Jesus Dreams, Visions, Vistations Among Muslims--Various Reports and Related Issues

reply to post by XxForgottenLegendxX


If Muhammad were a messenger from God, he would at the very least have been able to perform miracles, which he never did.

Jesus was divine. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He performed too many miracles to count. He died and came back to life and proved his "life after death" experience to his disciples and two others.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by XxForgottenLegendxX

 

If Muhammad were a messenger from God, he would at the very least have been able to perform miracles, which he never did.

Jesus was divine. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He performed too many miracles to count. He died and came back to life and proved his "life after death" experience to his disciples and two others.

edit on 28-3-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

LOL... so someone performing miracles, walking on water, 'curing' the blind, and coming back from the dead is more realistic then a prophet because the prophet never performed miracles?

I seriously cannot believe how ignorant anyone has to be to convince themselves that the bible is true, it was not transcribed for decades after the alleged events; and even then there are differenes between the gospels even on key points (such as jesus's virgin birth) not to mention that the leter's of St. Paul make no mention to Jesus's miracles, his trial, or him being crucified.

so... yeah, the bible is bs anyone who believes otherwise has deluded themselves into believing a fairy tale.

reply to post by drgrantdiz


Where is the difference in the Bible on key points such as the virgin birth?

I would imagine that as the people who knew and walked with Christ got older and started dying off along with their families, that it would come to someone's mind to start writing down the accounts of what happened. That's why so many stories in the Bible are told over and over again by different people's account.

Unlike the Qu'ran, where it is said that all of the verses were memorized and written down later. I have a hard time believing that anyone had the entire Qu'ran memorized. Then, after it was written down, all five copies that existed were destroyed when the newer version came out. At least this isn't common knowledge about the Bible like it is about the Qu'ran.

reply to post by Deetermined


catholic-resources.org...

this covers the variuous differences in gospel's regarding jesus's birth

reply to post by drgrantdiz


I still don't see where any of this contradicts itself.

Jesus was conceived from the Holy Spirit, yet born from Mary. If you're talking about the different genealogy lines in the Bible, one is Mary's and the other is Joseph's. However, both Mary and Joseph came from the bloodline of King David, so Jesus was still considered a descendant of King David even though Joseph's biology was not involved.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his family returned to Nazareth in the southern region of Galilee after the census was taken, so I don't understand where you're going with this. Just because the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John give accounts of Jesus' life, there isn't anything contradicting each other, they just give accounts of what they remembered most. One doesn't contradict the other.

In response to the letters from Paul, they were written to the churches.

There was no reason for Paul to discuss the crucifixion with the church, as this was already a common belief amongst the followers. Paul's letters were sent to fix common arguments amongst the members of the church, but whether or not Christ died on the cross for their sins was not one of them. Paul spent most of his time and letters reminding the church members of what they needed to do to act more like Jesus and how to keep their faith alive and not to backslide.

reply to post by drgrantdiz



DOODNESS . . . more terminally wrong assertions blathering on about the Bible.

1. Significant portions of the New Testament were written well within the lifetimes of those experiencing the narratives in the Gospels and in Paul's letters.

2. Josh McDowell: EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT

www.amazon.com...=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=josh+mcdowell+EVIDENCE+THAT+DEMANDS+A+VERDICT&x=0&y=0

WAS a very very VERY angry young man . . . who was very hostile toward Christianity in general . . .

because of his purportedly "Christian" alcoholic father who would beat his mother in a drunken rage several times a week or so. Josh used to get his dad mad at Josh to spare his mother a beating.

Josh was so fiercely angry at Christianity because of his dad, he entered university determined to prove the Bible wrong. Josh had/has a brilliant mind. And more integrity than most naysayers on ATS seem to have about the Bible.

He ended up proving that the Bible is more solid evidence for it's content than any other book from antiquity by far. By FAR.

And, that it is dependable way above modern assumptions.

Lee Strobel set out as a journalist to investigate the claims of Christ. He became convinced to the max.

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1332996510&sr=8-5

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus [Kindle Edition]

Both ended up with an alive, viable Salvation RELATIONSHIP with the risen Jesus The Christ.

C.S.Lewis' MERE CHRISTIANITY is another scholarly look at the case for The Jesus of The Bible and what He taught.

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332997113&sr=1-1


Blather against the Bible on ATS is routinely wrong, routinely unaware, routinely off the wall, routinely ignorant. Mostly it shows that folks have not done their homework and are writing out of personal pique, and/or rebellion and/or fiercely strong bias fostering an agenda NEEDING to trash the Bible in order to maintain their death grip on their construction on reality--usually to allow for a life-style the Bible would not support.

Personally, I find the Bible to be a very skillfully written code book . . . while I believe in the AUTHENTIC variety of Bible Codes (not all are) that's not what I'm talking about. I mean code book e.g. as Christ talked about His use of parables being so the Scribes and Pharisees would NOT understand what He taught.

He was not expecting to reach the proud in their own eyes--those who had such arrogant bad-faith attitudes about life, God and others that Heaven could do very well without them, thank you very much.

The Bible appears to be designed to obscure the truth from those people; wind them up and turn them against finding the truths in it sufficiently to get their lives turned around. Those who humble themselves sufficiently to begin to see the truths are, of course, welcome. But it appears that those who have bad heart attitudes toward God are more or less destined to write the Bible off as fairy tales. What a clever screening device.

Sad, though . . . very sad. . . for those who bet their eternal lives on the wrong horse.

Thankfully, in the case of the Muslims earnestly desperately seeking to Know the AUTHENTIC GOD ALMIGHTY . . . that doesn't seem to be an issue and Christ goes to great lengths to make Himself known to them through dreams, visions, visitations as described in the OP.

I have found that most folks, if they earnestly ask ALMIGHTY GOD to make Himself real to them in ways they can wrap their confidence and understanding around--God will mee them more than half way . . . though IN GODS TIMING AND IN GOD'S WAYS. He's not a vending machine.

Certainly the Muslims find that the supernatural intro's to Jesus the dreams, visions and visitations afford are just the beginning of a huge spiritual and cultural adventure--with life and death implications. Given the peace and profound assurance of KNOWING THE LIVING GOD that the dreams, visions and vistations of Jesus afford such Muslims, they are ready by the thousands to risk their lives to serve and follow the living Jesus the Christ, Creator God.

More than a Carpenter is a condensation of Josh's evidence in very readable short form:

www.amazon.com...=pd_sim_b_2

.

I am finding it a bit funny in this thread, that there are so many of these "Christians" who are "defending" their beliefs, providing links, refuting links, explaining how their beliefs are misunderstood and are generally feeling annoyed and sad that there are so many who are ignorant of their beliefs.
Then these same "Christians" turn around and do the same thing with the muslims .

Originally posted by babloyi
I am finding it a bit funny in this thread, that there are so many of these "Christians" who are "defending" their beliefs, providing links, refuting links, explaining how their beliefs are misunderstood and are generally feeling annoyed and sad that there are so many who are ignorant of their beliefs.
Then these same "Christians" turn around and do the same thing with the muslims

.

Dude, if islam is true we're all in huge trouble. Allah is capricious in the quran, he does whatever he wants to and doesn't delight in keeping his promises. Also the quran gives Jesus divine attributes it never affords Muhammad.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Allah is capricious in the quran, he does whatever he wants to and doesn't delight in keeping his promises.

Ehwhat?!
No. Sorry. Wrong.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Also the quran gives Jesus divine attributes it never affords Muhammad.

So? Jesus is mentioned in the Quran as one of the greatest Prophets. Jesus was born without a father. So was Adam. Yeah, he did a lot of miracles with God's permission. That doesn't mean we should worship him. I have a college education. Should high-school educated people worship me? The anti-christ will do lots of miracles. Should the anti-christ be worshipped?

So much information from Christians here on ATS shows very clearly that very few have even the most basic understanding of Islamic theology.

reply to post by babloyi


Here's a post I made in another thread. If you feel this is not correct, by all means please share.

Kind of. The Muslims won't argue about the divinity of God, but they will argue that Jesus was not God. They believe that Jesus and the Mahdi will show up at the same time to fight off the Antichrist, but what they don't realize is that Jesus was already here to warn of Antichrists and he doesn't need to return again to say that. Jesus' next return will be to prove what he told everyone from the beginning, that to get to God you have to believe that He sent Jesus to die on the cross to forgive them of their sins, and this, plain and simple, is what the Muslims don't believe.

Yes, Muslims believe that the Bible was corrupted when the New Testament was written. What they will never admit is that we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and multiple copies of ancient texts that make up the Bible. Whereas, the Qu'ran was originally written with only five copies and it is well know that all five of those copies were destroyed at the demand of 'Uthman.

www.answering-islam.org...

So, who was 'Uthman? And what should we know about him?

en.wikipedia.org...

(Scroll down in the above link to the sections on the "Qu'ran", "Military Expansion" and "Anti-Uthman Sentiment".)

So, based on your knowledge about the Bible compared to the Qu'ran, why do you think one should be chosen over the other? What knowledge do you have about Islam to support it?

The only thing I will never understand is why Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, but refuse to believe anything He said in the New Testament. What's up with that?

reply to post by Deetermined

Originally posted by Deetermined
They believe that Jesus and the Mahdi will show up at the same time to fight off the Antichrist, but what they don't realize is that Jesus was already here to warn of Antichrists and he doesn't need to return again to say that.

You don't believe that Jesus will return to destroy the anti-christ? Most of your co-religionists would disagree with you on that.

Originally posted by Deetermined
What they will never admit is that we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and multiple copies of ancient texts that make up the Bible.

I am not quite sure why you bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are old testament scrolls, dated to 150BC at the earliest (STILL much later than when the originals were purported to be written), and many of the documents within those scrolls vastly contradict what is in the Old Testament as christians read it today. You are telling me these are more reliable than documents and memorisations of the people who were alive during the time of Muhammad?

Originally posted by Deetermined
The only thing I will never understand is why Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, but refuse to believe anything He said in the New Testament. What's up with that?

Mostly because they believe the New Testament to be corrupted. But I am (generally) not unwilling to believe things that JESUS said.

reply to post by babloyi

Ehwhat?!
No. Sorry. Wrong.

That's from an ex-Muslim sir.

"The Capricious Mind of Allah"

The God of the Bible delights in keeping His promises. He even says that He'll regather Israel "a second time" not for any good they did, but because His name is on the line, His Word is at stake.

Voila, Israel is a nation regathered a 2nd time today. Look at a map of the Middle East. (not a Muslim one though)

Jesus was born without a father. So was Adam.

Apples to oranges. Adam was a direct creation of God. Jesus is God taking upon Himself human flesh, or adding humanity to His pre-existent divinity. Adam sinned, Jesus never did. Jesus loves children and says if any man destroys their faith it would be better that a millstone was hung around their neck and they were cast into the sea. Muhammad has sex with them. (9 year old girl)

That's perverse, we'd throw Muhammad in prison if he were alive today.

reply to post by babloyi

You don't believe that Jesus will return to destroy the anti-christ? Most of your co-religionists would disagree with you on that.

Re-read what he said, you misunderstood it. I don't think it was intentional though. He's criticizing the Muslim idea of Christ and the end times.

Originally posted by babloyi

You don't believe that Jesus will return to destroy the anti-christ? Most of your co-religionists would disagree with you on that.

Jesus will not be returning to walk around as a prophet preaching against the Antichrist. He'll be here to destroy the Antichrist and judge the people of the earth. The Bible says that God will send "two witnesses" to counter the Antichrist, but it won't include Jesus. He'll only be returning to judge.

I am not quite sure why you bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are old testament scrolls, dated to 150BC at the earliest (STILL much later than when the originals were purported to be written), and many of the documents within those scrolls vastly contradict what is in the Old Testament as christians read it today. You are telling me these are more reliable than documents and memorisations of the people who were alive during the time of Muhammad?

What? Maybe these links will help to understand more regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls. And yes, I'm telling you that the Bible is more reliable than the memorization and documents of the Qu'ran based on the information and links I've already provided above.

The scrolls comprise, among other things, the oldest copies of the Bible in existence. The Qumran scrolls date from approximately 250 B.C. to about 65 A.D., and at some other locations to about 135 A.D. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest existing manuscripts of parts of the Hebrew Bible came from about 800-1,000 A.D. The oldest complete copy of the Hebrew Bible, the Leningrad Codex, dates to 1008 A.D. This means that the Dead Sea Scrolls give us texts of the Bible which were copied more than 1000 years earlier than any others now in existence!

The scrolls are also important because they have enabled scholars to gather an immense amount of information about how the Bible was written and how it was transmitted from generation to generation. In many cases the scrolls show a remarkable similarity to the text of the Hebrew Bible currently in use. In some cases differences between the scrolls and the traditional Hebrew text help explain difficulties in the present Hebrew Bible, and most modern translations of the Bible (such as the NIV) incorporate some of the new information from the scrolls.

Another crucial feature of the scrolls is the picture they portray of the Judaism of Jesus’ day. The scrolls show that Judaism in that period was more diverse than was once thought, and the literary parallels between the Gospels and the literature of Qumran demonstrate several instructive points of contact between Jesus’ teaching and the Judaism of his day.

www.deadseascrollsfoundation.com...

Mostly because they believe the New Testament to be corrupted. But I am (generally) not unwilling to believe things that JESUS said.

Based on the history of the Bible and the Qu'ran (that I provided above), it's hard to understand why Muslims would think that the New Testament could possibly be corrupted and the Qu'ran is not.

Edit Add: Let's face it. Any truth or prophecies in the Qu'ran were all copied from the teachings of Christianity, the rest is just Muhammad's personal points of view of what he wanted Christianity to be.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
That's from an ex-Muslim sir.

"The Capricious Mind of Allah"

An ex-muslim, ey? I suppose if I provided a link to an ex-Christian muslim who talked about some of the bizarreness of the Bible, you'd be sure to accept it totally . Your "ex-muslim" knows nothing about Islam. He may as well be some random christian who decided to call himself an ex-muslim, and gave himself some exotic sounding muslimmy name. He seriously thinks that Muhammad wanted to be worshipped, when there is such total complete condemnation of this in the Islamic scriptures, that most muslims don't even like to represent Muhammad in a picture in case he would be worshipped.

The examples this ex-muslim of yours gives in that link you provided are pretty unconvincing. He seems to be saying that God is capricious because he tested his servants? So I suppose you think God is capricious because of what he did to Job? What he did to Abraham? How is that different? The "God of the Bible" (I do find that term so funny..as if there is more than one God), told Abraham he wanted his son sacrificed, and then later said he doesn't. Capriciousness!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Apples to oranges. Adam was a direct creation of God. Jesus is God taking upon Himself human flesh, or adding humanity to His pre-existent divinity. Adam sinned, Jesus never did. Jesus loves children and says if any man destroys their faith it would be better that a millstone was hung around their neck and they were cast into the sea. Muhammad has sex with them. (9 year old girl)

That's perverse, we'd throw Muhammad in prison if he were alive today.

That is a fairly idiotic way of looking at things, isn't it? If Joseph was alive today, he'd be in prison (for having sex with a 12 year old), and Mary would be in an insane asylum for treatment for some sort of sexual trauma where she blocked off her memories of whatever Joseph did to her by creating a scenario where she obtained a child through immaculate conception. God forbid!
However, if you want to be realistic, you'd understand that both Mary (at age 12), and Ayesha, who I assume you are talking about (at whatever age she was, there is certainly no consensus on it being 9), were past puberty when these things occured.

reply to post by Deetermined

Originally posted by Deetermined
Jesus will not be returning to walk around as a prophet preaching against the Antichrist. He'll be here to destroy the Antichrist and judge the people of the earth. The Bible says that God will send "two witnesses" to counter the Antichrist, but it won't include Jesus. He'll only be returning to judge.

Where did I say he would be? YOU are the one who suggested it in that quote you quoted at me, although even that doesn't really say that. I'm not sure what you are on about here.

Originally posted by Deetermined
What? Maybe these links will help to understand more regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls. And yes, I'm telling you that the Bible is more reliable than the memorization and documents of the Qu'ran based on the information and links I've already provided above.

Again, I don't quite understand why you bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are OLD TESTAMENT. There are NO New Testament Scrolls present in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of the scrolls that ARE present (of the Old Testament), there are quite a few that totally contradict several of the books of the Old Testament Bible that people use today.

Moses (the supposed author of The Torah) was alive some time in 1300BC (at the latest..the more traditional timeline states it was some time near the end of ~1400BC). The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are the OLDEST surviving nearly complete copy of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament, NOT the New Testament), are dated, as you said, to around 150BC for the oldest manuscripts.
The earliest "fragment" that could show any link at all to the Bible is an amulet with 3 verses from Numbers (where the text STILL doesn't match exactly what the current Bibles have). This fragment is from ~600BC, which would be over 700 years after Moses wrote it.

So again, I am not quite sure why you keep bringing up the Dead Sea Scrolls. Mentioning them only really weakens any point you may have. If you are using them to prove the historical reliability of any New Testament text, it wouldn't work, because there are no New Testament manuscripts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you are using them to prove the historical reliability of the Old Testament texts, they are at the very least 1100 years after the fact, AND they include texts which CONTRADICT the current versions of the Old Testament.

Originally posted by babloyi


Where did I say he would be? YOU are the one who suggested it in that quote you quoted at me, although even that doesn't really say that. I'm not sure what you are on about here.

You asked me if I believed Jesus was going to destroy the Antichrist when he returned and I elaborated.

Again, I don't quite understand why you bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are OLD TESTAMENT. There are NO New Testament Scrolls present in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of the scrolls that ARE present (of the Old Testament), there are quite a few that totally contradict several of the books of the Old Testament Bible that people use today.

The reason for bringing up the Dead Sea Scrolls was proof that texts from the Bible had been copied for over 1,000 years with accuracy, unlike the Qu'ran, which was memorized, written, rewritten and the originals thrown out.

reply to post by Deetermined

Originally posted by Deetermined
You asked me if I believed Jesus was going to destroy the Antichrist when he returned and I elaborated.

Well, it was more a rhetorical question, derived from the quote you posted over here (I don't know where it originally is from):

They believe that Jesus and the Mahdi will show up at the same time to fight off the Antichrist, but what they don't realize is that Jesus was already here to warn of Antichrists and he doesn't need to return again to say that.

You first say that muslims believe that Jesus will show up to fight off the antichrist (and I elaborated in my rhetorical question that Christians believe this as well), then you stated later that Jesus "doesn't need to return again to [warn of the antichrist]". Did I claim he would need to? Did some muslim claim this? I wasn't sure what you meant by this.

Originally posted by Deetermined
The reason for bringing up the Dead Sea Scrolls was proof that texts from the Bible had been copied for over 1,000 years with accuracy, unlike the Qu'ran, which was memorized, written, rewritten and the originals thrown out.

Errr...actually, they prove that the texts have NOT been copied with accuracy, even from whatever copies were available during that time (around the turn of the millenium) to now- never mind that there is a gap of over 1000 years from when the texts are supposed to have been written, and the dead sea scrolls, and another gap of almost 1000 years if you want the next complete copy in the same language (which it doesn't match), or 400 years if you don't mind reading it in greek (which again it doesn't match, but it is more difficult to compare, considering, of course, it is in a different language).

It is quite interesting that you talk derisively about "originals" when referring to the Quran, when there is absolutely no possibility at all to have any originals of ANY Biblical documents, however, there are fragments of verses from a decade or two after the death of Muhammad, and a complete Quran less than 100 years after his death...probably much less (even less than 20, if you accept the traditional view).

Whatever the case may be, it is undoubtedly true that the TEXT of the Quran is infinitely closer to any "original" (if you don't consider the Uthmani texts as original) there may have been, compared to anything the (Hebrew or Christian) Bible has to offer.

Originally posted by babloyi

Errr...actually, they prove that the texts have NOT been copied with accuracy, even from whatever copies were available during that time (around the turn of the millenium) to now- never mind that there is a gap of over 1000 years from when the texts are supposed to have been written, and the dead sea scrolls, and another gap of almost 1000 years if you want the next complete copy in the same language (which it doesn't match), or 400 years if you don't mind reading it in greek (which again it doesn't match, but it is more difficult to compare, considering, of course, it is in a different language).

Some evidence of the differences found between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Bible would speak louder than words here. Don't tell me which books were different. Tell me what events were different. Events that mattered.

Whatever the case may be, it is undoubtedly true that the TEXT of the Quran is infinitely closer to any "original" (if you don't consider the Uthmani texts as original) there may have been, compared to anything the (Hebrew or Christian) Bible has to offer.

It's real easy to say that the Qu'ran is closer to any "original" when it was written by only one man versus many books that were written by over 40 authors as proof of Jesus' existence and words. Who do we have as witnesses and authors in the Qu'ran to what Muhammad did?

reply to post by babloyi

That is a fairly idiotic way of looking at things, isn't it? If Joseph was alive today, he'd be in prison (for having sex with a 12 year old), and Mary would be in an insane asylum for treatment for some sort of sexual trauma where she blocked off her memories of whatever Joseph did to her by creating a scenario where she obtained a child through immaculate conception. God forbid!

Joseph didn't father Jesus, He was virgin born. Even the quran testifies to that fact. You cannot use Islam to attack the virgin birth of Christ, they agree with that too.

/facepalm

If you're not going to read/watch my presented materials then don't respond to me. You're wasting my time to research and link them here.