Posted on 11/29/2001 10:30:57 AM PST by EclipseVI
The violence of the Quaran can be denied till doomsday, the evidence is very much to the contrary. There have been many posters on FR that have posted the verses(?) from the Quaran saying it's ok to lie and decieve infidels, it's ok to kill those that refuse to embrace their religion. The Quaran goes on and on about the innocent, but you are only innocent if you embrace Islam, other than that you are an infidel. I get the feeling that anyone can take any view they want and be justified by the Quaran depending on what stage of life Muhammad was in. Or just look around the globe at present for representatives of this religion.
While they may grant Jesus status of "prophet" and "messiah", which to them means a mere mortal man, Christians do not grant Muhammad the status of prophet. Anyone that makes the claim that they must restrain themselves from performing miracles should make anyone cock an eyebrow.
While I don't know that I agree with everything on this thread "St Paul Foresaw Islam warned against Preterism" it gives an indication of what many Christians believe about Islam.
But they also rever the prophet Mohammed, who as far as I can see was a ruthless despot, a military aggressor and conquerer, and a rapist.
I am not a Christian, but as I understand it, Jesus never killed anyone, mounted a military attack on others' territory, or forced 6 year old girls into a lifetime of sexual slavery under some weird Muslim doctrine of "marriage."
|
||||||||
|
|||||
|
Me? I'd stick with "Christian". Christian equals Western. No others need apply.
Why are there any Greek words in the "Aramaic Scriptures?" The short answer is that you were working with the "Peshitto" which is otherwise known as the West Palestinian "Peshitta" that was made to conform to the pre-Christian Septuagint of the Greek church.
We know that Jesus did not speak Greek because the Aramaic speaking people in the time of Jesus considered it sinful to speak any other language. This had to be true because the Aramaic Estrangelo Script was the lingua franca in Palestine at the time of Jesus.
Aramaic in this script is similar to Arabic and this was the language of commerce and industry. A growing number of scholars now recognize that Jesus spoke this form of Aramaic, not Greek.
The square letter Aramaic in Hebraic characters came much later. (See "Western Christian Scholars Awaken to Truth" in the Table of Contents on the Aramaic Bible Society Website). See Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History", first published in 1928! Also, "The Age of Faith", Will and Ariel Durant's "The Story of Civilization", Vol. 4.
Trace the Biblical history of this Greek word "Paraclete". At one time the word read "Periklytos" and "Paraklytos", which is the name for "Muhammad" in Greek. Both words mean "Praised" or "Celebrate," the meaning and character of the man "Muhammad." (1 Jesus in The Qur'an, One World Publications, (c) Geoffrey Parrinder 1965, 1995, ISBN 1-85168-094-2. Knowing this, there is a need for us to study the life of Prophet Muhammad in depth to see if it all stands up.
Of special interest always is what the name for Muhammad was in his mother tongue, Palestinian Aramaic. For this we have to look to the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures.
According to the present day Aramaic scriptures, the word for Muhammad would read "Paraqleyta" or "Paraklytos" in Greek and "Menahem" in Hebrew! In the ancient Aramaic scriptures, before these changes, it read "Ahmad," then Munahammana" which is the Aramaic/Syriac rendering for the name "Muhammad." These are names, not simply words, and they mean "Comforter" or "Muhammad" in Arabic.
There is no Aramaic dictionary where you'll find the word "Paraqleyta" because there is no such word in that language. Therefore, two questions are asked:
Why was "Periklytos" changed to "Paraklytos"?
Why was Ahmad changed to "Munahammana" and then to "Paraqleyta?"
History tells us that Muhammad was the only prophet who came shortly after Jesus and did everything Jesus said he would. Read Luke 6:40, "There is no disciple who is more important than his teacher; for every man who is well developed will be like his teacher" (Lamsa) or "The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master" (KJV).
Christians are often told that no one can go to heaven except by Jesus. This tells us that the only way anyone can go to heaven is to be Christ-like. Muhammad was such a man. Muslims make a stronger case. They say that Jesus says the only way one can be with Jesus in Heaven is to be as Him, i.e., one who submits to Alaha's Will (Aramaic), Allah's Will (Arabic). To do this is to be a Muslim! But let us return to the study of the word "Comforter."
John 16:7-13
But I tell you the truth, It is better for you that I should go away; for if I do not away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I should go, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will rebuke the world concerning sin, concerning righteousness, and concerning Judgment. Concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; Concerning righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you will not see me again; Concerning judgment, because the leader of this world has been judged. Again, I have many other things to tell you, but you cannot grasp them now. But when the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth: for he will not speak from himself, but what he hears, that he will speak: and he will make known to you things which are to come in the future. He will glorify me; because he will take of my own and show to you. Everything that my Father has is mine; this is the reason why I told you that he will take of my own and show to you. (Lamsa)
The difference between Muslims and Christians is that Muslims use the original words that Jesus and all the prophets used. In speaking of John 16:7-13, most Christians will tell you that the "Comforter" Jesus will send is the Holy Ghost. But keep in mind that the Holy Ghost was around before Jesus.
In the Aramaic we see that the translation is "Spirit." Jesus, peace be upon him, was talking about the one who would ONLY appear when He joined His Father in Heaven*. In other words, this Spirit of Truth (a man) was never around before. The man Jesus sent was Muhammad. .
Real-life experiences surely beat the propaganda fed here by the Israel-firsters. Inyokern, when queried, called Jesus a "charismatic preacher". What they don't say is what counts.
The Old Testament and the Torah, relates mans attempt to be as pure as God, and it was a failure, man couldn't make it. In the New Testament is the new covenant, part of the Godhead, Jesus, came to earth in flesh and paid for our sins so man in the flesh, unable to overcome sin, can lay their sins on Jesus and accept the Holy Spirit that makes sin a hated thing in oneself to be overcome.
God has taken a hands off attitude as far as individual punishment goes allowing each man his lifetime to make his decision. We are told to live in peace with all other men as much as possible until He returns. The Jews, still the apple of God's eye have preserved for all these many thousand years His word, were expecting a Messiah, not the Messiah, to come defeat their enemies through war. Jesus came in peace and delivered all men from their worst enemy death.
The Jews as Jesus said, "missed the hour of their visitation". So you are right earthly battles is not what Jesus was here for. As far as who Muhammad is, we have no idea, it seems his teachings lead to destruction and death, totally against the principles and commands of Jesus.
Perhaps American Muslims just aren't organized for it. I don't know, but I'm not willing to condemn the entire religion based on foreign nuts. I suspect you aren't either, and you raise a valid question.
What do you do, keep a tally sheet?
I am a Christian, and I am an American. I am proud of both and will compromise neither.
Jesus is LORD.
It's just MissAmericanPie there seemed to me making some kind of "issue" over differing beliefs about the divinity of Jesus Christ, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the article's point.
If you're going to press some sort of "litmus test" of this kind, however, you have to be fair and consider that while Muslims don't believe Christ was the Son of God as we Christians do, they do revere Him as a Prophet; in fact, in their religion Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ and Muhammed are the "big four."
Jews don't even believe He was any kind of "big deal," and in fact (as I mentioned in my response to her) there are even some who despise His very Name, because of the persecution they believe they've suffered because of Him.
Fair enough, but better be uniform in your application of that kind of logic. It's now "in" to hate Islam here on FR, but these purveyors of hatred aren't being honest in their arguments.
Under attack? By whom? Is the attack simply a response to the 9/11 WTC atrocity - thus being defense, not offense?
4,000 people died on 9/11, killed in the name of a belief. We're not hearing much outcry by believers against that atrocity - lacking the outcry, many non-believers can only come to one conclusion...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.