Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 02-13-2012, 08:43 AM

I don't think so. Muhammad (if he existed) wanted the Jews to join his new group. His people faced Jerusalem during prayer. When the Jews rejected him, he switched it to Mecca. It wouldn't help much to have the Jews join a religion that not only respects and honors Jesus, but also says that his mother was the sister of Moses and Aaron. Any Jew would laugh at such a thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

This Muslim apologetic statement does not solve the problem. Being in a clan of Aaron the Levite is also being in the clan of Moses (Musa). The informed writer would have known that a reader would immediately note the apparent anachronism (among others). It is clear to me that the person who wrote this did not read the synoptic gospels or the Torah, merely heard stories and wasn't familiar enough with the whole picture.

This may have been deliberately concocted.

sotto voce · 02-13-2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't think so. Muhammad (if he existed) wanted the Jews to join his new group. His people faced Jerusalem during prayer. When the Jews rejected him, he switched it to Mecca. It wouldn't help much to have the Jews join a religion that not only respects and honors Jesus, but also says that his mother was the sister of Moses and Aaron. Any Jew would laugh at such a thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

This Muslim apologetic statement does not solve the problem. Being in a clan of Aaron the Levite is also being in the clan of Moses (Musa). The informed writer would have known that a reader would immediately note the apparent anachronism (among others). It is clear to me that the person who wrote this did not read the synoptic gospels or the Torah, merely heard stories and wasn't familiar enough with the whole picture.

This may have been deliberately concocted.

But Jews were just as liable to seek to concoct as any. If they did not like Muhammad's notion, it was because they thought it would not catch on without massive bloodshed; not because they had high religious scruples.

And they were right, of course. One battle, on average, every other year, for 180 years. And it didn't stop then.

Chili · 02-13-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer

In Mark 5:17, we are reminded of Jesus' staunch commitment to adhering to the Mosaic commandments:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

The Prophets came after the Law, because the Law was inadequate. Jesus came after the Law, because the Law was inadequate. A Messiah was promised because the Law was inadequate, demonstrably so, egregiously, disastrously so. Jesus did not come to a complete, autonomous, orthodox, thriving Israel. Jesus came to a remnant of the original Israel, an Israel enfeebled by man-made regulations and compromise, a remnant under Gentile occupation, an unthinkable situation under Moses. Law had led only to a parlous situation. The Law of Moses was never intended as a permanency, because it was only a crystallisation of natural law, which, in biblical perspective, is the whole problem, and never the answer. The whole Bible is the provision of a solution to those angels with a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. Anything that relies on law, even slightly, is not Abrahamic, but is in total antithesis to Abrahamism.

According to the NT, Jesus himself adhered to Mosaic Law because he had to present a perfect sacrifice for others, who did not adhere to Mosaic Law. His very purpose, according to the NT, was to remove the indictment of conscience that applied until his death via Mosaic Law, that now applies to no-one at all, but that still applies through natural law. It was, according to the NT, precisely because he fulfilled both natural and Mosaic Law that neither has the power to condemn. He also fulfilled the prophecies of the Prophets when he did this.

Very eloquent and religiously beyond my scope of references, but to fulfill the law is to show its purpose and that is to stand convicted as sinner by the inner man upon who's heart those laws are carved as if in stone that they may serve as an anvil so that the concept sin may come alive in the sinner . . . and hence later we die as Romans 7:7-12 tells us it should be done.

Later you will see that the these Laws were only an instrument to create the feeling of lost and so lead the sinner as 'exhausted hero' back to Bethlehem and there give an account of himself so that the renewal of mind can begin, and after that only Natural Law is the 'slavery to freedom' that remains for him.

Iow. the Laws only serve to make sinners known by way illusion in our very own distinction between right and wrong, while nothing is really right until the old sin nature is crucified to die. This kind fo means that the Laws are just the bait that is needed to reel in the big one called Original sin or sin nature, why not!

The prophets to me are just like road signs to lead lead Jews further astray.

Chili · 02-13-2012, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

E.i. Jewish protestants.

Viewing the "Muslims" as "Jewish-protestants" or "Jewish-Christians" is not nearly as blasphemous as it may initially sound. Jewish scholar and academic, Mikhah Ben David, of the Hashlamah Project, argues that both Jesus and Muhammad can be regarded as legitimate Jewish prophets. Mikhah Ben David is also the author of the book, The "Ka`bah as a Jewish Sukkah: Why Muhammad Prayed Towards Jerusalem and Mecca."

In Mark 5:17, we are reminded of Jesus' staunch commitment to adhering to the Mosaic commandments:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Furthermore, the Koran regards both the Torah, and the Koran, as "Al-Furqan" ("the Criterion").

It is stated that Rabbi Ya`qov Yosef, a disciple of the Besht, quoted Rabbeinu Bahya on Muhammad's role as Chassid --the article can be found at Judeo-Sufi's blogspot.

Oh, I have no problem with that at all, except that Jesus was ligitimate as a grafted branch on the trunk of Judaism and share the same heaven and that is something the Muslim can never say, not will he ever have saints in heaven and even his Imam wants to die before good things will happen to him (which is not to say that for example even the Pope is saint as such).

So they are to total wreck and that only because Mohammed had his angels mixed up, which is fatal to him and to all his followers no matter how noble many of them are.

You meant Matthew 5:17 where in Judaism proper the Law must abandonned totally by the Elders (without sacrifice) who now in Jesus' Church (called Catholic only to make proper distinction and thus not to preach) are called Saints in heaven, and those are many and many more than may be known as only those to know do not say, while those who say do not know.

Let's be sure to understand that characters such Dr. Zhivago needed to resign from all leadership positions to find freedom itself (as saint). So then, it is not possible to be both priest or leader and simultaneously be saint, and so for example not possible for Mother Theresa to actually receive her reward (but just take the money and run).

Pamela Spencer · 02-14-2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer

Viewing the "Muslims" as "Jewish-protestants" or "Jewish-Christians" is not nearly as blasphemous as it may initially sound. Jewish scholar and academic, Mikhah Ben David, of the Hashlamah Project, argues that both Jesus and Muhammad can be regarded as legitimate Jewish prophets. Mikhah Ben David is also the author of the book, The "Ka`bah as a Jewish Sukkah: Why Muhammad Prayed Towards Jerusalem and Mecca."

In Mark 5:17, we are reminded of Jesus' staunch commitment to adhering to the Mosaic commandments:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Furthermore, the Koran regards both the Torah, and the Koran, as "Al-Furqan" ("the Criterion").

It is stated that Rabbi Ya`qov Yosef, a disciple of the Besht, quoted Rabbeinu Bahya on Muhammad's role as Chassid --the article can be found at Judeo-Sufi's blogspot.

So they are to total wreck and that only because Mohammed had his angels mixed up, which is fatal to him and to all his followers no matter how noble many of them are.

Islam, canonically, ascribes a far greater functionality for the Angel Gabriel than is formally recognized by Christianity proper. In Islam, Gabriel is credited as serving as the angelic messenger intermediary for Revelation transmission. Indirectly, the androgynous being was responsible for presenting a crystallized portrayal of Islaam via the Hadith of Gabriel.

Gabriel is also considered an active member of "Malaai'ikatu-l-Muqarraboon", or the "Council of Archangels", and was authorized by God to take part in the formative creation process. According to traditions, God instructed Gabriel to "collect white, red, black and brown mud, as also hard and soft earth". In Paradise, God fashioned man from an admixture of "sounding clay" and "water".

It would require a certain element of presupposition and circular reasoning logic to regard the Bible's characterization of Gabriel as the be-all and the end-all narrative. It would also strike me as borderline-ridiculous to imagine angels as biographical entities that have been fully mapped out for the purpose of analytical research (i.e., via Angelology). From the perspective of Scripture, angels do have esoteric roles, in addition to their supposedly "observed" and "recorded(?)" exoteric designations ---You would be hard-pressed to find any scholar that can thoroughly and meaningfully elucidate the role of Metatron, in laymen's terms.

Toto · 02-14-2012, 07:03 PM

mountainman digression split off

Duvduv · 03-12-2012, 05:23 PM

I brought back this thread because of my question as to how the authors of the Quran could not have known about the canonical NT texts, including Paul, in the 7th and 8th centuries, which is similar to the question as to why the Amora rabbis of the 4th and 5th centuries didn't encounter a community of "Christians" in Antioch if not elsewhere.

mountainman · 03-13-2012, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I brought back this thread because of my question as to how the authors of the Quran could not have known about the canonical NT texts, including Paul, in the 7th and 8th centuries, which is similar to the question as to why the Amora rabbis of the 4th and 5th centuries didn't encounter a community of "Christians" in Antioch if not elsewhere.

What makes you think they could not have known about the canonical NT texts? It is more reasonable to think they knew about these books and simply ignored them. They appear to have used non canonical sources in preference to the canonical sources, for some reason.

Duvduv · 03-13-2012, 06:07 AM

Wouldn't one expect some kind of condemnation of the canonical texts and doctrines within the context of the idea that the Injil had been changed, including a condemnation of Paul? Why would one assume that non canonical texts would be more kosher since everything other than the Quran had already been tampered with?

mountainman · 03-13-2012, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Wouldn't one expect some kind of condemnation of the canonical texts and doctrines within the context of the idea that the Injil had been changed, including a condemnation of Paul?

(IMO) the Islamic condemnation was via the corruption of the orthodox canonical Christian dogma.

Quote:

Why would one assume that non canonical texts would be more kosher since everything other than the Quran had already been tampered with?

(IMO) the non canonical books were more kosher because they had a massive history of being heretical to the orthodox. The basis may have been that the books of the enemy (non canonical heretics) of the enemy (canonical Christianity) is a friend - and thus more "useful" as anti-christian propaganda - to the Islamic compilers of the Islamic "Holy Writ".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2012, 07:03 PM	#186
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	mountainman digression split off

03-12-2012, 05:23 PM	#187
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I brought back this thread because of my question as to how the authors of the Quran could not have known about the canonical NT texts, including Paul, in the 7th and 8th centuries, which is similar to the question as to why the Amora rabbis of the 4th and 5th centuries didn't encounter a community of "Christians" in Antioch if not elsewhere.

03-13-2012, 06:07 AM	#189
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Wouldn't one expect some kind of condemnation of the canonical texts and doctrines within the context of the idea that the Injil had been changed, including a condemnation of Paul? Why would one assume that non canonical texts would be more kosher since everything other than the Quran had already been tampered with?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.