Does the Bible mention Islam?

[Dawnofhope]

Well, guess what, this is the beast that makes everyone get a mark on their hand or forehead. And, no one can buy or sell unless they have this mark... or the number of his name. And that number is... 666. So this is from Rev 13:18. And what needs explaining is that after all these beasts and dragons, we get to the last one, and its number, 666, and this number is made to be a year? And this year goes all the way back to the first Umayyad leader who took control in 661AD? And, not only that, but then Baha'is have to add 5 years to that to get it to "fulfill" the "prophecy"? I hope you can understand my reluctance to accept this as the true interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
Revelation 13:15

The second beast, the Abbasid Caliphate, was able to revive the image of the first beast, the Umayyad Caliphate, so it appeared to be alive again. The Abbasids enforced their new regime with great severity, ruthlessly murdering even those who had helped them to gain power.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Revelation 13:16-17

The marks were the two taxes imposed on non-Muslims. The 'kharaj' was a business and land tax imposed on the working ('right') hand; the 'jizya' was a poll tax imposed on the 'forehead.' Trading was forbidden by non-Muslims unless they had paid either the poll tax (assessed by the 'name' of their Faith) or the business tax (assessed by the 'number' of their business). Originally, the modest kharaj and jizya were intended as benign symbols of religious tolerance and as gentle encouragement to convert to Islam. Under the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs, the kharaj and jizya were radically transformed into sources of great personal wealth and were used as capital for imperial expansion.

Many non-Muslims fled the realm of the beast to avoid paying these taxes.

Kharaj - Wikipedia

Jizya - Wikipedia

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Revelation 13:18

Check this link out regards ancient numerology that was applied to the Koine Greek the Bible was written in.

Gematria - Wikipedia

The reader of the Apocalypse is challenged to work out the gematrical value of the 'name of the beast. From Revelation 13:1 verse 1 the title rests upon "seven heads." Also, the title must be sacred, since its expropriation by the beast was an act of blasphemy. And, since the text of the apocalypse is in Koine Greek, the answer should be in Koine.

From the various clues in this and other chapters of the Apocalypse, one solution is 'The Caliph.' To test this theory we transliterating the Arabic name into Koine to determine whether its gematrical value is, indeed, 666.

We must define certain transcriptions for the purpose of presenting the result in English letters:

[ARABIC] [KOINE] [GEMATRICAL VALUE] [TRANSCRIPTION]

[Al (definite article)] [' + Omicron] [70] ['O] [

Kef] [Kappa (soft)] [20] [K]

[alif] [alpha] [1] [a]

[lam] [double lambda (hard)] [60] [ll]

[ye] [epsilon + iota (diphthong)] [15] [ei]

[fe] [phi] [500] [ph]

Transcribed: The Caliph = 'O Kalleiph

Gematrical value: 70 + 20 + 1 + 60 + 15 + 500 = 666

The Arabic equivalent of the Anglo-Saxon name 'God' is ''Allah.' In the Arabic gematria, ''Allah' has the value 66. The number '6' is deemed to be the 'number of mediation' by numerologists. Thus '666' has as one of its meanings, 'The Mediator to 'Allah.' The illegitimate caliphate blasphemously claimed that role to be their own.

The date of the usurpation of the caliph Ali by the House was 661 CE. Most biblical scholars, in agreement with the Gospel of Matthew, place the Birth of Jesus sometime prior to the death of Herod the Great who died in the year 4-5 BCE. Placing the 'true' historical date of His Birth at about 5 BCE, and accounting for the missing zero year in BOTH the Christian and common calendars, places the origin of the illegitimate caliphate at about 666 'ANNO DOMINI.'

Anno Domini - Wikipedia

Prior to joining RF I never cared for these types of exercises. None of this has anything to do with why I became a Baha'i. When I first heard Baha'u'llah was the Return of Christ at a fireside it made perfect sense at the time as it does now. Knowledge can be a great barrier between the seeker and what he desires. The book of Revelation is there for a reason. I think its one of many tests for sorting out who is ready to become a Baha'i and who is not. Anyone who is attached to the traditional evangelical Christian approach to interpreting these verses will be prevented from seeing Baha'u'llah as the Return of Christ. Its as if clouds of great power have veiled their eyes from perceiving the truth (Matthew 24:30). The test isn't to solve the riddle, to let go of the illusion we have. Perhaps the one who genuinely solves the riddle, is the one who cared little for it in the first place.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

I disagree with that sackcloth idea, I think it doesn’t fit to the Biblical story, but… …if Muhammad had good message, where does the jihad come that we see all over the Middle east? Why Muslims are against Jews and Christians? If it is not from Muhammed, shouldn’t someone tell to Muslims that “hey, there is no reason for this massacre madness”?

It comes not from the Quran, the Quran is against aggressive war, it clearly says that we should seek for peace in war if possible, and we should only defend. They take the Quran out of context.

But the madness comes from the governments of Saudi and Iran. Iran is Persia. Saudi are those Arabs who were worshipping Idols before Muhammad. They don't care. All they want to see is wealth, power, influence, terror etc.

As an example, the last Khalifate was just a proxy army of Saudi because Iran was winning influence in Iraq and Syria. And all they were using were brainwashed young people. All the Khalifates are just a political system, there is nothing written in the Quran about building such a Khalifate..

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

I wonder if we've stopped communicating.

The book of Genesis was thought to be written around the Babylonian exile period and is considered by some to be based on oral traditions that lead back to Moses who lived 3 1/2 thousand years ago. He spoke of events that go back to the creation of the universe and earth in Genesis 1. Clearly Moses did not witness these events or in fact anything written in Genesis.

Genesis is a theological narrative rather than a history book. Some of the events written about can not possibly be literally true. The flood is an example as it would be logistically impossible to place all the world's animals in Noah's ark as recorded. We also know the earth to be approximately 4.2 million years old that contradicts the a young earth belief as some Christians believe .

Faith for some people means believing that everything that's written in ancient texts is literally true. Perhaps that's what you believe and if that's the case just say so and we can finish our conversation because we are unlikely to make progress.

The purpose of the Noah's ark story is to help us understand the nature of our relationship with God and the Covenant. If we obey God we are protected and blessed. If we disobey God, then we are lost in a sea of tribulation.

The purpose of Genesis is not to provide an historical account of the 3 thousand years prior to Moses life, although there may well be some details that are historically true.

I have two teenage sons. Their names are not Isaac nor Ishmael. However if I believed that God was telling me to sacrifice one of my sons at an alter for God's sake, then I would have to question my grasp on reality. Maybe God really did ask Abraham to sacrifice His son. We have no evidence other than an ancient text to verify the story, but it seems implausible.

The most important aspect about the story of Abraham is it tells us about the nature of sacrifice and the importance of obeying God no matter what. Whether it actually happened literally as recorded is irrelevant.

The part of the story that is much more plausible concerns how Abraham's wife Sarah felt about having Abraham's Egyptian wife Hagar and their son Ishmael on the scene. Clearly she was uncomfortable with the arrangement and Abraham felt pressured to have Hagar and Ishmael relocated. That sounds like a much more plausible story and a much greater sacrifice than anything Sarah and Isaac endured.

As for your claim that the Quran mentions Isaac because that is what you have discovered from your knowledge of languages, I have never heard such a preposterous claim. The Holy Quran has now been translated into English by many reputable scholars. Not one to my knowledge would support your claim.

Why can't the animals go into the Ark of Noah.. That is actually possible. There are enough Arks rebuild and you see how big they are.

The Tora says that the Universe was created in 6 periods. Days = periods. There can't be '24 hour days' if there was no earth right. It means a period in the language.

We don't know if the sacrifice was literal or symbolic.

I just disagree with you about Ishmael being the nearly sacrificed one. I am an Arab, and i admit that it was Isaac. The Quran doesn't mention the name of the nearly sacrificed one. The Tora and Gospel say it was Isaac. I checked it in Hebrew, Greek and Arabic. I am not using translations here..

I never said that the Quran says that it was Isaac by name. It doesn't mention a name. Wow, i have said this maybe 10 times now. The Quran told us to Judge with the Gospel, and uphold the Tora and the Gospel. The Tora and the Gospel say it's Isaac.
Why do you keep ignoring the Quran, Gospel and Tora. Is it because of the Bahai writings? Well i see the Bahai writings as the Book of Mormon, both created from other religions. The Book of Mormon hijacked the Gospel and the Trinitarian sect. The Bahai writings and the Bab hijacked the Quran and the Shia sect.

Anyways, i do not follow scholars or denominations. I am an individual. I am not Sunni, nor Shia, nor Catholic, nor Rabbinical etc. I try to follow Gods Scriptures as much as possible. That's it.

 

[fikoo]

The Absolute Truth About Muhammad in the Bible With Arabic Subtitles

MUHAMMAD ﷺ AND MADINAH IN THE BIBLE

The absolute truth about Muhammad in the bible: Rabbis who acknowledging the fact and...PART 1

 

[Faithofchristian]

I don't think you really answered the question. If Jesus had said that after Him, Ahmad comes, why there is no verse in the Gospel which indicates Jesus said such a thing?
Bahai Faith answers this. Prophets of God spoke two kinds of words: clear and figurative. The prophecy of coming Ahmad after Jesus is in the Gospel, however it is expressed figuratively, not clearly. But if you think everything is literal in holy Books, there is no way you can show a verse in Bible, that Jesus promised about Muhammad.

The Prophets of God, only spoke one clear word. Not two, only one clear word.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The Quran does not deny Jesus was the 'Son of God' only that He can not possibly have been God's son physically.

But Jesus is the Son of God, both Spiritually and physically.
So the Qu'ran does deny Jesus as Son of God.
While Jesus was here on earth, Jesus was here on earth physically. But still Son of God.
Jesus is God in the body of flesh and blood physically.

 

[PruePhillip]

Isaac, the Quran doesn't mention the name of the nearly sacrificed one. I checked in Arabic. And the Tora and Gospel say it's Isaac, by name. I checked in Hebrew and Greek. Case closed. It's Isaac.

I understand that Islam says it's Ishmael.
Believing this changes the whole meaning of Abraham's sacrifice.
And this is one of the reasons Islam changed so much of the Jewish
bible - they wanted to change its meaning.
Same too in re-interpreting the New Testament - it repudiates every
thing that scripture was saying.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I understand that Islam says it's Ishmael.
Believing this changes the whole meaning of Abraham's sacrifice.
And this is one of the reasons Islam changed so much of the Jewish
bible - they wanted to change its meaning.
Same too in re-interpreting the New Testament - it repudiates every
thing that scripture was saying.

If what Islam is saying, to be right, that it was Ishmael that was nearly sacrifice.

Then why in the Gospel's is Isaac always the one made mention of and nothing said about Ishmael. If Ishmael is that so important, it would seem that Ishmael would be the made more mentioning of instead of Isaac.

But yet Muhammad tells to believe the gospels, So if people are to believe the gospels as Muhammad say, Then seeing Isaac is always the one spoken of then are shouldn't people believe that Isaac is the one which God made promise to Abraham to Isaac that his Son Christ Jesus would come thru the children of Isaac.

So how can Ishmael be the one to be sacrifice, when it was thru the children of Isaac that Christ Jesus would come thru.

When Abraham taken Isaac to sacrifice, What was God revealing to Abraham in that sacrifice of Isaac.
By this will show another case in point that Christ Jesus in the book of Matthew 24:24-26 speaks about a false prophet in the desert Muhammad being that prophet in the desert.

Matthew 24:24-26---"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not"

There you have false prophet Muhammad the desert prophet.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

If what Islam is saying, to be right, that it was Ishmael that was nearly sacrifice.

Then why in the Gospel's is Isaac always the one made mention of and nothing said about Ishmael. If Ishmael is that so important, it would seem that Ishmael would be the made more mentioning of instead of Isaac.

But yet Muhammad tells to believe the gospels, So if people are to believe the gospels as Muhammad say, Then seeing Isaac is always the one spoken of then are shouldn't people believe that Isaac is the one which God made promise to Abraham to Isaac that his Son Christ Jesus would come thru the children of Isaac.

So how can Ishmael be the one to be sacrifice, when it was thru the children of Isaac that Christ Jesus would come thru.

When Abraham taken Isaac to sacrifice, What was God revealing to Abraham in that sacrifice of Isaac.
By this will show another case in point that Christ Jesus in the book of Matthew 24:24-26 speaks about a false prophet in the desert Muhammad being that prophet in the desert.

Matthew 24:24-26---"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not"

There you have false prophet Muhammad the desert prophet.

It's Isaac. The Quran doesn't mention the name. But the Tora and Gospel do.

But secterian Muslims say it's Ishmael. But they are sectarian. So they say a lot of wrong things..

 

[PruePhillip]

If what Islam is saying, to be right, that it was Ishmael that was nearly sacrifice.

Then why in the Gospel's is Isaac always the one made mention of and nothing said about Ishmael. If Ishmael is that so important, it would seem that Ishmael would be the made more mentioning of instead of Isaac.

But yet Muhammad tells to believe the gospels, So if people are to believe the gospels as Muhammad say, Then seeing Isaac is always the one spoken of then are shouldn't people believe that Isaac is the one which God made promise to Abraham to Isaac that his Son Christ Jesus would come thru the children of Isaac.

So how can Ishmael be the one to be sacrifice, when it was thru the children of Isaac that Christ Jesus would come thru.

When Abraham taken Isaac to sacrifice, What was God revealing to Abraham in that sacrifice of Isaac.
By this will show another case in point that Christ Jesus in the book of Matthew 24:24-26 speaks about a false prophet in the desert Muhammad being that prophet in the desert.

Matthew 24:24-26---"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not"

There you have false prophet Muhammad the desert prophet.

Jesus' warnings about false prophets was general, there being no specific false prophet.
Ishmael was the figure of the flesh and Isaac of the spirit. God's promise is to the spirit.
Muhammed, like most other prophets, had an abiding interest in earth and time - land,
conquest, power, wealth, fame etc..

 

[Faithofchristian]

Jesus' warnings about false prophets was general, there being no specific false prophet.
Ishmael was the figure of the flesh and Isaac of the spirit. God's promise is to the spirit.
Muhammed, like most other prophets, had an abiding interest in earth and time - land,
conquest, power, wealth, fame etc..

Jesus made it perfectly clear, that a false prophet would be in the desert. And it has come down Muhammad being such a prophet in the desert.
That even a small child could figure that out.

God's Promise was first to Abraham then to Isaac. That thru the seed of Isaac would come the Messiah of Israel.

What was God revealing to Abraham, by having Abraham make sacrifice of Isaac.

It seems Muhammad being a prophet didn't even know the answer, What was God revealing to Abraham, by having Abraham make sacrifice of Isaac.

When Abraham made sacrifice of Isaac on the mount, what's the importance of that mount?

That not even Muhammad had any understanding what was the importance of the mount.
But all the Prophets in the scriptures had understanding, what was the importance of the mount.
All but muhammad did not know, but yet Muhammad say he is a Prophet.

Even a small child could figure that out.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Why can't the animals go into the Ark of Noah.. That is actually possible. There are enough Arks build and you see how big they are.

Its not possible at all actually to have happened as literally outlined in the Torah, and there's no scientific evidence to support it ever happened.

Considering the number of species that exist, they wouldn't fit. Then you have the logistical problem of the animals making their way to the middle east including those acclimatised to Antarctic type conditions. Beyond that there is no evidence of a flood that covered all the mountains.

The Tora says that the Universe was created in 6 periods. Days = periods. There can't be '24 hour days' if there was no earth right. It means a period in the language.

That's fine but you are no longer adhering to the literal text which is a good thing.

We don't know if the sacrifice was literal or symbolic.

I agree.

I just disagree with you about Ishmael being the nearly sacrificed one. I am an Arab, and i admit that it was Isaac. The Quran doesn't mention the name of the nearly sacrificed one. The Tora and Gospel say it was Isaac. I checked it in Hebrew, Greek and Arabic. I am not using translations here..

I never said that the Quran says that it was Isaac by name. It doesn't mention a name. Wow, i have said this maybe 10 times now. The Quran told us to Judge with the Gospel, and uphold the Tora and the Gospel. The Tora and the Gospel say it's Isaac.

You seemed to imply the Quran says Isaac here

Does the Bible mention Islam?

It doesn't. I'm pleased you've admitted the Quran doesn't mention Isaac at all.

Why do you keep ignoring the Quran, Gospel and Tora. Is it because of the Bahai writings? Well i see the Bahai writings as the Book of Mormon, both created from other religions. The Book of Mormon hijacked the Gospel and the Trinitarian sect. The Bahai writings and the Bab hijacked the Quran and the Shia sect.

The Torah, Gospels, and Quran are clearly founded on religions that have happened before it. We wouldn't say these religions hijacked the previous one. It's simply the nature of progressive revelation that the new builds on the old.

Anyways, i do not follow scholars or denominations. I am an individual. I am not Sunni, nor Shia, nor Catholic, nor Rabbinical etc. I try to follow Gods Scriptures as much as possible. That's it.

I follow the Torah, Psalms, Gospels and Quran too. I also recognise the most recent of these Revelations is nearly 1,400 years ago. I also follow science, reason, and history. I follow the Baha'i Faith too of course as I see it as the most recent Revelation.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But Jesus is the Son of God, both Spiritually and physically.
So the Qu'ran does deny Jesus as Son of God.
While Jesus was here on earth, Jesus was here on earth physically. But still Son of God.
Jesus is God in the body of flesh and blood physically.

The problem with Jesus being God in the flesh are scriptures that clear say He isn't.

1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

I suppose its human nature to idolise those we love, even God's Messengers, and take sacred scriptures literally rather than allegorically as intended. Of course Jesus had a physical body, but that physical body is not God. Flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50).

 

[Faithofchristian]

The problem with Jesus being God in the flesh are scriptures that clear say He isn't.

1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

I suppose its human nature to idolise those we love, even God's Messengers, and take sacred scriptures literally rather than allegorically as intended. Of course Jesus had a physical body, but that physical body is not God. Flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50).

Seeing you don't have any understanding about 1 John 4:12--"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us"

John is right, "No man has seen God at any time"
Now how does this work with Jesus.

No man has actually seen God himself.
But in Jesus we have God in Jesus,

The body of Jesus is just a shield for God.
So that God can be able to walk among man.
When a person puts clothes on, The clothes shield the body so a person do not know what the body actually looks like.

So with God, God made himself a body and incased himself in the body of Jesus to shield himself, so God can walk among man, When man looks upon Jesus, we can see God in Jesus.

This is why Jesus said to Philip in the book of John 14:8-9--"Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us"

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show is the Father"

When Philip look at Jesus, Philip was looking at God the Father standing there before him.
God the Father was incased in the body of Jesus.

God made himself a body, God took the body and incased himself in side the body of Jesus.
In the book of Matthew 1:23--"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us"
In the body of Jesus, God with us.

Seeing have no understanding
Mark 13:32--"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father"
At the time Jesus was here on earth, in the body of flesh and blood, Jesus did not know, but now Jesus in heaven, Jesus now knows the day and hour of his return to earth.
Jesus reveals about the day and hour of his return, in the book of Revelation.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?"

God will indeed dwell with man on the earth.
At the return of Christ Jesus, God in the body of Jesus is God. God dwells on Earth.

As you said --->Of course Jesus had a physical body, but that physical body is not God. Flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50).

When Jesus died on the cross, the Physical body dies, But Jesus himself did not die.

Jesus has a body, But not flesh and blood. But a spiritual body. The body that Jesus has now, can not die, but is eternal body of the Spiritual.
It seems you have a hard time knowing the difference between the spirit and what flesh and blood.
Flesh and blood can not enter the kingdom of heaven, But the spiritual body of Jesus can enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The problem with Jesus being God in the flesh are scriptures that clear say He isn't.

1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

I suppose its human nature to idolise those we love, even God's Messengers, and take sacred scriptures literally rather than allegorically as intended. Of course Jesus had a physical body, but that physical body is not God. Flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50).

Jesus speaking in the book of John 6:63,
Saying---"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life"
Notice Jesus saying ( the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit)

This means those that have ears to hear the spirit of the words Jesus speaking.

Jesus spoke many parables to people.
Matthew 13:13---"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand"


You see, The words Jesus speaks are spiritual, they that hear the spirit of the words of Jesus, will hear. But those who know not the spirit of the words Jesus, hear not.
1 Corinthians 2:14--"14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"

The words thatJesus speak are Spiritual, and they are spiritually discerned.

Jesus is God, this to is Spiritually discerned.
but the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him.
Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Jesus is God, this to is Spiritually discerned.
but the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him.
Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Mankind has struggled with the relationship between God and Christ. Muhammad was needed to correct the doctrine of the Trinity made by the church, that had made Jesus God.

It took another Messenger from God to confirm what Muhammad had offered to Christianity.

One may have to consider who are the spiritually knowledgeable and who are not. The hint here is the source is no man.

Christ said He would guide us to all Truth. Three events have taken place since Christ made that promise, those 3 events have given us much more understanding, only if we see Christ in those events.

Those Revelations of Muhammad, Bab and Baha'u'llah are to me confirmed in the Bible. One must accept Islam to know the Truth in the Bible as given by Christ.

Jesus, in the Station of the son was Christ, born of the Holy Spirit, a Messenger of God. As such, Jesus is not God, but if we look at Christ, the Son, then we can see naught but God.

Regards Tony

 

[Faithofchristian]

Mankind has struggled with the relationship between God and Christ. Muhammad was needed to correct the doctrine of the Trinity made by the church, that had made Jesus God.

It took another Messenger from God to confirm what Muhammad had offered to Christianity.

One may have to consider who are the spiritually knowledgeable and who are not. The hint here is the source is no man.

Christ said He would guide us to all Truth. Three events have taken place since Christ made that promise, those 3 events have given us much more understanding, only if we see Christ in those events.

Those Revelations of Muhammad, Bab and Baha'u'llah are to me confirmed in the Bible. One must accept Islam to know the Truth in the Bible as given by Christ.

Jesus, in the Station of the son was Christ, born of the Holy Spirit, a Messenger of God. As such, Jesus is not God, but if we look at Christ, the Son, then we can see naught but God.

Regards Tony

Jesus is God.

It took Muhammad to show Christianity what a false prophet Muhammad is.

Muhammad offered Christianity nothing, only that he is a false prophet.

As you said ( One may have to consider who are the spiritually knowledgeable and who are not. The hint here is the source is no man)

Only those who have understanding and knowledge, shall receive the things of the Spirit of God.

As it is written---"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"

Only those who have Spiritual understanding shall receive the things that be of God. But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him.

As you say --> ( Jesus, in the Station of the son was Christ, born of the Holy Spirit, a Messenger of God. As such, Jesus is not God, but if we look at Christ, the Son, then we can see naught but God.)

Jesus is the Christ of God, born of a woman, is God in the flesh body of Jesus.
If we look at Christ, then we see God as he is,
God made himself a body and incased himself in the body of Jesus.
There you have Jesus is God in the flesh body of Jesus.

As it is written Matthew 1:23--"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us"

Therefore you have Jesus ( Emmanuel) which being interpreted is, God with us.

Therefore Jesus is God with us.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Jesus is God.

It took Muhammad to show Christianity what a false prophet Muhammad is.

Muhammad offered Christianity nothing, only that he is a false prophet.

As you said ( One may have to consider who are the spiritually knowledgeable and who are not. The hint here is the source is no man)

Only those who have understanding and knowledge, shall receive the things of the Spirit of God.

As it is written---"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"

Only those who have Spiritual understanding shall receive the things that be of God. But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him.

As you say --> ( Jesus, in the Station of the son was Christ, born of the Holy Spirit, a Messenger of God. As such, Jesus is not God, but if we look at Christ, the Son, then we can see naught but God.)

Jesus is the Christ of God, born of a woman, is God in the flesh body of Jesus.
If we look at Christ, then we see God as he is,
God made himself a body and incased himself in the body of Jesus.
There you have Jesus is God in the flesh body of Jesus.

As it is written Matthew 1:23--"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us"

Therefore you have Jesus ( Emmanuel) which being interpreted is, God with us.

Therefore Jesus is God with us.

Thus your would offer your literal interpretation in preference to Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, those that have claimed a Message from God, lived the message and produced the fruits of the Spirit.

To do that, one by default makes a claim that they speak for God, in a station of gifted knowledge.

Dangerous ground.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

I disagree with that sackcloth idea, I think it doesn’t fit to the Biblical story, but… …if Muhammad had good message, where does the jihad come that we see all over the Middle east? Why Muslims are against Jews and Christians? If it is not from Muhammed, shouldn’t someone tell to Muslims that “hey, there is no reason for this massacre madness”?

I questioned the Baha'is on the "sackcloth" interpretation in another thread. Sackcloth... "chiefly worn as a token of mourning by the Israelites. It was furthermore a sign of submission (I Kings xx. 30 et seq.), and was occasionally worn by the Prophets."

One of their "infallible" prophets said that it is "old" raiment? No, there is no definition that makes it old. And, I suppose, a person could be wearing a brand new sackcloth and it would still be meant to be a sign of submission or mourning. Thanks for noticing that.

 

[PruePhillip]

The problem with Jesus being God in the flesh are scriptures that clear say He isn't.

1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

I suppose its human nature to idolise those we love, even God's Messengers, and take sacred scriptures literally rather than allegorically as intended. Of course Jesus had a physical body, but that physical body is not God. Flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50).

The quotes are disingenuous. They are not what Jesus meant. This is clear because
using them in your way contradicts other things Jesus and his Disciples said of Him.
Even King Nebuchadnezzar had the vision of the "Son of God."