Prophet Muhammad (saw) in the Bible

friend

Established
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
461
Likes
789
#81
Most of it, in fact.

I see. I perhaps mistakenly read you as saying that "pretty much any of the Christian posters on here are naturally wicked, disobedient, lovers of sin and enemies of God's commandments." If so, I think the judgment unduly harsh and uncharitable. If not, then please disregard my comments.
I consider you a honest seeker of truth. no i did not take any offense at all.
". . . and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82)
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,898
Likes
10,452
#83
Winston Churchill (ww2) in Homer's Illiad

things-that-make-you-go-hmmm.jpg

Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis
 





Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,222
Likes
8,398
#84
Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis
What a useful term for understanding Christian Zionism.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,898
Likes
10,452
#85
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,346
Likes
2,521
#86
@Red Sky at Morning bit silly to try making fun when you know
1) the promise God made for Ishmael
2) texts like Isaiah 42 where the new song prophecy directly mentions
Where Kedar lives (the quraysh descend from him this is Mecca. The Mt of sela ( in Medina).

Right after this God condensed the Jews calling them blind and deaf.
"I have shown you may things"
(What things?)
So that rules out that prophecy being messianic...
Upto verse 9 it is messianic (Christianity) then the prophecy changes to the new song prophecy which very accurately describes the rise of Islam. Then God condemns the n
Jews.
The real messianic Zion era won't be a time where Jews will be condemned by God but redeemed.


As for the prophet...
The holy spirit was in him. It's something the Qur'an says..
Understand what Jesus said in John 16..
Speak and gear only what he hears
This applies to a person who hears the word if God. ..fulfilled through the holy spirit.
"He will tell you all the us to come and will testify about me".
"He will give you ALL the truth"

Furthermore you have multiple shadow themes coming from the collective Jewish consciousness in the 7th century AD that led to the creation of a Jewish state and the war between Sassanids and byzantines
Contexts that led to the Islamic conquest.

The very thing the Jews desired for themselves was given to the other race...
Where in the Torah was that theme promised?
Too bad you have one dimensional thinking. The holy spirit chose prophet Mohammed and Islam to achieve monotheism after Christians butchered it.
The most important truth of the entire revelation is belief in God..and you worship a man. No matter how important..he is not God. God may be immanent in him...as He is in all people....and all things...but Jesus is not God...and only the Catholic church fathers and the fact Henry 8th allowed those beliefs to continue existing in Protestantism is why you are believing in that crap whilst under the same breath calling the Catholic church "the whore of Babylon".
 





DavidSon

Established
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
240
Likes
315
#87
I watched the video and then re-read from around chapter 40 where the Most High is speaking to Hezekiah. This begins the Book of Comfort (ch. 40-66).

I can see why people might feel the "Elect One" is an individual. The text does say "he" and even "Him" in my version. The first depiction is in 41:25-

"I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come; from the rising of the sun he shall call on My name; and he shall come against princes as through mortar, as the potter treads clay".

In chapter 42 we have another 4 verses, but afterwards the point of attention shifts. It seems like this first part of 42 is a continuation of 41. For me it's a short and vague reference, I think it could be a stretch to define "Him" as Jesus or Muhammad. Again I don't see the relation to verse 6 and onward, which is clearly about the people of God. "Him" and "My Elect One" may just be a metaphor for His chosen people.

The dialogue in both chapters is intriguing -comparing lifeless idols, asking them for prophesy, to the true counselor and messenger, who is essentially God. There is also a cry for the people to open their eyes and ears, to see and listen. These are mystical passages, glad they were brought up.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,380
Likes
5,683
#88
@Red Sky at Morning bit silly to try making fun when you know
1) the promise God made for Ishmael
2) texts like Isaiah 42 where the new song prophecy directly mentions
Where Kedar lives (the quraysh descend from him this is Mecca. The Mt of sela ( in Medina).

Right after this God condensed the Jews calling them blind and deaf.
"I have shown you may things"
(What things?)
So that rules out that prophecy being messianic...
Upto verse 9 it is messianic (Christianity) then the prophecy changes to the new song prophecy which very accurately describes the rise of Islam. Then God condemns the n
Jews.
The real messianic Zion era won't be a time where Jews will be condemned by God but redeemed.


As for the prophet...
The holy spirit was in him. It's something the Qur'an says..
Understand what Jesus said in John 16..
Speak and gear only what he hears
This applies to a person who hears the word if God. ..fulfilled through the holy spirit.
"He will tell you all the us to come and will testify about me".
"He will give you ALL the truth"

Furthermore you have multiple shadow themes coming from the collective Jewish consciousness in the 7th century AD that led to the creation of a Jewish state and the war between Sassanids and byzantines
Contexts that led to the Islamic conquest.

The very thing the Jews desired for themselves was given to the other race...
Where in the Torah was that theme promised?
Too bad you have one dimensional thinking. The holy spirit chose prophet Mohammed and Islam to achieve monotheism after Christians butchered it.
The most important truth of the entire revelation is belief in God..and you worship a man. No matter how important..he is not God. God may be immanent in him...as He is in all people....and all things...but Jesus is not God...and only the Catholic church fathers and the fact Henry 8th allowed those beliefs to continue existing in Protestantism is why you are believing in that crap whilst under the same breath calling the Catholic church "the whore of Babylon".
Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would speak of HIM, not another self-proclaimed prophet. See verse 26. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14&version=KJV

The Holy Spirit does not EVER contradict Jesus.
 





DavidSon

Established
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
240
Likes
315
#89
It's somewhat amusing to make reference to the Comforter. If anything, to those looking for signs, it confirms that another would continue ministering to the God of Abraham.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Does it make sense to imagine a mysterious "Holy Spirit" has had more effect guiding the people of Yahweh as that of a prophet and his 1.8 billion followers? The real enemy is not Islam.
 





Last edited:

DavidSon

Established
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
240
Likes
315
#90
@ Etagloc-

The information you shared about Luther is a revelation. It's shocking how unstudied most Christians are about the formation of their churches. We learn as a child about the reformation, but I've never before read exactly what ML himself believed, what were his tenets. I agree he's a mad-man. And yes it's clear as night and day what impact his dogma (which included much of the Orthodox/Roman principles like the trinity and immaculate conception), has had on the last 500 years of Christianity. The insidious fraud Constantine hijacked the Christian faith and built his religion- yet Luther's "protest" was basically over paying Indulgences. I can relate to some of the reformists ideals, like allowing common men and women to read and interpret their bible, but it wasn't enough of a reform to convince me there was any meaningful change.

I notice modern evangelicals have continued with the same obsession of the concept "Sola Fide" (faith alone). It's why we see the maze of confusing, unreasonable, contradictory explanation of Christ and the bible. As @Todd says, they are Paulites, not followers of Jesus. Christ says to, "search the scripture for knowledge of Him" (which is the OT) but these folks take delight in almost nothing other than the the ramblings of Paul. It's honestly hard to read some of the replies at this forum when it's quote after quote from Galatians or Hebrews.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,898
Likes
10,452
#91
@ Etagloc-

The information you shared about Luther is a revelation. It's shocking how unstudied most Christians are about the formation of their churches. We learn as a child about the reformation, but I've never before read exactly what ML himself believed, what were his tenets. I agree he's a mad-man. And yes it's clear as night and day what impact his dogma (which included much of the Orthodox/Roman principles like the trinity and immaculate conception), has had on the last 500 years of Christianity. The insidious fraud Constantine hijacked the Christian faith and built his religion- yet Luther's "protest" was basically over paying Indulgences. I can relate to some of the reformists ideals, like allowing common men and women to read and interpret their bible, but it wasn't enough of a reform to convince me there was any meaningful change.

I notice modern evangelicals have continued with the same obsession of the concept "Sola Fide" (faith alone). It's why we see the maze of confusing, unreasonable, contradictory explanation of Christ and the bible. As @Todd says, they are Paulites, not followers of Jesus. Christ says to, "search the scripture for knowledge of Him" (which is the OT) but these folks take delight in almost nothing other than the the ramblings of Paul. It's honestly hard to read some of the replies at this forum when it's quote after quote from Galatians or Hebrews.
Fortunately the Christian faith is not dependant on the variable nature of Luther!

It puts me in mind of something C.S. Lewis wrote:-

“MEDITATION IN A TOOLSHED”

Lewis was standing in the darkness of his toolshed one sunny day. It was bright outside but dark inside, and through a crack at the top of the door he could see a beam of sunlight slanting down through the darkness of the shed. He could see little particles of dust floating in the beam, which lit up a small patch of the floor. Then he shifted his position so that the beam of light was no longer falling on the floor: it was now falling directly on his eyes. And instantly the previous picture vanished. He no longer saw the beam of light. It had disappeared from view. He saw along the beam of light. And what he saw along it was the crack at the top of the door, the leaves on the tree moving in the wind outside, and millions of miles away, the sun itself. Looking at the beam and looking along the beam are very different experiences.

Lewis’s point in his “Meditation in a Toolshed” (the title of the essay where he wrote about this memory) is that we should consider every question in both ways—both by “looking at” it and by “looking along” it. For instance, take falling in love. Why do people fall in love with each other and get married and have children? The biologist might say it’s because we want to pass on our genes to the next generation and ensure the survival of the species. The sociologist might say that it’s because there are certain social structures and expectations that shape the way we behave.

But if you asked a particular man why he had fallen in love with a particular woman, he wouldn’t say anything like that. Instead, he would probably say, “I love her because—um, ah, er—because I love her! Time seems to stand still when I’m with her. She’s the best thing that ever happened to me. I want to be with her all the time. And anyway, she laughs at my jokes!”

Whose opinion is the most reliable? The opinion of the scientists who are contemplating, or looking at, the lovers? Or the opinion of the couple themselves, who are enjoying love, looking along the beam of their love? “Looking at” and “looking along” are both valuable in different ways, and we shouldn’t automatically assume that one is necessarily better or worse than the other. In certain cases we may have good reason to prefer one way, but generally we should be willing to consider every question in both lights.

Lewis jokingly said we should be like the ancient Persians who debated everything twice: once when they were sober and once when they were drunk! Of course, he wasn’t literally suggesting that drunkenness is a good thing, but he was suggesting that we can see certain things only when we are immersed in an experience, enjoying and looking along it, committed to it, living within it.

And the interesting thing about the experience of looking along is that the beam of light becomes invisible. You no longer see the light; you see by it. The beam itself vanishes from your sight.

Michael Ward, The Narnia Code

Want to know Jesus? "Ye must be born again"

John 10:27-28 King James Version (KJV)

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
 





Last edited: