I don't see how this passage relates to the question that I asked.

The whole of my point was to explain through scripture why the Jews as a whole don't accept Jesus as their Messiah.

Actually no I do not really see the similarity, unless you mean simply in terms of one faith not believing that a prophecy has been fulfilled. The verse, and I repeat in the singular "verse" that Muslims point to as somehow being a prophecy about Muhammad to me is clearly nothing of the sort.

The disagreement between Christians and Jews revolves around whether Christ was the fulfillment of the OT prophecies. Christians believe that Christ was indeed the fulfillment of OT prophecy, whereas Jews do not. It is a much more complicated matter scripturally than the supposed "Muhammad" verse.

The similarity is that the later interprets the passages of the first as being fulfilled by either Jesus (as) or Muhammad (saaws), but the first doesn't interpret the passages as being fulfilled in the the same. Though they have eyes, they do not see.Singular verse, huh, what about: Deuteronomy 18:15-19, John 14:16-17 & 26, 15:26, 16:7-14?

I'm anticipating this generated lots of response, so I'm intentionally choosing to give my answer before moving on to read those responses.


YES. it is true there is nothing about Jesus in the Old Testament.
BUT, there is a great deal about the Messiah in the Old Testament, and when we read the New Testament accounts of the life of Jesus it seems to me (though many present day Jews would dispute this) that Jesus is the Messiah that was promised.


Though future prophets are not excluded, there is no particular prophet that is either promised or prophesied in the Bible to follow the coming of the Messiah.

Taking your second question first. Primarily because Paul's gospel message DOES mesh with both the rest of the New Testament written by others and does NOT violate the Jewish understanding of God. In fact, reading Paul you see that despite his new found faith in Jesus that he is still a strick monotheist.



Because Muhammad delivers a message inconsistent with not just what Paul said, but with the rest of the New Testament message regarding Christ. And the little bit of information we have from the Church that pre-dates the New Testament writings all are in harmony with the message of the New Testament and in opposition to the picture of Jesus' life portrayed in the Qur'an and Hadith.

Awww..I see.

Deuteronomy 18:15-19:

15 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;

16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 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.

The problem with citing this passage is that by accepting it as a prophecy concerning Muhammad, it also accepts the criteria needed for prophethood in the Old Testament.

Let us see Deuteronomy18:20:

"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have
not commanded him to speak . . . that prophet shall die."

The question then becomes did Muhammad ever speak a word in God's name which God did not command him to speak? According to the Qu'ran he did indeed, and was comforted by Gabriel for doing so with the justification that all prophets are decieved from time to time by Shaitan. Which I find to be a rather alarming statement, but that is neither here nor there.

"And We did not send before you any apostle or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise." (Surah 22:52)

So if Muslims wish to connect the verses from Deuteronomy as being prophecy concerning Muhammad, they must also accept the criteria for prophethood, which by the Qu'ran's own admission he did not pass.

There are other issues with this, but I will stop there.

As for the passages from John, they are very easily refuted from a Christian standpoint.

John 14:16-17:

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

[Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

How does this even make sense? Is Muhammed a Spirit of Truth? Did the world see Muhammed? Does Muhammed dwell inside of you? I believe that in itself is sufficient to refute that one and the other passages cited from John. Those verses are quite obviously referring to the Holy Spirit, not some prophecy about another prophet.

Just to clarify more clearly from the same source:

John 14:6:Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

*All that being said, this sort of debate probably belongs in a different thread.

Here are the problems I see with that theory.

First the books of the Bible weren't "decided" at any synod; they were affirmed. There is a difference. That affirmation is a confirmation of what had become the consensus opinion of the church over time. Prior to that, as I know you are aware, there were many different lists that were first suggested by one person and then another for determining the canon of scripture, or the "accepted" books.


Second, to say that there were "accepted" books implies that there were also "unaccepted" books. And indeed there were. But it would be a false assumption to interpret that to mean that all "unaccepted" books were seen as heresies or against the Christian teaching. Only a few books received that categorization. Rather the books that were not accepted were just that, not put into the canon as being those on which articles of faith and practice might be developed; they were still often valued by the Christian community for other reasons and kept right alongside sacred scrolls. These books were often writings by others that simply lacked the claims to apostolic origins that were granted to those that became part of the canon. Some of these other writings, like the letters of Clement are from the same time period as the New Testament books themselves. And they show knowledge of and continue to emphasize the same elements that are in the New Testament writings.

Also, the early church fathers quoted the New Testament regularly. Of those books that eventually were codified as being part of the New Testament, all but 35 individual verses are actually quoted by these early church fathers long before the Bible is "decided". This tells me that these books were already accepted much earlier than the time you set forth.




Those who think that Roman Christianity prevailed over all other forms must be operating out of a western point of view. The other centers of Chrsitianity were much more significant in the early church than Rome. You mention Jerusalem. But there was also Antioch and Alexandria. While Jerusalem was overcome by the Romans in 70 AD. It simple served to strengthen the role of Antioch and Alexandria, not Rome. Curiously, what made Rome strong was two things, Constantine's establishment of his seat of government for the Roman empire in Constantinople and the sacking of Rome by the Huns and Goths. Both of these were to take place centuries later.

An example of the lack of Rome's influence can be seen in that which so many want to lay at Paul's feet, the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. The chief proponents of this came not from near Rome, but from Egypt and Syria. In fact, there were only 2 delegates from Rome even at the Council of Nicea. Africa, much more than Rome, was crucial in the development of early Christian thought.

Salaam/peace;



what about Jews of the past ? Many ( or most ? ) of them did not believe either . Is there any chance / prophecy about the future Jews that they will believe Jesus (p) is/ was the messiah ?

God's prophecy concerning the nation of Israel obviously still stands. Perhaps another member can post the scriptural prophecy on this point, but unfortunately I have to go.

I haven't ever had a conversation with Jews of the past. I would assume that you are right, that many of them did not believe either, those who did weren't likely to continue to identify themselves primarily as Jews, but presumably as Christians.

The best I can do is tell you that in the first days of Christianity, all Christians were Jews. And then, as Jesus said they were to do, those Jews that believed in Jesus (and there were obviously thousands who did) began to take the message of Jesus as the Messiah and source of salvation beyond just the nation of Israel, but to all nations, even to the ends of the earth.

I don't know what words that you claim Muhammad (saaws) spoke as Allah's revelation that was not of Allah. Perhaps you are referring to the so-called Satanic Verses about the "exalted swans". I am not sure what you are getting at with the quoted ayat 22:52 - probably you are just parroting from anti-Islam websites. Somehow I had put you above that, but I guess I was wrong.You can interpret your scriptures however you want, but when did the Holy Spirit ever fit John 16:13 for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak and even if the Holy Spirit did speak words that were not his own, then whose words would they be? The Father's?*sticks fingers in ears* la la la la la la la ilaha Ilallah!

Of course. For the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.


He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.