30:41"Corruption has appeared in the land and the sea on account of what the hands of men have wrought, that He may make them taste a part of that which they have done, so that they may return".
Here as in many places, the Quran mentions the concept of "returning" which implies man's straying from his original inclination. The Quran speaks of itself as the "reminder" of mankind and asks repeatedly to recall the forgotten, corrupted or hidden truths that caused the people's straying from a path they were still somewhat cognizant about but referred to as 27:68"ancient stories" due to generations of supression of the truth by mixing it with innovations and falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me. Nay! most of them do not know the truth, so they turn aside".

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:08 pm
by Eagle
@manfred

The Zechariah mentionned is Jesus' uncle, and was a prophet Lk1. Not the prophet Zechariah ben Jehoiada who lived in the 4thcenturyBCE, who was killed by king Joash and whom the author of Matt23 confuses with another Zechariah, ben Iddo ben Berekiah whose circumstances of his death are unknown and who came 500 years later.

By murderous rampage and pillaging, does one refer to the wars and desolations left behind by the prophets of the HB, including Moses, David and Solomon? The examples are plentiful, vivid and explicit, should anyone request them. The other injurious talk passingly alluded to is false slander of course.

There are no half-prophets and minor prophets, according to the scriptures of those that claim to uphold them at least. They are individuals chosen to be spoken to by God, receiving His spirit, becoming His spokesman, conveying teachings of holiness, scholarship and closeness to God. The Tanakh itself discards these discriminatory attitude at once when it states, concerning all prophets, including since the time of their exodus with Moses whom they regard as the chief of all prophets
Hosea12:10"I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them".
All of them are true prophets, no mention of grades despite the different visions they received. We also read that the spirit of God descending on an individual is always a pre-condition for prophethood. Even a regular person receiving the spirit of God automatically becomes a prophet Numb11:16-30. Other prophets received revelation through angels. In dreams, Jacob was regularily visited by angelic messengers Gen31:11. Same for Zechariah's angelic visions later on throughout the book attributed to him. Moses himself is described as receiving his ever first communication with God through an angel Ex3:2. In fact we read that when God intends to speak with a prophet, He does so through an angel Numb22:20,35 and the prophet Iddo was convinced of a man's prophethood based on his claim to have received an angelic revelation 1Kings13:18. When the prophets David and Solomon were visited in dreams by "the Lord" obviously doesnt mean God physically apeared to them but that he made His will known to them through some means, like the angels 1Kings3:5.

It is the The Talmudic scholars, not the HB, that discriminate between these personalities based on the manner in which God communicated with them. For example Moses is considered the most superior -and Jews a required to acknowledge that superiority in their creed- because God spoke directly with him, all others are less in status because divine comunication was in a less direct manner, in a "blurry" fashion, through visions (in sleep or awake). And the most distant mode of divine comunication is believed to be either through the ruach hakodesh/spirit of holiness or through angels. Those persons arent considered prophets anymore, but simply holy individuals with a faint level of divine inspiration. With these principles in mind, Talmudic scholars are nevertheless in disagreement whether to consider Daniel, one with whom God comunicated through angels and visions, a prophet or not.

Jesus was according to the above, a prophet, and he succeeded 100% in his mission per the Quran. Only when the unknown Greek author showed up with their convoluted account did he turn into a false messiah and false prophet, but that is another topic.