Jewish Professor Say Jesus & Moses Were Muslims! (Biblically, behavior, religions)

[rosends]

Originally Posted by Khalif

"Judaism" is an English word but their is no word called "Judaism" in Hebrew. "Yehudim" doesn't mean "Judaism" but "Jews".

But Yehudi is Jew and the word evolved in the English characters. Did you know that in Israel, there are no Jews? Just Yehudim, and no Judaism, just Yahadut. If you translate the English phrase "the religion of Judaism" into Hebrew, you get דת היהדות, dat hayahadut. Hiding behind the way different languages present identical concepts is a very weak strategy. Claiming that if a particular conjugation doesn't appear, the idea it would present did not exist is likewise weak. If the text speaks of "the religion of the Jews" then it is speaking of "Judaism." Just let me know if you are going to hang your hat on the lack of a textual, stand-alone noun. In that case, there was never mention of "Canaanite" as a language because the only reference is the phrase for "the language of the Canaanites." There are also no "Assyrians" because the closest the text comes is one mention of "those of Assyria."

Originally Posted by Khalif

Moshe does mean "Moses" in English and "Musa" in Arabic. And Moshe is stated in the bible hundreds of times. But where is equivalent Hebrew word for "Judaism" in there?

Actually, it doesn't "mean" that. It is presented that way in the letters of another language.
But since there is no word "Moses" in the Hebrew bible - since the idea pointing to him is written in another way, he must not exist. Oh, wait, do you mean that the way a word is translated into letters in another language and the way the text calls forth an idea while using those other letters IS enough to point to existence? I note that the word "islam" is not found in the bible, so the entire concept is invalid.

Originally Posted by Khalif

Which laws are God's laws; laws before exodus or post exodus? They were not resting on Saturday before exodus. Were they not obeying the laws?

God's laws predate creation, but the people weren't bound by them until the revelation at Sinai. What is this question supposed to mean? The issue is of the choice of Friday which has nothing to do with God's law.

Originally Posted by Khalif

Exactly my point about the two groups of people before and after exodus! Which one had "Judaism" as their religion?

The ones at Sinai and after are the ones who were bound by the laws which became known later (as language developed) as Judaism. A sandwich of marshmallow, and chocolate on graham crackers before 1956 can be called a s'more because the label s'more pops up in 1956. The problem is that other groups claim that their laws are given by God and need to be submitted to, and those laws contradict the laws that God gave according to the Torah. Either those people think Jews aren't submitting to what the others see as God's law, or those people aren't submitting to God's law as per Jewish theology.

Originally Posted by Khalif

People before exodus were not obeying some of the post-exodus laws. But you are quite happy to regard both groups as "Judaism".

I am? Show me. I rarely refer to groups as Judaism.

Originally Posted by Khalif

You define the word "dati" as you go along. First it is "religious" and now you indicate it as "Zionist". What is it, "religious" or "Zionist"?

Then you aren't paying attention. Dati means religious. I didn't say otherwise. But the way it is used in Israel indicates Zionism. You, in post 195 confused the 2. I simply pointed out that, by your own admission, you would be happy being referred to as "dati" in Israel and that you should then feel represented well by the Dati Leumi (national religious) party. If you think that "dati" conveys something else that isn't in the word (like "Zionism"), then maybe you can understand the problem with referring to people of other religions with the word "islam."

The OED has the earliest use of the word "Judaism" in 1513, "Iudaisme or Moysen Lawe" which equates that linguistic construct "Judaism" with all the laws given by Moses (its reference to 2 Maccabees, which used the word for "Judaism" before the common era is difficult to pin down). So if the text makes repeated reference to the laws given by Moses, the religion that they constitute is clear and is labeled later as Judaism.

----------
To sum up -- if your ultimate point is that there exists in Arabic a word which is pronounced "islam" and which translates to "someone who submits to God's law" and that word is religiously neutral, so you want to apply it to everyone of any religion who believes he submits to his understanding of God's law, then have fun with that. The problem is that people don't hear the Arabic generic "islam". People hear "Islam" as a name of a particular set of beliefs about exactly what God's law is. Remember, "dati" just means "religious" but in Israel, if you identify yourself as "dati" people will hear something else.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Khalif

He was a Muslim, not a Baha'i. I have read his works. Baha'is believe that he was a messenger but I am not convinced that he was a messenger. He was not a prophet. Even Baha'is accept that he was not a prophet and that Muhammad was the last prophet.

He was not a prophet. He only found the tablets. Revelation is supposed to have come to some earlier (than Muhammad) guy called Moroni.

Not that it has any relevance to this thread whatsoever, but Mormons believe that both Moroni (mid-4th century A.D.) and Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844 A.D.) were prophets. That doesn't mean you have to agree any more than Christians have to agree with you that Muhammad was a prophet.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Khalif

I did respond to it but you may have missed it.

The quote attributed to Muhammad is in hadith book(s). It is not from the Qur'an.

I believe the Qur'an as a revelation from God. Hadith books were written about 200 years after Muhammad had passed away. Hadith books are not approved by either God or Muhammad.

I believe Jews who observe all the laws in the Torah will not go to hell. They may have open mind about the Qur'an but rejecting it would mean rejecting commands from God. This is perhaps the point being made in the hadith quote. Indeed Allah does not say anything like that but disbelief is of course seen as disobedience. Not believing is one thing, rejecting outright is another. On top of rejecting it, hostility against any revelation is the worst. This is why you would never see a Muslim saying that he rejects the revelation of the Torah. Rejecting the Torah would take us into the domain of unbelief.

you state you do not reject Torah (which came before Muhammad)
but you do reject holy books of B'Hai and Mormon (which came after Muhammad)

no one can tell you how to worship.
that is between you and God.
not other people, not other religions, not even other Muslims,
none of them can tell you how to serve and obey God.
that is between you and God.


only God knows what is in a person's heart, and that is private between that person and God.
that is why we never tell anyone else how to serve God.
we trust God to speak to all His children, in the way that is best for them.
We can never know what is best for another person. Only God can know that.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Not that it has any relevance to this thread whatsoever, but Mormons believe that both Moroni (mid-4th century A.D.) and Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844 A.D.) were prophets. That doesn't mean you have to agree any more than Christians have to agree with you that Muhammad was a prophet.

I thought Moroni was the angel?

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

I thought Moroni was the angel?

Moroni is believed to have been a man who is believed to have had the revelation written on the golden tablets that Joseph Smith found.

Moroni (the man) died before Muhammad had revelation. Moroni is believed to have become an angel after he died and then it is that angel Moroni who is believed to have come to Joseph Smith to direct him to the tablets.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

you state you do not reject Torah (which came before Muhammad)
but you do reject holy books of B'Hai and Mormon (which came after Muhammad)

I do not "reject" any of them. I have open mind when I say I am not convinced that Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí was a messenger or Glory of God.

There is difference in rejecting outright and not accepting but keeping one's mind open. Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí to me was a Muslim reformer of Islam. His interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an is different from how a vast majority of Muslims interpret. For example, he didn't think that there is life to come but when you die you are gone forever. No resurrection and no more world to come. I am not convinced by that.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

no one can tell you how to worship.
that is between you and God.
not other people, not other religions, not even other Muslims,
none of them can tell you how to serve and obey God.
that is between you and God.

Of course!
But how does God tell you what to do?

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

only God knows what is in a person's heart, and that is private between that person and God.
that is why we never tell anyone else how to serve God.
we trust God to speak to all His children, in the way that is best for them.
We can never know what is best for another person. Only God can know that.

And that's why there have been several revelations to people who He knew that will listen and obey.

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

I thought Moroni was the angel?

Moroni is thought by Latter Day Saints to be the same person as a Book of Mormon prophet-warrior named Moroni, who was the last to write in the golden plates. The book states that Moroni buried them before he died after a great battle between two pre-Columbian civilizations. After he died, he became an angel who was tasked with guarding the golden plates and directing Smith to their location in the 1820s. According to Smith, he returned the golden plates to Moroni after they were translated and, as of 1838, Moroni still had the plates in his possession. - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Khalif

I do not "reject" any of them. I have open mind when I say I am not convinced that Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí was a messenger or Glory of God.

There is difference in rejecting outright and not accepting but keeping one's mind open. Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí to me was a Muslim reformer of Islam. His interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an is different from how a vast majority of Muslims interpret. For example, he didn't think that there is life to come but when you die you are gone forever. No resurrection and no more world to come. I am not convinced by that.

Of course!
But how does God tell you what to do?

And that's why there have been several revelations to people who He knew that will listen and obey.

Yes exactly.

And since there have been many revelations and many holy books therefore there are many paths to the one God.

And that is why none of the holy books and none of the revelations are rejected because each is a map to the one God who is Creator of the Universe and blesses us every day with life and sustenace.


"none are rejected" also means no one messenger or no one holy book is the "only way"

The only way for you? yes
The only way for everyone? no

Why? God made many holy books and many religions and sent many messengers and many wisdom traditions so all of His beloved children could reach Him and know Him.

[TRANSPONDER]

Since, folks, Khalif prefers to respond to you (for doctrine -dickering) rather than me (in trying to wriggle out of a what is a pretty clear knackers-in-the-vice position) and since I have said all that needs to be said, other than refute attempts at denial, I shall leave our pal to you, for the moment.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Since, folks, Khalif prefers to respond to you (for doctrine -dickering) rather than me (in trying to wriggle out of a what is a pretty clear knackers-in-the-vice position) and since I have said all that needs to be said, other than refute attempts at denial, I shall leave our pal to you, for the moment.

this is an open forum for everyone to contribute, everyone has a voice, everyone has a view
i am hoping some Crstins chime in also, on this question in particular:

"Only Muslims are commanded to follow the Quran. Jews and Crstns are not commanded to follow the Quran. Because they already had messengers who had delivered their message and instructions to a specific time and place. However Crstns and Muslims are doing the same thing in saying they are the "only way" to God otherwise you are going to hell.

"Judaism 3300 years ago says many paths to God, so all people have access to God. Judaism today still says the same thing. God is what matters not the religion, not the path, not the messenger.

"Crstnty however 1700 years ago says Jews (and everyone else in the world) must go through JC or go to hell. Well, Crstns dont get to tell Jews (and everyone else in the world) what to do. Crstns do not speak for God, only for Crstns.

"Muslims 1400 years ago say Crstns and Jews (and everyone else in the world) must follow Quran or go to hell. Well, Muslims dont get to tell Crstns and Jews (and everyone else in the world) what to do. Muslims do not speak for God, only for Muslims.

" I've always wondered how do Crstns feel now the shoe is on the other foot, being told "be a Muslim follow the Quran or go to hell" when that is what they have been telling Jews (and everyone else) for 1,700 years "be a Crstn follow JC or go to hell."