Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Prophecised in other Scriptures.

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

You haven't answered to the logic I have provided. According to Dr. Zakir Naik the old testament has full of wrong or misguided information. So if there is wrong information, why would we use it to support our (Muslims') beliefs? You would rather stick to one conclusion, either Bible is the true God's word and yes what it says is true or Bible is bogus and we should read only the teachings from Quran. Have I made myself clear? I hope so. Thanks.

Hi

Are you familiar with the scholarly opinions on the formation of the current books in the Bible attributed to Moses?

That will shed some light on how Muslims can say there is some truth and some falsehood.

You stated:

So if there is wrong information, why would we use it to support our (Muslims') beliefs? You would rather stick to one conclusion, either Bible is the true God's word and yes what it says is true or Bible is bogus and we should read only the teachings from Quran.

Why only those two options, what about this third option,

The Bible might contain truth passed down in traditions but might also contain falsehood? If that is the case then a Muslim can still find the truth in the Bible and discard the falsehood.

Bible is not from God, Bible has false information, Bible contradicts itself, Bible misinforms, Bible gives misinformation about Jesus' death and ressuraction, Bible is two faced, Bible mentions Muhammed, therefore Muhammed is a prophet.

The Bible we have now might not be from God but some of the information contained on it might have come from a source which was from God. Let me give you the example,

I write a book on religions, I quote the Qur'an.

Now my book is not from God, but some of the content of my book is from God, if you take that to mean that my quotation is from God.

So if the traditions which were used in compiling the Bible are true and from God then why cant Muslims use them as evidence? It might be true that the rest of my book is not from God but the quotation or the source I used in some areas is God's word.

Please visit this link and find out if prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is prophesized in the Gospel of John or not.


YOU BE THE JUDGE!

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

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

Your last few lines are kind of humorous.
"Now my book is not from God, but some of the content of my book is from God, if you take that to mean that my quotation is from God."

Glad you find it funny, at least this life isn't all misery for us humans.

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

Now let me get this straight. You are saying, the passages that might refer to Muhammed, those are from God and the passages that talks of other things, are not from God. What makes you think that you know which are from God and which are not? Tell the truth, I think you have a time machine.

I'm saying there might be passages which have truth and some which have falsehood. Logically speaking then there might be passages which do speak about Muhammad amongst the truthful ones. Theologically then one would see a benefit for God to do that.

Do you find it that hard to believe? Interesting. I don't know why you would. The concept is pretty simple and the probability is possible. But you seem to be in a habit of taking extremes, one or the other type of mentality when it suits you, type of like the 'Jesus Lord Liar or Lunatic' thing, very restrictive. I am not saying, nor have claimed that the only truth is the passages which might refer to Muhammad, nor have I claimed that all the passages refering to Muhammad have been preserved.

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

All we know is God is infinite and we are finite creatures. Have you heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Please do a research on it. It proves that Bible is authentic God's word and it was not manupilated. Again, please do a check on the Dead Sea scrolls. Thanks.

Hmm, The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Bible is God's word? Why don't you provide a reading reference for me of books and some websites and I will do more reading. I wonder how they prove it. And I do not think the Dea Sea Scrolls even have any NT writings, so thats the crucial part of the Bible which Christians believe missing, so howdo they prove that the NT is GOd's word and hasn't been changed.

Maybe you should do some reading too. Also be reasonably objective.

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

The verses the Muslim scholars always quote are not referring to Muhammed (a wishful thinking).

They do not? And you say this based on what knowledge? You must have reasons to reject the idea.

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

To understand the whole meaning of the trinity, one needs to read the entire Gospels. You cannot just go on Google and search how to attack Christians, but rather read each Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and you will understand the meaning.

I've done that, and far from being confronted with a triune God I found one God within the pages. Don't assume everyone is on the attack bro.

Since you disagree that there are any reference to Muhammad, please, show us the composition theories of how the Torah and the 4 Gospels were composed.

Sweet Regards,

Eesa

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

I don't understand where I was taking extreme. I am not quoting Quran, but instead the Bible (not even quoting). Therefore, I don't think it's anything extreme. I am not sayng anything that suits me, but of course that makes sense. Not necessarily making in to a translation which I am comfortable with. In the Bible it is mentioned by Christ to beware of false prophets. I have posted that, but you have taken that off. I don't know why. It's not off topic at all. Because Bible specifically warns that there will be people claiming to be prophet safter Jeusus Christ ressurect and we should be aware of them. Bible tells us that there will be Holy spirit sent amongst us after Jesus is raised to heaven and that is what Jesus talks about. Bible also talks about Ishmael being an wild a-s-s of man in the wilderness and will be against eveyone and everyon against him. These are the words from the Bible and it's strange to see when we question the authenticity of Islam or Muhammed, the Muslims doesn't come back with a logical answer. Instead they want to hang that person, kill that person (the newspaper article in Europe) and trie to go in to Bible and Torah to find our faults. Why don't we look in to Quran and understand its purpose and meaning first and answer with logics? Not going and attacking and being EXTREME.

ME? I have deleted what? If you did not mean me, please make that clear lest others think that I have been unjust to you.

Maybe you have misunderstood, one of the problems with discussions is that more often then not people forget to listen but take one word, skim read and then assume what was said.

When I spoke of your extremity, I was speaking on the style in which you posed possabilities. For example, you said;

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

You would rather stick to one conclusion, either Bible is the true God's word and yes what it says is true or Bible is bogus and we should read only the teachings from Quran. Have I made myself clear? I hope so. Thanks.

This is the type of extreme I spoke of, if you read my writing properly you will see that I also gave a famous example of how other do this, with the question,

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

type of like the 'Jesus Lord Liar or Lunatic' thing, very restrictive.

The reason I said it was extreme is because such questions do not take into consideration other possabilities, like me asking a friend, 'is your mother out of prison yet, Yes or No?' Rather I should give other options as answers for example, the option to say that she has never been in prison. In the above example, the fourth option could be, Jesus Lord, Liar or Lunatic? Or Lied Upon, you see how it works? That's the extreme I spoke of.

As for the rest of your speech about logical answers and so forth, I have spoken to you about the compilation and sources of your books, why have you not told us? Tell us the theories, I mean to know if a hypothesis, like the Muslim view that there could be some truth and falsehood in the Bible is plausible one needs to know the history of the Books right? Well tell us the history. Or do you find that illogical, and humorous?

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

Along with Christians, Jews also believes in the prophet Isiah and other prophets in the OT. They also believe that these prophets were inspired by God. But before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, people used to think that whatever the prophets have written, it was edited for the advantages of mankind. When the scrolls have been found, it was matched with the books we have in the Bible and they were word for word (Hebrew and other ancient languages). Therefore, the OT was not changed in later years.

Give us the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, give us the background of them, just little more information.

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

Now let's come to the NT. You said the Christians believe in NT for their faith. If that was the case, we would have only New Testament as our Bible. Because OT is as much as important as NT, we must have both parts in the Holy Bible. Of course NT talks about Jesus, but OT does too. OT talks about Jesus coming (From Genesis to Malachi), not necessarily literarily , but gives tons of indications.

Well I never said Christians believe in the NT for their faith solely, I just mentioned that it is a crucial part of it. As for the OT speaking of Jesus I guess one can get that interpretation.

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

You have mentioned NT not being in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course it was not and it is not necessary to prove the autheticity of NT.

Oh, but you see, when you say Bible people might think the Bible, not just the OT, and as you said Christians need both. We need to try be accurate bro.

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

Because there have been many documents found which supports the events that had happened during the NT times. The Jews kept records of all events including the crucifixion of Jesus. Of course they recorded it as he was punished and crucified because he was accused of blasphemy and they don't accept him as the Messiah.

Well there are no contemporary evidences of Jesus from outside Christianity, so what do you mean? The NT by large cannot be verified of its accuracy, mistakes and truth has been found in there. Mark had a poor palestinian geographical knowledge according to some Scholars. So if anything this shows that there is right and wrong in there, my position all along.

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

There is a lot I can offer you to prove the autheticity of NT, but we have only so much time in our hands.

Make a thread and provide all you want and can in a discussion. As long as it in sincere and genuine.

format_quote Originally Posted by pbhowmik

You can only win one's heart through love, not force or logic. Because logic is created by human for the purpose of twisting the truth, but love came from God and it is more important. If logic and argument was more important then we should stick to what the scientists say "there is not god".

Well not all scientist say that, and logic/reason doesnot twist truth, but rather twisted reason twists truth. I try love God with all my heart and mind. I put my faith in Him, but I place it in Him through understanding. Meaning I decide through knowledge to follow God and thus have blind faith in Him. They work hand in hand.

So yes, back to topic, show us why there cannot be some truth and some falsehood in the Bible, tell us the Biblical History of compilation.

Eesa

format_quote Originally Posted by khairullah

Please visit this link and find out if prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is prophesized in the Gospel of John or not.


YOU BE THE JUDGE!

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

\


I have visited this and answered it many times. There is NO REFERENCE to Muhammad in the Gospel of John. Those that think there is simply do not know how to properly interpret Greek. It is as if they strained a grapefruit to get grape juice.

Couple of Points.

1.Dead Sea Scrolls don't seem to contain much to do with any texts that the we are speaking of.

2.More talk on the Dead Sea Scrolls which isn't on Muhammad in the Bible maybe should be done in a different thread.

3.We have still to discuss whether the compilation method of the Bible allowed for corruption of terms and exegetical statements to be attributed to Jesus.

The reference to the Dead Sea scrolls is only to the degree of care taken to avoid allowing corruption of the scriptures -- e.g. the 1000 years difference in two extant copies of Isaiah with little to no corruption of the text.


As to whether the method of compilation could have allowed for corruption of terms and exegetical statements being attributed to Jesus. It most certainly could have. Indeed I would allow that it did. One illustration. Matthew understands Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel. So, he reads the old Hebrew prophecies in this light. A passage that had one meaning when it was written he then reinterprets as also referring to Jesus. Then when he reports on that passage, rather than quoting it from the Hebrew scriptures, since he is writting his gospel in Greek, he quotes from a Greek translation of those scriptures. Both of these things allow for the meaning of a term to take on a new meaning. Of course, I would say that Matthew intends for us to understand this new meaning that he is intentionally giving to the term. Thus, the "young woman" (the meaning of the term "almah" in Hebrew, though many English translations say "virgin" because that is also the usual connotation behind the term, even in Hebrew) of Isaiah 7:14 simply becomes "virgin", with all doubt removed, when Matthew applies the verse to his telling of the story of Jesus birth (Matthew 1:23). Matthew has done two things:
1) he has taken a story that was written for a different specific context and applied it to the life of Jesus.
2) he has taken a word that was possible to use in multiple ways and removed all ambiguity from it.
Does that corrupt the term? I would agree that it does. Does it mean that Matthew has corrupted the story of Jesus birth? I would say, No, for Matthew is not trying to preserve Isaiah, but to tell Jesus' story which is what he has done.

That is just one illustration, doubtless there are countless others, of how terms might have been corrupted. But, I do think that what was written by Matthew and the other Biblical writers reflects their own unique understanding of what was true with regard to God, God's story, and God's interaction with his people. The key for us then is to make sure that we don't ourselves begin to put our understanding of terms to the text unless we can also be sure that they are the understanding held by the biblical writers. Terms like "the only begotten son of God" are a good example of this. The term doesn't have anything to do with biological procreation, and thinking thusly leads one to an erroneous understanding of the early church's view of Jesus. Refernces that are today made to fit Muhammad, such as in the above provided link, are similar misreadings of the text, and alterings of the Biblical terms and their meanings to substantiate a belief system that the Biblical writers themselves never espoused.

format_quote Originally Posted by capri

Being the son of Allah and being The messenger of Allah r 2 different things. Muslims believe in all the messengers of Allah . And muslims also believe tat Jesus(p.b.u.h) was Allah's messenger. Bible was the word of Allah but there hav been many changes in it. and nowhere did Jesus(p.b.u.h) said that he was the son of Allah. It is no more than a misconception. and further more i think christians shud not forget those Rahabs(priests) who at the time of Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) did accept him as Allah's messenger and also said tat "truly The coming of Muhammad(p.b.u.h) and his being the last Prophet was also predicted in the Bible and by Jesus (p.b.u.h) himself"

With respect, I think that those Rahabs you refer to were in error, serious error, as is your own understanding of the nature of changes that have taken place in the Bible and of Jesus' comments with respect to his own divinity.