Was Mohammad originally Jesus?
 

Islam is so much bulls-hit that the only way anyone could believe it is by having it shoved down his or her throat at gunpoint. which is usually the case in most religions and in Islam in particular.

For instance, Muslims say the true Quran must be written in Arabic. For what? Because it the original language of the Quran? Well, here's the problem--it isn't! Modern Arabic did not exist at the time the Quran was said to be written by the very Muslim scholars who claim to have studied it deeply. They studied nothing. They wasted their time and everyone else's because they are a bunch of clowns.

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos..._2403952_s.jpg
An ancient Syrian coin minted only 5 or so decades after the supposed death of Mohammad depicts a figure called "Muhammad" as holding a cross. This, in spite of the fact that Muslims in the captured lands in the 9th and 10th centuries forbade Christians to display the cross.

The name Muhammad is also a title meaning "praised one" or "chosen one." In the Quran, the name "Muhammad" is only mentioned four times and three of the those times, the name is actually being employed as a title and the attributes of that title the Quran also attribute to Jesus! For instance, "Muhammad is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him." (3:144) and "the messiah, the son of Mary, is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him." (5:75)

Jesus (Issa in Arabic) is, in fact, mentioned 25 times in the Quran while the personage of Muhammad is mentioned perhaps once.

http://www.coinweek.com/wp-content/u...se_islamic.jpg
Part of the "Sunrise" collection of 8th century Islamic coins showing the two fish of Pisces violates the Islamic ban on depicting living creatures in art as well as glorifying the Age of Jesus, Pisces, which is why jesus is imaged as a fish.

At the Dome of the Rock, completed in 691 and said to be a triumph of Islam, are Quranic inscriptions in the arcade area supposedly taken directly from the Quran and yet many of them are distinctly different than what appears in the Quran today. The inscription use words not in the modern text but, even stranger, references to Jesus, son of Mary. But why do these verses, among the earliest known, have so much extraneous or extra-Quranic material if they were quoting from the same Qurans Muslims read from now? Some verses also change person--a verse in the Quran in the 3rd person appears in the inscriptions in the first person! The only explanation is that this book was not yet written but was just then beginning to be written--some 60 years AFTER Muhammad's death.

The original Muslims were likely a Christian sect that regarded Jesus or Issa as a messenger of god but NOT a son of god. Being ostracized and marginalized, they then split off from Christianity altogether.

Jacob of Edessa writes that the Muslims (whom he calls Mahgraye) "confess firmly that he [Jesus] is the true Messiah who is to come" but "they do not assent to call the Messiah God or the Son of God."

The 7th century seizure of Jerusalem was chronicled by Christian writers as Sophronius who wrote extensively of the "Saracens" or Arab conquerors and their invasion and occupation. He mentions how these Saracens disdained the cross and vandalized the churches. But with everything Sophronius tells us about the the Saracens, he never tells us that they were called Muslims nor that they belonged to religion called Islam nor that they had a holy book called a Quran nor that they had a messenger of god named Muhammad. For all he wrote about them, certainly he would have included this information had he been aware of it. How could he not have heard of Muhammad since it was in his name the Muslims claimed to be doing all this conquering? Only one way, the Muhammad that Islam now bows to did not yet exist. As late as 874, there are manuscripts that refer to the Arabs but not as Muslims. These Arabs deny the divinity of Christ but there is no mention of Quran or a Muhammad.

The earliest reference to a Muhammad is Sebos, a bishop, who in the 660s or 70s wrote of a "Mahmet" of the Ishmaelites who preached monotheism but who also preached of the Jews' right to the Holy Land which is blasphemous to Muslims today. Again, no mention of Muslims, Islam or a Quran.

The Arabs themselves spent a lot of time manufacturing hadiths (non-Quranic sayings of Muhammad). They are so contradictory and so clearly forged that there is no way to reconcile them as actual sayings of Muhammad. It is clear that among the Muslims themselves, the rulers (warlords) were not interested in Muhammad but only in how they could hide behind his name to grab power.

You can make similar kinds of arguments for any big guy in the sky religion. None of the holy books or Abrahamic Religions make any sense. One is about as good as the other. Or as bad.

Remember the words of Robert Pirsig (from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"): "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

I am not Muslim but I'd like to point out that while Modern Arabic didn't exist at the time, classical Arabic did. The Quran was written in Classical Arabic, and when Muslims read from the Quran they are speaking Classical Arabic. Languages change over time and there is no such thing as a language being exactly the same as it was hundreds of years ago.

No. The oldest known manuscripts of the Quran have no diacritical marks. Arabic notates consonants and long vowels but not short ones. As the vocabulary expanded and the culture of the Arabs changed and expanded, it became necessary to have a way to express short vowels because it was impossible to distinguish words. Ten words could be spelled identically but there was no way to know which word was meant. So diacritical marks--little dots and slashes--were invented to be added to these words to distinguish them from one another. This occurred about the 660s under the reign of Muawiya I of the Umayyad Dynasty. This convention did not exist in Muhammad's time since he was said to have died in 632.

Yet the Quran is written in diacritical marks. So it may be classical Arabic but of a more modern form. I did not mean to imply that it was written in Modern or Literary Arabic although I wasn't clear on that--apologies. The problem is, of course, who made the decision to add the diacritical marks and how do we know they did it faithfully? It could only have been arbitrary and done to push various agendas.

But here are a mess of other problems:

1. The Quran itself as well many hadiths say that the Quran must be in Arabic, that it was delivered in Arabic and only makes sense it Arabic. Why would these assertions even be necessary?? The only reason they would be is because the earliest texts were, in fact, not in Arabic.

2. Is there evidence of this? Yes, from the Quran itself. Sura 16: 103 makes mention of a mysterious "foreigner" (or "Persian") believed to have supplied Muhammad with his verses. Ibn Ishaq from his book The Life of Muhammad believed this foreigner was "Jabr the Christian, slave of the B. al-Hadrami, and teacher of Muhammad." Muqatil ibn Sulayman, who died in 767, identified the foreigner as Abu Fukayha Yasar whom he states was a Greek-speaking Jew. Muqatil further quotes in his work Tasfir al-Qu'ran Muhammad's chief critic, an-Nasr ibn al-Harith: "The Qur'an is naught but lies that Muhammad himself has forged...Those who help him are Addas, a slave of Huwaytib b. Abd al-Uzza, Yasar, a servant of Amr b. al-Hadrami, and Jabr who was a Jew, and then became a Muslim...This Quran is only a tale of the Ancients, like the tales of Rustam and Isfandiyar. These three [were] teaching Muhammad at dawn and in the evening." 25:4-5 of the Quran virtually restates that very accusation.

3. Since many of the Old Testament stories appear in the Quran, we either accept that they were given to Muhammad by Allah or that others reused earlier non-Arabic material to make the Quran. Many of the verses in the Quran are ambiguous if not unintelligible. About a fifth of the book falls into that category. An example occurs in 2:29 where it is written: "It is He who created for you all that is in the earth, then He lifted Himself to heaven and leveled them seven heavens; and he had knowledge of everything." The Arabic phrase uses "them" but what does it mean? Leveled them seven heavens? What or whom is the "them" the passage refers to?

4. If that isn't bad enough, 4:12 uses the word "kalala" in regards to inheritance law. What is it? It is not an Arabic word. It is, in fact, not a word known to any language. 83:7-9 mentions Sijjin. What is it? No one knows. What we do know is that it is not a word in Arabic. The Quran seems to to say that Sijjin is "a book inscribed" but what book?? 21:104 uses the word sijill--"roll up heaven as a sijill." Some have translated it as "scroll" as a very similar sentence occurs in Revelation in the New Testament. This may be its meaning, it certainly seems so, the problem is--where did the word come from and why is it in the Quran at all?? Again, it is not Arabic and does not belong to any known language. Some have theorized that it is a corruption of the Greek word sigillon or "imperial edict" but that would only prove the Quran was not inspired by god and was not originally written in Arabic. 112:2 uses the phrase Allahu as-samad and there are as many translations of this phrase as there are translators. Quite simply, no one knows what it means.

5. The very title of chapter (sura) 108 is "Al-Kawthar". What is that? It is not used anywhere else in the Arabic language. There are literally dozens of possible translations by various scholars as to its meaning which only verifies that it has none. Yet, the Quran itself has the audacity to proclaim that it itself is written in "Arabic, pure and clear" as it says in 16:103 and that god would not have sent the Quran in any other language than Arabic (41:44) yet we see this is bulls-hit, pure and clear.

6. All the names of the Old Testament prophets that appear in the Quran are in Syrian and specifically the Aramaic dialect. Much of the sentence structure of the Quran is Syraic and not Arabic. In Syriac, the very word "quran" is a reading from scripture for liturgical purposes. The very title of the book appears to be Syriac.

7. There is no Arabic paganism to be found in the Quran not even statements or polemics against it and yet, this is was what the majority of Arabs worshiped in Muhammad's day--what he himself would have been taught as a boy. Why doesn't the Quran mention it? Likely, because the Quran was not written in Arabia at all but in Syria or an Aramaic-speaking people who were not Arabs.

That's not the point of this thread.

You are talking about the title of your post as being the point. That's a shrug for me. Was Jesus, Jesus? A lot of stuff is co-opted based on who was writing what, when. But you have a larger point or I thought you did. You say....

"Islam is so much bulls-hit that the only way anyone could believe it is by having it shoved down his or her throat at gunpoint. which is usually the case in most religions and in Islam in particular."

Then you go on with a great amount of detail of things wrong with the holy book. I echo your original statement but added... pick any of the books.

So here is my theory (which I stole) - people always believe the nonsense that is passed down to them by their parents. Why? Because the brain is not rational. It isn't a biological computer. And over our about 150,000 years of man's evolution (and more from our ancestors) those that could accept what mom/dad said without much back talk were more likely to survive. We are programmed. (For better discussion see Dawkin's "God Delusion").

As it turns out, the number 1 predictor by far of a person's religion, is the religion of the parents. You are not Muslim because you were not raised Muslim.

Similarly, we are programmed for Type 1 errors or false positives rather than Type 2 errors or false negatives. If early man identified a tiger shaking the bush and runs, he has attributed agency to a natural occurrence. He is rewarded for his paranoia by getting a bit more exercise. There isn't much price to be paid for being wrong. If early man says no tiger, and he is wrong (type 2 or false negative), his genetic line comes to an end. Type 1 errors are favored.

So given an authority figure preaches a big sky guy can smite us, it is easy to appease the big guy and give agency to the natural world. Perhaps we are programmed to live Paschal's wager. Paschal argues that there is less risk in believing in a God and being wrong than choosing not to believe and being wrong.

From my perspective man is but a blink in time. The earth is 4.5B years old, and man has only been here for about 150K. Heck, look how long we have had a written record. Civilization is like yesterday. And the only reason we are here at all is because a mass extinction event wipe out the dinosaurs and paved the way for the rise of mammals. Dinosaurs ruled for about 65 million years compared to our meager time of existence. And realize that extinction event was only one of several. So... it's hard to accept we are the Big Guy's special monkey as it has been quite a circuitous route to being here at all.

Coming back to your post then... to "Islam in particular", I respond ... not so particular. If you don't believe me go watch the Southpark analysis of the Mormons. Have you heard that story? But still... all the stories are kind of goofy. And if that isn't your point... it is mine. And as to the question in your title... does it matter?

lol @ Islam.

Mohammed and Jesus are the not the same people. They did however pray to GOD.

I was raised a Christian but I'm not one of those either.

It's not. My "in particular" remark had nothing to do with the goofiness of Islam but its propensity for fanatic, zealous violence and its utter hatred of anyone who is not a Muslim. I lived for 2 years in Pakistan, Dubai, UAE and Saudi Arabia. I did not return with a greater appreciation for Muslims and Islam but exactly the opposite--I had a higher opinion of them before I lived among them.

I never knew any Muslim women because I wasn't allowed to speak to any and the men have the sexual maturity of a 6-year-old. They are full of rage because they are so unbelievably sexually repressed--so much so that they have essentially no quality of life. That makes them dangerous people. It is no puzzle to me why they blow themselves up and can be so easily manipulated into committing atrocities in the name of their religion. I probably would too if my mental and emotional life was that stunted and wasted.

But getting back on the subject, I believe Islam was, at one time, a sect of early Jewish Christianity that eventually rejected everything taught in other Christian schools and isolated themselves to the point where they forgot they were Christians once. Yet the Quran cannot stop talking about Jesus even more than Muhammad who supposedly wrote it and it's obvious that book confuses Jesus and Muhammad.

what if god was one of us?


just a stranger on the bus


tryna make his way home??? ever think of that>


i will see myself out

Ah... my bad. I really meant the universal "you" or perhaps "one". Stat averages often fail at the individual level. But I still hit my 14 against the dealer's 10 off the top of the shoe.

If the earliest Muslims were actually some obscure sect of very early Christianity as I posit that they probably were, is there anything in the bible, specifically the New Testament that might verify this? Not directly but if we accept that the early Muslims believed in Jesus as prophet and messiah without being divine then they were close to the Adoptionists. The Adoptionists were a school that believed that Jesus was exalted by god AFTER his birth but not before--that is, Jesus was adopted by god as his son. Some Adoptionist sects believe this occurred at the baptism in the Jordan by John and the another sect believed it occurred after the death of Jesus. This latter sect appeared to have arisen earlier.

Some books of the NT, particularly Acts, appear to have been Adoptionist documents that were later modified to reflect the "Divine Jesus" school of thought. This would mean that Adoptionism is older and so this early quasi-Christian Islam might, in fact, be an older sect of Christianity than any denomination today.

Let's take a look:

-In Mark 1:1, we read, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God." There are at least eight important early texts that omit the phrase "son of god." Scholars try to account for the omission by saying it was a mistake on the part of the scribes but we should find it odd that such a mistake would appear immediately in a text rather than somewhere in the middle and that every scribe who copied a Markan gospel text independently of the others managed to make the same mistake over and over again.

-Then we read of the baptism of Jesus by John:
And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." (Mk 1:10-11)

Here was originally an Adoptionist moment. For them, Jesus became son of god at that moment. He was not the son of god before then. First of all, the wording of the passage indicates that ONLY Jesus saw the heavens part and dove descend and the voice of god speak to him. No one else present saw or heard anything. This would be odd for Jesus to require this personal epiphany were he already the actual son of god especially since his miraculous birth would have made everyone around him aware of his special status. Nevertheless, orthodox Christians of today can say there is no declaration of god that Jesus was only appointed his son at that moment. IOW, Jesus still could have been preexistent in this baptism account and it is therefore not Adoptionist.

Luke 3:22 also recounts the incident but the earliest Lukan manuscripts do not have god saying, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." Rather, god says, "Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten thee." This is an important distinction. By saying "today I have begotten thee" we see that god adopted Jesus as his son at that moment and that Jesus was not an actual quasi-divine son of god from birth and was not pre-existent. He was an ordinary man who was adopted by god at his baptism. Hebrews 5:5 still retains this incident: "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee." So even Mark's account of the baptism was corrupted by the orthodoxy so the preexistence of Jesus could not be questioned here.

-The baptism incident, too central to Christianity to be deleted, had to be changed to choke off the Adoptionist claims which were apparently quite widespread at that time (remember that two Roman Church bishops--Irenaeus and Papias--did not believe Jesus died on the cross but lived in Asia to age 50). Strangely, though, the early Lukan MSS did not remove the Adoptionist language from 3:22 even though it blatantly contradicted Luke's claim in 1:35 where he wrote:

And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

So we see why the early Lukan MSS were changed, they contradicted the orthodox claim put forth in 1:35--namely that Jesus was son of god from birth. 3:22 is probably the original verse of text since it would be highly questionable that scribes educated in the later orthodox school would have added Adoptionist Christology since it was more in their interests to eradicate it.

-The Lukan MSS, which include Acts, must have been hugely revised because Acts is strewn with Adoptionist statements--some of them extremely blatant.

In Acts 10:37-38, Jesus is declared to be adopted by god at his baptism:
"...the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power..."

-We find traces of the older Adoptionist creed that Jesus was adopted at his resurrection in Acts 2:36 spoken by Peter:

"Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

In 5:30-31, we find a more blatant example:

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."

In all likelihood, blatant creeds as this were not deleted because they represented an older Adoptionist Christology no longer practiced and so did not present a problem to the anti-Adoptionist group pushing to become the orthodoxy.

The Adoptionist creed is an older Christology than Paul's since he addresses the Adoptionists in his opening lines in Romans:

"...the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead..." (Rom 1:3-4)

Once again, we run across Jesus being designated as Son of God at his resurrection. Paul was forced to address the issue of Adoptionism and Jesus being descended from David because these were the main groups he would preach to in Rome (assuming he ever really went there--he wasn't in Rome when he wrote Romans and there is no record he ever went there much less died there).

The Transfiguration, if Spong is correct, was a post-resurrection event recast as a pre-resurrection one. The very nature of the episode indicates that Jesus was already dead when it occurred and that Peter would have no reason to want to build a tabernacle to Jesus right then and there were Jesus still alive--Luke even includes a bit about Peter saying this in his confusion.

If Spong is right--and I think he is--then this may have been another original Adoptionist moment that came at the resurrection since while he was on the mount with Peter, John and James, a "bright cloud" comes over them and a voice declares Jesus to be his son and that the others listen to him. A strange order since they were already following him. This then may have originally been the moment Jesus first appeared as son of God after his death. Again, the Transfiguration episode may have been so central to orthodox Christology that the incident was not deleted but changed from post- to pre-resurrection status.

Why not just write entirely new gospels instead of revising old Adoptionist literature? Same reason. These writings were THE Christian writings of that period and for the orthodoxy to be regarded as legitimate they would have to gradually revise the original documents rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water by creating entirely new ones.

This indicates that the miraculous birth movement came up through the Adoptionist church and, by degrees, took it over.

If the early Muslims were also early Christians, they would have been among the schools pushed out of Christianity--namely, those rejected the divine status of the Jesus.

No. Jesus is the son of God,
They have no relation.

We are all Gods children, no?

AstroNOMY. 600 years from aquarius
 

Mohammad could be the real bearer of the Two fish, the Pisces and Jesus was just some 'god' like many others.
AstroNOMERS have seen that we have between a forth and a third of the era to go. Thats means 600 year roughly.
Which translates to the year 450AD the year when this era began, more less. So we would be today on the year 1564 standing.

Done. I-I'm done. The first sentence is flat out wrong. Islam is the only religion that spread through the philosophy of 'convert' or, to quote one of my favorite Slayer songs, 'DIE BY THE SWORD.'

Most religions are shoved down your throat? Hilarious.

A lot of religion has been spread by force throughout history, not just Islam.

Actually muhammed waa originally cassius and that's fact

He was Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr. named after his father Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr. who was named after the abolitionist, Cassius Marcellus Clay of Kentucky aka "The Lion of White Hall." Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr. was "a handsome, mercurial, noisy, combative failed dreamer" and "hard-drinking, skirt-chasing dandy of a daddy" and described by his son "the fanciest dancer in Louisville." From Wikipedia - Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr.

Hymne der LOL Nazis (Nazi Anthem) - YouTube

Interpreting symbols and imagery from the past is an intriguing, but risk-filled business and I suspect that Lord Larehip has confused two distinct symbols here:- Two figures of fishes, swimming in opposed directions are the astrological sign for Pisces:-

A single fish is used as a code about being Christian, because the initials of the word "fish" in Greek can be taken to stand for "Jesus Christ, God`s Son, Saviour". While it makes sense for the the Piscean fishes to be drawn in detail, because they are characters in a story, the Christian fish is part of an abstract word game, and is drawn in the simplest manner:-

Unfortunately for my theory, LL is quite right when he says "...the Age of Jesus, Pisces..." because JC was apparently born at the beginning of the zodiacal age of Pisces - a coincidence that doesn`t help in unravelling historical symbols.

A thread criticising 1.6 billion peoples belief? Haha. Welcome to the age of enlightened tolerance.

There was an old testament and the messiah was foretold. Later on, Muslims believe someone from their culture was the messiah, Christians believe some guy from their culture is. Jews don't think the messiah has come yet.

And that's modern monotheism of the west in a nutshell.

jesus ruined my life.

I don't think the bolded is accurate. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure Muslims believe that Muhammad was a prophet, not the messiah.

Ah, you are correct. I guess I didn't appreciate the distinction. Apparently, Jesus is still the messiah in Islam. Though, my impression is still that Muhammad's words overturn Jesus's. That he is more of a role model than Jesus for Islam, so it puts into question the significance of the messiah.

Jesus is a prophet but not the messiah in Islam. They see Muhammad as the most significant prophet.

According to the wiki (for whatever that's worth) he is indeed the messiah in Islam:

Jesus in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yea, my understanding is that jesus (isa) is the islamic messiah as well. the messiah is not necessarily just the most prolific prophet in abrahamic religions. he is supposed to fulfill certain jewish prophecies. jews reject jesus as the messiah because they hold he did not fulfill said prophecies... which include:

Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus, why Jews reject Jesus

christians think he is not only the messiah but god in human form, while muslims and jews reject this as idolatry. muslims think he was a mere mortal prophet and jews think he was just a phony.

muhammad is the most significant prophet in islam because it was through him that the final revelations were given, and these revelations were transcribed into the quran which is seen as the authoritative text on god's word in islam. older christian and jewish texts are seen as less reliable, containing some truths but having been tampered with and translated countless times introducing errors.

jews and christians reject muhammad as a legitimate prophet... probably in part because he's not jewish and there were no ancient prophecies depicting an arab prophet that would bring god's final word. muslims claim that muhammad is actually from the lineage of ishmael, isaac's older brother, and thus a descendent of abhraham. but even if this were true the bible makes it pretty clear that god preferred the lineage of isaac, which is who he made his 'covenant' with.

Some day they'll ask, was MB originally about music?

Who'll ask? The Muslims?

them. and the crimin-aliens.

Thanks for the clarification guys, I didn't know that there was a distinction between the messiah and god in human form. I've only heard the word in a Christian context so I thought that was how it was defined.