Is Islam a myth?

[Thomas]

Here we go with your conspiracy theories..

Historical fact – the materials are there. I'm not suggesting any 'conspiracy'

..so did Muhammad, peace be with him, KNOW that he was "cheating"? Or was somebody drugging him?

I don't know his motives. I wouldn't have thought he was cheating, or that he was drugged. Just telling it as he saw it.

What are you claiming exactly?

Just what I've said. The stories attributed to Isa are not original, they're from apocryphal texts.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know his motives. I wouldn't have thought he was cheating, or that he was drugged. Just telling it as he saw it..

..so he was deluded? He thought that he was receiving revelations, but actually it was all from his subconscious mind?
Clearly, you think that Muhammad was able to read & write.
..which would be very surprising for somebody raised in the desert 1500 years ago.

Just what I've said. The stories attributed to Isa are not original, they're from apocryphal texts.

Of course, it is actually possible that Muhammad wasn't guilty of plagiarism, and that the stories are true

Funny isn't it, how we can believe everything that is handed down from the Romans,
but not the Arabs?
..even though what the Arabs tell us is the truth, is practically the same as what the Jews believe.
Oh well, each to their own.

 

[Thomas]

..so he was deluded? He thought that he was receiving revelations, but actually it was all from his subconscious mind?

Well ... whether or not they were revelations is a matter of faith, isn't it.

Clearly, you think that Muhammad was able to read & write.

Why would you think that? Could he not? A merchant and traveller, a man with interests in religious matters, and with a rich benefactor?

But either way, he could easily have heard these stories round the caravan campfires, or from the Christians he spoke to.

As regards the revelations:
"By the command “Read” descending on Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah (peace be upon him), the illiterate Prophet, the concept of reading was freed from the strictures of alphabet and syntax into the rich world of meaning and practice."
"Away from the narrow restrictions of concrete books, it flies gracefully across the open book of nature – reading the omnipresent Signs of God ..."
Read – the first commandment in Islam

This, from an Islamic source, makes sense to me.

Of course ... and that the stories are true

Unlikely though, to be fair.

You can't dispute the veracity of the Gospels, and then assert the veracity of such narratives without suspending credibility.

Funny isn't it, how we can believe everything that is handed down from the Romans...

Can we? I'm not sure we can?

but not the Arabs

Surely a source is a source is a source, and has to submit to the same methodology as any other.

Oh well, each to their own.

Quite.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..he could easily have heard these stories round the caravan campfires, or from the Christians he spoke to..

Do you think?
Wow .. Muhammad, peace be with him, was a brilliant author, theologian and lawyer in that case.
The Qur'an is not just "stories" .. it is "a work of art", and it's incredulous to consider it to be the work of one human being.

You can't dispute the veracity of the Gospels, and then assert the veracity of such narratives without suspending credibility.

"such narratives"?

Surely a source is a source is a source, and has to submit to the same methodology as any other.

Exactly.
..and the only reason I can see that you dismiss it is because you don't like what it says.

We both believe in the Creator of the universe.
We both claim to be monotheists.
We both claim that there is a life after death.

..so what is all the fuss about? Ah, yes .. creed.
You insist you know that Jesus is of the same substance as God.
You insist that Jesus cancelled the Jewish law.
You insist that Jesus died for our sins.
..and so on.

Too much cherry-picking for my liking. What is the meaning of righteousness?
I know that Catholics aren't the greatest culprit, but such creeds lead to choosing your own morality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well ... whether or not they were revelations is a matter of faith, isn't it.

Not just the revelations, but the whole cornucopia has to be taken on faith - God / Allah, creation, soul, heaven, hell, deliverance, judgment, being raised again, prophets, sons, messengers, saints, manifestations, imams, mahdis. Differ a little and God / Allah send you to Hades.

.. and it's incredulous to consider it to be the work of one human being.

Ah, you forget and say something which you should not have said. Mohammad did not write it, he could not. Remember, he was illiterate. Allah sent the Ayat as and when required to suit the occasion over 22 years at an average of 23.6 Ayahs every month or 5.2 Surahs every year.

 

[RJM]

so what is all the fuss about? Ah, yes .. creed.

Ah, no … that things aren’t simple black and white

You insist you know that Jesus is of the same substance as God.

You insist you know that Christ is not

You insist that Jesus cancelled the Jewish law

You insist that Christ did not *

You insist that Jesus died for our sins.

You insist that Christ did not

..and so on.

… and on, and on

..Too much cherry-picking

Too much cherry picking of NT scripture

for my liking

Not required

What is the meaning of righteousness?

What Christ lived and taught?

I know that Catholics aren't the greatest culprit

Nor Moslems possibly. But the point is you don't appear know Catholics

but such creeds lead to choosing your own morality.

And our own faith

* Christ supercedes the old law of Moses, without cancelling it -- in the same way Einstein supercedes Newton. It's not a simple binary yes/no equation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

* Christ supercedes the old law of Moses, without cancelling it -- in the same way Einstein supercedes Newton. It's not a simple binary yes/no equation.

Really?

In Christianity, supersessionism is a theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism. It holds the view that the Christian Church has succeeded the Israelites as the definitive people of God or it holds the view that the New Covenant has replaced or superseded the Mosaic covenant.

- wikipedia -

..so what is this "new covenant"?

New Covenant Theology is a Christian theological position teaching that the person and work of Jesus Christ is the central focus of the Bible. One distinctive result of this is that Old Testament Laws have been abrogated or cancelled with Jesus' crucifixion, and replaced with the Law of Christ of the New Covenant.

- wikipedia -

"The law of Christ" (ὁ νόμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ) is a New Testament phrase which most likely refers to the two commandments which are mentioned by Jesus: ‘"you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Leviticus 19:18b) There is no other commandment greater than these.

- wikipedia -

Many Christians believe that that is all there is to it..
..and others..

Aquinas defines the New Law as "chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in Christ, " but adds that it also "contains certain things that dispose us to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to the use of that grace." Therefore,"the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that secondarily it is a written law".

The Catholic theologian Bernhard Häring presents the Law of Christ as Christ himself in his person because Jesus was able to fulfill the law and provide us with the effect of this fulfillment.

The Evangelical theologian Douglas J. Moo argues that "the law of Christ" is strongly connected to the Mosaic Law, for example that nine of the Ten Commandments are included.

George R. Law argues that the New Covenant is the Law of Christ, and that the details are expressed in the Sermon on the Mount.

- wikipedia -

Hmm .. apparently, Jesus didn't specifically teach about a "new covenant" .. which is why nobody seems to know
what it actually is.

 

[Thomas]

Do you think?

I don't know enough to say. As the scholars say, there's a lot we don't know about the man.

"such narratives"?

As the apocryphal childhood narratives, or the various Gnostic crucifixion narratives.

..and the only reason I can see that you dismiss it is because you don't like what it says.

Muhammed_isa, you've been doing that consistently! I find the logic dubious.
Islam can believe in the Incarnation, born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is clearly no ordinary man. It can believe in the Ascension. I fail to see why it cannot believe in the Resurrection.

I have the Gospel of He who is the Only-Begotten Son of God (to which I think Islam agrees), who lived, preached, died and ascended into Heaven (all of which Islam agrees). I don't need 'another' Gospel.

..so what is all the fuss about? Ah, yes .. creed.

Yep. We all got 'em!

You insist that Jesus cancelled the Jewish law.

Quick correction here: No. You're falling into Garaffa's trap there.

Too much cherry-picking for my liking ... but such creeds lead to choosing your own morality.

Pots, kettles, etc.

 

[RJM]

Hmm .. apparently, Jesus didn't specifically teach about a "new covenant" .. which is why nobody seems to know
what it actually is.

There's something forgotten here, before I step out of the discussion again, for fear of getting sucked back into a whirlpool -- which is that Christ taught not merely by his words but by his life. Christ's life and death and resurrection are his great teaching. The veil of the temple was torn, and the new covenant superceded the old. According to the scriptures.

Of course there are different opinions about all the fine details. There are libraries of opinions and discussions, and including wikipedia, of course. It's not a simple binary yes/no issue. The spiritual symbols are there because a few words are not sufficient to explain spiritual mysteries. God creates synchronicity. IMO

I know you will not accept it, but am responding because others read and posts last for years

 

[muhammad_isa]

Christ's life and death and resurrection are his great teaching.

No, that's not true.
Naturally, what he is reported to have said has a bearing on how we should live our lives.
eg. love our neighbours, forgive others who have wronged us

..but his death and resurrection?
I don't understand .. should we follow his example and be crucified?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No. You're falling into Garaffa's trap there..

Care to explain?

 

[RJM]

should we follow his example and be crucified?

If necessary

don't understand ..

whole problem

 

[muhammad_isa]

If necessary..

Hmm .. we can all be martyrs .. but one needs to be very careful.
I wouldn't recommend surrendering to an evil tyrant just for the sake of it.

I suppose you think that Muhammad & his disciples should have let themselves be killed and
not emigrated to Medina?

Perhaps you'd also like to explain why Jesus ascended to heaven at that particular time and didn't continue with his mission of starting a new religion?
I would imagine that plots on his life would have continued. Look what happened to John the Baptist.

Oh wait .. there is no point asking you questions, because you don't think that they need to be answered rationally

 

[juantoo3]

...is practically the same as what the Jews believe.

Oh, I don't know 'bout that...I think the Jews would have a VERY different opinion of Jesus than either Christians or Muslims.

 

[juantoo3]

Perhaps you'd also like to explain why Jesus ascended to heaven at that particular time and didn't continue with his mission of starting a new religion?
I would imagine that plots on his life would have continued. Look what happened to John the Baptist.

Oh wait .. there is no point asking you questions, because you don't think that they need to be answered rationally

I had hoped we ALL (not just you, muhammad_isa) had reached a mutual end point, where all could shake hands and walk away.

I really don't want to get in the middle of the other discussions. But this here I must answer.

Are you sincere about a rational answer, by your own definition earlier? Honestly, genuinely, forthrightly?

I ask because the way you frame this question, apart from the obvious sarcasm, clearly demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the established timeline of what took place - by sacred scripture. Remember, you are the one that gets offended when sacred scripture is attacked or maligned, and so surely you would understand why I would feel precisely the same with these comments. If your questions are sincere, then the lack of understanding is forgivable, but if this is a sarcastic stab, you are stabbing at G-d.

If you are sincere, I will be happy to present my understanding, and it will differ in minor details from what Thomas would present, but the details aren't sufficient to condemn one to hell. Being disrespectful of the gift offered from G-d, that is another story.

 

[RabbiO]

I think the Jews would have a VERY different opinion of Jesus than either Christians or Muslims.

I would have to agree with you on that.

 

[RabbiO]

I do not want to be sucked further into this conversation or its sister conversation a few sub-forums above. I am still not convinced that someone will not have to be the adult in the room. Perhaps @StevePame could be temporarily called up from out of retirement!

There is a basic truth that I do not recall seeing articulated in these threads or if articulated not as well as it ought to be. It has nothing to do with the threads themselves. It has everything to do with who we are. I keep hoping that somebody who is in the middle of this "sturm und drang" will express it.

I'll keep waiting.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I think the Jews would have a VERY different opinion of Jesus than either Christians or Muslims.

State the obvious, why don't you..
I think you know fully well what I mean.

eg. the Oneness of G-d and the prohibition of pork and blood

 

[juantoo3]

I don't read minds from halfway around the world. I took you at what you wrote. If you didn't mean what you wrote, how is it you deride me? You said NOTHING about pork or blood, that comment was SPECIFICALLY about Jesus - per you!

And since you don't have the decency to even comment on your own blasphemy, and instead wish to divert onto me for your transgression without so much as a simple apology, I think we are through.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Are you sincere about a rational answer?

I've more or less answered it.
Jesus is the Messiah [Christ]. He will return at a time appointed.
Those that believe in him, regardless of their religion, will be rightly-guided.
Those that reject him will not.

..nothing new there..