@Daciple I don't know where your pov came from per se ie who you were arguing with on here, i didn't bother to check because i cba.
Regarding false prophets, you mentioned Joseph Smith. What made Joseph smith false?
Before I talk about that, it is all fine and well basing arguments off the bible, but you have to understand things at a deeper level to form a reasonable argument. You always failed in that regard.
Josepth Smith claimed to communicate with an angel called Moroni. Said angel was even said to have been a sailor in a past life amongst many other things. These ideas, do not fit in with bible theology. There is no record in the bible of any angel called Moroni or having a past life.
Josepth Smith had no connection with the Abrahimic tree, he neither belonged to the bloodline nor did he come at a point in time of any relevance to judeo-christian history.
Did he foretell anything? i don't know if he did, but i imagine if he did it would have been false.
Now how is this so different with prophet Mohammad?
I see you're quick to reject based off your own assumptions about what islam is, based off the arguments of many muslims.
However each time i have presented you with a far superior argument that carries depth and serious logic, you have told me i'm not a muslim. So by that same logic, was Jesus a true jew or a false jew? since his thinking clearly was different by the majority of his people. In fact that was true for most of the jewish prophets. However here, it is not even the majority we are talking about, but a niche group who deal in topics related to interfaith dialogue in the english language. Historically islam has been a very very diverse religion on matters of theology and law. However historically christians and muslims never had true interfaith dialogue. We live in the age of information now so can study history with far more depth and study scriptures with many transliterations and historical sources.
I'm going to just clarify a few points before I talk about the prophet of islam.
-
The assumption that islam regards the bible as corrupted.
As a matter of FACT the Quran affirms the truth/guidance/light of the previous scriptures. In the PRESENT tense. I can and have posted various verses stating that fact.
There are hadith about how the prophet himself held the Torah the jews of Madina had, in his hand, and said "I BELIEVE IN YOU" to the book.
The 'corrupt' aspect was explained clearly when one of the sahaba was reading an arabic translation of the Torah and the prophet SAW told him "neither accept or reject what they give you" because "you might reject a thing and it is from Allah, or you might accept a thing and it isn't from Allah".
The reason is because these translations carried within them, the biased view of the scribes who wrote them. Therefore it wasnt easy to tell what they were attributing to the bookw as truely right.
The worst irony was that when muslim translators themselves, wrote their translations of the Quran, they actually wrote those translations with their own personal understanding/bias etc. The very verses that refer to the 'distortions' in previous scriptures, are themselves distorted by the translators.
The truth is, when muslims arrived in the western/english speaking world, there were serious attempts to convert them to christianity, by attacking islam. Most muslims didn't posess knowledge and were self-taught. Ahmad Deedat came out of that context as his own man with his own arguments. He became a legend in that field...and so people look to him as the voice of islam.
personally i believe he was wrong on quite a number of arguments.
Saying that, is not a problem. in islam, every scholar disagrees with another scholar. As i said islam is diverse.
It is even comical when someone like you wants to tell me what the Quran says, there is much irony in that given even you don't know what it really says.
Eg
in islam, a martyr is considered, alive. Not dead. slain, but alive. Why/how?
we don't associate the death of the body with spiritual death. Barzakh (sheol/hades) is like a prison we are bound to according to the weight of our attachments to this life. Therefore a person who gave up all attachment to the physical world, in persuit of God..died to the world. How could such a person die?
So based off that perspective, how could anyone claim Jesus died? You talk about spirit vs flesh, Jesus said the flesh dies but the spirit does not die. right? in the Quranic verse on the crucifixion, it says "he appeared to die". This verse, is one that's revealed in such a way to test people's perspective.
There are many bad arguments from the muslim side. For example they talk about the substitute theory, that someone else was given the 'likeness' of jesus. YET this viewpoint came from an Ahmadi (they are like our version of mormons) who also said Jesus went to kashmir (conveniently a place where ahmadi's exist in large number). I honestly could go on and on and on dissecting the absurd opinions by muslim dawah men that are spread far and wide.
Another one is when muslims attach Paul. In the Quran, Allah not only tells us HE inspired the disciples of Jesus, it also tells us that HE caused the believers (in Jesus) from the jewish nation, to be victorious over the disbelievers. That means, whatever version of christianity survived out of that early period, was the correct version. So rather than carry this absurd idea of a lost authentic gospel and a lost version of christianity..and seeing paul as an imposter who destroyed christianity..i find the Quran supports Paul.
-islam rejects use of the term 'Son of God'.
This is correct. in the original hellenised philosophical pov, the Son of God was only a symbolic term, to describe the logos/word.
it goes without saying, over the last 2000 yrs, many people tookt his term very literally, seeing baby Jesus, as a literal son of God.
rejecting this doesnt make it anti-bible, it just deals with the fact that times change and people who were seperate from hellenistic culture/perspective took the term the wrong way.
However the Quran does says Jesus is the WORD OF ALLAH. Since 'the Son' was just a symbolic way to describe the Word..and the Quran says Jesus is His Word...then how is islam rejecting the actual core idea? it isn't, it is rejecting terms that are easily misinterpreted by stupid people..and face it most people are stupid.
Regarding prophet Mohammad
I've made these arguments many times over, it is clear to me you are not really intelligent enough to grasp the bigger picture.
-God blessed Ismael, not many have that privilege. God promised to make him a great nation and raise 12 princes/rulers from him
let's delve deeper on this.
look at how great the greek, persian and roman empires were. Yet they were only relevant because they had control over the temple mount/temple at a point in history. They are the beasts in the book of Daniel.
God saying HE will make Ismael a great nation, clearly means something far far greater than those beast systems.
I wonder what that was?
-
before or after the second coming of Jesus?
when the second coming happens, it is the israelites/jews who will be great, hence God followed the promise to Ismael with 'it is by Isaac you will be reckoned'. The kingdom of Jesus won't have competition from anyone else. Everyone will look to Jerusalem. So clearly that promise to ismael was something that was meant to be fulfilled before the second coming of Jesus.
-
why would there need to be another prophet after Jesus?
since im a big advocate of Paul's message, i'll use his logic on works vs faith.
He said that that the patriarchs/israelites before Moses, were righteous by faith, not works, since there wasnt a law for them.
YET God saw fit to introduce the law through Moses.
since works are perceived as less than faith, was this a backward step?
Paul said "the law was revealed not to make people righteous but to reveal the depths of Sin, so God's grace could be revealed"
eg by falling short of the standards demanded by the law of God, people would recognise how weak they were to the power of sin, gain greater awareness of the depths of sin and then they would need God's grace to save them.
Furthermore, when the israelites lived in Egypt, they were influenced by pagan ideas that effectively robbed them of God's grace. That is why the law followed.
After Jesus, gentiles became like the patriarchs, they were living under faith. However it's fair for me to say, that you follow a false teaching, the trinitarian doctrine, from the roman church. The only reason you still follow this doctrine and yet reject the roman church is because king henry 8th couldnt make his mind up on where to park his dick on any given day. So on one particularly bad day, he didnt find his german lutheran protestant new bride attactive..and he was aware of the bloodshed of catholics in the north of England, so he compromised and went 50-50..so he kind of stayed a little bit catholic but was still pissed off at the pope, so we had our own brexit.
That is the only fucking reason you are still a pagan. Remember this.
So of course, just like the need for a law of Moses, there was need for a law similar to that..for gentiles, who were now like the israelites in Egypt, following pagan ideas and lost from God's grace.
Since Jesus was the messiah, there could not be a new jewish prophet. A prophet for gentiles?
a prophet who happens to be an ismaelite, who then goes on to kick start that promise given to Ismael aswell as bring a law like the law of Moses, for all people..
Makes perfect sense to me, that.
It makes even more sense when you look at the things Jesus said
-John 16, the spirit of truth who will 'speak only what he hears' 'telly ou all that is to come'
since your pagan belief tells you the holy spirit is fully God, co-equals with the Father/Son. Why did Jesus actually demote the holy spirit and say 'he is not better than me?' why did he say 'he will only speak what he hears'? that is not worthy of God. The holy spirit, speaks through people, so it stands to reason John 16's 'the comforter/spirit of truth' revealed the truth/prophecies through A particular prophet.
I wonder who, right?
-
Jesus said in the parable of tenants that the tenants would be kicked out of the vineyard (jerusalem) and it would be given to people more deserving who would produce the fruits.
christians replaced jews as the inheritors of the vineyard...
then islam came?
muslims held jerusalem for longer than jews and christians combined.
But let's just ignore that.
yeh false prophet derp
So are we awaiting the grace of God? i thinkso..i think it is even deeper than that. I think religion inc islam are broken systems by design..just like the law of Moses was broken, it wasnt meant to be THE solution. it was meant to ultimately lead to the messiah to 'fulfill'. Even that is something you can see in the Quran in the Moses vs Khidr story, which echo's taoistic type philosophy about right-action vs non-action.
