Daniel

That depends on who you ask. According to mainstream Trinitarian Christianity? Yes. According to Unitarian Christianity? No. If you're asking me, definitely not.

Yes. You may already know a lot of this, but for other readers who don't: Hebrew is a unique language because of the layers of meaning which are expressed in the form of the letters and their pronounciation. These layers of meaning completely rule out the pronounciation of "Yahweh" and strongly suggest that the proper pronounciation is something very close to Jehovah. 1) First, the "W" is certainly wrong. "W" does not exist phonetically in hebrew, that's arabic. It's known that it must be pronounced "V" because the sound "V" is pronuced by connecting the bottom teeth to the upper lip. Then the vocal cords are connected to each other. Then air is connected from one side of the vocal cords to the other side. Then air is connected from the inside of the mouth to the outside of the mouth. All of these connections produce the very unique "V" vibrating phonetic. "V" = connection. None of this happens with a "W" sound. "W" begins open. Then it opens further. The vocal cords are not even activated. There is no vibration. The "W" pronounciation comes from arabic. The "V" ( mispronounced "W" ) is the third letter in the four-letter-name. It's called "vav". The word "vav" means "hook" literally. It's best known for its inclusion in the tablernacle. All of the vavim ( the hooks ) were made of silver along with the other connnecting sockets. Silver is a unique metal because of it's the most refelctive of all the metals. The egyptians made their mirrors from silver. Reflection IS connnection. It's now known that silver is not only the most reflective, it is also the msot electrically and thermally conductive. Silver is a connector. It is naturally a "vav", a hook. This idea that vav is a connector is ... reflected in the hebrew language in other places as well. The letter vav as a prefix ( "Amen v'Amen" When Jesus says "truly, truly" in the book of John ) means "and". The vav literally connects words and ideas together. The vav also is used for communicating possession, "his". The vav is connecting an object to its owner. The letter's form even looks like a hook. All of this indicates that when the letter is pronounced, it would be vocalized as a connection, as vibration. It would not be expressed as a hollow "W" sound. 2) Yahweh would certainly not be spelled with 4 letters in hebrew. it would be spelled with 3 letters. The four letter name is spelled Y-H-V-H. In hebrew, in order to spell Yahweh ( Yahveh ), the first letter, "Y" is voweled with a kamatz or maybe a patach. It's one or the other. The second letter, "H" would be unvoweled. That's a problem. No hebrew names are constructed that way. When the "H" was added to the Abram, it became AbraHAm. The interior "H" is always voweled. The way to confirm this ( and I have ) is to go to the book of chronicles. The first 9 chapters are filled with almost nothing but names. There are no unvoweled interior "H"s in any names. It does not happen that way. If the name is pronounced Yahweh/Yahveh, it would be YVH, not YHVH. 3) YHVH = "Yiyeh-Hoveh-V-Hayah" "Will-be-Was-And-Is" "Yi-Ho-V-ah" The meaning of the name YHVH is god revelaing itself as eternal without any beginnings and without any endings. This is explicity stated in the burning bush episode. First it is eluded to with the private name "Ehyeh". Then it is confirmed later where God clearly states: "My name is 'forever' ". The name means "Ohlam" literally "forever". The name Ohlam has other meanings too, but, it's most often understood as "eternal". That's precisely what is happening with YHVH.

what are his credentials? There's a few problems with it. At 3:54 - the speaker refers to elohim as connected to the root for terrify or afraid. That would be yirah or pachad. - LINK. The word elohim has nothing to do with fear or terror. At 6:43 - the speaker has just finished telling that all written langauges were abjad (voweless ) at that time, but, claims that the written torah was not vocalized originally. Does that make sense? What does a person do with a text if they cannot vocalize it? What happens in the mind when it's read? What is the point of writing a text if it does not have a distinct precise meaning? What he doesn't tell you ( or doesn't know ) is that the law requires each and every word to be pronounced when the scroll is written. It's always had a pronounciation just like all the other abjad scripts. Not only that, but according to the story , Moses and Joshua write the scrolls and read them outloud to the nation. So this notion that the torah was not vocalized fails both logically and it's changing the story. At 8:12 - the speaker is not aware of the grammatical issue of the verb in Exodus 6:3 "נודעתי". The tetragrammaton is most certainly known prior to this point in the story. The best example is Gen 14 where Abram literally says the name "YHVH is the Most High". Grammmatically, if the name was literally not known, it would have been written "הודעתי" not "נודעתי" like Exo 18:16 or Prov 22:19 for example. At 9:03 - the speaker considers the number of verses in genesis 4 significant, but, the chapters and verses were added later for convenience. There is no significance to verse numbers, chapter numbers, number of words in a chapter,, etc... Those are all human conventions. At 15:20 - the speaker has already forgotten what they said at 3:17 about conjugation of verbs At 15:44 - the speaker correctly states the translation of elohim as a singular god must be indicated in the text. True. It's indicated in the verbs. At 17:10 - The speaker presents, correctly, that elohim can mean several different things, not just god or gods, but anything that is powerful: eg judges and angels. That's because the word comes from the root aleph-yud-lamed which is a divine power - LINK. Judges were divinely chosen. Samuel was a judge. Deborah was a judge. Samson was a judge. At 18:43 - Here the speaker thinks they've found an inconsistency, where Abraham is referring to plural gods, but actually the speaker is, ironically, mistaken. Verbs are complicated in hebrew. This particular verb form is "binyan-hitpael" followed by "אתי" which makes it reflexive. The other part that is complicated is the verb itself does not mean " to cause". The speaker is fixated on the verb as if the subbject of the verb is "causing". It The verb means to "wander", but, it also means "to go down" as a pejorative, with a negative connotation. This can be seen in the hebrew and the aramaic. It's a mistake. - LINK and LINK It's ironic, and a litttle funny, that the speaker is makiing a mistake with the hebrew verb for ... making a misktake This mistake the youtuber is making is not entirely their fault. In the wikipedia entry for elohim, LINK, there's a mistranslation of a talmudic passage which seems to indicate that elohim is the subject of the plural verb. But, as I mentioned above, it's not just a plural verb, it's binyan-hitpael-reflexive of the verb " to go astray" "to make a mistake". Binyan-hitpael is past-tense and casual. Reflexive means the speaker is speaking about themself. The verb is "to go astray". If it's plural reflexive that means there were multiple mistakes and Abraham is the subject of the verb. Elohim is NOT the subject of the verb. And. Strangely. What are the mistakes plural? That's what the talmud and other commentators are trying to figure out. From here, one can read the actual passage in the talmud and understand what's being discussed - LINK. In the passage, they are discussing whether or not Abraham made a mistake. The mistake was not about referring to elohim as a plural. The mistake was referring to elohim as if it has caused a mistake. That's why the counter-argument refers not to singular/plural but to the causation. The youtuber's miscomprehension is not their fault. They're going by what is written in english on wikipedia. But if they go one level deeper and read the actual talmudic passage referenced, they'll see that the dispute is not about plurality. Elohim is not the subject of the verb. The wiki article refers to several other commentators which wikipedia claims confirm that a plural elohim is being referred to here. But if those comments are read they are referring to the cause - LINK Elohim is not the subject of the verb. Elohim did not wander. Elohim did not make mistakes. Abraham wandered. Abraham made mistakes, plural. The verb "התעו" is plural. but it's followed by a word which makes it reflexive. I'm not seeing anything which indicates "education" in the field of hebrew language on their youtube page. They're eloquent and they spend the majority of their time on medieval armor, it seems. Besides this one specific video, I had to go back 5 years to find anything referring to linguistics. It's completely unrelated to hebrew. Then I had to go back another year to find anything else. It's also completely unrelated. The youtuber consistently is skipping over analysis of the verbs. Verbs are arguably the most important part of biblical hebrew. But they're also the most challenging. Here's an example of someone educated in the field. https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/ask_a_scholar_what_does_yhwh_elohim_mean Mark D. Futato, Robert L. Maclellan Professor of Old Testament and Academic Dean at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Dr. Futato received his Ph.D. and M.A. in Semitic Languages from the Catholic University of America. He specializes in Hebrew language and is author of the book Beginning Biblical Hebrew (Eisenbrauns, 2003). Please note? They authored a collegiate text-book on biblical hebrew. That's a lot more than youtube popularity. Here's what they say: Elohim is actually a plural noun (indicated by the /im/ as in cherubim and seraphim). Sometimes the referent is plural. At other times the referent is singular. Like most words in English, Elohim can mean several things. Sometimes Elohim refers to plural "gods," as in "You shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:7). At other times it refers to the singular "God," as in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). It is clear in this latter example that even though the form of the word Elohim is plural, the referent is singular, because the verb with which Elohim is used ("created") is singular in Hebrew. One might argue that this is biased because they were educated at a Catholic university, but, the book was published by Penn State which is not a religious institution. So, it's a youtuber using wikipedia vs. an individual who is educated in the field. Yes, they are probably religious, and so am I. That's why I provvided links so that you can go and read it yourself to confirm that I'm not ... covering up the truth. Yes, it takes time and effort to read and research these issues fully. Correcting a misconception like this is not something which is easily covered in a 20 minute youtube video. It doesn't take very long to make the claim. For those who desire to reaffirm their choice to leave christianity or abrahamic theology, they only need an eloquent speaker and a few screenshots to bolster their beliefs (dis-beliefs?). It takes a lot more than that to correct it.

You are very welcome.

If so, maybe try this? Push--->sit--->flutterkick. Repeat. Slowly. First do 10 push-ups. Full extension. Complete pushups. All the way up, all the way down. 10 times. Slowly. Then flip on your back and do 10 sit-ups. Full situps. Don't jerk your neck. Use your ab muscles. Up and down. 10 times. Slowly. Then do 10 complete flutter kicks. Slowly, Carefully. Legs are at 30-degree angle from the floor. No higher. Left-then-right. Flutter-kick. Like a swimming pool. Each pair of left-then-right is 1 flutter kick. do it 10 times. Then repeat. Slowly flip back over, and do more push ups. Then, slowly, flip over and do more situps. Then slowly, do more flutterkicks. Push, sit, flutterkick. Do it till exhaustion, each day for a week, then maybe report back and let us know how you're feeling? If 10 is too many, just do 5. If 5 is too many, just do 3. The idea is to get the blood and oxygen moving and to rotate the body to open and flush what ever might be blocking or clogging your system. And, it's super healthy Just don't jerk your body or move too quickly. These are slow exercises. Best wishes,

Here is the greek for John 1:5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. The greek word which is being translated as "over-power" vs. "apprehend" is κατέλαβεν. It's not a common word in the Greek scriptures. It is constructed κατέ-λαβ-εν. The prefix is a conjugation of κατα ( "down, into, or against" ). The suffix indicates a completed action past tense. λαβ is generally: "to get" physically. Oppositional "getting" is to "seize" it. Examples: Mark 9:18, Phil 3:12-13, 1 Thes 5:4. Although, there are other examples where something is obtained and brought into itself in a positive connotation. This would be "comprehension". Examples: Acts 4:13, Ephesians 3:18. Perhaps the best examples for comparrison come directly from the book of John itself: John 8:3-4, 12:35. For this one, it makes some sense for two reasons. First, the other 3 occurences of the word ( albeit conjugated differently ) are a criminal caught in the act. The criminal is "apprehended". Second, traditionally, from a jewish persepctive, satan is simultaneously, the tempter, the accuser, and the prosecuting attorney for the Lord God The Most High ( אײבערשטער ). From this perspective, it makes sense that the book of John refers to a failure to tempt, accuse, and "apprehend" Jesus. Thematically and in context I think this makes the most sense. The idea being expressed in John 1 is the light being invested in the darkness of physicality. This investment is described as going back to the very first creation of the "word" which is a vessel for divine will. The flesh is a vessel for the light, but, the light was not ( cannot? ) be over-come or over-powered by the earthy/fleshy/physical vessel.

There is no absense. 23:23 האלהי מקרב אני נאם־יהוה ולא אלהי מרחק׃ Am I a God near at hand, says the Lord, and not a God far away? 23:24 אם־יסתר איש במסתרים ואני לא־אראנו נאם־יהוה הלוא את־השמים ואת־הארץ אני מלא נאם־יהוה׃ Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? said the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord.

I was in London recently and visited the Tate Modern art museum. My son ( age:15 ) and I spent a great deal of time browsing the surrealism exhibit and talking about their collection. Some of it was awful, boring, silly, and some of it was magnificent. Mid-way though the gallery, I was presented with a TV on a stand with a curious and engaging video. In the middle of a rather drab grey field, a largish darker skinned man, was painting, literally painting, a smaller white male bright blue. For some reason, I was drawn to this. It was fun, so much fun, to watch the painter applying the paint to their subject. It's difficult to describe how it made me feel. It was odd. It was strangely satisfying watching the details of the smaller, slight-of-frame, white male of undetermined age become swallowed up by nothing but bright blue. Most people took a brief glance at the screen and wandered on. My son had no interest in it at all. We had been having deep conversations about the other pieces. This one did not encourage conversation. It was a video. There was nothing to do, but watch. My son wanted to move on to the next room. But I kept begging him to stay. I said, "This is really great. Look at how much fun he's having." as the painter covered more and more of his human subject with bright blue. All over. The subject was patient, stoic, tolerant. The painter was happy, calm, industrious, but not in a rush. Then, something wonderful happened. The painter was over halfway through covering the young man with blue. Then, he stops. Smiles. He's having an idea. ... He takes the entire bucket, lifts it over the other young man's head, and happily pours it all over them. It was splendid. I loved it. It was a such a surprise; I gasp, loudly; then start laughing. I couldn't help it. It was wonderful. All the other patrons turned to look at the american who was making a ruckus in the art museum. I excused myself. Then wandered off to find my son and the rest of the family. The concept was so simple, and comical, but, it was executed so well, so professionally. It was certainly art. Living art. I'm not sure what the artist was intending to express to the audience. There's many possibilities. Or. Perhaps it was just the feeling, the engagement that they anticipated from their audience. Like a moth to the flame, I was drawn and transfixed, watching the coverage of thick opaque blue all over the slight human form. Then, splash, all over them, spilling down. So happy, so satisfying, so glorious. And I'll never forget it. Just as the artist intended. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/ramirez-figueroa-blue-abstraction-l04369

Maybe these are the people of the book the Quran is referring to? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanif#List_of_ḥanīfs

In general, the entire tanach from beginning to end is about miracles. Miracles don't have "evidence". A lack of archeological evidence of 600,000 people marching through the desert, is part of the story. Zero evidence is a little harsh though. That is an exaggeration I often hear from youtubers. There is evidence, but not of an exodus as it is literally described. See link below from Rutgers University in New Jersey, USA. Links about the authors are below. Both are credentialled academics with strong backgrounds in their fields. Since you are not american, I also included links and info on Rutgers University. It is not a religious institution. It has a very good reputation for academics. https://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/876-ch-2-text-notes <--- PDF Download Authors of the PDF: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Bietak <---- please note their career in the field https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_A._Rendsburg https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rutgers-new-brunswick-6964 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers_University The university offers more than 100 distinct bachelor, 100 masters, and 80 doctoral and professional degree programs across 175 academic departments, 29 degree-granting schools, and colleges, 16 of which offer graduate programs of study. It is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (1921), and in 1989, became a member of the Association of American Universities, an organization of the 62 leading research universities in North America. Rutgers–New Brunswick is classified among "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity". Rutgers–Newark and Rutgers–Camden are classified by the same organization as "R2: Doctoral Universities – High research activity".

A jew is a soul which was present at sinai and has entered the eternal convenant: "Na'asheh v'nishmah" "I will do and I will listen" - Exodus 24:7. Our beliefs were summarized by Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon, the "Rambam" in 13 principles which was set to song. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigdal

@Vajra Mind, I suppose what I'm looking for is a clear verse that says, "believing in Allah and the last day, maintaining your covenants ( contracts, treaties ) is not enough. If you do not accept Muhammad as a prophet then YOU'RE DOOMED. There are plenty of verses that clearly state DENYING Muhammad as a prophet is a sign of being a disbeliever. This makes sense. If someone comes to a religious person and says, "I have a revelation." Denying that revelation without hearing it is a sign of a disbeliever. If they are shown clear signs and they still disbelieve, then they're a kafr? a denier? The verse you brought 7:157 does not say that the ONLY way is to believe in Muhammad. That would be Muhammadism. In fact, its interesting that verse 158 is addressing "O mankind...", then is followed by 159 which reasserts that there is a community among the people of Moses. Again and again, there is a sharp rebuke of the jewish people, but it is followed by a reminder of what's referred to in my community as "the righteous remnant." ( Amos 9:9-11, Micah 2:12, and others ). And among (the) people (of) Musa (is) a community (which) guides with truth and by it establishes justice. The verses continue to describe the faults of the people again, but, there is a community among them which is saved. There is no mention of accepting the unlettered prophet. And when said a community among them, "Why (do) you preach a people, (whom) Allah (is going to) destroy them or punish them (with) a punishment severe?" They said, "To be absolved before your Lord and that they may become righteous." A community among them; among the people of Moses. So when they forgot what they had been reminded with [it], We saved those who forbade [from] the evil, and We seized those who wronged with a punishment wretched, because they were defiantly disobeying. A community from among the people of Moses were saved. Why? Because of their actions. It had nothing to do with believing in the unlettered prophet. The evil they borbade was dececrating the sabbath per Jewish law. If jewish people were required to convert to Islam, I do not think these verses would not have been written this way. Maybe there is something in the other verses and posts you brought which requires jewish people to convert, in spite of their good deeds. I'll keep looking.

The Quran acknowledges Christianity? This is from the University of Cambridge: Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Christians believe that God sent his Son to earth to save humanity from the consequences of its sins. One of the most important concepts in Christianity is that of Jesus giving his life on the Cross (the Crucifixion) and rising from the dead on the third day (the Resurrection). Christians believe that there is only one God, but that there are three elements to this one God: God the Father. God the Son. The Holy Spirit. https://www.equality.admin.cam.ac.uk/projects/faith-and-belief-practice/overview-christianity The Quran affirms 1 out of 5. Most Christians, I think, would argue severely and bitterly that without Jesus' death and ressurection on the cross, one cannot ever be considered to be acknowledging Christianity. That is a denial of Christianity. Arguing against it, would be, forgive me, claiming as a Muslim that one knows Christianity better than other Christians who have studied and practiced their religion for over 2000 years. Wait. Just a few sentences ago you wrote: "Quran acknowledges their books Torah, Gospel and the Book of John." <--- Their books? But the truth is the Quran asserts their books are corrupted fabrications? Which is it? Are their books acknowledged or denied? ... the unlettered prophet, Muhammad, whom they find in the Torah AND the Gospel? And in the Gospel? I do not recall Muhammad in the Gospel at least not explicitly. hmm.... Is it referring to the "comforter"? ~googling~ Found it! Ahhhhh, now it makes sense. Now I see why the Book of John must be included in spite of all its faults. The comforter is missing from the others. Let's look at the passages with the comforter. Is this cherry picking? Is this ignoring the whole-context of the book of John? Is it ignoring the whole-context of Christianity? John 14 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. Will be in you? That is the indwelling of the holy-spirit. It's the divine presence on earth after Jesus' earthly ministry. In hebrew it's the ruach-ha-kodesh. There's probably 20-30 verses about it in tanach. The innovation brought by the book of John regarding it is the indwelling. There is only one verse in tanach which describes an indwelling. It's late in Isaiah. I think chapter 60... lets see.... Ah. 63. ויזכר ימי־עולם משה עמו איה המעלם מים את רעי צאנו איה השם בקרבו את־רוח קדשו׃ Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he who put his holy spirit in him? Here's the greek from John 14:17. Let's look at the other references to the "comforter" which will be sent by the father after Jesus' earthly ministry. John 15: 26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning. OK. This one is not too bad. It could be Muhammad, except that the previous chapter says that this spirit will be IN the disciple. I suppose if that previous description is unknown or ignored, one could imagine that this is Muhammad. But, tecchnically it's cherry picking and ignoring the context. It's only mentioned one other time in the next chapter. Context: Jesus is comforting his disciples. John 16: ...it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. 12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” The "comforter", the "advocate", the "spirit of truth", will reveal what Jesus makes known to him? It's not coming from the father directly? It goes through Jesus? Is that a good match for Muhammad? Of course not. The only way to force it to work is to deny what's written, ignore the story, and the whole context of Christianity. Revealed in the Torah? Sure! If one knows where to look. But we would use Muhammd's birth name given by his mother. In Judaism the mother is granted prophecy when naming her child. The child's given name by the mother describes their essential character. It would be hidden, so, that none would erase it. Achmed is a guide from God described in the book of habakuk. He's referred to by name in the final verse. אדני חילי במותי ידרכני - God is my strength, he guides me on high places... Some ( many? ) will look at this as cherry picking and consider it a stretch. I disagree. It fits nicely in the book of Habakuk, especially since Ishmael's station is invoked early in the book. It's certainly not any more of a stretch than choosing to re-imagine the comforter in the Book of John. Do Jews agree? LOL. Not till the end-of-days. We are not a group which is composed of one-mind and one-heart. We are a diverse group. That's why we are "chosen". Not because we are superior. Hah. It's the opposite. Only the Lord God, the Most High would be able to take the most stubborn and rebellious people on the planet and reform them. That's why when THE Moshiach arrives, it will herald in a time when all people everywhere will recognize the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. All Jews will be gathered and united in the messianic era. All Jews in agreement ( deut 10, Jerimiah 31,32, Ezekiel 11,36 ) will be absolute undeniable proof of a miracle from a benevolent god. Are Jews following the light sent down with him? That depends on what that "light" is. The Torah is described as a light. Do we honor the unlettered prophet? Some do, some don't. We are not all the same. Do we believe in him? The official position is: no, not as a prophet. However, that doesn't mean that belief in him is prohibtted by the Torah that we have today. The Torah includes non-jewish prophets. The best example, is Job. Little known fact: Job and his companions were not jewish, but are considered prophets. I mentioned this earlier. The Quran is a book of clear signs; it describes the straight path. The Torah has the same message of strict monotheism, maintaining the covenant, belief in a final judgement, but, it's much more difficult and convoluted. Yes. You asked "Are the Jews doing that?" The topic is what's written, not jewish compliance with what's written. It's granted that the jewish people in the majority do not follow what's written.

All of the book of John? "None get to the father except through me"? This is false? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Bible#:~:text=Gospel (Injil),-Main articles%3A Gospel&text=Accordingly%2C Muslim scholars reject the,have been corrupted over time.

I think it's clear from my posts that this is not a Quran verse. Yes, it's based on what I understood from readiing and studying the Quran. No, I do not have your knowledge, background, and experience. This is what I found in the tafsir Ibn-Kathir. I'm not claiming "See, see, I'm right!!". I'm merely pointing out, that, I'm not alone, or completely unjustified in my conclusions. https://quran.com/16:36/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir ( Note: I haven't gone through to double check this translation. ) If "All of the messangers brought the same message." Then Muhammad's message was not new. It's the same message in the of Moses. It's the same message of Jesus. All the messages are the same. "the same message" = "everything that has been revealed to you already". Further, if Muhammad could not read nor write, the fact that the messages are all identical is a clear proof of Muhammad's station? If there is deviation, that disproves his station. Therefore, logically, wouldn't it make sense for Muhammad to preach? "Cousins, listen, here is a book which is revealing everything that has been revealed to you already." Regarding the defective scriptures. I'd like to hear your interpretation of the hadith I brought on Jan 3rd 9:30AM - LINK. In that hadith, it seems that the jewish people, during Muhammad's lifetime, were in possession of a divine, correct, Torah. Muhammad deferred to it? I also found this. Granted; it's on wikipedia. I'm not asserting any sort of perfection on it. This is intended to further support that I am not alone in my assertions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_in_Islam The majority position among Islamic scholars ( albeit according to wikipedia ) is that the Torah text itself is not corrupted. Only the interpretations were corrrupted. The minority position among Islamic scholars ( albeit according to wikipedia ) is that the Torah text itself is corrupted. Therefore, it's not automatically false doctrine in Islam to consider the Torah to be intact. Ah. Thank you. For me, this is not a problem of "context". That's not how I understand the word "context". I think that's where I was confused. I would call this a "deal-breaker". For example, looking at surah 3, there are 4-5 verses out of 200 which direct the reader to obey the messengers. Yes, I missed those. I did not explicitly include them in what I had written. However, that idea is 100% included in the Torah. Deut 18:18-20. But this is not context. It's a deal-breaker. Any which distinguish between the messengers, I prefer this one, but will not listen to that one, yes, I agree, is a disbeliever. But. Isn't it true that the only way this works is if all the messages are the same? Question: If the messages are NOT the same; then some of the messangers are not from Allah? This is described in Deut 13. And, there's also discussion of it in the gospels. If there are false prophets, then, how else does one discriminate among them other than comparing their message with one which is known to be intact? Again, logically, this is why it makes sense to me, that Muhammad wouuld come to the jewish people with a revelation that matches the one which is already in their possession. Let's talk about Jesus. I'm sure you know this already, but, the Torah doesn't mention Jesus. However. Something that many don't know is... the word "messiah" in the Torah doesn't actually mean what many assume that it means. In the Torah, it means one which is annointed as a savior. There are actually many messiahs according to judaism. There is a messiah in each and every generation. The first mention of a moshiach ( messiah ) in the Torah is in the book of judges 3:3. ויזעקו בני־ישראל אל־יהוה ויקם יהוה מושיע לבני ישראל ויושיעם את עתניאל בן־קנז אחי כלב הקטן ממנו׃ And when the people of Israel cried to the Lord, the Lord raised up a savior (moshiyah) to the people of Israel, who saved them, Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother. Another somewhat famous example, ( famous among those of us who study tanach ) is Cyrus. Cyrus is interesting, because he was not jewish . Isaiah 45:1 כה־אמר יהוה למשיחו לכורש אשר־החזקתי בימינו לרד־לפניו גוים ומתני מלכים אפתח לפתח לפניו דלתים ושערים לא יסגרו׃ Thus says the Lord to his anointed (m'shichoh), to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him doors and gates; and the gates shall not be closed; In judaism, there is a final moshiach, the "future king" which will reign in the messianic era. That specific era is described in different places in different ways. The bottom line is, it's been 2000 years, and the world is certainly not perfected. So, it's very difficult to claim that Jesus is that moshiach. However it is theoretically possible that Jesus was a suffering servant, per Isaiah 53, among others who came before, and similar to those who came after. It's possible that Jesus was a prophet and a messenger, among others who came before and after him. As I mentioned earlier. The jewish position on Jesus is actually agnostic. We do not spend time on it because it's clear that the gospels which we have today have problems. "None shall get to the father except through me?" "Ask for anything in my name and the father will grant it you in order to glorify the son?" "The father and I are one?" "Cursing a fig tree out of spite?" There are four primary reasons that jewish people reject the Jesus concept: 1) The notion of God literally having a son is anti-thetical to what is taught in the Torah 2) The notion that Jesus is a fleshy-priest-king-god-hybrid is essentially an egyptian pagan god concept. Pharoah was a priest-king-god-hybrid. 3) The jewish messiah does not die for our sins. There is absolutley nothing in the Torah which permits that. 4) Jesus did not actually fulfill the messianic prophecies. One of the reasons I objected so strongly to the accusation of cherry picking, is, I have seen actual cherry picking when christians attempt to claim Jesus fulfills messianic prophecies. A great example is the famous quote from Isaiah 9:6 ( it's 9:5 in the hebrew bible ). כי־ילד ילד־לנו בן נתן־לנו ותהי המשרה על־שכמו ויקרא שמו פלא יועץ אל גבור אבי־עד שר־שלום׃ For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called “Wonderful counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace”. Notice the part in blue? Jesus never had any governement on his shoulders. But that doesn't matter. They cherry pick the verse, ignore the context, the story that's being told, and claim this as a fulfilled prophecy. Notice the part in red? Jesus stated very clearly, in the gospels, he is NOT the prince of peace. Matthew 10:36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. These are the reasons that jewish people reject Christianity. But, the majority of us, do not make any claims about Jesus. We just make claims about what is written about him. I hear you. However, the verses state there is an ummah, a community, not individuals, which is doing, presently, good which can never be denied. Never. A whole community. Also, it's clear in Surah 3 that Ibrahim was a muslim before the Quran, before Muhammad. So was Nuh. So was Ismail. So was Musa. This indicates to me that the message is more important than the messenger. 3:73 And (do) not believe except (the one) who follows your religion." Say, "Indeed the (true) guidance (is the) Guidance (of) Allah - lest is given (to) one - (the) like (of) what was given to you or they may argue with you near your Lord." Say, "Indeed, the Bounty (is) in the Hand (of) Allah. He gives it (to) whom He wills, and Allah (is) All-Encompassing, All-Knowing True guidannce is from Allah. The message is more important than the messenger. 3:80 And not he will order you that you take the Angels, and the Prophets (as) lords. Would he order you to [the] disbelief after [when] you (have become) Muslims? The prophets are not lords. The message is more important than the messenger. 3:84 Say, "We believed in Allah and what (is) revealed on us and what was revealed on Ibrahim, and Ismail, and Ishaq, and Yaqub, and the descendents and what was given (to) Musa, and Isa, and the Prophets from their Lord. Not we make distinction between any of them and we to Him (are) submissive We do not make distinctions between any of them because... "All of the messengers brought the same message." <--- Ibn-Kathir? The message is more important than the messenger, and the all the messages are the same.

It's ok. Maybe let's simply discuss what's written and not make negative accusations about the methods used to select the verses which are being discussed. It is not my intention to distort, misrepresent, ignore, any of what is written in the Quran for the purpose of this discussion. The accusation of cherry-picking is an insult. As I wrote previously, the conversation needs to start somewhere. So, I brought the verses which were the focus of my assertion. They're examples of what I was referring to; that's not cherry-picking. From the perspective of morality, I appreciate the honesty. However I do not think you're being fair with your criticism. Are you able to see how your own responses can also be considered cherry-picking ( if one adopts an overly hostile posture )? "The jews are cursed nine times" could be considered cherry-picking those verses by those same standards. From my perspective, neither are cherry-picking. They're examples. Examples are not cherry-picking. I prefer to withold the negative judgements until after an individual has demonstrated the fault. Hopefully you'll recall this was my approach in our conversation earlier in the thread. Maybe wait until I make that mistake before offering the correction? Confirmation bias means that I am ignoring any and all examples which offset, over-rule, or undermine my conclusions. I object to that primarily because it's too early in our discussion to conclude that I am ignoring anything. My postition, among others, is: I acknowledge there are many verses ( many-many verses ) in the Quran which are harshly rebuking the jewish people, however, there are also moderating verses. If I acknowledge the many harsh rebukes, then, I am not ignoring them. Similar to the accusation of cherry-picking, are you able to see that what you've written could also be considered confirmation bias ( if one adopts an overly hostile posture )? For example: the assertion that the earlier verse 3:12 abrogates the later verse 5:69 could be considered confirmation bias ( if one adopts an overly hostile posture ). Yes, I checked, to the best of my ability, the chronology of the revelation of the Quran to confirm that surah 3 precedes surah 5. Why assume that the moderate verses are abrogated? Isn't that an example of confirmation bias ( if one adopts an overly hostile posture )? I think there may be another language barrier here? Here is an example of context. In context, Surah 28 is a retelling of the exodus story. <--- That is an example of how to describe the context of Surah 28. What do you mean by "the whole context"? Typing it out explicitly would be very helpful for me. As I requested earlier, if I am missing context, please add it? That means, "Please type out a description of the context." It feels like you are saying: "You're wrong! Context!" But this is simply a debate tactic lacking substance. Simply invoking the word "context" is not helpful. I included the exclamation marks, "You're wrong!", because of the bold font. Regarding bias, I fully accept and admit that I have an optimistic, friendly bias towards the Quran, Islam, and the "Abrahamic" faiths. I want all of us to get along. I want all of us to be friends. I want each of us to appreciate and value the distinctions, the differences, and value the unique aspects of the revelation of the divine that was brought to each community ( and to each individual ). That is my bias. Because I am aware of it, and I understand how it works, I am in a position to set it aside for the purpose of an objective review and discussion. Please let me know when you are finished? You didn't hurt my feelings. My objection is about fairness.

Please see below: What you're doing, in america, is called a bait-and-switch. You wrote that you look forward to the quotes I would bring, then, when I bring them, you've become hostile and condscending, rather harshly accusing me of cherry picking and taking them out of context.

Thank you. My star? You didn't get a thank you, because, it was irrelevant. I didn't get upset, I was surprised by the hypocrisy. I was certainly frustrated with the other individual who refuses to read the text and yet is judging it in ignorance. There is no way to have an intelligent conversation with someone who will not *actually* read the text. I assure you; I will no longer be distracted by this. The only so-called "imputation" that was identified was regarding the timeless, eternal quality of the Torah. I brought an example from Hadith showing it is not MY personal interpretation. It is shared by the Hadith. There's also ayat in the Quran which confirm this. Please. What I'm doing is not cherry-picking. It's the beginning of the discussion. It needs to start somewhere. I brought the ayat which support my assertion. The next step is to confirm that the translation chosen is accurate. The reason this is the next step, is, if the translation is faulty, obviously, my conclusions will also be faulty. If that's the case, I will apologize, and reassess based on a proper translation. Dr. Shenaz is not my "star". You're being condescending. There's no need for that. That specific translation is so far, a very good choice. It is not softening the translation by omitting the "curses" Once the translation is confirmed, then, I think the next step is to evaluate the intention and purpose behind the ayat I brought. This is because I am not denying the verses you have brought. To the contrary, it seems that It the verses I brought are being denied. At the very least, it seems as if what I have brought is being ignored or deemed insignificant, is that an accurate description? Insignificant? Does Islam consider ANY of what is written in the Quran insignificant? Can it be said that any of the words are insignificant? When the word: "إِنَّ - Indeed" is included, is that insignificant? When the phrase: "إِلَّا قَلِیلࣰا مِّنۡهُمۡۖ - except a few of them" is included, is that insignificant? I appreciate the opportunity to learn together. It seems like you are rejecting... I didn't do that. However, the question is about what the Quran is teaching. What is it that is *actually* written in the Quran? I didn't say that, nor have I implied it.

Not true. All you need to do is *actually* read the text in english to see you're wrong about child sacrifice. All you need to do is read the translation of the Quran in english that I brought, and read the translations of Ezekiel and Jeremiah that I brought to see that the Quran is not as harsh a rebuke as the hebrew bible. All you need to do for this is read... in english. Why won't you do that?

Lol. Nazi? You just lost the argument. Sacrifice his child? You clearly didn't read the story carefully. The tax? Have you read about it? Of course not. I'll just leave this here for you and the others to reflect on for the purpose of determing how much credibility to grant to your posts here: So, you don't know what's in the Torah or Tanach, but you believe the negative stories about it? Got it. And you refuse to educate yourself on it? Got it. And you have no problem judging it, knowiing, and admitting you don't know what's in it. That ^^ is what's wrong with the world, dude. People pretending they KNOW things... Gratefully those with power and influence operate from a more fact-based point-of-view.

You'd need to read the remainder of the story in Jeremiah and Ezekiel before making that judgement. In order to discuss Surah 9, it's important to read Surah 9. Have you done that? Are you still operating from a position of ignorance. That is my "go to response". My go to response is: "have you read it yet?" Maybe this will help you "see why" I replied the way I did: The Quran is not any more "anti-jewish" than the hebrew bible. The quotes that have been brought are not "hateful". They are rebuke. Whether or not Islam is more or less anti-jewish than christianity is debatable, but, also off-topic since the topic is the Quran. And, it's not lost on me that you're actually making judgements about me as well, but, I do not value those judgements.

If you don''t know judaism, and you don't know Islam, what are you talking about?

That's not what the Quran teaches. 29:46-49. It's been posted already. And: I'm happy to discuss 9:29. It is a favorite among anti-isalm ... enthusiasts. Not just that verse but the whole surah. Here is a link to the translation of surah 9. If you would like to discuss it please read this and reply. I'm not intersted in discussing it if the entire surah has not been read. https://islamawakened.com/quran/9/st78.htm So far there is no evidence that this is a dishonest translation. There are multiple examples given where it chooses to translate honestly per the native arabic speaker who is contributing to this thread. You have confirmed you don't know judaism, right? You don't know the Old Testament? You don't know the Quran? Whatever opinions you have about judaism or islam, they are both born from ignorance? The reason I am defending the Quran is because it is being attacked, imo, unfairly. Since you don't know the Old Testament, you don't know that the hebrew bible is much much harsher towards the disbelieving jews than the Quran. You don't know what you don't know dude. When are you going to learn to stop making judgements in ignorance? Ezekiel: 22:15 And I will scatter you among the nations, and disperse you in the countries, and will consume your filthiness from you. 22:16 And you shall be profaned by yourself in the sight of the nations, and you shall know that I am the Lord. 22:17 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 22:18 Son of man, the house of Israel has become dross to me; all of the, bronze, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace; they are the dross of silver. 22:19 Therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you have all become dross, behold, therefore I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. 22:20 As they gather silver, and bronze, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in my anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you. 22:21 And I will gather you, and blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, and you shall be melted in its midst. 22:22 As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall you be melted in its midst; and you shall know that I, the Lord, have poured out my fury upon you. 22:23 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 22:24 Son of man, say to her, You are the land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation. 22:25 There is a conspiracy of her prophets in her midst, like a roaring lion tearing the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken treasure and precious things; they have made many widows in her midst. 22:26 Her priests have violated my Torah, and have profaned my holy things; they have not differentiated between the holy and profane, nor have they taught the difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hidden their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. 22:27 Her princes in her midst are like wolves tearing the prey, shedding blood, and destroying souls, to get dishonest gain. 22:28 And her prophets have daubed them with whitewash, seeing false visions, and divining lies to them, saying, Thus says the Lord God, when the Lord has not spoken. 22:29 The people of the land have used oppression, and committed robbery, and have wronged the poor and needy; indeed, they have oppressed the foreigner wrongfully. 22:30 And I sought a man among them, who could build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none. 22:31 Therefore have I poured out my indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath; their own way have I rewarded upon their heads, says the Lord God. That's pretty bad, dude. All of Israel. Gathered and melted with the fury of God's wrath. God tried to find a single good individual among us ( the jewish people ) and found none. Jeremiah: 2:22 For though you wash you with lye, and use much soap, yet the stain of your iniquity is before me, said the Lord God. 2:23 How can you say, I am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim? See your way in the valley, know what you have done; you are a restive young camel doubling back on its tracks; 2:24 A wild ass used to the wilderness, sniffing the wind in its desire; in its lust who can turn it away? All those who seek it need not weary themselves; in its month they shall find it. 2:25 Withhold your foot from being unshod, and your throat from thirst; but you said, There is no hope; no; for I have loved strangers, and after them will I go. 2:26 As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets, 2:27 Who say to a piece of wood, You are my father; and to a stone, You have brought me forth; for they have turned their back to me, and not their face; but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. The jewish people are wild, lustful, donkeys. The Lord will go after "strangers". All of us should be ashamed: Kings, princes, and priests. We're idolators, per Jeremiah's prophecy. There is nothing in the Quran which compares to this in regard to jewish people. The Quran is gentle with us ( the jewish people ) compared to this. So, how can you look at the Quran and judge it? You don't know what's written in the hebrew bible. When you compare judaism to islam, I know that you intend it to be an insult against both islam and judaism. It doesn't bother me, because I'm confident that you don't know what you're talking about.

@NaturaNaturans, Please see above. This is on-topic. The Quran asserts that Jesus was teaching Torah. It's repeated twice for emphasis. Here is confirmation, per the Quran, that eye-for-an-eye is percribed by Allah. There's also a perscription to be charitable. If there is something in the Christian bible ( the gospels ) which denies eye-for-and-eye retribution, that would be an example of false teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels, per the Quran. Per the Quran, the way to determine if Jesus *actually* taught it ( anything in the gospels ) is to test it against the Quran, then test it against the Torah.

I suppose you skipped the part where I mentioned that this is off-topic unless it is coming from the Quran.