Red Sky at Morning
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 13,961
@Infinityloop
I love how Isaiah talks so specifically of the coming of Muhammad(pbuh)
There's absolutely no way you can twist around it. It's clear for everyone who have eyes to see and a mind to read. Also, I believe Isaiah to be talking about two different prophets one of them being Muhammad(pbuh).
-Muhammad(pbuh) is the New Song.
-He's a descendant of the people of Kedar and made them rejoice and lift up their voice.
-Sela is a mountain in Medina where when the prophet entered the city the inhabitants literally sang a song of joy (they literally sang on his arrival).
-He was a warrior and him and his people led battle shouts praising the Most High.
-He literally drove out the idol worshipers and they turned in shame and ran (they literally carved out images of their false gods and worshiped them).
Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon...they all murdered in the name of God, so stfu with your fake morality...especially when you're quoting from Isaiah 42, FFFSIsaiah 42:3 -
A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
That is SOOOOO not Muhammad. Muhammad was a caravan thief who ordered the murder of poets and poetesses. He waged war against innocent people and took thousands upon thousands as slaves. His followers wiped out entire ancient and vibrant civilizations. That's not justice nor is it someone who is as peaceful as a person who would let a smoldering wick alone.
perhaps because isaiah 42 begins with@Infinityloop
While you didn’t elaborate on your personal convictions regarding this verse (and iam not pressing you on it), iam just curious as to where Muslims get this idea from. For a moment, let me operate from the position that we (Christians) are wrong about Isaiah 42 as a prophecy about Christ.
Muslims can’t just read Muhammad into that chapter given that the name isn’t even mentioned. So iam asking, how and from where did this belief get entrenched in Islam? Care to comment on the OP?
I understand but so often, the argument used against Christian beliefs is that we are just reading our own beliefs into the text and that they have nothing to do with what the Jews believed. The same can be said about Islam. Here is my post from anther thread.perhaps because isaiah 42 begins with
“Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
and you christians insist Jesus is GOD?
seriously though a lot of muslims have never read the whole bible, they merely hear of some parts of the bible, read them and just generalise about it without specific intel. So for example it says
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
4 he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his teaching the islands will put their hope.”
they quickly think 'Well Jesus didnt do that did he?'
obv this is one of those chapters that didnt hint at a a 'second coming of Jesus' type of context. it's part of why Jesus was rejected in the first place..because he didnt establish justice, instead he said 'render unto ceasar...'
However to someone who knows the difference...
Isaiah 42:1-9 Christianity
Isaiah 42:10-20 Islam
the rest are a condemnation of the jewish people where God says
You have seen many things, but you pay no attention;
your ears are open, but you do not listen.”
isaiah 42:10-20 most def cannot be a post-Jesus second coming/messianic era prophecy because the later verses go on to condemn the jewish nation based on the previous signs. It's obvious this is a pre-messianic period prophecy..and it clearly connects with islam.
Sing to the Lord a new song,
Let the wilderness and its towns raise their voices;
let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice.
Let the people of Sela sing for joy;
let them shout from the mountaintops.
kedar...he was the son of Ismael and the ancestor of the Quraysh tribe.
Sela is a mountain of Medina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sela_(Saudi_Arabia)
in fact reading that, it's all the more fitting
"The Prophet Muhammad in the "Battle of the Trench" prayed to God for victory on Mount Sela'.
The Lord will march out like a champion,
like a warrior he will stir up his zeal;
with a shout he will raise the battle cry
and will triumph over his enemies.
another example
Revelation 11, it talks of the gentiles trampling on the outer court for 1260 days.
whilst this is largely speculative with the numbers, it just happens that the period muslims ruled al aqsa was 1260 lunar years...exact.
Ok firstly, do you actually know what the Tanakh actually prophecies? and do you know what the Jewish view of a messiah actually is? because Christianity is completely divorced from what it claims to be a fulfillment of.
I said:I could also switch this around on Islam. If Muslims see Muhammad in Isaiah 42 and Deut 18, is that how Jews view those prophecies aswell? Or are they in just plain denial about that reality…the reality of Muhammadic prophecies…completely divorced from what it claims to be a fulfilment of? Would Rashi agree?
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15973/showrashi/true
I understand but so often, the argument used against Christian beliefs is that we are just reading our own beliefs into the text and that they have nothing to do with what the Jews believed. The same can be said about Islam. Here is my post from anther thread.
Infinityloop said
If the new song prophecy in Isaiah 42 is about the 'triumphant return of Jesus'...Cutting to it, there seems to be good evidence coming through that the location of the real Mt Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia opens tourism to ancient biblical sites: 'The atmosphere is changing'
https://www.foxnews.com/world/saudi-arabia-christian-tour
Furthermore, a fresh look at scripture points to Jesus potentially returning to Mt Sinai en route to His triumphal return to Jerusalem. This would give a new angle to the mention of the rejoicing of Kedar and Sela (Petra) in Isaiah 42.
None taken ;-)If the new song prophecy in Isaiah 42 is about the 'triumphant return of Jesus'...
why does it then go on to condemn the jewish nation from verse 20 onwards?
The return of Jesus marks the turning point for the jewish nation, their redemption.
Nowhere in the bible does it say Jesus is returning to MOUNT SINAI.
This is out of pure desperation because the sinai reference says
Deuteronomy 33
This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the people of Israel before his death. 2 He said,
“The Lord came from Sinai
and dawned from Seir upon us;
he shone forth from Mount Paran;
he came from the ten thousands of holy ones,
with flaming fire at his right hand.
Habakkuk 3
God came from Teman,
the Holy One from Mount Paran.Selah
His glory covered the heavens,
and the earth was full of his praise.
so what you've done is, knowing those sort of references you've attempted to divert the attention they're receiving from muslims.
we know where Mount paran is..
When jesus returns, he isn't going to be converting people, he's going to be judging people, what they did before.
That's why it's called the Harvest!!!
take a break with your weak, biased illogical views.
So this is where the idea comes from. I see.so when the Quran told jews to 'You will find him in your own book',
Gosh, i'd completely forgotten about this in our (christians and muslims) old debates. Thanks for the reminderAlso, there is a hadith that mentions Gabriel and the Holy spirit as 2 distinct beings. Despite that, muslims lied about Gabriel and called him the holy spirit. Yet later muslims go on quoting John 16 to say 'it is about Mohammad, the comforter'.
the gospel of barnabas is probably a muslim forgery...i never read too much into it. i know it is dumb.So this is where the idea comes from. I see.
Gosh, i'd completely forgotten about this in our (christians and muslims) old debates. Thanks for the reminder
While you didn't participate in the Barnabbas thread, Haich gave me a link to this website and while i was looking for something, i found this:
The truth is that the four Gospels which the Christian Church has recognized as Canonical are neither an authentic means of knowing the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) Prophecies about the Prophet (peace be upon him) nor are they a reliable source for knowing the correct biography and the original teachings of the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) himself, but by far the more trustworthy means for this is the Gospel of Barnabas which the Church has declared as heretical and apocryphal. The Christians have done whatever they could to conceal it, and it remained lost to the world for centuries. In the 16th century only one copy of its Italian translation existed in the library of Pope Sixtus V, and no one was allowed to read it. In the beginning of the 18th century it came into the hands of one John Toland. Then, changing different hands it found its way in 1738 into the Imperial Library of Vienna, In 1907 an English translation of this Italian manuscript was printed at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, but probably soon after its printing the Christian world realized that the book cut at the very root of the faith which was attributed to the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). Therefore, its printed copies were destroyed somehow, and then it never went into print any more. Another copy of it, a Spanish translation from the Italian manuscript, existed in the 18th century, which has been mentioned by George Sale in his Preface and Preliminary Discourse to the English translation of the Quran. This too was made to disappear, and no trace of it exists anywhere today. I had an opportunity to see a copy of the English translation published from Oxford and I have read it word by word. I feel that it is indeed a great blessing of which the Christians have kept themselves deprived only out of prejudice and stubbornness.
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php/old_commentary/?sura=61&verse=1&to=14
So why don't you guys quote more from this gospel on here rather often quoting from the usual 4 gospels?
You're arguing from Catholic/Protestant assumption here and you don't even notice there that these terms are in the singular. Also the etymology of the two most important there "Torah" means 'teaching, instruction or way' and "Gospel" means 'good news or glad tidings'.Just a quick observation.
The Koran acknowledges only few scriptures other than itself as holy writings that came from God, and these are:
1. Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy)
2. Injeel (Gospel, but now corrupted according to muslims)
3. Zaboor (Psalms)
And therefore, writings/scriptures apart from the three mentioned and the Koran do not have divine inspiration and probably just 'fairy tales' authored by men (according to Islam).
What do you actually think that the Book of Isaiah is?, is the first question I would like to ask you there.But isn't it strange or rather disingenuous that some muslims use scriptures like the Book of Isaiah which is NOT part of scriptures acknowledged by the Koran as divinely inspired and therefore deemed to be corrupted or a lie, and yet they still quote verses from this book to validate Islam and claim prophesies about Muhammad? Is Isaiah even considered a prophet according to the Koran?
Well first of all, I did not ask for your definition and commentaries of the Torah, Injeel and Zaboor.You're arguing from Catholic/Protestant assumption here and you don't even notice there that these terms are in the singular.
"Torah", Tawrat, means the Jewish scriptures in it's general historical use. The word "Torah" itself in Judaism applies to both the Pentateuch EQUALLY as much as it does the Talmud (which is called "Oral Torah"). This is because "Torah" means teaching, and is associated 100% with the revelation from God to Moses at Mount Sinai which still remains central to the Israelite religion, Samaritanism and Judaism. Torah is a Law and collection of teachings given to Moses, not a book contained in the Bible in-and-of-itself. The Pentateuch is mainly just a Hadith collection of Moses' life. With the exception to Deuteronomy in particular - which for a multitude of reasons, seems to be the closest we have to the Tawrat.
When the Qur'an refers to words such as that, it is semantically referring to Revelations, not books. This is where you strawman us, strawmanning us only makes you look foolish and ignorant.
As for Injeel:
"And We sent after them in their footsteps Jesus, son of Mary, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil)." - Surah 5:46
It is the revelation to Jesus given by God, embodied as a Law and Teaching. Nobody "gave" Jesus the books of "Matthew, mark, luke and john", in fact Jesus was long gone after that too, lmao.
Some of the closest examples of the semantic use is very close to the Didache (which was taken as scripture by many early forms of Christianity) and what we see presented as the "sermon on the mount" in Matthew 5-7. But NOT the story of Jesus' life.
Jesus' life simply written by a bunch of people would be Hadith or Seerah, NOT scripture. This sets aside the issue that there is no chain of transmission for matthew mark luke and john and that none of them date far back enough to even be considered properly historical, in comparison to various other non-canonical texts (of which still aren't the proper Injeel).
The Qur'an doesn't, nor Islam, takes any official position on the Bible (a 66 book canon decided upon by a bunch of guys in a room back in the 4th century) as a whole because it doesn't acknowledge it at all. The Bible wasn't written or transmitted by God (aside from the very certainty of a concrete historical use of Deuteronomy in a much early version by the historical Moses), let alone 'canonized by God', ROTFL.
The Bible is not a collection of Revelations, it is a collection of historical accounts, poems, wisdom literature, letters and visions.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the Injeel, there is no such possibility of this ever logically being the case whatsoever. And all the Paulian and Johannine epistles are especially not the Injeel either.
As for the Zaboor, that is more mysterious, both in relation to what the Bible book itself is and what the Qur'an is referring to.
None of this throws out any of the value to be found in the Bible but it means that you have to reconsider what the Bible, both as a religious collection of texts, and doctrinally, is.
The Protestant idea of "scripture" is also very different from the Catholic and Orthodox idea of Scripture, as is Christianity as a whole's perspective of the Tanakh entirely divorced from the Jewish and Samaritan understanding of the same texts. And the Islamic view of scripture is entirely different from the above, for reasons of Divine Authority over the authority of man.
Alongside this you have to realize that the very idea of canon in your own religion is incoherent, you must keep that in mind when you analyse your own collection of books (the Bible).
What do you actually think that the Book of Isaiah is?, is the first question I would like to ask you there.
From the above, I’m not entirely clear if you think that Muhammad is in Isaiah 42 or not? I’m also unsure if you personally regard it as an authoritative book or not?You're arguing from Catholic/Protestant assumption here and you don't even notice there that these terms are in the singular. Also the etymology of the two most important there "Torah" means 'teaching, instruction or way' and "Gospel" means 'good news or glad tidings'.
"Torah", Tawrat, functionally means the Jewish scriptures in it's general historical use. The word "Torah" itself in Judaism applies to both the Pentateuch EQUALLY as much as it does the Talmud (which is called "Oral Torah"). This is because "Torah" means teaching, and is associated 100% with the revelation from God to Moses at Mount Sinai which still remains central to the Israelite religion, Samaritanism and Judaism. Torah is a Law and collection of teachings given to Moses, not a book contained in the Bible in-and-of-itself. The Pentateuch is mainly just a Hadith collection of Moses' life. With the exception to Deuteronomy in particular - which for a multitude of reasons, seems to be the closest we have to the Tawrat in the form of it's revelation or implementation by the actual Moses.
When the Qur'an refers to words such as that, it is semantically referring to Revelations, not books. This is where you strawman us, strawmanning us only makes you look foolish and ignorant.
As for Injeel:
"And We sent after them in their footsteps Jesus, son of Mary, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil)." - Surah 5:46
It is the revelation to Jesus given by God, embodied as a Law and Teaching. Nobody "gave" Jesus the books of "Matthew, mark, luke and john", in fact Jesus was long gone after that too, lmao.
Some of the closest examples of the semantic use is very close to the Didache (which was taken as scripture by many early forms of Christianity and practically predates the entire "New Testament") and what we see presented as the "sermon on the mount" in Matthew 5-7. But NOT the story of Jesus' life.
Jesus' life simply written by a bunch of people would be Hadith or Seerah, NOT scripture. This sets aside the issue that there is no chain of transmission for matthew mark luke and john and that none of them date far back enough to even be considered properly historical, in comparison to various other non-canonical texts (of which still aren't the proper Injeel).
The Qur'an doesn't, nor Islam, takes any official position on the Bible (a 66 book canon decided upon by a bunch of guys in a room back in the 4th century) as a whole because it doesn't acknowledge it at all. The Bible wasn't written or transmitted by God (aside from the very certainty of a concrete historical use of Deuteronomy in a much early version by the historical Moses), let alone 'canonized by God', ROTFL.
The Bible is not a collection of Revelations, it is a collection of historical accounts, poems, wisdom literature, letters and visions.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the Injeel, there is no such possibility of this ever logically being the case whatsoever. And all the Paulian and Johannine epistles are especially not the Injeel either.
As for the Zaboor, that is more mysterious, both in relation to what the Ketuvim book itself actually is and what the Qur'an is referring to.
None of this throws out any of the value to be found in the Bible but it means that you have to reconsider what the Bible, both as a religious collection of texts, and doctrinally, is.
The Protestant idea of "scripture" is also very different from the Catholic and Orthodox idea of Scripture, as is Christianity as a whole's perspective of the Tanakh entirely divorced from the Jewish and Samaritan understanding of the same texts. And the Islamic view of scripture is entirely different from the above, for reasons of Divine Authority over the authority of man.
Alongside this you have to realize that the very idea of canon in your own religion is incoherent, you must keep that in mind when you analyse your own collection of books (the Bible).
What do you actually think that the Book of Isaiah is?, is the first question I would like to ask you there.
You stated the following and made an assumption on what it meant to strawman us, so I corrected youWell first of all, I did not ask for your definition and commentaries of the Torah, Injeel and Zaboor.
Just a quick observation.
The Koran acknowledges......
OK, were there other scriptures categorically mentioned in the Koran that supposedly came from God other than the Torah, Injeel, Zaboor and the Koran itself?You stated the following and made an assumption on what it meant to strawman us, so I corrected you
My own views on that book are complex, I've read a lot of scholarship on it (both religious by Jews and Christians, as well as secular) and I am of two minds about it.From the above, I’m not entirely clear if you think that Muhammad is in Isaiah 42 or not? I’m also unsure if you personally regard it as an authoritative book or not?