Was just reading...

[MasterAdnin]

I just found this on the internet, it is a pretty good read:

OLD AND NEWTESTAMENTS
Now we come to the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Before giving some of the prophecies from the Bible, one important thing should be made clear from the start.

It is the common practice of the Jews and Christians to translate even the proper names, thus wherever they find the name 'Muhammad', they translate it as 'the praiseworthy', lovely, or words like that. This practice has helped them in 'hiding the truth' from the world, as the people reading the translations can never suspect that the sentence refers to a certain person. Now, if others follow that practice, a non-english speaking person will translate the name of 'Livingstone' as a 'stone, which was alive'. Then he will elaborate on this theme and will try to prove that in 19th century, stones in Europe had life, and one of such stones had come to Africa and had traveled up to Kigoma and Ujiji.

Add to it, the frequent changes and alterations which the Christians are so wont to make in the Old and New Testaments, and then you can appreciate the true position.

BOOK OF GENESIS
Anyhow, let us begin from Genesis. I will use the King James Version throughout this chapter.

Genesis 17:20, records the promise of God with Prophet Ibrahim: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall be beget, and I will make him a great nation."

The prayer referred to in this sentence, is given in detail in many places in Qur'an, which runs as follows:

And remember Abraham and Isma'il raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing." Holy Qur'an (2:127) "Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise." Holy Qur'an (2:129)

Now coming to the wording of Genesis: in this present form this sentence mentions only 12 mains. But in its original language it clearly gives the name of the Holy Prophet also.

DEUTERONOMY
"God promised to Prophet Musa (a.s.): "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken." (18:15)

"I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto three, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name. I will require it of him." (18:18-19)

Christians try to fit this prophecy on Prophet Eesa (a.s.). But it fits to nobody except Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (s.a.w.a.), because: -

1. The prophet was to come from among the brethren of Israel; any prophet coming from Bani Israel is therefore excluded from this good tiding. Now, as we know, Prophet Eesa (a.s.) was from Bani Israel, while Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) was from Bani Ismael who were the brethren of Bani Israel.

2. The prophet was to be 'like unto Moses.' Prophet Musa (a.s.) had to make war, and Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) also had to defend himself through war. But Prophet Eesa (a.s.) did never enter a war.

3. Prophet Musa (a.s.) had a brother Haroon (Aaron), who was to succeed him. No such brother was to Prophet Eesa (a.s.) while Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) had Ali Bin Abi Talib (a.s.) Whom he said "Thou art to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that there is no prophet after me."

4. Prophet Musa (a.s.) left the religious Leadership to the children of Aaron. Prophet Eesa (a.s.) did not make such arrangement. Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) made similar arrangement in his Ummat by leaving Islam in the hands of Ali and his children, Hasan and Hussain.

5. " ... and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak upto them all that I shall command him." This criterion fits Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) only, because Prophet Eesa (a.s.) did not claim if for himself, while Allah said in the Qur'an for Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) "Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed." (53:3-4)

6. Prophet Eesa (a.s.) did never claim that he was the promised Prophet of this sentence, while Allah mentioned this similarity between Prophet Musa (a.s.) and Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) in the Qur'an in the verse, "Verily, we sent unto you an Apostle, a witness on you, as we sent an Apostle unto Pharao."

7. Prophet Eesa (a.s.) did not claim that he was the like of Moses, while Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) said to Ali Bin Talib (a.s.) "Thou art to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that there is no prophet after me."

8. Prophet Eesa (a.s.) himself said that the prophet who was to come after him will fulfill this prophecy. See the following sentences of John: "How be it when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak."

FROM NEW TESTAMENT
(A) "THAT PROPHET"
"And this is the record to John (i.e., the Baptist) when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

"And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

"And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? and he saith, I am not. Art thou that Prophet? And he answered, No." (John 1:19-21)

This talk clearly shows that just before the advent of Prophet Eesa (a.s.) (Jesus Christ), the Jews were waiting for three prophets: Christ, Elias and 'that Prophet.'

And when John said that he was neither of the three, then: "And they asked him, and said unto him, why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet?" (John 1:25)

It also shows that 'that Prophet' commanded such a high respect that his name was not uttered and his adjective 'Prophet' is written with a capital 'P'. And his advent was so well understood that simply addressing him as 'that Prophet' was enough to know him.

And many scholars believe that 'Elias' means Hazrat Ali (a.s.) who was appointed the successor of the Hoy Prophet, Muhammad Mustafa (s.a.w.a.).

Link

Salaam,
Adnan

[Zenith Darksea]

The typical stuff of taking quotations out of context and then skewing the meaning.

[MasterAdnin]

The typical stuff of taking quotations out of context and then skewing the meaning.

May I ask why it is out of context? Also, how is it skewing the meaning? Because it agrees that Prophet Muhammad(SAS) is truly a Prophet? Because it foretells that the Prophet will come? Because it goes against the common norm of Christianity?

Salaam,
Adnan

[Marcus Scaurus]

Prophet Muhammad(SAS) is truly a Prophet?

Muhammed wasn't a prophet, he was a Special Air Service soldier. You're contradicting yourself.

[Zenith Darksea]

Alright then, I'll take a closer inspection of this:

It is the common practice of the Jews and Christians to translate even the proper names, thus wherever they find the name 'Muhammad', they translate it as 'the praiseworthy', lovely, or words like that. This practice has helped them in 'hiding the truth' from the world, as the people reading the translations can never suspect that the sentence refers to a certain person. Now, if others follow that practice, a non-english speaking person will translate the name of 'Livingstone' as a 'stone, which was alive'. Then he will elaborate on this theme and will try to prove that in 19th century, stones in Europe had life, and one of such stones had come to Africa and had traveled up to Kigoma and Ujiji.

Explain how the writer knows this? What's the evidence? I personally, as a student of Classical and Koine Greek, have never, ever seen the name 'Mohammed' crop up in the Greek text of the New Testament, and I don't know of any occasions of this appearing in Hebrew (I am not, alas, a Hebrew scholar). If the name Mohammed cropped up in Greek, it certainly wouldn't be translated into anything else, because it wouldn't mean anything in Greek! This is an extremely dubious argument of yours indeed.

Genesis 17:20, records the promise of God with Prophet Ibrahim: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall be beget, and I will make him a great nation."

The prayer referred to in this sentence, is given in detail in many places in Qur'an, which runs as follows:

And remember Abraham and Isma'il raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing." Holy Qur'an (2:127) "Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise." Holy Qur'an (2:129)

The text of the Old Testament is unsurprising and proves nothing about the religious significance of Ishmael or his descendants. As for the quotation from the Qu'ran, it is not terribly surprising. Considering that there were quite a few Jews living in Medina and Mecca at the time, not to mention in the lands the Arabs conquered, it is not surprising that the Muslims should lift such parts from the Old Testament; besides, as a quote from a Muslim religious text, it hardly tells us anything about the Old Testament, does it?. Again, this proves nothing.

Now coming to the wording of Genesis: in this present form this sentence mentions only 12 mains. But in its original language it clearly gives the name of the Holy Prophet also.

I am extremely doubtful of this. However, if you can provide an English transliteration of the Hebrew and point out his name, then I would stand corrected. But frankly, I doubt you can.

Christians try to fit this prophecy on Prophet Eesa (a.s.).

Actually, I understand that the officially interpretation is that it could refer to any one of the string of prophets leading up to the birth of Our Lord (that's Jesus Christ), though it's generally taken to be a loose reference to all of them.

2. The prophet was to be 'like unto Moses.' Prophet Musa (a.s.) had to make war, and Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) also had to defend himself through war. But Prophet Eesa (a.s.) did never enter a war.

Boy, that's a tenuous link. Moses made war and Mohammed made war - obviously that makes Mohammed his successor! Honestly, this is poor logic indeed. But you know, Alexander the Great had to make war, and he believed that he had a divine connection. Perhaps it meant him? Of course it didn't! This is the typical logic that we see time and again, and it's rubbish.

1. The prophet was to come from among the brethren of Israel; any prophet coming from Bani Israel is therefore excluded from this good tiding. Now, as we know, Prophet Eesa (a.s.) was from Bani Israel, while Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) was from Bani Ismael who were the brethren of Bani Israel.

Oh, I just have to come back to this. It's just hilarious. You say that someone has to come from among the brethren of Israel - you dismiss one prophet on the grounds that he came from the Bani Israelis, because they are (so you claim...) not linked to the Israelis. But then you say that Mohammed was a brethren of the Bani Israelis (are you sure?), so he must be the prophet referred to. With logic as poor as this, I scarcely need to produce any counter-argument at all!

3. Prophet Musa (a.s.) had a brother Haroon (Aaron), who was to succeed him. No such brother was to Prophet Eesa (a.s.) while Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) had Ali Bin Abi Talib (a.s.) Whom he said "Thou art to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that there is no prophet after me."

A feeble attempt to find a connection that doesn't really prove anything, except that the Muslims liked to copy the Jews.

I shan't bother to go through the rest of these feeble points about Moses and Mohammed, because they aren't worthwhile. I shall however just make mention of this:

8. Prophet Eesa (a.s.) himself said that the prophet who was to come after him will fulfill this prophecy. See the following sentences of John: "How be it when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak."

Perhaps then the prophet originally referred to in Deuteronomy was this person of whom Eesa speaks - John the Baptist! Honestly, the writer of this article really should have thought his arguments through before writing them. He might even have liked to learn something about Judaism and Christianity.

This talk clearly shows that just before the advent of Prophet Eesa (a.s.) (Jesus Christ), the Jews were waiting for three prophets: Christ, Elias and 'that Prophet.'

No it doesn't. By your logic, if 'that Prophet' is Mohammed, then they'd have been expecting Elijah to appear first, and I don't believe that Islam admits that this happened.. At any rate, your interpretation is hardly water-tight. And it does not refer to Our Lord as a 'prophet' either.

It also shows that 'that Prophet' commanded such a high respect that his name was not uttered and his adjective 'Prophet' is written with a capital 'P'.

Oh dear, oh dear, the person who wrote this essay has just displayed his ignorance in style! In Greek manuscripts, every letter is a capital letter! There would be no way of capitalising the first letter of the Greek word 'prophetes' in an ancient manuscript.

And many scholars believe that 'Elias' means Hazrat Ali (a.s.) who was appointed the successor of the Hoy Prophet, Muhammad Mustafa (s.a.w.a.).

Yeah, Muslim scholars, right? And their proof for that is?

You'll have to do better than this inconclusive and ignorant conjecture, you know.

[MasterAdnin]

Zenith, all I saw in your post was sarcasm and nothing more. You did not even go to the link and read the whole article. It clearly shows and gives evidence that the Bible was copied from old text which was written in Hebrew which was torn, and weathered. It also gives examples of how the text could have been mistranslated by the original translators. Read the entire article.

Salaam,
Adnan

[Dromikaites]

Zenith, all I saw in your post was sarcasm and nothing more. You did not even go to the link and read the whole article. It clearly shows and gives evidence that the Bible was copied from old text which was written in Hebrew which was torn, and weathered. It also gives examples of how the text could have been mistranslated by the original translators. Read the entire article.

I've read the article and I failed to find the proof for the accusation that whenever the Christians and the Jews find the name of Mohammed they change it into something else.

My question is this: how seriously should we take an article which makes such claim then "forgets" to substantiate it?

Another question: if that is true, how comes the Muslims scientists do not expose that fraud themselves? There thousands of Muslim university professors of clasical languages, of history, etc. all around the world. How comes you can't find any academic article exposing the alleged Jewish and Christian fraud? Who would prevent the Pakistani or Indonesian classical languages professors from providing the correct translation of the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts?

On another thread I advised you to start training your critical thinking. The questions from above might be of help. Once you stumble upon something like that article it is highly recommended you start to ask questions. If something is too good to be true then probably is a lie

[MasterAdnin]

Whoops, sorry Drom, my mistake. The thing about accuracy of the Bible and Torah is here, on this site:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/10000.htm

Also, it shows proof and evidence about Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and the 10,000 saints in the Bible, etc.

Salaam,
Adnan

[Dromikaites]

Whoops, sorry Drom, my mistake. The thing about accuracy of the Bible and Torah is here, on this site:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/10000.htm

Also, it shows proof and evidence about Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and the 10,000 saints in the Bible, etc.

Salaam,
Adnan

Like I said on the other thread, do start exercising your critical thought. You might be pleasantly surprised of the consequences.

EDIT: I'm not intending to patronise you. I simply recommend you to check some academic sources on those issues.

There are plenty of Muslim university professors in Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey which specialise in ancient languages, Middle East history, archeology, etc. If you find they support the points of view of that particular webpage of www.answering-christianity.com then please share those findings with us. If you don't find such academic support it might be useful to start asking yourself why.

[MasterAdnin]

Like I said on the other thread, do start exercising your critical thought. You might be pleasantly surprised of the consequences.

Drom, I always question my religion. I feel questioning things is the only way to grow, and for every question I ask, I get ten responses from my Maulana and Parents, and both are usually the same. From those ten answers, I develop five new questions and the process continues. I have been thinking and questioning my religion for far longer than I have been on TWC.

EDIT: I'm not intending to patronise you.

Where did patronization come from?

There are plenty of Muslim university professors in Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey which specialise in ancient languages, Middle East history, archeology, etc. If you find they support the points of view of that particular webpage of www.answering-christianity.com then please share those findings with us. If you don't find such academic support it might be useful to start asking yourself why.

As I said, I question all aspects of my religion, and this will not stop anytime soon.

Salaam,
Adnan

[Dromikaites]

Where did patronization come from?

Patronising as in "I know better than you".

[Simetrical]

However, if you can provide an English transliteration of the Hebrew and point out his name, then I would stand corrected.

The Masoretic text of Genesis 17:20 reads, "וּלְיִשְׁמָעֵאל, שְׁמַעְתִּיךָ--הִנֵּה בֵּרַכְתִּי אֹתוֹ וְהִפְרֵיתִי אֹתוֹ וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֹתוֹ, בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד: שְׁנֵים-עָשָׂר נְשִׂיאִם יוֹלִיד, וּנְתַתִּיו לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל." Transliterated (according to the common pronunciation of American Jewry: other pronunciations would only differ a bit), that would be Ulyishma'el, shematikha--hine berakhti oso vehifreisi oso vehirbeisi oso, bim'od me'od: sheneim-asar nesi'im yolid, unsativ legoi gadol. The assertion is clearly ridiculous.

"God promised to Prophet Musa (a.s.): "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken." (18:15)

"I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto three, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name. I will require it of him." (18:18-19)

Christians try to fit this prophecy on Prophet Eesa (a.s.). But it fits to nobody except Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (s.a.w.a.), because: -

Let's look at the whole section. I would definitely take that to be a reference to prophets in general, not any particular prophet.

1. The prophet was to come from among the brethren of Israel; any prophet coming from Bani Israel is therefore excluded from this good tiding. Now, as we know, Prophet Eesa (a.s.) was from Bani Israel, while Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) was from Bani Ismael who were the brethren of Bani Israel.

That's ridiculous. "Your brothers" ("brethren", however you want to translate it) means "others of the sons of Israel", "other Hebrews", "those of your faith", all throughout the Bible. I can provide dozens of examples if anyone doubts this: just search for the term. It never denotes non-Israelites.

2. The prophet was to be 'like unto Moses.' Prophet Musa (a.s.) had to make war, and Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) also had to defend himself through war. But Prophet Eesa (a.s.) did never enter a war.

3. Prophet Musa (a.s.) had a brother Haroon (Aaron), who was to succeed him. No such brother was to Prophet Eesa (a.s.) while Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) had Ali Bin Abi Talib (a.s.) Whom he said "Thou art to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that there is no prophet after me."

4. Prophet Musa (a.s.) left the religious Leadership to the children of Aaron. Prophet Eesa (a.s.) did not make such arrangement. Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) made similar arrangement in his Ummat by leaving Islam in the hands of Ali and his children, Hasan and Hussain.

5. " ... and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak upto them all that I shall command him." This criterion fits Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) only, because Prophet Eesa (a.s.) did not claim if for himself, while Allah said in the Qur'an for Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) "Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed." (53:3-4)

6. Prophet Eesa (a.s.) did never claim that he was the promised Prophet of this sentence, while Allah mentioned this similarity between Prophet Musa (a.s.) and Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) in the Qur'an in the verse, "Verily, we sent unto you an Apostle, a witness on you, as we sent an Apostle unto Pharao."

7. Prophet Eesa (a.s.) did not claim that he was the like of Moses, while Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) said to Ali Bin Talib (a.s.) "Thou art to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that there is no prophet after me."

Cherry-picking a few aspects of Moses is illogical. The obvious interpretation is that "like unto Moses" meant "a prophet, one who speaks to God", which is the aspect under discussion. Picking only the attributes that match up with Mohammed is intellectually dishonest. Equally one could say that it meant "one to whom God appeared in a burning bush", which I believe would eliminate everyone else including Mohammed.

Point 3 is also just wrong, as far as the OT account goes, because Aaron predeceased Moses; Joshua succeeded him. Points 5 through 7 assume that no one can meet a criterion if they don't specifically point out that they meet the criterion, which is untrue.

8. Prophet Eesa (a.s.) himself said that the prophet who was to come after him will fulfill this prophecy. See the following sentences of John: "How be it when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak."

I don't understand this point.

Paran is the name of a mountain in Mecca

This is not the Paran being referred to, as I illustrate later in the post.

"Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth ..."(42:10).

The old malady of translating the proper name has made this prophecy meaningless. In an Armenian translation, written in 1666 and published in 1733, it has been translated as: "They sing unto the Lord a new song; and his kingdom continues after him; and his name is Ahmad." (Now the name Ahmad has been translated as meaning 'his praise').

The Masoretic text is "שִׁירוּ לַיהוָה שִׁיר חָדָשׁ, תְּהִלָּתוֹ מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ". There is no possible translation that matches the Armenian one: that must be based off of a different source text than the Masoretic. Cherry-picking those sources that agree with you is typical behavior of a dogmatist, again intellectually dishonest.

Zenith, all I saw in your post was sarcasm and nothing more. You did not even go to the link and read the whole article. It clearly shows and gives evidence that the Bible was copied from old text which was written in Hebrew which was torn, and weathered. It also gives examples of how the text could have been mistranslated by the original translators. Read the entire article.

I have read the article. It makes no points about the original Hebrew that are not laughable; I know Biblical Hebrew, whereas I very much doubt that the author of the article does. If you want to assert that the Bible was corrupted, fine, but you need evidence about the original text if you want to go anywhere with that.

Whoops, sorry Drom, my mistake. The thing about accuracy of the Bible and Torah is here, on this site:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/10000.htm

Also, it shows proof and evidence about Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and the 10,000 saints in the Bible, etc.

Indeed, the phrase רבבות קדש could plausibly be translated "tens of thousands of saints", although "myriads of holy ones" is probably more accurate. רבבה can mean "ten thousand", but is generally used to denote "very many" without much specificity. אלף, "thousand", is normally used when specifying actual numbers in the Bible (e.g., when providing the counts of the tribes). Either way, I don't see how this is evidence that the Bible predicts the Qur'an rather than that the Qur'an copied from the Bible.

If the prophecies above from the Bible were not referring to our beloved Prophet peace be upon him and his army, then who else are they referring to?

I can't account for Jude specifically, being a Jew and not a Christian, but presumably it borrowed the phrase from Deuteronomy, so I'll address that. The phrase refers to the Israelites. As I said, רבבה is often translated "myriad", meaning "very many", in this case closer to hundreds of thousands rather than tens of thousands. Let's look again at the verse, using the KJV that the author prefers (compare NIV, which uses "myriads of holy ones" as I independently suggested earlier in this post): "And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them."

Now, the assertion is that "Paran" here refers to Mecca. This is clearly false. See Deuteronomy 1:1: "These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan—that is, in the Arabah—opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab." The region immediately east of the Jordan is nowhere near Mecca, and using it as a landmark to identify the location would be ridiculous.

More specifically, Genesis 21:21 refers to the Desert of Paran near the Desert of Beersheba. This was near where Abraham lived at the time, i.e., Canaan (see Genesis 16:3, 17:8, etc.). Canaan is, of course, roughly the same as modern-day Israel, something I hope you'll accept but which I can prove to you if needed. This is a huge distance from Mecca, and so we are led to conclude that the Paran of the Old Testament is different from Mecca. Note that this location fits with the Deuteronomy 1:1 reference, where Paran is used as a landmark to indicate a location on the border of Canaan.

Would you please bring me one Christian or Jewish event that took place in the Holy City of Paran (Mecca), or any city or event in the Bible that involved 10,000 Christian or Jewish saints? I searched and asked found nothing!

There is no reference to a "Holy City" of Paran, only a Mountain of Paran; Mecca is at an altitude of 909 feet above sea level, hardly mountainous, whereas the Desert of Paran does contain some mountains. And again, the word רבבות means "myriads", not necessarily "tens of thousands" and certain not ten thousand exactly. Finally, רבבות קדש does not refer to "saints", only "holy ones", as any dictionary of Hebrew could tell you; the Israelites themselves qualified as "holy".

I always question my religion.

Did you question these websites before posting them? Did you try to check how many of their assertions depended on a single translation and might be false if that translation were bad? Did you examine each of their quotes from the Old and New Testaments in context to determine whether they were perhaps being misconstrued?

[Zenith Darksea]

As I said earlier, this sort of thing really isn't worth wasting your time on. Until a properly researched, academic, critique is produced, then I suspect that we'll just receive more of the same. I'd like to return to one point that I think sums the whole situation up perfectly.

It also shows that 'that Prophet' commanded such a high respect that his name was not uttered and his adjective 'Prophet' is written with a capital 'P'. And his advent was so well understood that simply addressing him as 'that Prophet' was enough to know him.

The writer hasn't even given a thought to the Greek manuscript. He has read one English version and seen a capital 'P'; as a result, he assumes that this is what the original writer put. But all Greek letters in manuscripts were capitalised. As a result, the writer simply displays not only his ignorance, but also his laziness. That, I think, sums up the whole article.

[AngryTitusPullo]

"I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto three, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name. I will require it of him." (18:18-19)

Who speaks in His name ? Did the phrase, "In the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost" meaning speaking in His name ? What name is that ?

Compare this to "Bismillahirahmannirrahim" which is the verse written in the beginning of every surah and the sentence that all muslims says almost everytime before he/she do something, before eating or even before going to work, before stepping into the car for example.

A simple words which means "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful."

Note: Allah (arabic) or Elah (hebrew) means God.

[vizi]

Does it really matter?

I mean they were waiting for the Messiah and the Jews rejected Jesus. So we got Christianity, that is after the Jews got sick of them "pretending" to be Jews. Not that it matters either way.

"that Prophet" is very ambiguous. And most likely depending on what you think John was most likely "that Prophet" merely because he was the man that prepared the world for the coming of the Messiah. However he says that he isn't "that Prophet." Why do you think he says that? Personally because his job as a prophet is to prepare the way and not develop a cult of personality around him. Thus it makes sense in a way to deny being "that Prophet."

In the end it doesn't matter and won't change a thing. Why do people constantly want to tie the 3 religions together? Trying to make a Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion? The worlds new super power! :hmmm:

I say we just drop the issue and move on with our lives.

[Dromikaites]

"I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto three, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name. I will require it of him." (18:18-19)

Who speaks in His name ? Did the phrase, "In the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost" meaning speaking in His name ? What name is that ?

Compare this to "Bismillahirahmannirrahim" which is the verse written in the beginning of every surah and the sentence that all muslims says almost everytime before he/she do something, before eating or even before going to work, before stepping into the car for example.

A simple words which means "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful."

Note: Allah (arabic) or Elah (hebrew) means God.

"In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" is usually a ritual phrase said by the priests of various Chirstian denominations during important ceremonies. What connections do you see between that ritual phrase, the Christian priests and prophesizing?

Another aspect is most of the Christian churches do not deny the Muslims pray to a god which they imagine to be most gracious and most merciful. What they deny is that god of the Muslims is God. As for how gracious and merciful that god is, most Christians are convinced the Muslims would find it out on the Judgement Day, when the one and only true God would accomodate them in that other god's amusement park. Me, as an Atheist, would be surrounded by Muslims there but hey, the more we are, the merrier!

[Simetrical]

Who speaks in His name ? Did the phrase, "In the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost" meaning speaking in His name ? What name is that ?

"Speaking in someone's name" means "speaking for someone, on behalf of someone". Any true prophet speaks in the name of (on behalf of) God, pretty much by definition.

Note: Allah (arabic) or Elah (hebrew) means God.

The Hebrew words for God that stem from that root are el, elohim, and elo'ah, just FYI. Elah does not mean "God" in Hebrew. Definitely related, though.

[AngryTitusPullo]

"Speaking in someone's name" means "speaking for someone, on behalf of someone". Any true prophet speaks in the name of (on behalf of) God, pretty much by definition.

Agreed. That's what it means. All prophets spoke in His name. And which prophet's story that one knows about words puts in his mouth ? That verse from Deutronomy (?) which were revealed to Moses were definately intended for prophet after Moses.

The Hebrew words for God that stem from that root are el, elohim, and elo'ah, just FYI. Elah does not mean "God" in Hebrew. Definitely related, though.

Thanks for the correction. Just want to add however, Allah is not the name of God in Islam. There are 99 known names however, 2 of those are Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim.

"In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" is usually a ritual phrase said by the priests of various Chirstian denominations during important ceremonies. What connections do you see between that ritual phrase, the Christian priests and prophesizing?

Because none of the Christians act actually confirms with the prophecy.

[Dromikaites]

Because none of the Christians act actually confirms with the prophecy.

Honestly I don't understand what you want to say here. Do you want to say that:

1. That prophecy is about Muhammed because one of the the Christian priests' frequent acts is to invoke the Holy Trinity while Mohammed rejects the Holy Trinity?

If that's what you've ment then that prophecy is more likely referring to Sabellius (PBUH), the Roman heresyarch of the 3rd century AD who lived more than 400 years before Mohammed and who claimed God is one. According to Sabellius (PBUH) humans perceive Him as 3 only because of the imperfection of the human nature. Now that this confusion is dispelled I hope you finally see the light and from now on will follow the teachings of the true prophet Sabelius (PBUH).

2. That prophecy is about Muhammed because the acts of any Christian who ever lived until now didn't confirm it therefore if it wasn't any Christian then it must have been Muhammed?

If that's what you mean then I have to remind you Jesus was both human 100% and God 100%. In His human form Jesus was percieved as being a prophet by the majority of the people. Only some of His disciples at some point in time realised He was more than just a prophet. Now even Sabelius (PBUH) would agree with that point of view so the prophecy was indeed fulfilled by Jesus 600+ years before Muhammed tried his hand at fabricating a new religion.

EDIT:
For the Muslims who want to become Sabellians:

1. A good start would be to turn towards Rome for the daily prayers since that's where Sabellius (PBUH) lived and preached his heresy.

2. The key tennent of Sabellianism is "There is no God other than God and Sabellius (PBUH) was the first dude who got that right"

3. You can start eating pork and drinking alcohol 'cause as Jesus/God said, "it's not what enters through the mouth that defiles a man but what exits through his mouth".

[Simetrical]

Agreed. That's what it means. All prophets spoke in His name. And which prophet's story that one knows about words puts in his mouth ?

Another common phrase. Jeremiah 1:9: "And the LORD sent his hand, and touched the mouth; and the LORD said to me, see, I have put my words in your mouth." 5:14: "Thus, so says the LORD, God of Hosts, because the people have spoken these words: see, I put my words in your mouth like a fire, and this people is wood, and you will consume them." Compare also, e.g., Joshua 1:8: "The book of this teaching should not leave your mouth"; Isaiah 59:21, "my spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have placed in your mouth, should not leave your mouth". Etc. It's not specific to any particular prophet, it's a general turn of phrase used in the Old Testament.