Mohammed

[Islam]

Jesus used the word Muslim, proof that he and all prophets preached Islam!
http://www.answering-christianity.com/aramaic_society.htm

In Greek Jesus called the comforter "paraclytos" paraclytos in Arabic means MOHAMMED!

 

[jewscout]

If you think these arguments are weak so i think reasoning and discussing the issue would be a good deal to start with, not just escaping and starting going off-topic.

No one is asking you to answer some misconceptions founded in websites, it just arguments made by someone and you can prove for him that he was wrong if he really was. So easy, isn't it?

i already have discussed the arguements.
1) the Song of Solomon does not mention Muhammed and the word that is claimed to be referring to him in the scripture does sound anything like his name nor is it talking about a person.
2) i find a great deal of hypocracy when the same scripture that muslims claim is in error is used to show Muhammed's prophethood. It is a cafeteria style of reading used only at your convenience and totally ignores the interpretation of the people who follow said scriptures, in the case of the Torah, that of the Jews.

 

[Islam]

i find a great deal of hypocracy when the same scripture that muslims claim is in error is used to show Muhammed's prophethood

No, we believe that the parts which contradict with Islam are corrupted the rest we believe in.

Yours truly, Islam.

 

[gnostic]

Each one of us has a point somehow and no one can deny that or dismiss any argumtsn aside totally without any clear evidence.

Therefore, while it's great and healthy to discuss and enlighten each other, it's not reasonable for anyone to dismiss or reject what other people might came with if they could prove their point without any evidence to show why he/she rejected it.

I hope you are not accusing of not providing evidence with points that I have given (in post 98).

Muslims have been using the Bible as evidence, and one of their evidence is Isaiah 29:12.

and if the document is handed to one who cannot read and he is asked to read it, he will say, "I can't read."

What is the reasoning behind their evidence? That Muhammad can't read.

I had given clear evidence, using the same chapter in Isaiah's book, but I have included verses 9-14 (which I have quoted), and you dare tell me, I don't have any sufficient evidence for my point?

You're talking falsely, The_Truth.

I had included other evidence or verses to prove my point. I gave my reason why Muslim interpretation to 29:12 to be a weak one, by using verse 9-14 (and not just 12), which I have clearly quoted. That's real evidence, The_Truth, but you have dismissed it and rejected it, without giving me any explanation.

If Muslims used Isaiah 29:12 as their evidence, then why I am not allow to use the same chapter, but all 14 verses as my evidence?

If I sound like I'm ticked off, it is because you falsely accuse me of not providing evidence, without any consideration.

I didn't dismiss Muslim's evidence. I just didn't think the evidence are sufficient enough. That's why I had quoted Isaiah's other verses. If anyone has been dismissive, The_Truth, it is you. From your reply to me, it seem that you didn't take my evidence into an account. And I find that frustrating :banghead3 as well as being unfair.

I'd suggest you re-read post 98, and the evidences that I have provided to support my points, then state your reason why my argument is weak. Also, tell me why Muslims have ignored verses 1-11 and 13-14?

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

[quote ]This argument is weak, if you read all the verses in this chapter, and you realise that it has absolutely nothing to do with a prophet who can't read.[/quote] Ha Ha Ha!!! Your hilarious

Why do Muslims completely ignore 9-11 and then 13-14?

Why do you ignore the fact the bible seperates the verses 1-8 is one group 9-16 another, and 17-24 is the last.

If verse 12 really applies to Muhammad, then so should 9-11 and 13-14. Then, he is only the one who can't read (verse 12), but Muhammad would also be the fool, who is drunk and stagger, without touching liquor (in verses 9-11, "...Act stupidly, and be stupified. Act blind, be blinded..."), and he doesn't understand or know how to interpret the messages before him because God will baffle him (in verses 13-14). You can't use this single verse applies to Muhammad, but not the rest.

This would only make sense if Muhammed was more that one person you know like how the Christians describe Jesus ie. The Father, the son, etc. because the verse says THEY AND YOURSELVES.

The way I've interpreted these passages is that the Jews in Isaiah's time, will be punished for not heeding his teaching and for disobedience, by letting his enemies the people of Jerusalem, ie Mt Zion or Ariel. Verse 12, as well as 11, has to do with Jews disregarding warning, not to do with "a prophet who can't read".

the way you interpreted it is not even the way the scholars look at it ie. the septugents.

I suggested that Muslims here to read carefully 1-14, before making sensational claim, that are not only taking the original message out of context, but also very misleading via a single quote.

speak for yourself.

I know that you are responding only to Jewscout, The_Truth, but I hoped that you, Islam and Mujahid Mohammed can understand why I also find your insight and interpretation in using OT to be weak.

In my KJV it says at the beginning of this part of the Chapter since you neglected to include the whole verse I will do it for you.

The blindness of Israel

9 Stay yourselves and wonder; cry ye out and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink

10 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 hadth he covered.

11 and the vision of all is beome 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 saidth, 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 saidth, I am no learned.

13 Wherefore the Lord, said, Forasmuch as this people draw me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Now you say we should read 1 - 14 together. Why in my bible it stops at verse 8 and starts addressing the Jews specifically hence the title "The blindness of Israel" The first 8 verses is Ariel and her enemies. If you go on to verse 17 the chapter begins "The redemption of Israel" What is the author indicating. It should be obvious. Now since the bible says that this is the blindness of the Jews and if you read verse 9 and 10 it is clearly describing them and not Muhammed as you claim for the verse says "they are drunken" and not he is drunken and since he is not a jew this verse is clearly talking about him. If you continue on to verse 11 they whoever the "unknown author" [scholars differ on who is the author - meaning they do not know] illustrates to the jews that a book which "is the vision of all" will come to them the jews in a book that is sealed which will be sent to one who is learned telling them him to read it and he says he cannot it is sealed. So if the book is sealed it means that whoever had it could not open it for it was not for him. So as the verse continues this book is delivered to a man who is not learned and he says he cannot read. How can he read it if it is sealed it is obvious that this book is for this individual the one who is unlearned. Now I love verse 13 for it describes the heart of the jews and the reason this sealed book was sent to a unlettered man. You are delusional and your interpretation is ridiculous for you try to ascribe verse which are clearly talking about the jews as a group to Muhammed who is not a jew and an individual.

Now the Septugent or Christian scholars give you the interpretation in the KJV study guide version let us hear what they have to say. 29:13-24 Now they say Jesus (mark 7:6) quotes verse 13 as epitome of Pharisaism. The Prophet condemns his own people for houring God with their mouth and lips but not their heart. He further notes that their fear or reverence was merely an intellectual accommodation taught by the precept of men. True worship must begin with a proper reverence for God and His Word. Isaiah further announces that since the intellectual leaders of israel willnot follow the Lord, the deaf, blind, meek and poor shall rejoice in Him.

I love the quote of Jesus in verse 7 "Howbeit in vain Do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." He continues on "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men."

Look at what the Christians do they worship Jesus. They say he is God when Jesus is not God for if were God wouldn't he have said laying aside the commandment of me.

And like I told you in another post. We do not need the bible to affirm anything for us the prophethood of Muhammed. And the Quran says that it is in your scriptures not bible which no two are the same.

Last I checked there are over 250,000 different manuscripts. No telling what else as far as doctrines are being hidden in the archives of the Vatican. Not to mention many books they they threw out. The protestants themselves threw out books the original church instituted as canons. The original KJV had 80 books the one I have now is 66 The AV Bible, King James Version, AV 1611 Who gave them the authority to change it. You telling me the first group is wrong. So I actually have the unathorized version of the authorized version of the KJV. Did he authorize them to change it. Besides Since the bible is not a compilation of all the scriptures you have and it is a FACT not assumption but proven by scholars that there have been many alterations and changes made to what is considered words of God. Changes made by men not God. How do you know that it wasn't there and from the action of the scribes and corrupt relgious leaders that it was not there. You do not even have the originals of anything. So before you criticize us for trying to make sense out of a book of unreliable testimony of events and accounts. Look at what you got first. How you gonna make a valid stance on something that is invalid in terms of testimony. Look at the contradictions in terms of witness accounts. You guys do not even know what your true bible is or what it says it doesn't exist. So don't be so quick to assume that it is not in there when you have never even seen the original. the oldest manuscript of Luke is a copy of a copy with changes of a copy.

Know your book and stop worshipping Jesus vainly following the pretext of men as Jesus said in your book. Our book comes from God direct. And you guys expect us to believe in a book with countless middlemen who have been proven to have changed it with no authority given to them by God or Jesus but from their own desires and ambitions. And it is neither God nor Jesus giving it to you but some guys you don't even know the names of. Come on man be serious.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Jesus called the comforter at one point in the Bible as the praised one. The praised one in Arabic means Mohammed!

They also have forgotten the fact that Muhammed testified of him. Muhammed told his people about Jesus and how righteous a man he was and he was sent to the jews which is stated in the bible.

Also they need to ask a question why would an arab tell his people that a jewish woman the mother of Jesus is the greatest of all women. An arab tells his people that the mother of their enemy is the greatest of all time. Can someone from them please anwere that one for me. I know the answer but would love to hear their insight.

 

[gnostic]

In my KJV it says at the beginning of this part of the Chapter since you neglected to include the whole verse I will do it for you.

I did give a full quotation of verses 9-14. I just didn't use KJV for those full quote.

Did you ignore the quote, I had put up?

Last I checked there are over 250,000 different manuscripts. No telling what else as far as doctrines are being hidden in the archives of the Vatican. Not to mention many books they they threw out. The protestants themselves threw out books the original church instituted as canons. The original KJV had 80 books the one I have now is 66 The AV Bible, King James Version, AV 1611 Who gave them the authority to change it.

Whenever, I am looking at the OT, I used the 1985's JPS version, which is latest full translation of Masoretic text. I don't like the arcahic Middle-English style of KJV.

It is titled Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, Jewish Publication Scoeity, 1985.

I had just got this translation, last year or the year before (I don't remember precisely when I got it). There is old JPS version from 1917, but these weren't direct translation, but merely modern adaptation to the KJV. Anyway, this new JPS is my preferred English translation, when going through OT part of the Bible.

It has no translation of the NT, so there are only 39 books, divided into Torah (Laws), Nevi'im (The Prophets) and Kethuvim (The Writings). It doesn't include the Old Testament Apocrypha, nor that of the Pseudepigrapha. But I don't see how KJV originally included the Apocrypha to be important in what we are discussing. The Apocrpha was never incorporated into the ancient Hebrew canonical texts, and were only found in the Greek translation (Septingant) and then Latin one (Vulgate Bible).

I would love to included, all books, whether they are relevance or not. But it is not relevant here. Especially not to Isaiah 29, MM.

 

[Islam]

Snowbear, did you read the Qur'an?

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

I did give a full quotation of verses 9-14. I just didn't use KJV for those full quote.

Did you ignore the quote, I had put up?

No but i see you have neglected to answer any of my questions concerning the post. How is the verse referring to Muhammed when it is in the plural.

Whenever, I am looking at the OT, I used the 1985's JPS version, which is latest full translation of Masoretic text. I don't like the arcahic Middle-English style of KJV.

It is titled Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, Jewish Publication Scoeity, 1985.

I had just got this translation, last year or the year before (I don't remember precisely when I got it). There is old JPS version from 1917, but these were direct translation, but merely modern adaptation to the KJV. Anyway, this new JPS is my preferred English translation, when going through OT part of the Bible.

It has no translation of the NT, so there are only 39 books, divided into Torah (Laws), Nevi'im (The Prophets) and Kethuvim (The Writings). It doesn't include the Old Testament Apocrypha, nor that of the Pseudepigrapha. But I don't see how KJV originally included the Apocrypha to be important in what we are discussing. The Apocrpha was never incorporated into the ancient Hebrew canonical texts, and were only found in the Greek translation (Septingant) and then Latin one (Vulgate Bible).

I would love to included, all books, whether they are relevance or not. But it is not relevant here. Especially not to Isaiah 29, MM.

I do not care about the translation you use. Answer my questions in terms of the validity of the text. The fact that you Christians continue to change the text. Yet you claim this is absolute truth. Answer my question. The fact that the Authoirized KJV is not the original one that King james authorized is very relevant in terms of the validity of the text.

go back through my post and answer each comment if you do not mind.

 

[jewscout]

No, we believe that the parts which contradict with Islam are corrupted the rest we believe in.

Yours truly, Islam.

my point exactly. Cafeteria.

thank you.

 

[Islam]

my point exactly. Cafeteria

For starters, our book has no contradictions and or errors unlike yours. So ours has actuall credibility that it's Gods' word. Unlike yours, ours does not have any filthy erotic stories. So again it has credibility.

 

[Ishmaïl]

The messias did not come to die for sins. The messias will come to rule and bring everyone to God. Say no to human sacrifice!. God is the Almighty the Praised One. He forgives who He wants. He dont need anyone. Its blasphemy to say that God died for our sins. And a little baby is not full with sins. Everyone is born without sins. If you are older and you do a bad thing then it will be counted as a sin. And it is up to God if He will forgive.

 

[jewscout]

For starters, our book has no contradictions and or errors unlike yours. So ours has actuall credibility that it's Gods' word. Unlike yours, ours does not have any filthy erotic stories. So again it has credibility.

your book does have contradictions. You can meander an explanation all you want, on it's surface it does.

i would also appreciate you not using the Torah and pretend like it's referring to your "prophet" and then in the same breath insulting it.

 

[Islam]

your book does have contradictions

No it doesnt. As you said, on the surface maybe, without understanding it AND reading the complete verse, but when it comes to the truth it doesnt.
You still didnt answer my question. If the prophet in dertonemy was not an Arab, why would God say that hes from the BRETHREN, why didnt he just say from the Jewish people?

 

[jewscout]

No it doesnt. As you said, on the surface maybe, without understanding it AND reading the complete verse, but when it comes to the truth it doesnt.

the exact same thing can be said about the Torah. so, therefore, the Torah has no contradicitions

You still didnt answer my question. If the prophet in dertonemy was not an Arab, why would God say that hes from the BRETHREN, why didnt he just say from the Jewish people?

If you knew anything of Torah you would know that this IS speaking of Israel, not of Arabs.
besides the parameters for prophets after Moses are contained in Deut. 13:2-6, as the Quran contains laws that are different from that of the Torah, Muhammed is not a messenger for the jewish people for he finds himself in contradicition to the parameters and guidelines in those passages.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

the exact same thing can be said about the Torah. so, therefore, the Torah has no contradicitions

You do not have the original so what you have is not the Torah. If you alter even one word in terms of meaning and context it is no longer what you claim. Why would a jew support anything in the bible.

If you knew anything of Torah you would know that this IS speaking of Israel, not of Arabs.

The bible is not the Torah. The Torah is not the first 5 books of Moses. It may have been in the beginning before the scribes butchered it into what we have today. A second hand account. I mean this book is supposed to be authored by Moses yet it is in third person.

besides the parameters for prophets after Moses are contained in Deut. 13:2-6, as the Quran contains laws that are different from that of the Torah,

No they are not what are the parameters exactly and who is this prophet who tells his people to stop worshipping Idols. Oh that's right you guys are still waiting on him right? You do not support the scriptures referring to Jesus and correct me if I am wrong, but yet you accept certain things within the old testament of what you consider a misguided group. Do you Jews not have your own scriptures. Now if you say well you muslims do the same. As I told you before we do not need the Christian scriptures (which does not represent the bible) or Jewish scriptures. We have the testimony of the Jewish tribes in Medinah and those who accepted Islam.

Muhammed is not a messenger for the jewish people for he finds himself in contradicition to the parameters and guidelines in those passages.

How exactly?

 

[McBell]

You do not have the original so what you have is not the Torah. If you alter even one word in terms of meaning and context it is no longer what you claim.

Was it not mentioned in another thread that the "original" writings of the Quran, the leaves, shoulderbones, etc, were all destroyed after the Quran was completed?

If this is true, then even Muslims do not have the 'Originals' for there own holy book.

One must also wonder why the originals were destroyed.

Why would a jew support anything in the bible.

Interesting.
Why do you, being a Muslim, support the Bible?

How Exactly

PLease see post #98

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Was it not mentioned in another thread that the "original" writings of the Quran, the leaves, shoulderbones, etc, were all destroyed after the Quran was completed?

Yes but when they put it in book form IT NEVER CHANGED. IT IS AN ORIGINAL COPY.

If this is true, then even Muslims do not have the 'Originals' for there own holy book.

Yes we do. The quran we recite today is the Quran that Muhammed gave us.

One must also wonder why the originals were destroyed.

We have it in book form now. Why keep pieces of trees and rocks when it is compiled in book form. Again the quran never changed so even if you threw all the Quran in a fire today. We still have it for people have it memorized to the letter. Here is one in particular my teacher arees.org
Now the issue with Original in terms of Christianity and jewish texts. They altered them. So they have taken the original and made it unoriginal, they have taken the authentic and made it unauthetic because of the alterations. If I said go to the mall. And wrote this down in a book as my statement. You come along and say Go to disneyland. Is that what I said. Is this my "original" statement. Of course not. So that is the issue. The Text itself and changed so it is no longer original. If they had the copy with no alterations than that would be accepted as an original for it has not changed. But they do not have this anymore. the older scriptures have different words and phrases some added and taken out. This is the issue and scholars have proven this. The text of Marcion and Tertullian in terms of Luke are different and they are only 40 years apart. They altered the text so it is not the original anymore.

Interesting.
Why do you, being a Muslim, support the Bible?

who said i did? I support whatever is supported by the Quran for it is the criterion of truth for us. And since at one point the original message was there. There is still going to be some traces of it left. But it is still changed. Where the Quran has not changed in over 1400 years.

PLease see post #98

Why? what is the significance I already commented on this post.

 

[jewscout]

You do not have the original so what you have is not the Torah. If you alter even one word in terms of meaning and context it is no longer what you claim. Why would a jew support anything in the bible.

because it's the Torah! It is our history, our culture, our traditions, our story. It's mitzvot lead to a good and moral life.

why would a jew support anything in the Quran? it does nothing but vilify us just like christian testament.

The bible is not the Torah. The Torah is not the first 5 books of Moses. It may have been in the beginning before the scribes butchered it into what we have today. A second hand account. I mean this book is supposed to be authored by Moses yet it is in third person.

ok, your right, the bible isn't the Torah, THE TORAH IS THE TORAH.

your faith tells you i'm wrong
i tell you i am not, it's called believing and having faith

No they are not what are the parameters exactly

do not lecture me on jewish interpretation of jewish scripture

Oh that's right you guys are still waiting on him right?

on the Moshiach? yes.

You do not support the scriptures referring to Jesus

what, you mean the Christian Texts? we absolutely reject them

and correct me if I am wrong, but yet you accept certain things within the old testament of what you consider a misguided group.

i haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

We have the testimony of the Jewish tribes in Medinah and those who accepted Islam.

the only historical text from the time are soley written by muslims, years after the fact. I find any reference to these events historically questionable at best.

How exactly?

Quran Dietary laws
Torah Dietary Laws

HaShem tells the jewish people to hearken to His commandments, not to add or subtract.
Muhammed is not a prophet for the jewish people

 

[McBell]

Yes but when they put it in book form IT NEVER CHANGED. IT IS AN ORIGINAL COPY.

Yet you have no proof because the 'original' writings were destroyed.
Convienent is it not, that you have nothing to compare your current COPY to?

Saddly, you think this is a good thing, yet condemn the Bible for being in the same boat
That boat being no 'originals' to compare it to..

Yes we do. The quran we recite today is the Quran that Muhammed gave us.

Prove it.
Fact is, you cannot. Noone can.
Why?
Because the 'originals' have been destroyed.

We have it in book form now. Why keep pieces of trees and rocks when it is compiled in book form. Again the quran never changed so even if you threw all the Quran in a fire today. We still have it for people have it memorized to the letter. Here is one in particular my teacher arees.org

The only reason i can think of to make sure all the 'originals' are destroyed is prevent the 'originals' from being viewed.
Now why would they want the 'originals' to never be viewed?

Now the issue with Original in terms of Christianity and jewish texts. They altered them. So they have taken the original and made it unoriginal, they have taken the authentic and made it unauthetic because of the alterations. If I said go to the mall. And wrote this down in a book as my statement. You come along and say Go to disneyland. Is that what I said. Is this my "original" statement. Of course not. So that is the issue. The Text itself and changed so it is no longer original. If they had the copy with no alterations than that would be accepted as an original for it has not changed. But they do not have this anymore. the older scriptures have different words and phrases some added and taken out. This is the issue and scholars have proven this. The text of Marcion and Tertullian in terms of Luke are different and they are only 40 years apart. They altered the text so it is not the original anymore.

Please try and stay on topic.
I am not talking about the problems with the Bible.
I am talking about the problems with the Quran.

who said i did? I support whatever is supported by the Quran for it is the criterion of truth for us. And since at one point the original message was there. There is still going to be some traces of it left. But it is still changed. Where the Quran has not changed in over 1400 years.

Do you support the Bible?
I say you have to in order to claim that verse such and such from the Bible is about Mohammed.

Why? what is the significance I already commented on this post.

I do not understand what this is about as written here.