I mean why isn't prohet mohamed(may peace be upon him) known in bibles.since all the other prophet was mention in ya books.we believe the first prophet is adam the last is mohamed,and yet ya belive the first prophet is adam da last is jesus.....right also we believe dat prophet mohamed was after jesus..essa just wondering y our most beloved prophet not mention....................
Wait for the next post to refute you , but please be fair this time
Refute me?
The same word you claimed is refering to your prohet aslo to it being traded for food and slain by G-d elswhere. Do you not believe these to? Your logic is ridiculous.
If one is to accept that the word Machmad refers to Muhammad then one should look at all the occurrences of that word. When one does this one can see why only the occurrence in the Song of Solomon is cited by Moslems. The others tell one that Machmad was destroyed (2 Chron. 36:19), was to be laid waste (Isa. 64:10-11), has been taken captive by an enemy (Lam. 1:10), has been traded for food (Lam. 1:11), has been slain by G-d (Lam. 2:4; Hos. 9:16), has been removed by G-d (Ezek. 24:16), is to be profaned by G-d (Ezek. 24:21), is to be buried in nettles (Hos. 9:6) and been carried away by pagans into their temples (Joel 3:5). Even an unkind person would not attribute all these things to Muhammad
Christians from this forum even claim that these men writ in greek even though Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke hebrew or aramaic
Rather more than 'claim'. Jesus certainly spoke Aramaic as his first language, although it's very likely that he was familiar with Greek as well. There is considerable historical and archeological evidence that Greek was widely used in the Galilee region for both business and government transactions and even for far more mundane uses. The Bible states Jesus had dealings with several people who were unlikely to have spoken Aramaic; it is far more likely he talked to Pilate and others in Greek. Greek was the primary literary language of the time and it is very likely that even contemporary accounts (had any been written and preserved) would have been written in that language.
and we know that the original scripture in these languages doesn't remain today
For reasons explained above, it probably never existed in those languages at all, except in translations from the Greek! The idea that just because Jesus taught in Aramaic (not Hebrew, although he was probably familiar with that as well) must mean that some now-lost 'originals' of the gospels in that Aramaic must have existed is incorrect.
Does it not make sense to u that the language Jesus(pbuh) spoke is what the gospel was revealed in? It wouldnt make sense that only Jesus(pbuh) would know Aramaic and no one else would. Like Hebrew is to the Torah, Arabic is to the Qur'an, So is Aramaic to Gospel/Bible.
*Without Allah, without Islam, life would be meaningless. If I've ever learned patience, it's because of this. Alhamdulillah...*
Does it not make sense to u that the language Jesus(pbuh) spoke is what the gospel was revealed in? It wouldnt make sense that only Jesus(pbuh) would know Aramaic and no one else would. Like Hebrew is to the Torah, Arabic is to the Qur'an, So is Aramaic to Gospel/Bible.
No, that is comparison you cannot make at least if considering the Bible from a Christian perspective, which in this context is the one you really need to consider it in. Aramaic is not to the Bible as Arabic is to the Qur'an.
The whole idea of a gospel 'revealed' to Jesus in the same way (correct me if I'm wrong?) as the Qur'an was revealed to Mohammed is a purely muslim one. To be honest, as it is described by lolwatever and Fi_Sabilillah - which I assume is mainstream Islamic doctrine - it seems absurd to me. Why, in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is there no record of Jesus ever mentioning such a revelation? Why on earth would God make such a revelation to Jesus only for it to disappear without trace? Who messed up, God or Jesus? As it seems ridiculous that it could be either, it seems equally ridiculous to me that such a 'gospel' ever existed in the first place. From the Christian perspective there was no 'revealed' gospel at all. The Christian gospels describe the story of Jesus and what he taught, they are not claimed to be the direct Word of God in the way the Qur'an is.
First of all, Grace Seeker from this forum said that Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke aramaic and his companions gave the message in greek because that was the common language for the people at that time. We can't say that Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke greek without no proof so therefore that doesn't hold much weight.
Regarding your second point, Allaah sent messengers to their own people and this is why we see many times in the bible - Jesus (peace be upon him) being ordered to “Go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel!” Matthew 10:6 etc. it was upto these people to preserve the scripture of their prophet.
One of the reasons why Allaah may have promised to preserve the Qur'an is because Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a messenger to mankind ["Say: 'O mankind! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth." (Qur'an 7:158) ]
Therefore it is our duty to spread the message of the Qur'an and Allaah will preserve it for us. Unlike the previous nations whose prophets only came to their own nation, hence instead of spreading it on - it was their duty to follow it and preserve it, and obviously we know that it never got preserved. That's why there is so much confusion today.
First of all, Grace Seeker from this forum said that Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke aramaic and his companions gave the message in greek because that was the common language for the people at that time. We can't say that Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke greek without no proof so therefore that doesn't hold much weight.
There is no way you can 'prove' any fact like that in relation to something that happened two thousand years ago. There is more than enough historical and archeological evidence to suggest that Jesus (whose existence at all cannot be 'proven', of course) probably did speak Greek, and that holds more than enough 'weight' to carry the argument. The alternate position seems to amount to no more than evidence-free speculation based on an incorrect understanding of the linguistic demographics of the time and an unsound argument by analogy.
i find it more effective to prove to the christians the flaw of jesus dying for our sins and the concept of the trinity.
no need to go into the details of whats written in the bible and other minor details when such a huge flaw can be found in the basic fundamental faith such as Jesus dying for the sins of every rapist and drug addicted serial killer out there.
may ALlaah grant us the understanding...
-
My tears testify that i have a heart
yet i feel me and shaytan never part
-
thanks everybody for replying but next time stay on da same topic plz take care.............................................. ......
I think the answer to your question is it depends on whether it is important for your faith to find him mentioned there. I think the concensus is that he is not mentioned in a fashion that would be acceptable as proof to anyone but another Muslim.
As a Christian I feel he is mentioned by inference in this Bible verse.
John 5:43 "I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive."
Here is a passage from a Hadith which I feel justifies my claim.
Translation of Sahih Bukhari
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 3:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection the Believers will assemble and say, 'Let us ask somebody to intercede for us with our Lord.' So they will go to Adam and say, 'You are the father of all the people, and Allah created you with His Own Hands, and ordered the angels to prostrate to you, and taught you the names of all things; so please intercede for us with your Lord, so that He may relieve us from this place of ours.' Adam will say, 'I am not fit for this (i.e. intercession for you).' Then Adam will remember his sin and feel ashamed thereof. He will say, 'Go to Noah, for he was the first Apostle, Allah sent to the inhabitants of the earth.' They will go to him and Noah will say,
'I am not fit for this undertaking.' He will remember his appeal to his Lord to do what he had no knowledge of, then he will feel ashamed thereof and will say, 'Go to the Khalil--r-Rahman (i.e. Abraham).' They will go to him and he will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking. Go to Moses, the slave to whom Allah spoke (directly) and gave him the Torah .' So they will go to him and he will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking.' and he will mention (his) killing a person who was not a killer, and so he will feel ashamed thereof before his Lord, and he will say, 'Go to Jesus, Allah's Slave, His Apostle and Allah's Word and a Spirit coming from Him. Jesus will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking, go to Muhammad the Slave of Allah whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah.' So they will come to me and I will proceed till I will ask my Lord's Permission and I will be given permission.
This verse in the Hadith states that Jesus was less righteous or worthy of interceeding for mankind before God than Muhammed. If Muhammed actually said this, I would interpret this as coming in his own name.
So if someone says that he got the holy spirit within him.. and then writes a book related to christianity(he writes some new concepts)... will u Christians accept his boook?
and if he wants his book to be included in in the bible.... will u all agree with him?????
So if someone says that he got the holy spirit within him.. and then writes a book related to christianity(he writes some new concepts)... will u Christians accept his boook?
and if he wants his book to be included in in the bible.... will u all agree with him?????
I suspect his or her book will be added to the bookshelves of local Christian bookstores if the material is found trustworthy when measured against the Bible, but the contents of the Bible will not be altered.
Others would be better able to answer, however here is some info I found.
It was during the fourth century that concentrated attempts were made both in the East and the West to establish the authoritative collection of the Canon. In 365, Athanasius of Alexandria listed the complete twenty-seven books of the New Testament which he regarded as the "only source of salvation and of the authentic teaching of the religion of the Gospel" (Hannah, Notes, 2.6). While Athanasius stands out in the Eastern Church, Jerome is his counterpart in the West. Jerome wrote a letter to Paulinus, bishop of Nola in 394 listing just 39 O.T. books and our current 27 N.T. ones. It was in 382 that Bishop Damascus had Jerome work on a Latin text to standardize the Scripture. The resulting Vulgate was used throughout the Christian world. The Synods of Carthage in 397 and 418 both confirmed our current twenty-seven books of the NT.
where barnabas was a very close companion of jesus and the bible also refers him as apostle.in Acts(14:14), and as a good man full of holy spirit in Acts(11:24)
in 325 A.D the followers of St.Paul gained control over COUNCIL OF NICEA and Canonized 4 greek gospels that are available now.
and destroyed all the other gospels
and do u know that the only gospel wrote on Aramaic language in which the jesus spoke was also destroyed.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
Re: why isn't prophet mohamed ?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks