Only one prophet at the time???

[gnostic]

You are simply wrong here. Please

Please, what?

Pastek has only send me two replies to me, and both of them were helpful and insightful.

And you still haven't answer a single question from the OP.

Pastek is a much better Muslim and better poster than you, because he is not evasive like you.

Why do you even bother to contribute here if all you do is that you explain yourself or address the questions that were put forward?

If you don't want me to be angry, then answer the BLOODY questions.

You are like dodging salesman, who try to cheat a person, by not disclosing that the product he is trying to sell is faulty.

You say that I am wrong. How am I wrong? EXPLAIN!

You are also being ignorant, because if you have read bother to read my reply, I am criticising the writing style of the Qur'an, because clearly from what Pastek posted in 36:13-14, showed that it is not clear who the 3 prophets or which city it was referring to.

Of the 6 translations that I look at, no names were given, and ONLY ONE TRANSLATION - the Muhsin Khan translation - had bother to include the name of city in square brackets, eg [Antioch]:

And put forward to them a similitude; the (story of the) dwellers of the town, [It is said that the town was Antioch (Antakiya)], when there came Messengers to them.

If you ever read any other translations of literature, other than the Qur'an, you would know that anything within the square brackets is the translator's input. These "inputs" are the translator's notes, which are not found in the original book or manuscript. Inputs can be suggestion, explanation, but they (inputs) are still not really part of the original.

But you are not a scholar, so you wouldn't know that.

These two verses were vague; the Qur'an didn't provide the identity of city or the 3 people. It required Pastek to explain the verses by including an exegesis to the Qur'an - which in this case, is the Tafsir.

If you have to rely another text to aid you your understanding of the Qur'an, then clearly those verses were not clear.

 

[paarsurrey]

I congratulate you beings satisfied with the reply of friend Pastek as I also congratulate him for doing this marvellous job. Satisfaction is foremost, other things don't matter. I assured you that the thread won't be derailed, so it has not happened. Be happy now. It was a friendly discussion.
I also agreed with friend Pastek vide my Post #14
Regards

 

[Pastek]

This is why I don't like the Qur'an because as demonstrated in the 36:13-14, it is a rather vague and ambiguous verses, with no names of the 3 prophets an no name to the city.

If a Muslim required a Tafsir or Sunnah or any other literature to help explain what the Qur'an is saying, then the Qur'an is not self-explanatory.

Maybe because knowing it or not doesn't change anything.

 

[gnostic]

Maybe because knowing it or not doesn't change anything.

In more ways than you know.

But personally, I like more information than the Qur'an is giving.

Belief don't really provide understanding; "knowing" does provide understanding.

Belief is accepting something to be true; that's why accepting belief without "knowing" is call it faith.

Knowing the names of the 3 prophets would provide what the Qur'an is talking about. Knowing the city's name, along with the names of 3 prophets, would provide when and where it is taking place.

The Qur'an speak in riddles, which would mean interpretations to contexts, and the problem with interpretation is that each person don't think the same way, and that would pull the text in all sorts of directions, because those 2 verses are not very clear.

And the Tafsir, as I understand is an exegesis.

As with any exegesis (I am talking about exegesis in general, right now, not just the Tafsir), is written by some scholars, which mean someone is interpreting the texts. And you should know better than anyone else, that different scholars will have different interpretations, and will not agree with each other.

How do you know the exegesis has interpret any passage correctly, or that it has stayed in the original context of the passage?

Getting back to the Qur'an and the Tafsir (and any other literature, like the Hadiths). If the every passages in the Qur'an were clear and unambiguous, then you wouldn't need interpretations, then you wouldn't need the Tafsir or the Sunnah to explain any part of the Qur'an. If everything in the Qur'an were self-explanatory, then you wouldn't even need scholars or clerics.

I'd rather "understand" and "know" what I am reading over "believing" any day of the week, because you can "understand" something even without agreeing what you've read.

I am sure you understand what I am saying, but I think I will get another argument from paarsurrey that I am wrong.

He (paarsurrey) like to say I (or any non-Muslim) am wrong, but without rational explanation to back up his claims.

 

[Pastek]

In this particular verse i think it's not important to have the details even if it's better to know, because we are all curious.

In the Bible we have a lot of details, it's maybe too much sometimes for the "simple" believer, or reader who doesn't need all this.
As you said at the end this is just a question of faith.

But i understand that you prefer more details, i'm curious too and like to know who is who, why, when ...etc

 

[paarsurrey]

I am sure you understand what I am saying, but I think I will get another argument from paarsurrey that I am wrong.

You are wrong here again and I have reasons with me. Will you hear? Please
Regards

 

[gnostic]

You are wrong here again and I have reasons with me. Will you hear? Please
Regards

Paarsurrey, because we have exchanged many replies to each other, but I have come to realisation for some times now that you have the tendency to skirt direct questions. You have a reputation of being evasive, trying to change the subjects.

How many times have you posted here, paarsurrey? Not once in this thread to you address the questions that I had posted at the start.

AND I KEEP ASKING YOU REPEATEDLY TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION from the OP...but no surprise at all, you have continually evaded me, by talking about everything else other than the questions.

If you don't want to answer my questions, and it is your rights not to answer them, then why in the hell should I answer yours. If you not going to answer my questions, then please do me the courtesy of finding another topic "to not contribute".

 

[Pastek]

Knowing the names of the 3 prophets would provide what the Qur'an is talking about. Knowing the city's name, along with the names of 3 prophets, would provide when and where it is taking place.

In a Quran that i had from Saudi Arabia it says the messengers were Jesus's apostles and the city is also Antioch.

In another Quran - Abdallah Yusuf Ali english translation - it was translated as "apostles" and not "messengers".

In arabic the word is "moorsiloon" for messengers, and apostles is "hawariyoon".
In some translations the word "apostle" is also used for prophets like Muhammad and Jesus.

 

[gnostic]

In a Quran that i had from Saudi Arabia it says the messengers were Jesus's apostles and the city is also Antioch.

In another Quran - Abdallah Yusuf Ali english translation - it was translated as "apostles" and not "messengers".

In arabic the word is "moorsiloon" for messengers, and apostles is "hawariyoon".
In some translations the word "apostle" is also used for prophets like Muhammad and Jesus.

From what I understand of Jesus in the gospels, the apostles were Jesus' closest disciples. They were disciples, not prophets.

Muhammad also have disciples, too, but none of them were ever referred to as prophets, were they?

 

[Pastek]

From what I understand of Jesus in the gospels, the apostles were Jesus' closest disciples. They were disciples, not prophets.

Muhammad also have disciples, too, but none of them were ever referred to as prophets, were they?

You're right, they are disciples and they are called in the Quran as "hawariyoon".
They also may be called "talamidh al massih" the "students of the Messiah" but i rarely heard that.

And for Muhamma's disciples they are called "sahaba" which means "the compagnons".

The word "murasiloon" (rasool in singular) comes from the word "rissala" which means "the message".
So yes, the apostles of Jesus were sent to deliver the "message" of Jesus, but in the Quran the word "messenger" is in general used for prophets and angels.

I don't have more details, maybe someone who possesses a Tafsir may know more about this.

 

[gnostic]

You're right, they are disciples and they are called in the Quran as "hawariyoon".
They also may be called "talamidh al massih" the "students of the Messiah" but i rarely heard that.

And for Muhamma's disciples they are called "sahaba" which means "the compagnons".

The word "murasiloon" (rasool in singular) comes from the word "rissala" which means "the message".
So yes, the apostles of Jesus were sent to deliver the "message" of Jesus, but in the Quran the word "messenger" is in general used for prophets and angels.

I don't have more details, maybe someone who possesses a Tafsir may know more about this.

Thank you for providing those distinctions and what each mean.

Disciples, the way I see how the word define, is that disciples learn from whatever the teacher "teaches".

Jesus taught all disciples, but 12 of them were his closest disciples, which is why they were referred to as "apostles", which the gospels listed them by names.

Muhammad has his company of closest

Whether disciples are referred to, by other names, like apostles, hawariyoon, sahaba, etc, they do not necessarily mean they are "prophets".

You would know Islam teachings and the Qur'an better than I ever would.

For me, I'm far more familiar with bible (than the Qur'an), despite never being a Jew or a Christian.

My point is that, the gospels had ever named two prophets (possibly three, but it is early morning) of their time, John the Baptist, who happened to be Jesus' cousin (at least according the gospel of Luke, with regarding of being "cousins"), and Anna, a prophetess who know Mary before Jesus was born.

Jesus' 12 apostles were never named prophets, nor any of countless and often nameless disciples.

I don't know why the Qur'an referred verses 36:13-14 as being 3 "prophets" or "messengers", if they were just Christian disciples, because it would seemed that the Qur'an is using word, like "prophet" or "messenger" rather loosely.

I personally don't like Muslims or Islam use the term "Messenger". I know that according to Islam that Muslims attached special significances to Messenger, as a special prophet, as one who might start a new Abrahamic movement, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, with their respective founders (Messengers), like Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. The problem with using word like "messenger" is that they can apply to angels and to non-religious-related messengers that messages, like a courier or herald.

From what I understand of Islam, is that messengers being special types of prophets, therefore there are more prophets than there are messengers.

The problem is if they were that special, if there are clear distinction between prophets and messengers and if messengers were less common than prophets, why would verses 13 and 14 would they send 3 "Messengers" to that unnamed city?

 

[Pastek]

For me, I'm far more familiar with bible (than the Qur'an), despite never being a Jew or a Christian.

Do you remember 3 Jesus's followers (disciples ?) who were killed in Antioch ?
The tafsir gave some names, maybe there's similarities with some christians apocryph texts ?

My point is that, the gospels had ever named two prophets (possibly three, but it is early morning) of their time, John the Baptist, who happened to be Jesus' cousin (at least according the gospel of Luke, with regarding of being "cousins"), and Anna, a prophetess who know Mary before Jesus was born.

Jesus, John the Baptist and Zacharias, here you have 3 prophets

I don't know why the Qur'an referred verses 36:13-14 as being 3 "prophets" or "messengers", if they were just Christian disciples, because it would seemed that the Qur'an is using word, like "prophet" or "messenger" rather loosely.

The word used is "messengers" not "prophets" in this verse.
If this happened after Jesus, like supposed some tafsirs they can't be real "messengers" (like Moses, Jesus etc) because Muhammad said in hadiths there's no prophets between Jesus and him. No prophets. But it can only be angels (but angels can't be killed) and eventually disciples.

It's impossible to think that those people are prophets IF they came after Jesus.
If it really happened after Jesus then they can only be his disciples.
It can't even be prophets from other ethnicities according to the hadith :

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (ﷺ).


http://sunnah.com/abudawud/39/34


Here from the tafsir's link : "Qatadah bin Di`amah claimed that they were messengers of the Messiah, peace be upon him, sent to the people of Antioch."

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1491&Itemid=92

"Messengers of the Messiah", so not messengers of God. This means it was his disciples. (according to him)
Anyway in the Tafsir we don't have enought details. Do they have those informations from Muhammad or other people of the Book ?

Also some muslims use the Israiliyats :


In hadith studies, Isra'iliyyat ("of the Israelites") is the body of narratives originating from Jewish and Christian traditions, rather than from other well-accepted sources that quote the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
These narratives are found mainly in works of Qur'anic commentaries and history compilations.
They contain information about earlier prophets mentioned in the Bible and the Qur'an, stories about the ancient Israelites, and fables allegedly or actually taken from Jewish sources.

Muslim scholars generally classify the narratives of the Isra'iliyyat into three categories:

• Those considered to be true because the revelation to Muhammad confirms them.
• Those considered to be false because the revelation to Muhammad rejects them.
• Those not known to be either true or false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isra'iliyyat

So did the Prophet confirmed it ? That is something i don't know.

 

[MARCELLO]

From what I understand of Jesus in the gospels, the apostles were Jesus' closest disciples. They were disciples, not prophets.

Muhammad also have disciples, too, but none of them were ever referred to as prophets, were they?

It is the language arabic that makes confusions about Koran. So that means Koran should be giving the message what each person comprehend of it and those messages noway can mean violence.

God/Jesus/Hashem/Brahma never ever distributes violence. Never.

 

[Steven Kowalski]

All people have supernatural gifts, among which is the ability to see into the unknown. I see a man and he accepts me as a guest. He is wary but it is his house, so he is relaxed. Something tells me he encounters every evil known to man. The snake may come by, but for this man, he bids him hello. The people do not fear him, and for no one is there reason to be afraid. The angel of death misses his household by a mile. You can't stay long though. The people are wrong. They're waiting for you, sir. She has a gun, and she just watches. She comes over and hands the gun over. She walks back and by the time the gun is handed to the reick she pulls out a Tommy. She fires her bullets, but no one is afraid. It's as if nothing ever happened. She continues to pursue - eager to get the man, but all she wants is a fight, where she ends on top. She gives him an invitation - the bullet that does all justice. And it's done. If he accepts it, we can all move on. It's fine. No, accept it. Now you have to go. You don't have to go. Emotions do burn good bridges. Shame. All over. It's a circle of initiation. If he accepts, then he's in a group of white ghosts. They all want him. He faints. Shame on him. He's a crucible. Find him a heart. At least somebody said it. The crowd goes blank and stares. Too much watch, not enough room. The room alone could kill him. It was too much to bear. He wasn't ready for the shawshank. Not his cup of tea - nor was it the woman's - the woman with the heart. She had too much to say - with no one to listen to. A catastrophic end to the relationship that should have never begun. She tries to fake it - fake it til you make it - looking over the crowd to see - Yes, there it is. There was no it. there was no crowd. Fortunately enough, no one was looking. And then a sigh of relief. Too much performing... not enough sin. She had lost, but the consolation prize was worth it.

 

[Papoon]

These are not just questions for Muslims, but for all, including Christians and Jews.

If we accept that other cultures are no less enlightened than those of the middle east, then it would seem to be an impossibility that there are not many prophets at any time. Why would god ignore most of the human race ? And why would only those from the eastern Mediterranean seek and find ? There is evidence of gnostic transmission in so many places and times. It is a fundamental aspect of humanity.

 

[Tumah]

In the Exodus, their sister, Miriam was also (female) prophet, so there were 3 of them in that generation.

Three? What about Numbers 11:25, 26. You have the seventy elders prophesying there and then Eldad and Medad.
That's 75 altogether.
And what about Bil'am? He seems to meet the technical requirements of a prophet what with his speaking to G-d and all.