JESUS A MUSLIM?
31 March 2013
Muhammad claimed Jesus was a good Muslim. But remember that Jesus lived well inside the times of written history. Not much is written about him outside the religious writers (if our sources are correct, he is mentioned by 3, included by Josephus Flavius). But we know a lot about the religions at that time. And two things we know is that there was no god like Allah and no religion like Islam anywhere inside the Roman Empire at that time (and neither before, nor later until the Arabs conquered the area after the death of Muhammad.
Another thing we also know for sure, is that the Mosaic religion as very strong around that time. If Jesus had started to talk about the pagan god al-Lah from a neighboring country, he for one thing had got few followers, and for another thing if he all the same had got many followers, he had been killed by the priests and religious fanatics long before.
The never proved claim that Jesus was a Muslim, is proved wrong by written history.
#####01 61/6f: “- - - (Jesus said: I am*) giving the Glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after Me, whose name shall be Ahamad (another form of the name Muhammad*) - - -”. This is quite a funny verse, as you meet Muslims who insist it is copied from the Bible. Worse: You find it quoted in books like it was from the Bible, without a word about the fact that it only is to be found in the Quran. But there is not anything remotely like this in the Bible, and neither in the some 12ooo - 13ooo relevant scriptures or fragments found through the times older than 610 AD – included some 300 from the Gospels, and also not in the some 32ooo other relevant known manuscripts older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his preaching) with quotes from the Bible. It is only to be found in the Quran. Also you do not find a single case in OT where a prophesy about distant future mentions a clear name (sometimes title or something, but never a clear name). But here - o wonder! - is most conveniently the unmistakable name given - an Arab version of the name Muhammad even!
And it is worth remembering that it is quite common for makers of new sects or religions to connect themselves to a mother religion and bend that one some to fit one's purpose - or even high-jack (parts of) it. The founder of the Amaddijja-Muslims is really one of the latest examples, and Mormons tell Jesus visited America during his last days on earth. Such things give roots, credence and weight to a movement.
Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit (also named the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of the Lord, or only the Spirit – like Allah and like Muhammad it has more than one name) should come shortly - which it did. And he told he himself should return once upon a time “to judge the living and the dead“. But not a single word about any other - and not to mention one with a foreign name the Jews would question.
We know of one place where Muhammad is mentioned: In the Barnabas Gospel - a most apocryphal (made up) book - according to one of our sources it may even be written at the caliph’s court in Baghdad (not very strange if it then mentions Muhammad), but it also may be one of the many falsifications made by Muslims in Spain from around 800 AD on. You need to make up proofs only if you have no real ones. Muslims sometimes tell you this “gospel” is a real one.
But the standard explanation Muslims follow - without proofs: The Bible is falsified and names indicating Muhammad taken out by bad conspiracies - people in that area has a strong tendency to look for and believe in conspiracy theories (We have a private theory that the reason is that they never in their history have been used to relatively reliable information). But in that case:
The life of the first Christians had been entirely different - and their time scale had been entirely different if any of them had heard about another prophet to be expected before the return of Jesus “to judge the living and the dead”. (They would know the return of Jesus would take much longer time than they now believed, to give the “prophet” time to work. They thought Jesus would be back in a short time - some years.)
The contents of the NT had been different - not least the letters had been different. It simply is a fairy tale made up to strengthen Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet - like some other self-proclaimed prophets. (Rather ironic, as he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies – he did not even claim or pretend he had it – he was no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something perhaps, but not a real prophet).
The Muslims only back their claim on one Greek word used in the Bible: “parakletos” which means “helper” – Jesus before he left Earth, promised to send his disciples a helper – the Holy Spirit (which arrived some days later – at Whitsun - according to the Bible (a story that is not negated in the Quran)).
Islam claims “parakletos” is a misspelling for another Greek word “periklytos”, which means “the highly praised”. In Aramaic “the highly praised” means “Mawhamana” of which the second part of that word as a verb is “hamida” (= to praise) and as a noun “hamd” (law or praise). If you then continue to Arab the names Muhammad and Ahmad (another version of the name Muhammad) both derives from “hamida” or “hamd” according to Islam. Which to Islam and all Muslims is a strong proof for that “parakletos” in reality is misspelled and means “Muhammad” in the Gospel after John (f. x. John 14/16). Not a very convincing proof to say the least of it – and in addition:
The word “periklytos” that Islam claims is misspelled – the only possibility they have to get the answer they want and desperately need (they need it desperately, because the Quran clearly tells that Muhammad is foretold also in the NT - - - and he is not there) – does not exist at all in the Bible, not to mention in the NT. It is not used one single time.
The word “periklytos” also is not found one single time in all the some 12-13ooo relevant Biblical manuscripts and fragments science knows from before 610 AD. Neither in one single place or time, nor in one single of the many manuscripts.
Worse: Neither is it found in any of the some 300 copies or fragments of Gospels older than 610 AD or in other manuscripts referring to the Gospels.
Neither is it found in quotes from the Bible found in some 32ooo other old manuscripts.
The word “periklytos” simply never was used in the old scriptures that became the Bible. The word that is used everywhere is “parakletos” – “helper” (and a helper was what the disciples needed). This goes for each and every known copy.
Beside: How could it be possible to falsify – as Islam claims – the same word the same way in thousands and tens or hundreds of thousands of manuscripts – and how to find each and every “periklytos” in each and every of the many different manuscripts – spread over all those countries? – and on top of all: In a time with little travel and hardly any media. Islam has a tough job proving their claim – and remember: It is the ones making claims that have to prove them, not others to disprove it. This often is forgotten when Muslims throw loose claims and statements around.
There also are huge numbers (some 32ooo) of non-religious manuscripts or fragments which refer to the Bible. Whenever this word pops up in those manuscripts it without exception is written "parakletos". Islam must explain how it was possible to find and to falsify all these papers, and not least how it was possible to erase the ink and write another word in such a way that it is impossible for modern science to find traces of falsifications.
Arabs think it is logical that parakletos and periklytos may be mixed – in the old Arab alphabet and scriptures this just meant that someone had guessed the not written vowels wrong. But not so for Greek, as Greek already and a long time before had a complete alphabet where all letters was written. This kind of misspelling therefore is not logical in Greek.(NT was originally written in Greek.)
Muslims try to explain that it could not be a question of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit already was present. And the Holy Spirit was present or visited Jesus. But it was not part of the disciples – and that was what happened at Whitsun according to the Bible: They each got personal contact with the Spirit, and that is quite a change of a situation.
Muslims also say that as two different names for the Spirit is used (the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Spirit (you actually also have the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God (1. Mos. 1/2), the Spirit of the Lord, and only the Spirit)) it proves that John does not mean the Holy Spirit, when he uses the name “the Spirit of truth” – “the Spirit of truth” must mean the Muhammad that lies to his followers in the Quran (“miracles will make no-one believe”, f. x.) and advised his people to even break their oaths if that gave a better result. In addition to all the other wrong logic here, this claim is just as logical as to claim that the 99 names of Allah means there are 99 different gods, or the 200+ (!!!) names of Muhammad means there were 200+ or more of him. The spirit simply is named by different names (at least 6) – and in addition it is absolutely clear that in the whole Bible there only is one spirit with a special connection to Yahweh.
There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make in this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking. And still “the raisin in the sausage” is not mentioned:
Jesus promised his disciples a helper – a parakletos. If he had meant Muhammad, how could Muhammad be their helper when they were all dead 500 years before he was even born?? It simply is nonsense or wishful thinking.
Further the spirit according to the same verses in the Bible that Muslims quote, could not be seen. Muhammad was not difficult to see.
And another “raisin”: Also in the same verses it is said that the Spirit should be with them forever. Muhammad definitely was not with them forever – he was not even with them.
Not to mention: How do you make Jews and Christians agree on how to falsify the Bible? - f.x. the foretelling about Messiah/Jesus? - and when did they do it? Muslims like to blame Nicaea, but for one thing the agenda for that meeting is well known, and "adjustments" of the Bible was not even mentioned (but some Muslims in 2009 or 2010 screamed that they could prove that 56 points (if we remember the number correctly) in the Bible had been changed at that meeting - the word "proofs" sometimes come easy to some Muslims), and as bad: There was not one single representative for the Mosaic (Jewish) religion present.
In the thousands of manuscripts older than 610 AD - the first point of time when Christians - and also the Jews - could get a reason for such a falsification - how was it possible to erase the word parakletos with the primitive means of that time, and fill in the word periklytos instead, in such a way that modern science is unable to find physical traces from the erasing, unable to find chemical differences in the ink that was used, and unable to see any difference of the letters (all people write differently)?
There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make is this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking? – or a bluff? – or a lie/al-Taqiyya? At least science long ago as mentioned has proved from the old manuscripts that it is not true – the Bible never was falsified. Worse: Islam has proved the same because they, too, have been unable to find such a proved falsification in spite of intensive searching. (But Islam HAS to find him somewhere there, if not the Quran is wrong on this for Islam very essential point - and then something is seriously wrong with Islam). Also see 7/157.
(We should mention that also the apocryphal (made up) “Gospel of Barnabas” sometimes still is used as an argument, because there Muhammad is clearly mentioned (no surprise if the theory that it is made at the court in Baghdad is correct. The same if it is one of the many Islamic forgeries from Spain from around 800 AD and somewhat later). The sorry fact, though, is that a made up gospel is a made up gospel (there are a number of them) – and it tells something about Islam’s lack of arguments that they continue to insist that may be it is not made up, and therefore is a proof for Muhammad, when science is unanimous: It is one of the false ones. The only thing the “Gospel of Barnabas” in reality proves, is that Islam has no real documentation for their claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the NT, as they have to resort to this kind of argumentation).
But the most solid proof for that the Bible is not falsified, comes from Islam itself. If they had found one single solid proof for falsification of the Bible among all the many thousands of old manuscripts that exist, THEY HAD SCREAMED TO HOLY HEAVEN ABOUT IT – and no-one has till now heard such a scream – not even after 1400 years!!!.
02 61/14c: “- - - said Jesus - - - to the Disciples,’ Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?’” If Jesus had said this about a known pagan god in a neighboring country (al-Lah in Arabia), he for one thing had got few followers, and for another had been killed by the Jewish clergy much earlier. Contradicted by reality. Also see 61/6a-f + 3/51 in the full list in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Similar claim in 3/52.
But of course the disciples – also here according to the Quran - were good Muslims. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.
This content was posted with assistance from M. A. Khan, the editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islam Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery" (available online)