Page 5 of 7

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:10 pm
by manfred
Eagle you had an answer to the dating of the Infancy gospel of Thomas, you can repeat the same this over and over if you must, but it will eventually be dumped.

You can believe that they are authentic if you wish... you believe so much nonsense, a bit more will make no difference.

The issue is not at all if they are true or not, but if Mohammed used them as a source, while pretending that his source is some divine revelation. That by now has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Also if you wish to believe the ridiculous thing that Waraqa "confirmed" Mohammed as a "prophet", be my guest... you seem to like to believe silly things.

Mohammed knew Waraqa since he was a child, and Waraqa was related to Mohammed and a Christian of some kind. Later he died, and then suddenly the story goes he "confirmed" Mohammed as a "prophet", after hearing the fanciful tale of Mohammed in the cave...

As I said, someone being bullied in a cave and forced to read something he could not is sure "proof" of being a "prophet", right, eagle?

And you the self-styled Islamic scholar who issues fatwas by the ton load on this forum, need to have a kafir tell you what it says in the Qur'an?

Ok, have a look at Qur'an 5:73-75 and also verse 116 to read some of the crazy stuff it says about "trinity"...

The theme trinity comes up a few times in the Qur'an and is one of the most garbled topics presented, and for the Qur'an, that is quite an achievement.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:44 pm
by Eagle
Frankie

You quoted a bunch of verses. So where is the part even hinting to Mary being part of the Christian Trinity.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:52 pm
by frankie
Eagle wrote:Frankie

You quoted a bunch of verses. So where is the part even hinting to Mary being part of the Christian Trinity.



The answer is held within these "bunch of verses" together with their corresponding tafsir.

Your sudden dyslexia is therefore rendered null and void.

Any further argument you may have is with your own sources,not with the one quoting from them.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:40 pm
by manfred
Eagle wrote:Frankie

You quoted a bunch of verses. So where is the part even hinting to Mary being part of the Christian Trinity.



Yes, of course... they are about flower arranging and one is a fried chicken recipe, right?

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:07 pm
by Eagle
Thats not answering the question. Where do these verses or the tafsir say that Mary is part of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Nowhere. Once this fact is acknowledge then we can proceed with the proper explanation of what the cited verses say and how they perfectly fit Christian doctrine of the past and today.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:31 pm
by frankie
Eagle wrote:Thats not answering the question. Where do these verses or the tafsir say that Mary is part of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Nowhere. Once this fact is acknowledge then we can proceed with the proper explanation of what the cited verses say and how they perfectly fit Christian doctrine of the past and today.


Eagle
Where do these verses or the tafsir say that Mary is part of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.



Both your god and scholars claim Mary is part of the Trinity, where is your proof they do not claim this.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:51 pm
by frankie
Eagle wrote:Thats not answering the question. Where do these verses or the tafsir say that Mary is part of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Nowhere. Once this fact is acknowledge then we can proceed with the proper explanation of what the cited verses say and how they perfectly fit Christian doctrine of the past and today.



Eagle

Quran 5.73 again makes the connection with Mary being part of the Trinity, which it claims is believed by Christians, which is false, Christians past and present have never claimed Mary is part of the Trinity.

The Quran/Allah is wrong, rendering the Quran a man made book not a God made book.

Quran 5.73

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

Al-Jalalayn 5.73
They are indeed disbelievers those who say, ‘God is the third of three’, gods, that is, He is one of them, the other two being Jesus and his mother, and they [who claim this] are a Christian sect; when there is no god but the One God. If they do not desist from what they say, when they declare a trinity, and profess His Oneness, those of them who disbelieve, that is, [those] who are fixed upon unbelief, shall suffer a painful chastisement, namely, the Fire.

Ibn Kathir 5.73
(Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the third of three.") Mujahid and several others said that this Ayah was revealed about the Christians in particular. As-Suddi and others said that this Ayah was revealed about taking `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah, thus making Allah the third in a trinity. As-Suddi said, "This is similar to Allah's statement towards the end of the Surah,
وَإِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يعِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَءَنتَ قُلتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِى وَأُمِّىَ إِلَـهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَـنَكَ
(And (remember) when Allah will say: "O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah' He will say, "Glory be to You!")5:116. Allah replied,
وَمَا مِنْ إِلَـهٍ إِلاَّ إِلَـهٌ وَحِدٌ
(But there is no god but One God.) meaning there are not many worthy of worship but there is only One God without partners, and He is the Lord of all creation and all that exists. Allah said next, while threatening and admonishing them,

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:32 pm
by manfred
Hi Frankie, I guarantee eagle will come back and write a huge post explaining how all this really is a recipe for fried chicken, or something like that. (Not literally, but you know what I mean...)

To him it is not what the Qur'an actually says that counts, he sees it just a collection not of statements, but in effect a collection of blank speech bubbles for him to fill with anything he fancies, specially when talking to non-Muslims, as he sees it as his duty to "defend Islam". Sad as it is, I think any effort to teach him anything at all is wasted.

Sometimes he widens definitions ridiculously, such as suggesting any coin or any weight is a dirham, at other times he unreasonably narrows definitions..

An example for that is when I suggested Waraqa is a likely source of some of Mohammed's stories, specially those around Jesus. He knew Mohammed since he was five, was a friend of his uncle's and related to Mohammed, and once he found him lost and returned him home.

He was a sort of kindly grandpa figure in Mohammed's life. He was a respected man and a Christian of sorts, but not an orthodox one.

Mohammed would have met him from time to time, visited him perhaps too. Mohammed was a curious man and he loved stories, like many Arabs do. So obviously there is a high probability that they got talking from time to time, and Waraqa, when prompted to tell a story, would have made use of the stories he had, i.e. some of the Jesus stories from the apocrypha. In that sense he is a highly likely source, but there are also others.

Eagle, however, re-defined "source" in this context as meaning ONLY a secret, regular, formal teaching by Waraqa, which is of course something nobody suggested, a classic strawman.

So I wish you luck debating this with him, but I doubt you will be able to shine a light in this firmly shut mind. But perhaps you can work a miracle...?

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:44 pm
by frankie
manfred wrote:Hi Frankie, I guarantee eagle will come back and write a huge post explaining how all this really is a recipe for fried chicken, or something like that. (Not literally, but you know what I mean...)

To him it is not what the Qur'an actually says that counts, he sees it just a collection not of statements, but in effect a collection of blank speech bubbles for him to fill with anything he fancies, specially when talking to non-Muslims, as he sees it as his duty to "defend Islam". Sad as it is, I think any effort to teach him anything at all is wasted.

Sometimes he widens definitions ridiculously, such as suggesting any coin or any weight is a dirham, at other times he unreasonably narrows definitions..

An example for that is when I suggested Waraqa is a likely source of some of Mohammed's stories, specially those around Jesus. He knew Mohammed since he was five, was a friend of his uncle's and related to Mohammed, and once he found him lost and returned him home.

He was a sort of kindly grandpa figure in Mohammed's life. He was a respected man and a Christian of sorts, but not an orthodox one.

Mohammed would have met him from time to time, visited him perhaps too. Mohammed was a curious man and he loved stories, like many Arabs do. So obviously there is a high probability that they git talking from time to time, and Waraqa, when prompted to tell a story would have made use of the stories he had, i.e. some of the Jesus stories from the apocrypha. In that sense he is a highly likely source, but there are also others.

Eagle, however, re-defined "source" in this context as meaning ONLY a secret, regular, formal teaching by Waraqa, which is of course something nobody suggested, a classic strawman.

So I wish you luck debating this with him, but I doubt you will be able to shine a light in this firmly shut mind. But perhaps you can work a miracle...?



Manfred

Thank you for your words of wisdom, which I would also share.

However, nothing is ever lost when discussing Islam on global internet sites such as Faith Freedom, many Muslims are reading them, and will be taking a keen interest on what is said about their faith.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:21 pm
by Eagle
Manfred,

So Waraqa was this granpa figure, telling stories of the Bible and Christian tradition to Muhammad in his youth...any evidence? Assuming it to be the case, so Waraqa was convinced of Muhammad's prophethood to the point he wished he would live on to be by his side in all hardships while knowing that he was the one to have originally taught him the religion

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:23 pm
by Eagle
As to Mary being part of the trinity, still no verse from the Quran stating so. Does this silence amount to an acknowledgment so that we can proceed with what these verses teach concerning Christian beliefs

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:33 pm
by frankie
Eagle wrote:As to Mary being part of the trinity, still no verse from the Quran stating so. Does this silence amount to an acknowledgment so that we can proceed with what these verses teach concerning Christian beliefs


Eagle

Feel free to "proceed with what these verses teach concerning Christian beliefs"

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:40 pm
by manfred
All you are doing is trying to distract from Mohammed's "borrowing"...
We know from hadith that he knew Mohammed since he was 5. This means they obviously would have talked to each other. What about? I wasn't there, but what would they naturally talk about? Hm? The price of fish in the market in Rome? How to darn socks? Or things that both interest them?

And Mohammed only made a claim of being a prophet much later in life, so why on earth would be be convinced before Mohammed said anything?

Waraqa died shortly after Mohammed made his claim to being a "prophet". in a matter of days. So did this odd meeting even take place? Or did Mohammed simply utilise the fact that Waraqa was dead to say "He believed me"? Again what would be the most likely scenario?

This one or the one Mohammed tried to convince us of?

So there comes Mohammed, more or less dragged along by his wife, and he tells his story... "So there I was in this cave, and then, like, the angel Gabriel appeared and was very rude. He tried to make me read something but I told him I could not read. Then he beat me up. That taught me how to read what he gave me."

If someone told you that, would your automatic and only conclusion be "he must be a prophet..." or be honest, would you not, like me, think this guy is stark raving mad...

Mohammed himself thought that for a time, we are told. So what would a kindly old man say, trying to calm him down and be polite? "You are a prophet" ? really?

If the meeting really did happen, which I am not convinced of, then the chances that Mohammed's account of it is accurate is nil.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:53 pm
by Eagle
In 5:116 Jesus is asked whether he ordered to be worshiped along with Mary, short of/min dooni Allah. Dooni stems from D-W-N meaning "short of" in the sense of "excluding" someone or something. Less frequently it can also mean "lower than" depending on the plane of thought of the sentence.

Christians and Catholics worship Allah, but most of the time they do not just like the Meccan pagans prior to Islam. Christians and Catholics address most of their prayers to specific personalities like Jesus or the Father or Mary and occasionaly the HolySpirit. These personalities are believed to be capable of interceding on their own in the process of salvation. 5:116 points out Catholics in particular and their well known excessive worship of Mary, as other Christian denominations repudiate and denounce.

In 5:116 the Quran accuses Christians of taking Mary as an ilah. The word is used for any entity that is worshiped 10:18,30:13.

When the Catholics spoken of in 5:116 address Mary in their prayers, they are taking her as a god besides Allah, like the pagans did when they prayed to deities besides Allah to whom all prayers is due 6:56,13:14-16,22:73 and whom they knew and also worshiped as the supreme God of their pantheon that included the likes of Hubal, Lat, Manat etc 43:9,87,29:63,10:31,17:67,31:25"And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will certainly say: Allah".

When the prophet was asked, in the earliest days of his mission to say on whose behalf he was speaking, he was commanded to recite sura al-ikhlas, starting with 112:1"Say: He, Allah, is One" showing again how he was not introducing a new lord, rather it is the same Being they knew by the name of Allah, a name they did not apply to any other of their deities/ilah.

It is God who sets the criterion of what is right and wrong, what is true and false belief regardless of anyone's standards.
When the pagans or the Christians address prayers to other entities than Allah whom they worship, they are taking gods besides Him regardless of whether they are aware of their polytheism/shirk or not just as one becomes guilty of taking his own lust as his god when he obeys it as God should be obeyed 45:23. In fact the Quran repeatedly says how those who associate with Allah anything that has not been given divine sanction and authority such as deities, saints or personalities, religious leaders or their own selves by following ways incited by their own desires 9:31,6:136-9,25:43,36:60,42:21,45:23 do so without even knowing it 23:84-9,29:60-65"And if you ask them, Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient, they will certainly say, Allah. Whence are they then turned away?"

When their deviation is pointed to them, they deny their obvious polytheism and invent the same excuses Catholics say today when even their Christian brethren accuse them of idolatry 46:28,39:3"We do not serve them save that they may make us nearer to Allah". Catholics today claim that they do not worship Mary but simply ask her for intercession with the supreme God, as stated in the verse. This confirms yet again man's tendency to deviate from the path of pure monotheism 12:106"And most of them do not believe in Allah without associating others (with Him)".

From a Quranic perspective, any type of worship that compromises the concept of tawhid/oneness, uniqueness of Allah, is equal to not worshipping Allah at all, even if the worshiper actually adresses Allah in his prayers. Sincerity and exclusivity in worship to Allah is a pervasive theme throughout the Quran 4:145-6,7:29,39:2-15,98:5 and more emphatically in sura kafirun where the Arab pagans themselves are told that they are no worshipers of Allah, despite them knowing and recognizing Him as the supreme Creator.

The Quran refutes the notion that an entity has any authority by itself to intercede, precisely in order to avoid such deviations. The authority of intercession belongs to Allah only and He grants it to whom He pleases, on behalf of the people who deserve it as a way to honor them, not to plead with them to God. The basic condition of serving and worshipping God is that only He be served and worshipped and no one else should have any position in this regard. This means that a person should not associate anyone with God’s being, attributes and rights in any way.

The result of that excessive exaltation of intermediaries with God is that today, Catholics bow to statues of Mary with crowns of gold, cary her up in the air, kiss her feet or her portrait in large processions while addressing to her prayers of intercession with their supreme triune god. Pope John Paul II's first words after he got shot were “Mary, my mother!”, he did not pray God but Mary. Then Vatican loudspeakers started broadcasting the prayers of the rosary. When the Pope recovered, he gave Mary all the glory for saving his life, and he made a pilgrimage to Fatima. Alfonsus de Liguori was canonized by the catholic church and officially declared "doctor of the church", he held that "Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice" and that Mary must be viewed as a mediator and as a canal favoring the supreme triune god's answer to prayers. That Mary is viewed as a co-mediator is a central teaching of cathechism. According to the 1992 catechism, Mary is "the queen of heaven" and co-redemptrix with Jesus which contradicts even the NT in 1Tim2:5 where only Jesus is the mediator. Pope Leo 13th declared that none can go to the Father/God except through the Son/Jesus and similarly none can go to the Son except through Mary. She is believed to be the "Mother of God", giving birth to God Himself therefore similar to Him in essence (protestants believe she only gave birth to the physical aspect of God).

Despite her oft repeated exalted status, her clearing from the slanders of the Jews regarding her chastity, Mary in the Quran is neither presented as a goddess nor a mother-God. She is told to 3:43"keep to obedience to your Lord and humble yourself, and bow down with those who bow".
Worship is solely for God, and as the Quran puts it 13:14"To Him is due the true prayer; and those whom they pray to besides Allah give them no answer".

The verse 5:116 is not concerned with warning Christians against the Trinity. 5:116 is a warning against shirk, with the veneration of Mary and Jesus specifically being a very big part of the roman and orthodox variants of Christianity. Both personalities are particularly tied up together in Catholic prayers as the most significant means of salvation and the Quran's mention of them together as objects of worship besides Allah is very appropriate from that perspective.

The Trinity and other deviations that Jesus' followers and their descendants fell prey to are mentioned elsewhere in the Quran. Trinity is specifically denounced in 4:171 that says to Christians not to say "three" when speaking of Allah's nature, Allah is One. In this "trinity context", the verse mentions Mary's name twice without saying anything about her being a deity according to that doctrine, while it strongly refutes Jesus' deity who is believed to be part of it, by describing him as Allah's messenger, born of a woman, having a ruh/soul created by Allah ie a human being like any other. 5:72-75 refutes another aspect of the trinitarian doctrine and starts by mentionning Jesus' divinity only in the context of the trinity, and does not speak of any other personality as being divine. It denies his divinity by saying that he was a mortal, along with his mother who ate food like any mortal despite her exalted status so how then can God be born of a mortal woman whose essence is the opposite of Him? The whole set of verses 5:72-75 is centered around Jesus' divinity only so when the Quran speaks of his mother being a mortal, it is interested in pointing to the essence of Jesus the supposed god.

Saying that Christians take Jesus and Mary as gods besides Allah, and saying that Allah is 'third of three' are not 2 mutually exclusive statements if taken exactly as they are; 2 warnings to 2 different kinds of shirk Christians are guilty of. A discrepency starts appearing only if a passage not concerned with the trinity doctrine is read with that concept in mind.

Allah being the third of three distinct entities is found in the NT 1Cor8:6 which equates God with the father, one of the three personalities of the godhead. Note here that it doesnt say Allah is the third fraction of a whole/thuluth, but the third of 3. So to a trinitarian reading 1Cor8:6, God is the third of 3 distinct entities.

5:72-75 doesn't say Mary is one of the 3. It doesnt even say Jesus is one of the 3 as the emphasis is not who else is in the 3, but whether Allah is 1 of 3. It simply says your Allah is One God and there is painful punishment for setting up partners with Allah. Nothing more and nothing less. Mary being a sadiqa/truthful woman in this verse is simply a quality stressed about her throughout the Quran and is not meant to refute her supposed divinity, and neither her son's, but meant at refuting those who doubted that pious woman's chastity and truthfulness, putting in question the miracle of the virgin birth. The Quran has quoted their accusations in sura Maryam and this is why Allah has stamped her here and elsewhere with words evoking her truthfulness, piety, submission to the Almighty.

Trinity is not addressed in details neither is it important to the point the Quran is making. The position of the Quran simply is that any concept that puts up partners to God in worship and authority, any conjecture regarding the divine unity is an affront against the most basic notion of monotheism. The specific worship of the holyghost, which is an extreme rarity and almost nonexistant in all of Christianity is therefore omitted since the point of the Quran has already been made through the rejection of the major specific practices like the worship of Mary and Jesus 5:116, the speculations and conjectures on the nature of God and divine unity (is the godhead made of "three" 4:171, is God one of three distinct entities worthy of worship 5:72-75).

The trinity concept is one that developped through several councils and debates, wars and persecutions that gradually fashionned Christianity the way it is today which is why the Quran accuses Christians of taking one another and more specifically their religious leaders for lords besides/min doon Allah 3:64,9:31. When this verse denounces the taking of Jesus as god, together with their monks, besides Allah, nobody in his right mind would suggest that it is a rejection of the concept of the trinity simply because it mentions 2 worshipped entities besides God. This exposes the shallowness of Islam's early critics among the orientalists who tried claiming that the Quran falsely represents that concept in 5:116.

This is yet another aspect of their polytheism/shirk which followers of all religions easily fall into, even Muslims when they give divine authority to that which God never sanctioned through His messengers 42:21. This type of shirk is so pervasive, prioritizing anything abstract or concrete over Allah, within humanity that some islamic narrations have likened its stealth to the movement of an ant on a black stone at night.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:02 pm
by Eagle
Why would they necessarily be talking of religion, except to fit this vast conspiracy theory. The Quran itself testifies, and nobody ever came up to deny it, despite the various calumnies reported both in the Quran and hadith the likes of which almost all prophets were victims of, that the prophet knew nothing of the religion prior to his call. And it isnt the prophet Muhammad that reported Waraqa's words. They come through various transmission chains all relating more or less the same thing. Nothing is known of the complete picture and signs which Waraqa saw that led him to believe in the prophet so strongly, but what is known is that he did. So this reduces even further the "borrowing" claim and pushes it further into an unreasonable probability.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:16 pm
by manfred
Oh, they would not, in all the years EVER, not even once talk about religion.... really? Again believe what you want. Apart from Waraqa, there are also others, and the references was already given.

And sure the hadith is reported in a chain... but who would be the very beginning, hm? Waraqa is dead, so is Kadija, so who is left to start the story at all?

And the borrowing claim has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Not only have we seen that Mohammed had contact to Christians, but we also looked a a number of textual sources obviously used by Mohammed, and fraudulently presented as a divine revelation.

All that was necessary to prove what that a) Mohammed had access to the sources he used and b) how and where he used them.

Against all that you go on about his invisible friend.... I pity you.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:02 pm
by frankie
Eagle

In 5:116 the Quran accuses Christians of taking Mary as an ilah.


The Quran is wrong,they don't and never have.

When the Catholics spoken of in 5:116 address Mary in their prayers, they are taking her as a god besides Allah



No they don't, Catholics know and have always known Mary is not a divine figure, they know her as a human being, who gave birth to a divine figure.

The Quran is wrong again.

It is the Quran which presumes wrongly Christians accept Mary as a god, which they do not.

The concept of the Trinity in the Quran, is a misunderstood one,as it is understood to be three separate gods, which is not what Christian theology teaches.

The Trinity is understood as one God, with three divine Persons within the God head, NOT three separate gods, as the Quran understands it.

If the author of the Quran was who it claims to be, then there would be no confusion, but there is, because the author of the Quran is not the God of the Bible.


The concept of the Trinity is found within the Bible from Genesis through to the Ministry of Jesus, it is not "a development" as understood by Muslims, the Quran is wrong again.

Jesus was born a Jew; therefore He knew well His own scriptures, well enough to be able to quote from them throughout His ministry.

Because Jesus was Jewish He knew God as His Father, as all Jews (and Christians) still do, and prayed to God as His Father, He gave His disciples a prayer which all Christians still use today, it is called the Lord’s Prayer, or The Our Father.

Isaiah 64:8

But now, O LORD, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand.


Jesus commanded His disciples to go and preach the Gospel baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Claiming the Trinity is not Biblical condemns Jesus as a liar, which immediately disqualifies Him as a prophet of Islam.

Mattew 28:18-20
18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

As a post script,

Jesus was born a Jew, and all Jews (and Christians) pray to God as their Father, which no Muslim can do, as Allah is a father to no one, he has no son.

If YHWH is a Father to mankind, and Allah is not a father to anyone, they both cannot be the same God,proving the god of the Quran is not the God of the Bible.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:16 pm
by manfred
Another contact we know from Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa'd and al Tabari that Mohammed had was with a monk called Bahira whom he met while he accompanied his uncle to Syria, for trade. may aged 12 or so. His story has some legend qualities added to it, like Mohammed sitting in shade even when there was no shade to be found, and that this monk predicting Mohammed becoming a prophet in the future. This are clearly additions to the story to push the agenda of establishing Mohammed's "prophethood", but the journey itself and the meeting is likely historical.

Like Waraqa, his man also was not an orthodox Christian. So the pattern is quite clear... because of the type of contacts he had, Mohammed's views on Christianity where somewhat odd. (His knowledge of Judaism was little better...)

And this limited exposure to accurate Christian teaching is becoming painfully obvious and very clear in his discussion of the trinity in the Qur'an.

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:41 pm
by Eagle
Whether they are aware or not of their fault, Catholics worship Mary as a deity for the clear reasons already explained.

God the father being the third of three distinct entities is found in the Greek Testament 1Cor8:6 which equates God with the father, one of the three personalities of the godhead. Note here that the Quran doesnt say Allah is the third fraction of a whole/thuluth, but the third of 3. So to a trinitarian reading 1Cor8:6, God is the third of 3 distinct entities

Re: Mohammed the borrower

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:03 am
by Eagle
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.