KellamLeTorneau:


Your whole refutation of these prophecies is debateable, infact its bollocks! But let's try to understand the logic of your last claim since the rest is too long. So Jesus is the son of God, and he sent him to guide all believers? Answer yes or no. If no, explain where I have it wrong.

no any islamic scholar that does not have bible, ask me the bible they have the same bible why can't get the original ones but print it into market to expose the fraud in the bible than claiming without a proof. Although is there muslim that reason well? No I don't see if mohamMAD can tell you to drink camel urine. Lol ahaahahhah other day another islamic cleric a woman that masturbate will be impregnated on the palm after life . Can you see brain.

jcross19:
no any islamic scholar that does not have bible, ask me the bible they have the same bible why can't get the original ones but print it into market to expose the fraud in the bible than claiming without a proof. Although is there muslim that reason well? No I don't see if mohamMAD can tell you to drink camel urine. Lol ahaahahhah other day another islamic cleric a woman that masturbate will be impregnated on the palm after life . Can you see brain.

You've never tasted camel urine? You should, Its quite tasty.

KellamLeTorneau:


http://time.com/6662/the-mystery-of-the-bibles-phantom-camels/

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/20/world/meast/do-camel-bones-discredit-the-bible/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2551511/Do-camels-prove-Bible-INACCURATE-Archaeologists-reveal-mammals-domesticated-900BC-centuries-Biblical-characters-rode-them.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140210-domesticated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science/

About the camels, read any of the articles above.

Various articles have been written about the study carried out by university of tel aviv, which used camel bones to date the earliest time camels were in that part of the world. They conducted their research and concluded the earliest time as 900BC, long after the bible claims in some verses that certain people rode them as seen below.

Genesis 37:25 'Then they sat down to eat a meal. And as they raised their eyes and looked, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing aromatic gum and balm and myrrh, on their way to bring them down to Egypt.'
Genesis 24:10 'Then he loaded ten of Abraham’s camels with all kinds of expensive gifts from his master, and he traveled to distant Aram-naharaim.'
Genesis 24:61 'Then Rebekah arose with her maids, and they mounted the camels and followed the man. So the servant took Rebekah and departed.'
Source: KnowingJesus.com


This research was was conducted by non muslims. This further re asserts the claims by modern historians that the bible has been tampered with and that its some contents aren't as old or original as claimed.

The problem of study , and the research methodology adopted suggests that the researchers were biased from the start. You'll notice that I said your proofs should be from history or bible, [except you are a believer in darwinism where bones discovered are claimed to be millions of years old!] the former as a believable primary source is still accessible since the nation concerned still exists.
The use of bones is indeed misleading. They might discover a camel's bone (now the camel in question might have died perhaps at the period their 'research' led them to conclude] and they decided to commence their study with something so uncertain! They were non-muslims but obviously they had their reasons which the camels bones helped serve.

About the contradictions between teachings of Paul and jesus, I'll give you one example.

Jesus said, he did not come to abolish the laws of past prophets but to confirm every single letter of them till the end of time. In the book of Matthew if I'm not mistaken.

But apparently, due to Paul's inventions, christians dis regard the law of Moses. This can also be seen in the fact that jesus obviously a Jew, he supports circumcision and was circumcised. Also the fact that the don't eat pork but christians do, or the fact that your bible clearly forbids shell fish but christians gobble the heck out of these things.

Jesus Himself said Matthew 15:11,"not that which goes into a mouth defiles a man but that which comes out. Jesus came to fulfil the ceremonial law and give power to enable those that believe on Him to fulfil the moral law in its deeper dimension as revealed in the sermon on the mount. Besides, Paul's ministry was primarily to the gentiles not as a preacher of the ceremonial law but of the Gospel and the power given us to fulfil the moral law by the power of the Spirit, in fulfilment of prophecies given in the OT that the Gospel will include the gentiles. Besides, the vision God gave Peter in Acts 10 confirms this. :

The Torah was a book of laws, the bible has no laws but as the bible says, it confirms the laws of the Torah. I.e its law was to follow that of the Torah

pls Which bible are you referring to? The law came by Moses but even that made allowances for hardness of heart. Grace came by Jesus because the demands in the NT are higher and no allce is made for hard hearts.

.So if christians these days don't follow the bible or its laws , they don't follow the laws of God but that of man, it's evident in the way christians are becoming more tolerant of adultery faggotry and other heinous acts, because the laws of man are flexible, but that Of God is rigid.

Sweeping generalisations!

You may claim to be against them now, but seeing as the crusaders who brought the religion to you are starting to become the opposite of what they sold to you, it won't be long before you follow suit.

Your thoughts based on sweeping generalisations! Even when RC was at its worst there were still protestants who held to the truth! You appear to assume that all christians accept these corruptions. They were prophesied b4 hand and we take Christ's command to be watchful serious.

jcross19:
dead sea scroll did not speak of mohammad most of the scrolls talk about the prophecy of prophet isaiah. Stop lying. See mohamMAD want to be relevant then he cooked up the story up all he said was a lie , jesus said about a comforter that abide with you "FOREVER" can't you see language there mohamMAD was dead, now in hell and his bone is no where to be found. Na wa ooh when I see islamic scholars , they don't reason with their brains but anus like other one that said women wearing trouser were the cause of the earthquake.

Physically, yes, just like every other person will die. Just like jesus will return, live a life and die. But the legacy of Muhammad (SAW) still lives and forever will, he is afterall according to modern historians, the most influential man that ever lived. BTW, have you heard of the pastor that recently commited suicide? Or the one who died of heroin overdose, are these men of god as well? But I do agree with this so called scholar, promiscous acts can have devastating effects, like the prophet (saw) said, there won't be a time where promiscous acts like adultery, faggotry and fornication will be abundant that Allah will not send them a disease unbeknowst to their ancestors. HIV is a good example.

alansary0064:

Then tel me who is the comforter jesus referring to

just read John 14:26 ,if you don't want to repent and believe in Jesus, The ONLY Savior, just face your kaaba, bow to the black stone and leave Christians alone to serve their God.

About the camels, read any of the articles above.

Various articles have been written about the study carried out by university of tel aviv, which used camel bones to date the earliest time camels were in that part of the world. They conducted their research and concluded the earliest time as 900BC, long after the bible claims in some verses that certain people rode them as seen below.

This research was was conducted by non muslims. This further re asserts the claims by modern historians that the bible has been tampered with and that its some contents aren't as old or original as claimed.

The problem of study , and the research methodology adopted suggests that the researchers were biased from the start. You'll notice that I said your proofs should be from history or bible, [except you are a believer in darwinism where bones discovered are claimed to be millions of years old!] the former as a believable primary source is still accessible since the nation concerned still exists.
The use of bones is indeed misleading. They might discover a camel's bone (now the camel in question might have died perhaps at the period their 'research' led them to conclude] and they decided to commence their study with something so uncertain! They were non-muslims but obviously they had their reasons which the camels bones helped serve.

About the contradictions between teachings of Paul and jesus,
Jesus said, he did not come to abolish the laws of past prophets but to confirm every single letter of them till the end of time. In the book of Matthew if I'm not mistaken.

But apparently, due to Paul's inventions, christians dis regard the law of Moses. This can also be seen in the fact that jesus obviously a Jew, he supports circumcision and was circumcised. Also the fact that the don't eat pork but christians do, or the fact that your bible clearly forbids shell fish but christians gobble the heck out of these things.

Jesus Himself said Matthew 15:11,"not that which goes into a mouth defiles a man but that which comes out. Jesus came to fulfil the ceremonial law and give power to enable those that believe on Him to fulfil the moral law in its deeper dimension as revealed in the sermon on the mount. Besides, Paul's ministry was primarily to the gentiles not as a preacher of the ceremonial law but of the Gospel and the power given us to fulfil the moral law by the power of the Spirit, in fulfilment of prophecies given in the OT that the Gospel will include the gentiles. Besides, the vision God gave Peter in Acts 10 confirms this. :

The Torah was a book of laws, the bible has no laws but as the bible says, it confirms the laws of the Torah. I.e its law was to follow that of the Torah

pls Which bible are you referring to? The law came by Moses but even that made allowances for hardness of heart. Grace came by Jesus because the demands in the NT are higher and no allce is made for hard hearts.

.So if christians these days don't follow the bible or its laws , they don't follow the laws of God but that of man, it's evident in the way christians are becoming more tolerant of adultery faggotry and other heinous acts, because the laws of man are flexible, but that Of God is rigid.

Sweeping generalisations!

You may claim to be against them now, but seeing as the crusaders who brought the religion to you are starting to become the opposite of what they sold to you, it won't be long before you follow suit.

Your thoughts based on sweeping generalisations! Even when RC was at its worst there were still protestants who held to the truth! You appear to assume that all christians accept these corruptions. They were prophesied b4 hand and we take Christ's command to be watchful serious.

KellamLeTorneau:


I answered some of your questions with a post directed to the scholar bloke. But you ask, why doesn't Allah leave Muhammad a copy of the real bible? Lol! Its simple, the Quran explains what in the bible is true and what in the bible is wrong. Muhammad boldly claimed the bible spoke of him, this is something certain jews knew of, some of these jews moved to Arabia because of this prophesy. There is a jew that told the prophet that the jews know it was Ishmael that was almost sacrifiiced but they changed it out of jealousy. Proves and explains the contradictions in the story of isaac and ishmael in the bible. The Quran says Jesus mentioned Muhammad by name, something the current bible may not directly contain , but the dead sea scrolls recovered speak of Muhammad and prophecise his coming as well, why isn't this in the bible? Where did it go? Like I said, Muhammad was sent with the Quran which sheds light on the truth about the bible and torah, not the jewish propaganda that fills it.

so, muhammed raided caravans, encourage rapping, killed many people, lied, was deceived by Satan, had four teeth removed by a stone, was poisoned, married a child, was dictated to by an angel in a cave, died of poison, took his adopted son wife, married an old woman, etc, etc. Where are these prophesied?

KellamLeTorneau:

Its simple, the Quran explains what in the bible is true and what in the bible is wrong

For a book written upwards of 5 centuries after the commencement of the New Covenant (prophesied since the OT), which has no record of the New Covenant and the blood wherewith it was ratified, [something which the Father had in mind being One Whose attributes include covenant-keeping], I would wonder how we'd trust the testimony of one over that of both the prophets and the apostles.

Muhammad boldly claimed the bible spoke of him, this is something certain jews knew of,

The jews , as Isaiah 29:10-12 prophesied, were under the influence of a spirit of slumber after they'd rejected the Messiah after His first coming. (I hope you wont also say your prophet is their expected Messiah?!)

. There is a jew that told the prophet that the jews know it was Ishmael that was almost sacrifiiced but they changed it out of jealousy

This is preposterous! Jealousy?! The scriptures were ready centuries b4 Islam so who was being envied? Hebrews 11 says Abraham was going to offer up the son through whom the promise was to be fulfilled. Would you also then say that it was actually Sarah and Isaac that were sent away then? The Word stands sure, Isaac was the son of promise hence the son of the bondwoman was cast out! Besides the trial of Abraham came after Ishmael and his mum had been sent away not before!

Proves and explains the contradictions in the story of isaac and ishmael in the bible[/quote.] what contradictions are those? [quote] Quran says Jesus mentioned Muhammad by name, something the current bible may not directly contain , but the dead sea scrolls recovered speak of Muhammad and prophecise his coming as well, why isn't this in the bible?[/quote ] I dont believe this. What role did Muhammad play in relation to the New Covenant ratified by the blood of Jesus as He declared in Matthew 26:28 [quote] Where did it go? [/quote ] It was never there. [quote]Like I said, Muhammad was sent with the Quran which sheds light on the truth about the bible and torah, not the jewish propaganda that fills it.

God is not the author of confusion, promising a New Covenant (clearly differing from the pattern obtained under the OT) and making clear promises of the same and would all of a sudden change His mind and revert back to something after the pattern of the OT? What then happens to all the prophesies? The Quran says Jesus was not killed, Isaiah, Daniel [Daniel 9:26,"and after 62 weeks the Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. Isaiah 53] etc clearly stated He will be killed. JESUS also affirmed the same. What then?

.

Scholar8200:
The problem of study , and the research methodology adopted suggests that the researchers were biased from the start. You'll notice that I said your proofs should be from history or bible, [except you are a believer in darwinism where bones discovered are claimed to be millions of years old!] the former as a believable primary source is still accessible since the nation concerned still exists.

Really mate? Do you have any idea how these studies work?

The use of bones is indeed misleading. They might discover a camel's bone (now the camel in question might have died perhaps at the period

their 'research' led them to conclude] and they decided to commence their study with something so uncertain! They were non-muslims but obviously they had their reasons which the camels bones helped serve.

So why then is Paul against circumcision? Afraid of a blade?

Jesus Himself said Matthew 15:11,"not that which goes into a mouth defiles a man but that which comes out. Jesus came to fulfil the ceremonial law and give power to enable those that believe on Him to fulfil the moral law in its deeper dimension as revealed in the sermon on the mount. Besides, Paul's ministry was primarily to the gentiles not as a preacher of the ceremonial law but of the Gospel and the power given us to fulfil the moral law by the power of the Spirit, in fulfilment of prophecies given in the OT that the Gospel will include the gentiles.

Really mate? Hardness of heart? So God have his prophet, one who can not truly carry out his laws his...laws. Or is it that his hardness of heart made him go against his wishes? When God told him to stone adulterers, that was not what God meant? Or when he told him not to eat pork, he meant he should eat it? Then Moses must be a sinner for going against the laws of God. Lol! That statement was clear and straight forward mate, when Moses says treat them this way and jesus says treat them this way that is not abolishment? For instance, what is the law for adulterers? Just read what you wrote mate, do you have any idea how funny it sounds?

Besides, the vision God gave Peter in Acts 10 confirms this. : pls Which bible are you referring to? The law came by Moses but even that made allowances for hardness of heart. Grace came by Jesus because the demands in the NT are higher and no allce is made for hard hearts. Sweeping generalisations! Your thoughts based on sweeping generalisations! Even when RC was at its worst there were still protestants who held to the truth! You appear to assume that all christians accept these corruptions. They were prophesied b4 hand and we take Christ's command to be watchful serious.

And BtW you still haven't answered my question.

Scholar8200:
For a book written upwards of 5 centuries after the commencement of the New Covenant (prophesied since the OT), which has no record of the New Covenant and the blood wherewith it was ratified, [something which the Father had in mind being One Whose attributes include covenant-keeping], I would wonder how we'd trust the testimony of one over that of both the prophets and the apostles. The jews , as Isaiah 29:10-12 prophesied, were under the influence of a spirit of slumber after they'd rejected the Messiah after His first coming. (I hope you wont also say your prophet is their expected Messiah?!) This is preposterous! Jealousy?! The scriptures were ready centuries b4 Islam so who was being envied? Hebrews 11 says Abraham was going to offer up the son through whom the promise was to be fulfilled. Would you also then say that it was actually Sarah and Isaac that were sent away then? The Word stands sure, Isaac was the son of promise hence the son of the bondwoman was cast out! Besides the trial of Abraham came after Ishmael and his mum had been sent away not before!

Jealous of the Arabs. Their rivalry started out a long time ago. And I'm quite sure the bible spoke of how the kingdom of God will be taken away from the JEWS. And spoke of how it will be given to someone, not one of them, not from amongst them but from their brethren. Of course the promise has been fulfilled, Muhammad is the promise. It was indeed Hajar that was sent away, but that is not of importance, Sarah was the first wife and therefore deserved the utmost respect, the fact that hajar was sent away doesn't mean Abraham doesn't love them or that he abandoned the, as according to you, that is not where the story ends.

Now the story of Isaac and Ishmael in the bible has contradictions, You called Ishmael the son of a bond woman and that he was cast out. Is that anyway to speak of a wife of a prophet?

let us look at Genesis 16:3, “So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 16:3)” Clearly this tells us Abraham (PBUH) Married Hagar.

You blatantly reject this but yet you can't defend it, like I said, JEWS, jealous.

The Bible Genesis 22:2

"Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains".

The Bible Genesis 22:12

"Since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

Ishmael the eldest son or Isaac the second son? Christians have placed the name of Isaac in the blank space above. Muslims believe Ishmael was around thirteen years old when Abraham was asked to sacrifice him. In both the above quotations the Lord uses the word your only son. Obviously, the logical answer is that the incident must have taken place before the birth of Isaac, the second son of Abraham. So, what could be the reason that the name of Isaac appears in the blank space, as the only son of Abraham?

So, is it out of tribal rivalry that the descendants of Isaac (Jews) are concealing these facts and depriving the preeminence due to the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs)? In Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading Ishmael it is written:

"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound (sacrificed), but they concealed this out of jealousy.

Ovacoma:

just read John 14:26 ,if you don't want to repent and believe in Jesus, The ONLY Savior, just face your kaaba, bow to the black stone and leave Christians alone to serve their God.

Bow to the black stone? Lol! Come on mate! Please leave the christians to serve their god ? Christ HORUS Krishna or Osiris? Or maybe it's Mithras or Adonis?

KellamLeTorneau:


I answered some of your questions with a post directed to the scholar bloke. But you ask, why doesn't Allah leave Muhammad a copy of the real bible? Lol! Its simple, the Quran explains what in the bible is true and what in the bible is wrong. Muhammad boldly claimed the bible spoke of him, this is something certain jews knew of, some of these jews moved to Arabia because of this prophesy. There is a jew that told the prophet that the jews know it was Ishmael that was almost sacrifiiced but they changed it out of jealousy. Proves and explains the contradictions in the story of isaac and ishmael in the bible. The Quran says Jesus mentioned Muhammad by name, something the current bible may not directly contain , but the dead sea scrolls recovered speak of Muhammad and prophecise his coming as well, why isn't this in the bible? Where did it go? Like I said, Muhammad was sent with the Quran which sheds light on the truth about the bible and torah, not the jewish propaganda that fills it.

Listen to yourself.I'm to take Muhammed's words as proof?I said i want proof outside of Muhammed's words.
If you write or say certain things and I'm to speak after you,isn't it so easy to speak my own words which may not agree with yours?A jew said.....a jew didn't say are not proofs.
If the bible spoke of Muhammed,where is it written?Where are the original scrolls that Allah couldn't preserve?

KellamLeTorneau:


Jealous of the Arabs. Their rivalry started out a long time ago. And I'm quite sure the bible spoke of how the kingdom of God will be taken away from the JEWS. And spoke of how it will be given to someone, not one of them, not from amongst them but from their brethren. Of course the promise has been fulfilled, Muhammad is the promise. It was indeed Hajar that was sent away, but that is not of importance, Sarah was the first wife and therefore deserved the utmost respect, the fact that hajar was sent away doesn't mean Abraham doesn't love them or that he abandoned the, as according to you, that is not where the story ends.

Now the story of Isaac and Ishmael in the bible has contradictions, You called Ishmael the son of a bond woman and that he was cast out. Is that anyway to speak of a wife of a prophet?

let us look at Genesis 16:3, “So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 16:3)” Clearly this tells us Abraham (PBUH) Married Hagar.

You blatantly reject this but yet you can't defend it, like I said, JEWS, jealous.

The Bible Genesis 22:2

"Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains".

The Bible Genesis 22:12

"Since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

Ishmael the eldest son or Isaac the second son? Christians have placed the name of Isaac in the blank space above. Muslims believe Ishmael was around thirteen years old when Abraham was asked to sacrifice him. In both the above quotations the Lord uses the word your only son. Obviously, the logical answer is that the incident must have taken place before the birth of Isaac, the second son of Abraham. So, what could be the reason that the name of Isaac appears in the blank space, as the only son of Abraham?

So, is it out of tribal rivalry that the descendants of Isaac (Jews) are concealing these facts and depriving the preeminence due to the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs)? In Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading Ishmael it is written:

"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound (sacrificed), but they concealed this out of jealousy.

Is the bible still 'corrupt' or no longer 'corrupt'?

true2god:
Is the bible still 'corrupt' or no longer 'corrupt'?

Think of it as a partly recoverable corrupt file. Parts that agree with the Quran are legit. Rubbish like the original sin and isaac etc, that's what corruption entails.

thorpido:
Listen to yourself.I'm to take Muhammed's words as proof?I said i want proof outside of Muhammed's words.
If you write or say certain things and I'm to speak after you,isn't it so easy to speak my own words which may not agree with yours?A jew said.....a jew didn't say are not proofs.
If the bible spoke of Muhammed,where is it written?Where are the original scrolls that Allah couldn't preserve?

I did not say Muhammads word is enough proof for you. But the fact that he said it, and documents like the dead sea scroll confirm it. Now various jews moved to Arabia waiting for Muhammad as prophecised by Jesus. The inconsistencies and contradictions I mentioned earlier should be enough to arouse suspicion in a sane persons mind. That what is in the bible is imperfect and in accurate and therefore cannot be the word of God.

KellamLeTorneau:


Think of it as a partly recoverable corrupt file. Parts that agree with the Quran are legit. Rubbish like the original sin and isaac etc, that's what corruption entails.

'For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, and anyone that believes in him will not perish but has everlasting life'....statement by Jesus (John 3:16)

Is the above also part of the 'corrupted' part of the bible?

true2god:
'For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, and anyone that believes in him will not perish but has everlasting life'....statement by Jesus (John 3:16)

Is the above also part of the 'corrupted' part of the bible?

If that is the only thing you use to prove that jesus is the son of God even in your corrupted bible then indeed you lack proof. So that can be corrupted or not, depending on how you choose to see it,

Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are "gods" (Elohim; plural to El); you are all sons of the Most High.' "

Psalm 2:7 "....Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

KellamLeTorneau:


I did not say Muhammads word is enough proof for you. But the fact that he said it, and documents like the dead sea scroll confirm it. Now various jews moved to Arabia waiting for Muhammad as prophecised by Jesus. The inconsistencies and contradictions I mentioned earlier should be enough to arouse suspicion in a sane persons mind. That what is in the bible is imperfect and in accurate and therefore cannot be the word of God.

Muhammad said it,john said it,Mark it........anyone can say anything.This should arouse any sane person's mind that anyone can say anything.
What we need now are the dead sea scrolls that Allah couldn't preserve to make us lose all doubts.We need proof also of the jews who moved to Arabia because of the so-called prophesy of Jesus.

KellamLeTorneau:



If that is the only thing you use to prove that jesus is the son of God even in your corrupted bible then indeed you lack proof. So that can be corrupted or not, depending on how you choose to see it,

Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are "gods" (Elohim; plural to El); you are all sons of the Most High.' "

Psalm 2:7 "....Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

@bolded.No wonder you muslims are always confused and critical.David was a prophet and he wrote those words under the influence of the anointing.He spoke about Jesus and not himself when he wrote that.It was a prophecy.Now you read it and think he spoke of himself.
You see the understanding that we speak about that you muslims lack when reading the bible but you just won't agree.The bible is more that just the letters.

thorpido:
Muhammad said it,john said it,Mark it........anyone can say anything.This should arouse any sane person's mind that anyone can say anything.
What we need now are the dead sea scrolls that Allah couldn't preserve to make us lose all doubts.We need proof also of the jews who moved to Arabia because of the so-called prophesy of Jesus.

The dead sea scroll is still existing, and the name Ahmad was found in It, just as the Quran tells,

And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"

The Quran said exactly the name that was found in the dead sea scrolls years later. And Jesus did claim he was here to confirm the laws of past prophets in the book of matthew, and jesus did say he was sent only to the lost sheep of israel in your bible did he not?

As for the jews, there are various hadiths that confirm the jews in arabia had knowledge of Muhammads arrival. Here's the two I could dig up.

"Bring forward the most learned among you before me."  When that man came forward, he and Muhammad spoke in private.  Finally Muhammad asked him, "Do you know that I am the Apostle of Allah?"  The rabbi answered, "By Allah! Yes, and the people know what I know.  Verily your attributes and qualities are clearly mentioned in the Torah, but they are jealous of you."  (History of Muhammad Ibn Sa'd, Volume I, Pages 188)
  
"...and he is the Prophet of these people; he is an Arab and the Jews are jealous of him wishing that he should have been an Israelite..."  (History of Muhammad Ibn Sa'd, Volume I, Pages 177)

thorpido:
@bolded.No wonder you muslims are always confused and critical.David was a prophet and he wrote those words under the influence of the anointing.He spoke about Jesus and not himself when he wrote that.It was a prophecy.Now you read it and think he spoke of himself.
You see the understanding that we speak about that you muslims lack when reading the bible but you just won't agree.The bible is more that just the letters.

Smh, you accuse muslims of lying but here you have just revealed yourself to be the biggest liar of all. Every single christian interpretation of that accepts God was indeed referring to David but then you come up with your gibberish and claim someone else lacks understanding? Smh! Shame on you! Liar. You know nothing about your own religion and yet you claim to know about others? Or are you just lying like Paul did to deceive people into following him?


Why can't you just accept the fact? What sort of God is sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus was a prophet, just like many others before him, heck your bible should tell you that.

When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?"

The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."

Matthew 21-10/11

KellamLeTorneau:
But that's the point. Its a topic that relies on how one sees it like.

So you mean Muhammad in the Bible it depends on how one sees it not as the way OP presented it as fact?

Besides, its too long and I'll say this, he'll say that, to what end? But the end point or end theory which he claimed Jesus is the son of god,

He say Jesus is the Son of God not son of god.

So that's the only part you want to address and neglecting the main point of the thread he had addressed. Whereas when you finally derailed the thread you'll do nothing than copy and paste not that you'll be using Bible as your brother used it to prove the case of Muhammad.

that is something that can be proved or refuted.

So the point of this thread can't be proved and refuted...

You are a devout christian, you have nothing to fear,

I don't need you to tell me this, my God does not give me the spirit of fear but of a sound mind.

I'm sure he'll pass with flying colours. You are also free and welcomed to answer the question.

I know he will but my point still remains the same don't derail the thread with that if you want to talk about you can open a new thread and invite him.

KellamLeTorneau:
Think of it as a partly recoverable corrupt file. [size=14pt]Parts that agree with the Quran are legit.[/size] Rubbish like the original sin and isaac etc, that's what corruption entails.

The bold part is laughable so any part that against Muhammad and his book is corrupted.

Imaging in one of the verse the OP used to prove Muhammad in the Bible we see Jesus addressing God as FATHER whereas Quran and Muhammad never regard God as Father.

Yet you couldn't see this as an implication to Muslims claim but believe it agreed with Quran.

Funny and confuse people...

Emusan:


So you mean Muhammad in the Bible it depends on how one sees it not as the way OP presented it as fact?



He say Jesus is the Son of God not son of god.

So that's the only part you want to address and neglecting the main point of the thread he had addressed. Whereas when you finally derailed the thread you'll do nothing than copy and paste not that you'll be using Bible as your brother used it to prove the case of Muhammad.



So the point of this thread can't be proved and refuted...



I don't need you to tell me this, my God does not give me the spirit of fear but of a sound mind.



I know he will but my point still remains the same don't derail the thread with that if you want to talk about you can open a new thread and invite him.

Lol! I ask simple quesyions, and I answer in simple ways, no need for "copy and paste". There's no such thing as derailing a religous thread. If you answer is wrong then it means you made a mistake solving the equation. My point is to assert that his answer is wrong before we go through the equation. But please do indulge me. Answer the question. Yes or no. If no, point out where I have it wrong. Like I said earlier, you have nothing to fear.

KellamLeTorneau:


Jealous of the Arabs. Their rivalry started out a long time ago. And I'm quite sure the bible spoke of how the kingdom of God will be taken away from the JEWS. And spoke of how it will be given to someone, not one of them, not from amongst them but from their brethren. Of course the promise has been fulfilled, Muhammad is the promise. It was indeed Hajar that was sent away, but that is not of importance, Sarah was the first wife and therefore deserved the utmost respect, the fact that hajar was sent away doesn't mean Abraham doesn't love them or that he abandoned the, as according to you, that is not where the story ends.

Now the story of Isaac and Ishmael in the bible has contradictions, You called Ishmael the son of a bond woman and that he was cast out. Is that anyway to speak of a wife of a prophet?

let us look at Genesis 16:3, “So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 16:3)” Clearly this tells us Abraham (PBUH) Married Hagar.

You blatantly reject this but yet you can't defend it, like I said, JEWS, jealous.

The Bible Genesis 22:2

"Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains".

The Bible Genesis 22:12

"Since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

Ishmael the eldest son or Isaac the second son? Christians have placed the name of Isaac in the blank space above. Muslims believe Ishmael was around thirteen years old when Abraham was asked to sacrifice him. In both the above quotations the Lord uses the word your only son. Obviously, the logical answer is that the incident must have taken place before the birth of Isaac, the second son of Abraham. So, what could be the reason that the name of Isaac appears in the blank space, as the only son of Abraham?

So, is it out of tribal rivalry that the descendants of Isaac (Jews) are concealing these facts and depriving the preeminence due to the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs)? In Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading Ishmael it is written:

"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound (sacrificed), but they concealed this out of jealousy.

But you guys say the quran is complete and both man and jinns cannot produce the like of it. If so, why is it that you need all the information about Hajar and Ishmael from the bible? Why didn't the quran talk about them? Is it still complete? In fact, the quran is incomplete without the words of man, Muhammad, which you call hadith.

True, the kingdom of God was taken away from the Pharisees and Saducees who were incharge of priesthood of Judaism and was handed over to the Christian Nation, not the Arab nation.

"But you (i.e the Christians) are a chosen
generation, a royal
PRIESTHOOD, a holy
NATION, His own special
people, that you may
proclaim the praises of
Him who called you out
of darkness into His
marvelous light; who
once were not a people
but are now the people
of God, who had not
obtained mercy but now
have obtained mercy" ( II
Peter 2:9-10 ).

There is no trace of Muhammad in the bible because he was not from the God of the bible. Quran 109:1-6 makes us to know the God Muhammad and muslims serve is not Yahweh, the true God known in the bible.

Besides, the following verses from the bible prove Muhammad was not and could not have been prophesised in the bible:

Philip findeth Nathanael and
saith unto him, We have found
him, of whom MOSES in the law
and the prophets did write, Jesus
of Nazareth, the son of Joseph
(John 1:45).

That is talking about Moses prophecy in the Book of Deuteronomy.

And he (Jesus) said unto them,
These are the words which I
spake unto you while I was yet
with you, that all things must be
fulfilled, which were written in
the law of MOSES and in the
PROPHETS and in PSALMS,
concerning ME (Luke 24:44).
The above passages are a
pointer to the fact that all bible
prophecies by MOSES and other
PROPHETS are referring to Jesus.

Muhammad has no record in the
bible.
Islam is not in God's plan as
Jesus Gospel is God's final
message to the world:

And this GOSPEL of the kingdom
shall be preached in ALL the
WORLD for a witness unto ALL
NATIONS and then SHALL THE
END COME (Mat. 24:14).

God's plan is that it is the
GOSPEL that will be preached till
the end of the world, then who
sent Muhammad to bring islam?

Emusan:


The bold part is laughable so any part that against Muhammad and his book is corrupted.

Imaging in one of the verse the OP used to prove Muhammad in the Bible we see Jesus addressing God as FATHER whereas Quran and Muhammad never regard God as Father.

Yet you couldn't see this as an implication to Muslims claim but believe it agreed with Quran.

Funny and confuse people...

Lol! I really did expect your frustration to start showing. Its simple as that, what agrees with the quran is true, what doesn't must be a fabrication. Jesus refers to god as the father and like biblical scholars admit, it doesn't mean that in a literal sense, if so then how many sons does the father have?, did your bible not say you are all sons of god? You can't compare literary terms and methods used in the Quran and the bible. And by the way, I think you mean "confused".

truthman2012:


But you guys say the quran is complete and both man and jinns cannot produce the like of it. If so, why is it that you need all the information about Hajar and Ishmael from the bible? Why didn't the quran talk about them? Is it still complete? In fact, the quran is incomplete without the words of man, Muhammad, which you call hadith.

True, the kingdom of God was taken away from the Pharisees and Saducees who were incharge of priesthood of Judaism and was handed over to the Christian Nation, not the Arab nation.

"But you (i.e the Christians) are a chosen
generation, a royal
PRIESTHOOD, a holy
NATION, His own special
people, that you may
proclaim the praises of
Him who called you out
of darkness into His
marvelous light; who
once were not a people
but are now the people
of God, who had not
obtained mercy but now
have obtained mercy" ( II
Peter 2:9-10 ).

There is no trace of Muhammad in the bible because he was not from the God of the bible. Quran 109:1-6 makes us to know the God Muhammad and muslims serve is not Yahweh, the true God known in the bible.

Besides, the following verses from the bible prove Muhammad was not and could not have been prophesised in the bible:

Philip findeth Nathanael and
saith unto him, We have found
him, of whom MOSES in the law
and the prophets did write, Jesus
of Nazareth, the son of Joseph
(John 1:45).

That is talking about Moses prophecy in the Book of Deuteronomy.

And he (Jesus) said unto them,
These are the words which I
spake unto you while I was yet
with you, that all things must be
fulfilled, which were written in
the law of MOSES and in the
PROPHETS and in PSALMS,
concerning ME (Luke 24:44).
The above passages are a
pointer to the fact that all bible
prophecies by MOSES and other
PROPHETS are referring to Jesus.

Muhammad has no record in the
bible.
Islam is not in God's plan as
Jesus Gospel is God's final
message to the world:

And this GOSPEL of the kingdom
shall be preached in ALL the
WORLD for a witness unto ALL
NATIONS and then SHALL THE
END COME (Mat. 24:14).

God's plan is that it is the
GOSPEL that will be preached till
the end of the world, then who
sent Muhammad to bring islam?

Thanks thruthman2012.

KellamLeTorneau:
Jesus was a prophet, just like many others before him, heck your bible should tell you that.

When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?"

The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."

Matthew 21-10/11

This is the reason I always admit that Muslims are the most confused people on earth.

Now you said that Jesus is a prophet and quoted Bible to support it without even look at the textual claim surrounded the verses you quoted.

Firstly, the crowd said "...THE PROPHET..." if you're a good English student you'll notice the DEFINITE ARTICLE "THE" in front of that Prophet which means this prophet has a reference.

Secondly, So with this and more evidence in the Bible we know that THE PROPHET is a prophecy of Deut 18:18 whereas your professor Nakir has already deceived you people that Deut 18:18 is a prophecy of Muhammad as stated in the OP.

Finally, No winning way for you this crowd are correct and Muslims like Nakir and you are wrong.

KellamLeTorneau:


Jealous of the Arabs. Their rivalry started out a long time ago.

Can you prove this from the BCE era history? Any rivalry will simply be a fulfilment of the prophecy to Hagar that her son's hand will be against everyone vice versa. In fact, the it must have been the Arabs being jealous of the Israelites see Genesis 21:9
9 Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking [Isaac]. This must have followed Ishmael to the grave and , like the hatred of the Edomites (Esau's descendants) , passed down to his generations.

And I'm quite sure the bible spoke of how the kingdom of God will be taken away from the JEWS. And spoke of how it will be given to someone, not one of them, not from amongst them but from their brethren

Now you allude to the same Bible you are denigrating when what is said appears to favour your points! By the way you have panel beated and diluted that reference with your own beliefs. Can you give us the actual quote? And the kingdom of God as referred to by Christ (Who made the statement you are referring to) is of a spiritual essence hence Jesus Himself said
Luke 17:21
21 neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

This is in perfect keeping with the promise of the New Covenant where The Father said the following
Ezekiel 36:27
27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

This Covenant ,like the Old, had to be ratified by blood hence Christ said,
Matthew 26:28
28 for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now if you claim that this is what was given to the Arabs, how come all these are conspicuously absent?

Even while Moses was receiving the law God's was looking forward to that time(in His plan) when this will be:
Deuteronomy 5:29
29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

It's a matter of the heart not the external observances of the ceremonial law that's God's desire and that's where the NT focuses. Why? because the heart controls the man.

Now the story of Isaac and Ishmael in the bible has contradictions, You called Ishmael the son of a bond woman and that he was cast out. Is that anyway to speak of a wife of a prophet?

Do you know more than God by Whose inspiration Moses who wrote
Genesis 21:12
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

let us look at Genesis 16:3, “So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 16:3)” Clearly this tells us Abraham (PBUH) Married Hagar.

You blatantly reject this but yet you can't defend it, like I said, JEWS, jealous.

Now if the Bible were to be tampered with by 'jealous jews' why would it be included that Abraham married hagar of that God also gave promises to Ishmael?!

The Bible Genesis 22:2

"Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains".

The Bible Genesis 22:12

"Since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

Consider Genesis 22:1
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

The command to Abraham came, "after these things" what are they? The events recorded in chapter 21 one of which was the sending away of Hagar and Ishmael. It wont be a trial if Ishmael was still there to fall back on. Moreover, the promise God made in Genesis 22:16-18. was directly and evidently (proximately) fulfilled on Isaac. See Genesis 26:2-5

2 And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: 3 sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; 4 and I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

The implication of this is that you are ascribing partiality to God based on your claim that Ishmael was the reference, but Isaac got the blessings. Before you claim that Ishmael also was blessed, it came before this time and that was simply because Abraham prayed for him
Genesis 17:19-21

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. 20 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 he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year

Muslims believe Ishmael was around thirteen years old when Abraham was asked to sacrifice him. In both the above quotations the Lord uses the word your only son. Obviously, the logical answer is that the incident must have taken place before the birth of Isaac, the second son of Abraham. So, what could be the reason that the name of Isaac appears in the blank space, as the only son of Abraham?

Refer to the replies above.

So, is it out of tribal rivalry that the descendants of Isaac (Jews) are concealing these facts and depriving the preeminence due to the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs)? In Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading Ishmael it is written:

"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound (sacrificed), but they concealed this out of jealousy.

You are quoting a Jew who was a renowned traditionalist! Why even the Lord denounced them for this reason
Mark 7: 6 -9,13

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.


13 making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


A good number of the Jews (blinded by their pharisees, elders and the sadduccees) rejected Jesus at His first coming. After His ascension, these persisted in their unbelief and the result? (as prophesied)

Isaiah 29:10-12
For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep,
and hath closed your eyes:
the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12 and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

The aftermath was also described by Jesus Christ when He said
John 5:43,44-46
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

These traditionalists were the references here (though called pharisees, they had replaced the law of Moses with their traditions).

In conclusion, the saying of a traditionalist is not admissible for this purpose

truthman2012:


But you guys say the quran is complete and both man and jinns cannot produce the like of it. If so, why is it that you need all the information about Hajar and Ishmael from the bible? Why didn't the quran talk about them? Is it still complete? In fact, the quran is incomplete without the words of man, Muhammad, which you call hadith.

True, the kingdom of God was taken away from the Pharisees and Saducees who were incharge of priesthood of Judaism and was handed over to the Christian Nation, not the Arab nation.

"But you (i.e the Christians) are a chosen
generation, a royal
PRIESTHOOD, a holy
NATION, His own special
people, that you may
proclaim the praises of
Him who called you out
of darkness into His
marvelous light; who
once were not a people
but are now the people
of God, who had not
obtained mercy but now
have obtained mercy" ( II
Peter 2:9-10 ).

There is no trace of Muhammad in the bible because he was not from the God of the bible. Quran 109:1-6 makes us to know the God Muhammad and muslims serve is not Yahweh, the true God known in the bible.

Besides, the following verses from the bible prove Muhammad was not and could not have been prophesised in the bible:

Philip findeth Nathanael and
saith unto him, We have found
him, of whom MOSES in the law
and the prophets did write, Jesus
of Nazareth, the son of Joseph
(John 1:45).

That is talking about Moses prophecy in the Book of Deuteronomy.

And he (Jesus) said unto them,
These are the words which I
spake unto you while I was yet
with you, that all things must be
fulfilled, which were written in
the law of MOSES and in the
PROPHETS and in PSALMS,
concerning ME (Luke 24:44).
The above passages are a
pointer to the fact that all bible
prophecies by MOSES and other
PROPHETS are referring to Jesus.

Muhammad has no record in the
bible.
Islam is not in God's plan as
Jesus Gospel is God's final
message to the world:

And this GOSPEL of the kingdom
shall be preached in ALL the
WORLD for a witness unto ALL
NATIONS and then SHALL THE
END COME (Mat. 24:14).

God's plan is that it is the
GOSPEL that will be preached till
the end of the world, then who
sent Muhammad to bring islam?

Hmm. If we quote from the Quran, will you believe it? Is it not better if we quote out of your own book?

Emusan:


This is the reason I always admit that Muslims are the most confused people on earth.

Now you said that Jesus is a prophet and quoted Bible to support it without even look at the textual claim surrounded the verses you quoted.

Firstly, the crowd said "...THE PROPHET..." if you're a good English student you'll notice the DEFINITE ARTICLE "THE" in front of that Prophet which means this prophet has a reference.

Secondly, So with this and more evidence in the Bible we know that THE PROPHET is a prophecy of Deut 18:18 whereas your professor Nakir has already deceived you people that Deut 18:18 is a prophecy of Muhammad as stated in the OP.

Finally, No winning way for you this crowd are correct and Muslims like Nakir and you are wrong.

Lol! So because THE was used therefore he is not infact a prophet that's your explanation?
Lmao this is the use of purpose of "the"

denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.

It can't be that the "the" signifies his fame and so the people in question knew him? Or that they mentioned him earlier?

Besides, my point the fact that they knew him as a prophet, I'm not questioning whether he is a prophet or not so you have no point here.

Lmao! And I'm the confused one?