why isn't prophet mohamed ?

[Jayda]

Re: why isn't prohet mohamed ?

hola everyone,

i just wanted to say that the comforter (paraclete) is already identified as the Holy Spirit (hagia pneuma) in the Gospel of St. John...

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

just so that there is no further confusion it is the same word "hagia pneuma" who makes Mary conceive and is promised to come to the disciples, but be with us forever...

also, St. Paul did not author any gospels... he wrote several epistles which were included in the New Testament canon, and Jesus never wrote anything, there is something that certain people theorize might have existed called "q document" that might be a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, but there is no proof for their existance, and the only person who ever claimed they could have been written by Jesus is Dan Brown for his fictional story Da Vinci Code...

Dios te bendiga

 

[Trumble]

Re: why isn't prohet mohamed ?

The verse in the Bible corresponds with the Verse in the Quran thus being a manifest proof that the Quran is the Truth. Only the one who revealed the Bible has revealed the Quran.

Logical nonsense. It would only 'prove' that the Qur'an is the Truth if you assume that the Bible is Truth, which you have made it quite clear that you don't. As IzakHalevas rightly says, you can't just cherry pick what is convenient. At best, if you assume that the Qur'an is Truth, you can deduce that equivalent passages in the Bible are also true. In neither case, though, is there 'manifest proof' of anything.

 

[IzakHalevas]

Re: why isn't prohet mohamed ?

Logical nonsense. It would only 'prove' that the Qur'an is the Truth if you assume that the Bible is Truth, which you have made it quite clear that you don't. As IzakHalevas rightly says, you can't just cherry pick what is convenient. At best, if you assume that the Qur'an is Truth, you can deduce that equivalent passages in the Bible are also true. In neither case, though, is there 'manifest proof' of anything.

Not only that, but a two verses later the book is myseriously "corrupted" again. :exhausted

All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
(john 16:15)

Does this now refer to the "father" and "spirit" two of the three of the Trinity believed by christians?

jesus saw that they wanted to ask him about this, so he said to them, "Are you asking one another what I meant when I said, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me'?
(john 16:19)

Does this refer to his cruisifiction / "ressurection" which I never even believed happend, since I view the new testament as completly false and never valid, but I am just ammused that how the verses after are ignored as "corrupted", yet they use the verse just before it as completly valid and pure.

It makes no sense, and does not show any proof.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Re: why isn't prohet mohamed ?

lol people only fail to understand it when they have already set it in their mind that they wont! end of story ;D

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Re: why isn't prohet mohamed ?

So is he mentioned or not? Or did Mohammed just appear at a convienient time?

 

[lolwatever]

Re: why isn't prohet mohamed ?

^ he is mentioned in the gospel.

It's irrelevent whetehr he's mentioned in books written by humans... e.g. Paul, Luke etc...

 

[Trumble]

i think the point was made, the gospel is what Muslims believe in, and it is where the name of the prophet was mentioned.

As for other books written by humans, its not that important whether it was mentioned in there or not.

What 'gospel' are you talking about? There are four, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, although the word is also used in relation to assorted 'unofficial', alternative and 'lost' books such as the 'Gospels' of Mary Magdelene, Judas, Thomas etc. ALL of them were written by humans.

 

[- Qatada -]

Jesus was given a scripture [the Injeel - Gospel] and we believe that this scripture got lost, these other 4 men claim that their scripture is divinely inspired whereas we believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was inspired himself. And the scriptures of these other people aren't the original which Jesus (peace be upon him) was sent with.

Christians from this forum even claim that these men writ in greek even though Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke hebrew or aramaic, and we know that the original scripture in these languages doesn't remain today. The earliest they can link any scripture back to is one from 400yrs after Jesus (peace be upon him) returned to Allaah Almighty.



Peace.

 

[lolwatever]

What 'gospel' are you talking about? There are four, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, although the word is also used in relation to assorted 'unofficial', alternative and 'lost' books such as the 'Gospels' of Mary Magdelene, Judas, Thomas etc. ALL of them were written by humans.

the gospel revealed to jesus

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Wasn't the 'Gospel of Thomas' the only real Gospel of Jesus, which is today rejected by the Church?

 

[shible]

Assalamu alaikkum brothers and sisters I have a PPt that describes about the Gospel of barnabas the close companion of Jesus.

and it was destroyed by paul.

I can send that PPT. It not only describes about the gospel but also many facts about Islam with comparision of other Religions.

It wasn't created by me. I recieved it in mail. It was created in Housten, texas.

If you mail me your Id's then i can send it to you

Salaam

 

[- Qatada -]

Wasn't the 'Gospel of Thomas' the only real Gospel of Jesus, which is today rejected by the Church?

The real gospel was the gospel revealed to Jesus (peace be upon him) - hence, the correct gospel is the gospel of Jesus.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

To understand why Muslims might quote the Bible even though they believe in it to be corrupt, click here:

To read a Muslim-Christian-Jewish trialogue that was on this forum, about Prophecies in the Bible, click here:

 

[Makky]

IzakHalevas

I'm glad that we have someone here on LI who know Hebrew. I guess you will be helpful to clear many things that are written in the bible .

1st of All Did i type the word muhammad right in the Hebrew?

םחםד​

If so then would you search for it or a similar word in the bible specially in Haggai ( חגי ) from Haggi 2-1 to 2-9

Please search in Song of Solomon ( שיר השירים ) from 5-1 to 5-16

 

[IzakHalevas]

IzakHalevas

I'm glad that we have someone here on LI who know Hebrew. I guess you will be helpful to clear many things that are written in the bible .

1st of All Did i type the word muhammad right in the Hebrew?

םחםד​

No you did not.

If so then would you search for it or a similar word in the bible specially in Haggai ( חגי ) from Haggi 2-1 to 2-9

Please search in Song of Solomon ( שיר השירים ) from 5-1 to 5-16

No he is not mentioned in there. I know of a claim that he is, but that has already been refuted about a dozen times, but please claim it again, so I can refute you. I will be waiting.

 

[Makky]

[/COLOR][/LEFT]

No you did not.

by the way I wrote it right and i'll prove

the word Muhammad in Arabic consist of 4 letters

Mim : م

Ha : ح

Mim : م

Dal : د

so its محمد
4 letters

the 4 letters in Hebrew are

ם : م
ח:ح
ם:م
ד:د​

and its here for example in song of solomon 5-16

חִכֹּו֙ מַֽמְתַקִּ֔ים וְכֻלֹּ֖ו מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים זֶ֤ה דֹודִי֙ וְזֶ֣ה רֵעִ֔י בְּנֹ֖ות יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם׃

song of solomon in Hebrew click here http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=26&chapter=5&version=81

5: 16 حلقه حلاوة و كله مشتهيات هذا محمد يا بنات اورشليم​

I thought that you will be neutral ..

No he is not mentioned in there. I know of a claim that he is, but that has already been refuted about a dozen times, but please claim it again, so I can refute you. I will be waiting.

I say you rather say :
but that has already been Denied about a dozen times.

by the way I'm 100% sure of the spelling of the word محمد
I'm an Arab and i speak arabic

For All of you people who want to be sure of the Hebrew letters

wikipedia

 

[IzakHalevas]

The "ם " letter you used is not the Mem that would be at the beggining of the word to say what you want to say It would be this letter:

מ
the "mem"​

Therefore you were wrong.

Anyway, here is what you say:

[SIZE=+1]Claim: Mohammed Is Mentioned In Song of Songs[/SIZE]​

Another claim is made that in the book Song of Songs (Also called Song of Solomon), the coming of Mohammed is prophesied.


The verse in question (translation is the author's) is as follows:

Song of Songs 5:16 His mouth is most sweet; and he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.​

The assertion is that chapter 5 is a prophecy of a prophet yet to come. But, if we take a look at a transliteration of the Hebrew text we will see what the real principle of the matter is:

Chiku mamtakim v'khulo machamadim zeh dodi v'zeh re'i b'not yerushalayim.​

If you look at the word "machamadim" we can start to see the issue. Mohammed is a name that comes from the Hebrew root of "lovely" or "cute" or "desirable" and as such. These Muslims are making it so we can't use our own language without it somehow being a prophecy.

[SIZE=+1]But That's Not The Word![/SIZE]​

The word used is machamadim, the plural form of machamad.


If we follow the Muslim way of translating this sentence, we would produce the following:

His mouth is most sweet; and he is altogether Mohammeds. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.​

It doesn't make any sense.

[SIZE=+1]Conclusion[/SIZE]​

One who asserts that Mohammed is mentioned in the Song of Songs ignores the most simple reading of the text and has probably never even looked at the Hebrew of the text.

_____________

So if I used the world "Melekh" saying He was a "Melekh" which means "King" and there was some guy that was named "Maleaac" while it has nothing to do with the word would claim Oh my name is close to the name in the story. It makes no sense.

You found a Hebrew world that means "Lovely" or "cute" and it sounded like your prophets name so you said "Oh it must be".

It shows your lack of understanding of the context of what the chapter speaks about and shows how you have no clue of you are speaking about.


How about this verse:

פְּקֻדֵיהֶם, לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה--אַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁבְעִים אֶלֶף, וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת.

"those that were numbered of them, of the tribe of Gad, were forty and five thousand six hundred and fifty."

The word in red says "Pedehem".

If my name was "Pedam" should I claim the verse refers to me? Of course not, it refers to "those that numbered" what the word means.


PLUS!

• If one is to accept that the word Machmad refers to Muhammad then one should look at all the occurrences of that word. When one does this one can see why only the occurrence in the Song of Solomon is cited by Moslems. The others tell one that Machmad was destroyed (2 Chron. 36:19), was to be laid waste (Isa. 64:10-11), has been taken captive by an enemy (Lam. 1:10), has been traded for food (Lam. 1:11), has been slain by G-d (Lam. 2:4; Hos. 9:16), has been removed by G-d (Ezek. 24:16), is to be profaned by G-d (Ezek. 24:21), is to be buried in nettles (Hos. 9:6) and been carried away by pagans into their temples (Joel 3:5). Even an unkind person would not attribute all these things to Muhammad.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

Anyone who wants to look at the previous discussion on this subject can do it here: and then decide for himself wether it's been refuted or not.

 

[Makky]

The "ם " letter you used is not the Mem that would be at the beggining of the word to say what you want to say It would be this letter:

מ
the "mem"
​

Therefore you were wrong.

Do you see yourself fair when you just say : (no you didn't .)
just because I used something like small letter in english instead of a capital letter

the letter מ is the same letter ם ... but the 1st one is used in the begining...

Do you see that your way was a fair way to talk infront of people who don't know the Hebrew letters.?????????????????????

Wait for the next post to refute you , but please be fair this time

 

[lolwatever]

Helloooooooo aren't we now waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy off topic now!