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

[fromgenesis]

It may be the central position in your bible, but you do realise that different sects had different scriptures? Early sects had their writing which they believed, just like you believe about the bible, came from the apostles.

That's the whole point, just because the version that you follow, which has this Bible, is the version which survived or became more powerful does not mean it is the right version bro!

Translations such as the "King James Version" (which I use) are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts -- the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament). There have been changes to the Bible by for instance the Jehova's Witnesses - to fall in line with their doctrine - and that can be shown if you go back to the original texts (or as far back as we have it).
The manuscript evidence for the "New Testament" is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. No, there is really sufficient evidence - by far more than any other document. As an example, Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars 10- manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph !

If, its a big if, if I agree that there are no major contradictions, then why would you think that is? Because those who chose the books which went in would not have chosen contradictory books, that should be obvious.

The apocrypha was for instance not included for a number of reasons - one of them being the test of propheticity. The books of the Apocrypha also abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors.

The old guys? Like the Ebonites, Gnostics and the gang?

No, I was referring to Christians - JC Ryle, Knox, Spurgeon and those guys.

This is your interpretation of the Old Testament

Nope. Can a bull take away your sin? I do not know how your sin is deemed to be removed - I assume by plain forgiveness - without any guarantee. This is contrary to my hope (and experience, when my sins were forgiven)

He guides who He wills, and loves who He wills, you don't think that God listening and answering a prayer could be a sign of love?

You are 100% correct about God guides who He wills, and this is something that is sometimes ignored in Christianity - the sovereignty of God. Answering prayer to my mind would be sign of love. We should however make sure that we ask according to God's will - and He has revealed that to us.
Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Mat 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Umar001]

Translations such as the "King James Version" (which I use) are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts -- the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament). There have been changes to the Bible by for instance the Jehova's Witnesses - to fall in line with their doctrine - and that can be shown if you go back to the original texts (or as far back as we have it).
The manuscript evidence for the "New Testament" is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. No, there is really sufficient evidence - by far more than any other document. As an example, Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars 10- manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph !

And out of these how many are in the Original Greek? And out of that how many are from the first 1000 years? And out of that how many are from the first 200 years? Erm, hardly any.

Furthermore, some leave out what others put in.

The apocrypha was for instance not included for a number of reasons - one of them being the test of propheticity. The books of the Apocrypha also abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors.

So you agree then that people chose what went into the Bible. So it is no Miracle, nor amazing (LIKE YOU SAID) that book selected do not, for sake of arguement, contradict! They have no reason to contradict, because the ones that did, were not entered!

P.s. I think you'll find the Canocial books also have errors historical/geographical. And moreover that some Canocial books even use Apocripha.

No, I was referring to Christians - JC Ryle, Knox, Spurgeon and those guys.

How close in the timeline were they to the events?

Nope. Can a bull take away your sin? I do not know how your sin is deemed to be removed - I assume by plain forgiveness - without any guarantee. This is contrary to my hope (and experience, when my sins were forgiven)

It is not yours? Who's interpretation is it? And some do believe that God forgives without needing blood sacrafise, just because you disagree doesn't make you right or them right.

Thank you for the discussion.

Likewise.

To sum up, the topic, the stages of the formation of the Gospels are so hard to classify, the sources of the Gospels are hard to derive. Through all that it is possible that speech of Jesus was taken, understood in one way and worked upon until it reached the Gospel writers, who in turn wrote Jesus' speech with the interpretation given to it in the Oral Tradition thus changing the meaning. Thus, it may be that, what some changed due to their understanding of being a prophecy about the Holy Spirit was actually a Prophecy of a man to come.

Eesa.

Ok inshaa'Allaah, let me break it up:

Thank you sister.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Well, for the Greek New Testament [printed by the United Bible Societies, third edition, edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren] that sits on my desk the answers to your questions are as follows:

And out of these how many are in the Original Greek?

4857

And out of that how many are from the first 1000 years?

542

And out of that how many are from the first 200 years?

19

In addition there are the writings of early church fathers who quoted from the NT. Looking to just 28 of the earliest of these 2nd generation Christians, we find that between them they quote all but 30 verses of the New Testament prior to 250 AD, which I believe is within the 200 year limit you set for the writing of the New Testament.

Erm, hardly any.

I guess "hardly any" is a relative term. Personally, I would categorize such evidence as substantial.

That's the whole point, just because the version that you follow, which has this Bible, is the version which survived or became more powerful does not mean it is the right version bro!

ahem! From what I've read about the first 100 years of the copying of the Qur'an, this sort of things also happened with it. You of course see the line that you inherited as the only true line and this justifies the destruction of the other error-ladened copies. But you accept it on faith and the character/integrity of early Muslims and the historical tradition which passed this information on to you that this is indeed the truth as opposed to error. Short of a time machine there really is no way for anyone to know.

 

[Umar001]

Welcome back!

Well, for the Greek New Testament [printed by the United Bible Societies, third edition, edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren] that sits on my desk the answers to your questions are as follows:
4857

542

19

In addition there are the writings of early church fathers who quoted from the NT. Looking to just 28 of the earliest of these 2nd generation Christians, we find that between them they quote all but 30 verses of the New Testament prior to 250 AD, which I believe is within the 200 year limit you set for the writing of the New Testament.

I guess "hardly any" is a relative term. Personally, I would categorize such evidence as substantial.

Hardly any speaking relative to the number given, i.e. that of 25,000 and of 5,000+.

The Fathers also quote the variants within the scriptures, on top of this, they state that others had their own books and others claimed to have apostolic lines like yourselves.

By the way did you mean 2nd Generation Christians, as in two generations from Jesus? Or you mean 2nd century?

ahem! From what I've read about the first 100 years of the copying of the Qur'an, this sort of things also happened with it. You of course see the line that you inherited as the only true line and this justifies the destruction of the other error-ladened copies. But you accept it on faith and the character/integrity of early Muslims and the historical tradition which passed this information on to you that this is indeed the truth as opposed to error. Short of a time machine there really is no way for anyone to know.

Grace it is not only based on faith, rather we have to acknowledge the situation of the followers of these men. Now, are you going to tell me that the followers of Jesus and the followers of Muhammad were in the same situations after the death of those great individuals? If not then is it possible that the different situations entailed different outcomes/possabilities.

I don't think anything like what happend with the Bible happend with the Qur'an. They are simply too different to have been treated the same.

Pleasure seeing you post and discussing.

Eesa.

 

[Grace Seeker]

By the way did you mean 2nd Generation Christians, as in two generations from Jesus? Or you mean 2nd century?

I meant 2nd generation, that is those that produced the copies we have were not of the first generation of the church when the originals were written. Of course, if you take my words literally, only those copied at the beginning of the 2nd century would have been done by the 2nd generation in the church, those making copies at the end of the 2nd century be more likely third or fourth generations within the church.

Example: Irenaeus, who happens to be the first known witness of the canoncity of all four gospels, died in 200 AD. He would literally be third generation as he was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of John who was the disciple of Jesus. But he represents the 2nd generation the same as Polycarp because neither was of the generation that wrote the NT, but they had access to it and were able to make copies from it. When I think of the third generation of the church (not using the term in either a biological or technical sense) I think of those that came into the church following Constantine's conversion. These "grandchildren" of the faith had no direct link back to the first generation.

Pleasure seeing you post and discussing.

I'm really not back to post and discuss. Simple matters of fact (such as I was able to provide on the number of Greek sources) are one thing, getting involved in discussions regarding interpretations and opinions are another. I probably shouldn't have even made the comment about the Qur'an. I was just remembering in my readings how when the Qur'an was first put to paper that copies were made and then checked for authenticity. Those that were deemed incorrect were burned. And the hadith involved finding people people to testify to events in the Prophets life. But the way for checking for authenticity involved what seemed to me a subjective factor as there was no objective source to check against, just memories, opinions, and whether one trusted the character of the witness. In other words, the same things that cause many to doubt the factuality of the New Testament.

So, I wasn't comparing the books, just the means by which people today determine whether they are or are not to be understood as trustworthy.

 

[MustafaMc]

...back to the thread title.

Muslims interpret, through the lenses of their Islamic faith, that several verses in the OT and in the NT prophesy the coming of Prophet Muhammad (saaws). These verses are "clear as day" to most Muslims who read them and we are frustrated that Christians can't see what we see.

Christians hold firmly to their interpretation of these same verses that the "Spirit of Truth" is the Holy Spirit personage of God. To interpret the verses any differently would challenge their entire faith structure. This change calls for nothing short of a "paradigm shift".

 

[fromgenesis]

.So you agree then that people chose what went into the Bible. So it is no Miracle, nor amazing (LIKE YOU SAID) that book selected do not, for sake of arguement, contradict! They have no reason to contradict, because the ones that did, were not entered!

You will agree if that the selection of books hardly eliminate apparent discrepancy/contradiction. To the contrary! There are different canons that different groups accepted -"Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Greek Orthodox Christians agree on the same 27 books for the composition of the New Testament; however some smaller groups of Christians do not. The Nestorian, or Syrian church, recognizes only 22 books, excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

On the other hand, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the same 27 books in its "narrower" canon but adds 8 books to its "broader" canon: "four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Books of Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia."http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm

MustafaMc: Muslims interpret, through the lenses of their Islamic faith, that several verses in the OT and in the NT prophesy the coming of Prophet Muhammad (saaws). These verses are "clear as day" to most Muslims who read them and we are frustrated that Christians can't see what we see.

It may well be regarded as such by Muslims. You cannot however divorce the verses you refer to from the rest of Scripture. The Bible is one long relation that one part cannot be seen in isolation. It is a pity that the same Bible that you refer to to substantiate your claim, is the same Bible that you discredit on other occasions. You make up what you choose to accept.

 

[MustafaMc]

It is a pity that the same Bible that you refer to to substantiate your claim, is the same Bible that you discredit on other occasions. You make up what you choose to accept.

No, it is as GraceSeeker has pointed out earlier. We Muslims reject straight away anything in the Bible that contradicts our "gold standard" of Truth - the Quran - and we accept as possibly being true the recorded words of Jesus, Moses, David or other prophets that are in agreement with the Quran.

 

[MustafaMc]

Re: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Prophesied in other Scriptures.

All Bible verses that are in agreement with the teachings of Islam are probably original.

All Bible verses that are not are cleary corruptions.

And any Bible verse that might be understood one way by Muslims and another way by either Jews or Christians are themselves correct but are only properly understood by Muslims.

Lastly, any non-Biblical material discarded by Jews or Christians as being unauthentic, heresy, or simply works of non-revelatory fiction but that contain elements seen as in concert with the teachings of Islam are to be understood as the last vestiges of what remains of the original uncorrupted Injil or Tanakh.

GraceSeeker has put forward a good summary.

 

[fromgenesis]

No, it is as GraceSeeker has pointed out earlier. We Muslims reject straight away anything in the Bible that contradicts our "gold standard" of Truth - the Quran - and we accept as possibly being true the recorded words of Jesus, Moses, David or other prophets that are in agreement with the Quran.

No problem that you may accept anything you want as the truth. Whether it actually makes sense in if seen in context, is a totally different matter.

 

[YusufNoor]

ahem! From what I've read about the first 100 years of the copying of the Qur'an, this sort of things also happened with it. You of course see the line that you inherited as the only true line and this justifies the destruction of the other error-ladened copies. But you accept it on faith and the character/integrity of early Muslims and the historical tradition which passed this information on to you that this is indeed the truth as opposed to error. Short of a time machine there really is no way for anyone to know.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

you, know i got excited when i saw you posted and then i saw what you originally posted.

JazakAllah Khayr for editing that bit above, i was going to speak out against it in a very strong voice, and probably say nasty things, but Alhumdulillah, i shan't now...

we can school you on Qur'anic history if you like in another thread, it's really not like you attempt to imply here.

It may well be regarded as such by Muslims.

perhaps you missed my post in regards to the Torah...

You cannot however divorce the verses you refer to from the rest of Scripture. The Bible is one long relation that one part cannot be seen in isolation.

actually, most of the Christians agree that it is not even the word of God, just a bunch of different authors "inspired" by [a part of?] God. so it isn't one long anything...

It is a pity that the same Bible that you refer to to substantiate your claim, is the same Bible that you discredit on other occasions.

well the title of thread is about OTHER scriptures!

You make up what you choose to accept.

a more correct view would be that which is in agreement with Islam, we tend to accept whilst not accepting that which isn't.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker View Post
All Bible verses that are in agreement with the teachings of Islam are probably original.

actually, the correct answer in these cases should be "Allah knows best!"

All Bible verses that are not are cleary corruptions.

it DOES work out that way though, doesn't it...

And any Bible verse that might be understood one way by Muslims and another way by either Jews or Christians are themselves correct but are only properly understood by Muslims.

again, the "correct" answer should be "Allah knows best!"

Lastly, any non-Biblical material discarded by Jews or Christians as being unauthentic, heresy, or simply works of non-revelatory fiction but that contain elements seen as in concert with the teachings of Islam are to be understood as the last vestiges of what remains of the original uncorrupted Injil or Tanakh.

probably a result of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, may Allah have Mercy on him. BUT i tend to agree with the tone of Gene's post there, rather than DECLARE certain verses "the True Word of God" as we tend to, i think we should state our opinion on it differently. i'm working on what i would consider proper, if i ever get around to refuting Gene's refutation of Brother Qatada's thread in the Refutations section.

No, it is as GraceSeeker has pointed out earlier. We Muslims reject straight away anything in the Bible that contradicts our "gold standard" of Truth - the Quran - and we accept as possibly being true the recorded words of Jesus, Moses, David or other prophets that are in agreement with the Quran.

i think MustafaMc hit the nail pretty clearly on the head here and we should try to make that clarification in our writings. when we say something DEFINITELY IS we come off sounding as ridiculous as the Christians when they say IT DEFINITELY ISN'T! ALL in my humble opinion, of course...


i don't know why we tend to seek the "original" Greek of ANYTHING! the public voice of the people Jesus was sent to was Aramaic. this is agreed upon by scholars and indicated by quotes in the gospels. it is an indication of change in the least and corruption at the worst that the original words of Jesus have been lost or destroyed.

all that being said, the "Helper" "allegedly" predicted by Jesus/Isa Alayhe Salaam MAY VERY WELL BE our Rasulullah, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam! AND the Prophet [prophesied] in Deuteronomy MAY ALSO VERY WELL BE Rasulullah, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam! BUT Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala, knows best!

 

[MustafaMc]

A new brother to LI noted this link: http://myislam.zoomshare.com/files/new_aa/mophammad_saw_in_bible.htm

at

http://www.islamicboard.com/introdu...-muhammad-saw-mentioned-bible.html#post939767

 

[fromgenesis]

actually, most of the Christians agree that it is not even the word of God, just a bunch of different authors "inspired" by [a part of?] God.

I think that you are both right and wrong.
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, ..
Num 22:38 And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.
Psa 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
Yes, it is true that we believe that the words written by "inspired" men, is the word of God and these words are "God- breathed", as I think it is referred to in the original texts that we have.

If you read the Bible with some attention, you will see that it is not disjointed remarks , but that it all fits together. Even the Old and New testament hold together.

 

[YusufNoor]

I think that you are both right and wrong.
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, ..

in this instance, it refers to the words that God spoke there.

Num 22:38 And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.

in this instance, it refers to the words that Balaam spoke.

Psa 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

in this case it refers to words not spoken.

Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

this refers to God's words, NOT the words of men.

Yes, it is true that we believe that the words written by "inspired" men, is the word of God and these words are "God- breathed", as I think it is referred to in the original texts that we have.

so for example, in I John 5:7, when we read:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

at least in SOME versions, others omit it because it is not in the early manuscripts. so let me ask, if "these words are "God- breathed" by men "inspired by the holy Spirit", as Christians say, then how could that same spirit or those men so inspired NOT be sure that "there are three that bear record in heaven"???? it appears to be a pretty significant part of the trinity dogma, YET it appears to be an "addition"...

and that's just one example, another fairly important one in Mark 16 would be:

9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

now, Christians believe that this is the 1st of the 4 "accepted Gospels", AND YET, The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.; so this cute little story of people seeing Jesus after his "resurrection," IS ANOTHER ADDITION...


If you read the Bible with some attention, you will see that it is not disjointed remarks , but that it all fits together. Even the Old and New testament hold together.

there MAY VERY WELL be parts of the Old Testament that haven't been corrupted, but we can CLEARLY see that the New Testament has been changed, PROVING it is NOT the Words of God!

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

it's funny how some people just plain ignore how their scripture "evolved" to follow their pagan culture, YET when the Tanakh, as it exists today, STILL has references to Islam, then they have a problem with it!

don't get me wrong, i still enjoy reading parts of the Tanakh, but as far as what has been changed and what has been added, "Allah knows best!"

 

[medlink student]

:salam2:

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Zend Avesta

It is mentioned in Zend Avesta Farvardin Yasht chapter 28 verse 129
(Sacred Books of the East, volume 23, Zend Avesta Part II pg. 220):
"Whose name will be the Victorious, Soeshyant and whose name will be Astvat-ereta. He will be Soeshyant (The Beneficent one) because he will benefit the whole bodily world. He will be Astvat-ereta (he who makes the people, bodily creatures rise up) because as a bodily creature and as a living being he will stand against the destruction of the bodily (being) creatures to withstand the drug of the two footed brood, to withstand the evil done by the faithful (idolaters and the like and the errors of the Mazdaynians)".

This Prophecy applies to no other person more perfectly than it does to Muhammad (pbuh):

• The Prophet was not only victorious at Fatah Makkah but was also merciful when he let go the blood thirsty opponents by saying:
  
  "There shall be no reproof against you this day".
  
  
• Soeshyant means the ‘praised one’ (refer Haisting’s Encyclopedia), which translated in Arabic means Muhammad (pbuh).
  
  
• Astvat-ereta is derived from the root word Astu which in Sanskrit as well as in Zend means ‘to praise’. The infinitive Sitaudan in present day Persian means praising. It can also be derived from the Persian root word istadan which would mean ‘one who makes a thing rise up’. Therefore Astvat-ereta means the one who praised, which is the exact translation of the Arabic word 'Ahmed' which is another name for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Prophecy clearly mentions both the names of the Prophet i.e. Muhammad (pbuh) and Ahmed (pbuh).
  
  
• The Prophecy further says that he will benefit the whole bodily world and the Qur’an testifies this in Surah Al-Anbiya chapter 21 verse 107:
  
  "We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all creatures." [Al-Qur'an 21:107]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sanctity of Prophet’s (PBUH) Companions

In Zend Avesta Zamyad Yasht chapter 16 verse 95 (Sacred Books of the East, volume 23 Zend Avesta Part II pg. 308):

"And there shall his friends come forward, the friends of Astvat-ereta, who are fiend-smitting, well thinking, well-speaking, well-doing, following the good law and whose tongues have never uttered a word of falsehood."

1.Here too Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name as Astvat-ereta.

2.There is also a mention of the Prophet’s friends as companions who will be fighting the evil; pious, holy men having good moral values and always speaking the truth. This is a clear reference to the Sahabas – the prophet's companions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Dasatir

The sum and substance of the prophecy mentioned in Dasatir is, that when the Zoroastrian people will forsake their religion and will become dissolute, a man will rise in Arabia, whose followers will conquer Persian and subjugate the arrogant Persians. Instead of worshipping fire in their own temples, they will turn their faces in prayer towards Kaaba of Abraham (pbuh) which will be cleared of all idols. They (the followers of the Arabian Prophet), will be a mercy unto the world. They will become masters of Persia, Madain, Tus, Balkh, the sacred places of the Zoroastrians and the neighbouring territories. Their Prophet will be an eloquent man telling miraculous things.

This Prophecy relates to no other person but to Muhammad (pbuh)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Muhammad (PBUH) will be the Last Prophet

It is mentioned in Bundahish chapter 30 verses 6 to 27 that Soeshyant will be the last Prophet implying that Muhammad (pbuh) will be the last Prophet. The Qur’an testifies this in Surah Ahzab.

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things." [Al-Qur'an 33:40]


http://muslim-voices.com/ProphetMuhammadProphesisedinallmajorReligion.aspx

 

[aamirsaab]

....If you read the Bible with some attention, you will see that it is not disjointed remarks , but that it all fits together. Even the Old and New testament hold together.

1) So how comes Jesus' status is only considered God-like in only the books of John and not the other 60 or so books...
2) Are we including the parts where Jacob got God in a gridlock?

Clearly, the OT and NT do not hold together.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The only thing that is clear to me is that what is clear to one is not clear to another.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

The only thing that is clear to me is that what is clear to one is not clear to another.

:bump:

yap , that's why one's faith is offensive/ blasphemous to others .

 

[ASeeker]

it is a matter of Jewish law that Joseph was the legal father of Jesus of Nazareth by virtue of his marriage to Mary, his wife. That Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus is clear from the text of the Christian scriptures and this fact contributes to the mystery of the nature of Jesus Christ. This mystery is itself an element in the doctrine of the Trinity was arose directly from the plain understanding of the Christian texts. The claim by some Muslims that the doctrine was imposed on the text is an historical falsehood.

To assert that the Spirit of Truth or the Holy Spirit is Muhammed is nothing less than blasphemy and I am surprised that Muslims would engage in such behaviour. When Jesus tells his disciples that HE will send another Comforter or Counsellor to be with them forever, the word "another`in Koine Greek is allos - it means another of the same kind. The Spirit of Truth or the Comforter will be the SAME as Jesus. The Comforter will be the Spirit of Jesus. Muhammed was nothing like Jesus of Nazareth and, as far as I know, the first prophet of Islam is buried in Medina. The Spirit of Truth or Holy Spirit will be with the followers of Jesus forever.

Read Hebrew 9:14; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 4:3 in the New Testament of the Bible and you will see that the Holy Spirit of God is also called the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of Christ.

Muslims should not distort the meaning of scriptures which they did not write by imposing false meanings onto the text which the writers did not intend. Almost all of the Bible was written by Jews and Jewish Christians and none of it was written by Muslims.

 

[A_Way_Of_Life]

But here is the thing, Jesus (Peace be upon him) said that only if he "goes will the comforter come", the Holy Spirit was already on Earth long before the time of Jesus (Peace be upon him). The comforter was supposed to speak what he hears, that is what Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) did.

The Comforter speaks what he hears, meaning he speaks what he hears from God.

Also, Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is the final prophet, the first prophet in Islam is Prophet Adam (Peace be upon him)