[jamisi]

Muhammad in the Bible
Muhammad in the Bible

Could he be the "Paraklytos"?

By: Yusuf Estes (Former Christian Preacher)
Read about this :
http://en.wathakker.net/articles/view.php?id=117

[Antelpebabe]

Assalaam Aleikum Wa Rahmetullahi Wa Barakatuh,
A verse from the Gospels says:
The Messiah said: “I am leaving for my father and your father, so that He may send you the Paraclete,”
that is, Ahmad Muhammad.
A second verse from the Gospels:
I ask from my Lord for the Paraclete that he may abide with you forever.
Paraclete, meaning ‘the distinguisher of good from evil,’ is the name of our Prophet in those Books.

You can find other verses of Bible & Torah which point out Muhammed SAW at:

http://www.lightofquran.info/q5.htm

[Katoabralia]

I would oppose the assertion that Muhammad is the Paraclete mentioned in the Gospel of John.

First I must make it clear the there is no way you can twist the word "parakleetos" to form "pakaklytos". Greek isn't like Arabic or Hebrew where vowels aren't that essential.

The second objection is that the Gospel of John itself identifies the Parakleetos when it says:

Joh. 14:26 But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.

So, it is clear that the Parakleetos is the Holy Spirit and pay attention to the fact that He will "bring to your remembrance all that I said to you". Jesus is speaking to His disciples. The context points to this and he talks about "remembrance". He couldn't use that word if the prophesy fulfilled 600 years later.

[Theorsell]

I would oppose the assertion that Muhammad is the Paraclete mentioned in the Gospel of John.

First I must make it clear the there is no way you can twist the word "parakleetos" to form "pakaklytos". Greek isn't like Arabic or Hebrew where vowels aren't that essential.
----------------------------------------------------------
The language of Jesus (Esa (AS) was more likly to be aramic and as such more akeen to Arabic and Hebrew (the semetic language). So how could the greek context be applied.
Also some of the gosple are ignored/ rejected. For instance the one found in ezypt few years ago. What are the authentication and validation process of such process.

Allahualam

Miknius is correct in his reference to the greek - there is no Aramaic record of Jesus' sayings left

This brings up a good question, one which has been posed to me by christians and I dont have an answer to.

As Muslims, we believe that the bible has been corrupted by men, and the original message revealed to 'isa(AS) has mostly been lost - we also affirm that some of the divine revelation still exists in the bible. The only way we know which is real and which false is to judge it by the Quran - so if the a particular verse jives with the Quran - we can say its true.

The Bible has been corrupted on 4 levels
1. By means of Translation - the original Aramaic has been lost, and thus, the earliest codices can not be verified as authentic - much can be lost in just the translation alone from Aramaic => Hebrew => Greek => Latin - not to mention the inability to authenticate the original message being translated with the loss of the originals.

2. Human Error - Biblical scholars (christian and secular alike) have found many passages in the Bible which did not originate from the divine, but originated from scribal errors - such errors the variance between 666 and 616 as the mark of the beast, and the tale of Jesus(AS) walking on water, in ancient versions of the bible, this story was written in the margains - as a sort of side note, but not authenticated - later it was merged into the text itself and became a part of the bible.

3. authentication and compilation - the bible was not formed, compiled and codified until 367 years after Jesus(AS) had left this world (thats longer than the US has been a country) - There are tons of books known to christians as the Apocrypha which were not included in the protestant bible - between the Catholics, The Protestants, The Eastern Orthodox, The Coptic, and The Etheopian Orthodox curches - they all have varying books - and each sect deems books the others hold as divine, as false. The books that were denied entry into the cannon were deemed to be fabricated by the council of carthage - but the books that were granted entry were not authenticated 100% either - they were just seen as "most likely not fabricated" by the council.

4. Revelation - The bible is not the writings of Jesus(AS) - it is more like a commentary by men who are said to have been with Jesus(AS). The system of revelation of the NT texts is a major departure from the way previous books were revealed to Anbiya in the past. For example, the book of revelation is not a revelation to Jesus(AS) that was passed on to his Hawaryeen - it was a revelation to John the evangelist - so much of the bible is no more divine then taleemul Haqq or Bahishti Zewar or the tafsir of Ibn Kathir. The bible we have today is no more the Injeel spoken of in the Quran, than an English translation of Tafsir Jalalayn is the Quran.

So the question I have, which has been posed to me by christians also, is why do we Muslims use verses from a book we find corrupted (with due merit, as the evidence is overwhelming) to authenticate Islam - for one the word "Paraclete" is the translation of a translation of a commentary on something Jesus(AS) is said to have said - so how do we know Jesus(AS) even said it, unless the quran and hadeeth say he said it? I dont have an answer to this question, the best thing I can think of that some elements from the divine Injeel are still preserved in the modern Bible.

[JTS_tv]

These are just some basics, there is much more detail you could go into

Isa was given the Gospel. Now, he preached the Gospel and some accepted and some rejected. The ones that accepted became his own Disciples. Now, no real effort was given to actually preserving the Gospel, which led to no one really knowing what was in it fully. Some of the Disciples wrote some of it down, but none of them seem to have written all of it down.

Now, the Disciples carried on preaching what they heard from Isa and the people that heard from them did so and so on and so forth. In the end, some people did decide to write down the Gospel but it wasn't just the Gospel given to Isa anymore. It was a mixture of his life (sunnah), his words (hadith) and the Book given to him (Injeel). Often, the people who wrote down the Gospels would pretend that they were written directly by the Disciples, often they would pretend to have met one of them (witnesses) and so on to add authenticity to their work. These works were read aloud as most people were illiterate and copied by those who were literate. The corruption of the Gospel, therefore happened way before the Council of Nicea.

There were many different Gospel texts, all preaching many different theologies, and most being allegedly written by one or more Disciples, although it is a clear fact that none of them were written by the Disciples. Some of these texts became part of the New Testament eventually.

What is interesting to note is that Biblical Scholars believe in the existence of a mysterious document called 'Q'. This is a source document, believed to have been the source of much of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Document 'Q' was probably a document consisting of nothing more than the sayings of Isa and may actually have been the written form of the Book given to him. However, we do not have this document in any form.

So, the Gospels are indeed corrupted, more than people may imagine. However, not all of the Gospel narrative is corrupt and it is reasonable to think that Allah would have made sure some parts of Isa teachings were preserved, such as his prophecies relating to our Beloved Messenger so that some Christians may take heed and be given guidance.

Allah knows best

[JTS_tv]

Regarding the Greek, it is most likely that when the Gospel of John was being copied by scribes, a scribe made a slip which was then copied by later scribes and so on. It is easy to think that Parakleetos was changed to Paraklytos.

Regarding the Holy Spirit being the Comforter, this cannot be as the Comforter is supposed to arrive after Isa leaves, whereas the Bible shows the Holy Spirit was present at the same time as Isa .

Regarding him speaking to his Disciples; he may or may not be speaking to them. He knows they will convey at least some of what he says to later generations and perhaps he is addressing them. Like when he talks about the Disciples being able to see him return from heaven, and how people like Paul took it literally and thought Isa would return within his own lifetime- it was not supposed to be taken literally.

[Katoabralia]

The language of Jesus (Esa (AS) was more likly to be aramic and as such more akeen to Arabic and Hebrew (the semetic language). So how could the greek context be applied.
Also some of the gosple are ignored/ rejected. For instance the one found in ezypt few years ago. What are the authentication and validation process of such process.

But does the word "paraklytos" have anything to do with Aramaic? Wasn't the idea that "paraklytos" is quite close to the Greek word "parakleetos" and that's why we can ignore the differences in vowels?

Probably the one founded in Egypt was a Gnostic writning. It is clear that those are from the second century. You should acknowledge this too, because they teach for example dualism.

The Bible has been corrupted on 4 levels
1. By means of Translation - the original Aramaic has been lost, and thus, the earliest codices can not be verified as authentic - much can be lost in just the translation alone from Aramaic => Hebrew => Greek => Latin - not to mention the inability to authenticate the original message being translated with the loss of the originals.

I know that this goes a bit offtopic, but I just want to clarify this issue:

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, the Gospel according to Matthew may be the only exception to the rule. Of course the translation from Jesus' Aramaic words to Greek can be a problem for a Non-Christian. I believe that the original Greek of the NT is just as inspired as Jesus' Aramaic preaching.

The Original message is still there! There isn't a single manuscript that could question the essential doctrines of Christianity.

2. Human Error - Biblical scholars (christian and secular alike) have found many passages in the Bible which did not originate from the divine, but originated from scribal errors - such errors the variance between 666 and 616 as the mark of the beast, and the tale of Jesus(AS) walking on water, in ancient versions of the bible, this story was written in the margains - as a sort of side note, but not authenticated - later it was merged into the text itself and became a part of the bible.

It is true that the are some human errors in copying the text, but what makes the text reliable is that we know about these errors. We have so many manuscripts that we can spot some words or verses that can be questionable.

3. authentication and compilation - the bible was not formed, compiled and codified until 367 years after Jesus(AS) had left this world (thats longer than the US has been a country) - There are tons of books known to christians as the Apocrypha which were not included in the protestant bible - between the Catholics, The Protestants, The Eastern Orthodox, The Coptic, and The Etheopian Orthodox curches - they all have varying books - and each sect deems books the others hold as divine, as false. The books that were denied entry into the cannon were deemed to be fabricated by the council of carthage - but the books that were granted entry were not authenticated 100% either - they were just seen as "most likely not fabricated" by the council.

The date of canonization is wrong. If I remember correctly the year 367 is the year when the 27 books of today's NT were first mentioned in a same list and as the canonical books of the NT. BUT the Muratorian canon from the year 180 gives us a list of the canonical books and there are just some books that are disputed, for example the MC mentions the four gospels as canonical and all Pauline letters. So the canon was pretty much the same already in the second century. We can go even earlier with the Church Fathers who quote the books of the NT as the Word of God.

4. Revelation - The bible is not the writings of Jesus(AS) - it is more like a commentary by men who are said to have been with Jesus(AS). The system of revelation of the NT texts is a major departure from the way previous books were revealed to Anbiya in the past. For example, the book of revelation is not a revelation to Jesus(AS) that was passed on to his Hawaryeen - it was a revelation to John the evangelist - so much of the bible is no more divine then taleemul Haqq or Bahishti Zewar or the tafsir of Ibn Kathir. The bible we have today is no more the Injeel spoken of in the Quran, than an English translation of Tafsir Jalalayn is the Quran.

You probably realise that this argument is based solely on the presupposition that Jesus Christ was just a prophet. God has always delivered his revelation through humans so I see problem with that that the revelation was written under the authority of the apostles of Jesus who were messangers of God.

So the question I have, which has been posed to me by christians also, is why do we Muslims use verses from a book we find corrupted (with due merit, as the evidence is overwhelming) to authenticate Islam - for one the word "Paraclete" is the translation of a translation of a commentary on something Jesus(AS) is said to have said - so how do we know Jesus(AS) even said it, unless the quran and hadeeth say he said it? I dont have an answer to this question, the best thing I can think of that some elements from the divine Injeel are still preserved in the modern Bible.

Could be, because the Qu'ran claims that Muhammad is prophesied in the NT?

7:157 "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful."

I think the verse presupposes that the NT isn't corrupt at the time of Muhammad.

What is interesting to note is that Biblical Scholars believe in the existence of a mysterious document called 'Q'. This is a source document, believed to have been the source of much of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Document 'Q' was probably a document consisting of nothing more than the sayings of Isa and may actually have been the written form of the Book given to him. However, we do not have this document in any form.

Not all biblical scholars believe in it. It is just a theory without any manuscript evidence. But I don't think that you should turn to the alledged "Q-source" in order to prove Islam to be truth, because these same scholars are certain that if there is a Q-source, crucifixion is most certainly mentioned in it, because it is found in all gospels. So Q-source theory is really against teaching of the Qu'ran.

[JTS_tv]

Although not all accept the Q source hyposthesis, the majority do. In regards to whether crucifixion was mentioned in the document or not, that makes no difference as the Quran already states that it was made to appear as if they had crucified the Messiah. I'm sure some commentators of the Quran have explained that a Roman soldier who had tried to arrest Isa was made to look like him and was crucified in his place. So why wouldn't the Christian texts include the account? It's not like they were told the plan.

Furthermore, the Muslim belief would still be held correct even if Q does not exist. All this would mean is that someone somewhere down the line decided to write what he had heard about Isa and some of the things he would have heard would be correct and some would be incorrect. As such, it is possible that the words containing prophecy of the Final Messenger was transmitted correctly and the writers of the Gospels, having hehard them from one or more sources, wrote them down in the same way they wrote down everything else

[Katoabralia]

Although not all accept the Q source hyposthesis, the majority do. In regards to whether crucifixion was mentioned in the document or not, that makes no difference as the Quran already states that it was made to appear as if they had crucified the Messiah. I'm sure some commentators of the Quran have explained that a Roman soldier who had tried to arrest Isa was made to look like him and was crucified in his place. So why wouldn't the Christian texts include the account? It's not like they were told the plan.

Yes, most of them do. Most of the scholars are quite radical and atheist too. The whole theory is based on the similarities between the three synoptic gospel. That is all there is. If this doesen't matter, why was it ever brought up? Don't you find it problematic that Allah caused people to be decieved and basically started Christianity? Isn't this the conclusion from you views?

[JTS_tv]

Allah gives guidance and misguidance. How would that be difficult for me to accept? He made it appear that Isa was crucified when in reality he was not and if people are misled by this, so be it as everything is from Him . He also sent Islam to rectify the people

[Katoabralia]

Allah gives guidance and misguidance. How would that be difficult for me to accept? He made it appear that Isa was crucified when in reality he was not and if people are misled by this, so be it as everything is from Him . He also sent Islam to rectify the people

Okay, I see. I don't expect that kind of behaviour from God so that's why it is difficult for me to understand it. If we alledge that Qu'ran rectified people in the 7th century, we have still many centuries without pure revelation and true knowledge of God according to you, am I right?

[Theorsell]

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, the Gospel according to Matthew may be the only exception to the rule. Of course the translation from Jesus' Aramaic words to Greek can be a problem for a Non-Christian. I believe that the original Greek of the NT is just as inspired as Jesus' Aramaic preaching.

The Original message is still there! There isn't a single manuscript that could question the essential doctrines of Christianity.

Thats exactly my point - the reliability of the translation alone is based on belief, This is problematic for non-christians, especially Muslims, because we demand proof of authenticity of even our own holy books - thats why Muslims have taken extreme effort to authenticate and classify all of our texts - christianity has failed in the authentication department, and in my oppinion - is proof of the lack of divine protection on the religion. It seems when the facts dont support christian arguments, they simply fall back on the argument 'I have the Holy Spirit and you dont".




It is true that the are some human errors in copying the text, but what makes the text reliable is that we know about these errors. We have so many manuscripts that we can spot some words or verses that can be questionable. You know about some of them NOW - but which aspects of the faith are you not aware of that have been fabricated? Lets take 666 vs. 616 - This is not a salvational issue, but its a pretty big deal, If everyone is looking for the AC to have 666 - but he shows up with 616, this could be a problem.


The date of canonization is wrong. If I remember correctly the year 367 is the year when the 27 books of today's NT were first mentioned in a same list and as the canonical books of the NT. BUT the Muratorian canon from the year 180 gives us a list of the canonical books and there are just some books that are disputed, for example the MC mentions the four gospels as canonical and all Pauline letters. So the canon was pretty much the same already in the second century. We can go even earlier with the Church Fathers who quote the books of the NT as the Word of God. I didnt mention the mauratorian fragment because it mentions several books that you dont consider to be divine - and the cannon was not the same as today in 180 (in fact to use the wrod cannon is misleading because the bible wasnt cannonized until the council of carthage) - the fragment does mention the four gospels but it does not include the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, nor James - in addition it includes the Shepard of hermas and The Wisdom of Solomon and a gnostic book called the Apocalypse of peter - any Bible printed today, that made the claims of the Mauratorian Fragment would be discounted as heretical by mainstream christians. In addition, the MF does not mention some other books that were added to the list of NT books by Polycarp, Iraeneus and Eusibus - books like the Epistle of Barnabas.


You probably realise that this argument is based solely on the presupposition that Jesus Christ was just a prophet. God has always delivered his revelation through humans so I see problem with that that the revelation was written under the authority of the apostles of Jesus who were messangers of God. Not True - this argument does not take into account the Islamic perspective on jesus(AS) - Even if Jesus(AS) was divine in nature - the NT was still revealed in a dramaticly different way then previous Holy books in the Abrahamic lineage - for a milenia - Prophets were given divine decrees which they were to pass on to their respective nations - these men were confirmed as Prophets by the Jews, and were permitted to perform Miracles - when it comes to the revelation of the NT - it was revealed to men who never claimed themselves to be Prophets, nor were they considered Prophets by their contemporaries - even today, in a christian list of Prophets, the apostles are not mentioned in that list. Also, Paul never met Jesus(AS), he never sat with him, he never spoke to him - yet his writtings too are considered the word of God by christians. never in human history has God revealed His Word to man in the manner in which the NT was revealed - another example of the NTs inaccuracy, all of the errors and blasphems contained with in it aside - based on the Abrahamic sytem, the NT can not be considered the Word of God


Could be, because the Qu'ran claims that Muhammad is prophesied in the NT?

7:157 "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful." As a Muslim, the only thing we can gleam from this for sure is that the parts of the Bible that were not corrupted - are parts that uphold the absolute Truth - and if it is mentioned the coming of the Messenger of Allah - Then this is absolute truth - but we can only know what is corrupted and what is not by judging the bible by the light of the Quran.

[Katoabralia]

Thats exactly my point - the reliability of the translation alone is based on belief, This is problematic for non-christians, especially Muslims, because we demand proof of authenticity of even our own holy books - thats why Muslims have taken extreme effort to authenticate and classify all of our texts - christianity has failed in the authentication department, and in my oppinion - is proof of the lack of divine protection on the religion. It seems when the facts dont support christian arguments, they simply fall back on the argument 'I have the Holy Spirit and you dont".

No it's not. As I already said: The huge manuscript evidence proves the reliability of text of the Bible. You must believe that your book was faithfully preserved too and when it comes to Qu'ran, you don't have any proof for it before Uthman's time.

You know about some of them NOW - but which aspects of the faith are you not aware of that have been fabricated? Lets take 666 vs. 616 - This is not a salvational issue, but its a pretty big deal, If everyone is looking for the AC to have 666 - but he shows up with 616, this could be a problem.

There wasn't any good reason to corrupt the text in the early church. The earlier we go, the less we have significant variations, e.g. Comma Johanneum is a late addition and it is found in only one familiy of manuscripts. It doesen't really matter whether the number is 666 or 616 as we can identify the antichrist by Paul's second letter to Thessalonians.

I didnt mention the mauratorian fragment because it mentions several books that you dont consider to be divine - and the cannon was not the same as today in 180 (in fact to use the wrod cannon is misleading because the bible wasnt cannonized until the council of carthage) - the fragment does mention the four gospels but it does not include the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, nor James - in addition it includes the Shepard of hermas and The Wisdom of Solomon and a gnostic book called the Apocalypse of peter - any Bible printed today, that made the claims of the Mauratorian Fragment would be discounted as heretical by mainstream christians. In addition, the MF does not mention some other books that were added to the list of NT books by Polycarp, Iraeneus and Eusibus - books like the Epistle of Barnabas.

The reason, why I appealed to this canon is that it at least shows that the core of the canon was there as early as the second century. Some books were desputed for a long time, but the gospels and the pauline letters were there from the start.

Not True - this argument does not take into account the Islamic perspective on jesus(AS) - Even if Jesus(AS) was divine in nature - the NT was still revealed in a dramaticly different way then previous Holy books in the Abrahamic lineage - for a milenia - Prophets were given divine decrees which they were to pass on to their respective nations - these men were confirmed as Prophets by the Jews, and were permitted to perform Miracles - when it comes to the revelation of the NT - it was revealed to men who never claimed themselves to be Prophets, nor were they considered Prophets by their contemporaries - even today, in a christian list of Prophets, the apostles are not mentioned in that list. Also, Paul never met Jesus(AS), he never sat with him, he never spoke to him - yet his writtings too are considered the word of God by christians. never in human history has God revealed His Word to man in the manner in which the NT was revealed - another example of the NTs inaccuracy, all of the errors and blasphems contained with in it aside - based on the Abrahamic sytem, the NT can not be considered the Word of God

The followers of Jesus are different from prophets, because, according to Christianity, they were witnesses of the resurrection. They saw what the prophets foretold. Jesus personally tought them. I don't know where's the huge difference that makes NT unreliable.

[JTS_tv]

Okay, I see. I don't expect that kind of behaviour from God so that's why it is difficult for me to understand it. If we alledge that Qu'ran rectified people in the 7th century, we have still many centuries without pure revelation and true knowledge of God according to you, am I right?

No

The Quran is the unchanged Word of God so we do in fact still have the pure revelation along with true knowledge as God has preserved this. The reason why these other revelations were not preserved was because of God sending more Prophets and more Revelations. However, the Prophet Muhammad is the Last and Final Messenger and the Quran is the Last and Final Revelation and as such, the Quran has been preserved for all of humanity as have the deeds/words of the Messenger and true knowledge of these two have been preserved in the rightly guided scholars.

Regarding you not 'expecting this type of behaviour' from God, if you wish to discuss that, there are a few people on this forum with knowledge of Islamic theology who would be happy to discuss this point of belief with you. All you have to do is start a new thread (to get their attention and to stop discussion on this thread which is unrelated to the original topic)

[JTS_tv]

No it's not. As I already said: The huge manuscript evidence proves the reliability of text of the Bible. You must believe that your book was faithfully preserved too and when it comes to Qu'ran, you don't have any proof for it before Uthman's time.



There wasn't any good reason to corrupt the text in the early church. The earlier we go, the less we have significant variations, e.g. Comma Johanneum is a late addition and it is found in only one familiy of manuscripts. It doesen't really matter whether the number is 666 or 616 as we can identify the antichrist by Paul's second letter to Thessalonians.



The reason, why I appealed to this canon is that it at least shows that the core of the canon was there as early as the second century. Some books were desputed for a long time, but the gospels and the pauline letters were there from the start.



The followers of Jesus are different from prophets, because, according to Christianity, they were witnesses of the resurrection. They saw what the prophets foretold. Jesus personally tought them. I don't know where's the huge difference that makes NT unreliable.

We do have proof for the fact that the Quran has not been corrupted and this is acknowledged in the East and West. If you want to start a discussion on that, please start a new thread. Regarding the 'huge manuscript evidence' of the New Testament; all it shows is that the core message of the original Gospel writers has remained and can be found in the current day New Testament (according to you). Even if we accept that claim to be true, this does not make the New Testament to be the Word of God- you would have to prove that it is. Can you do that? In addition to the fact that whoever wrote the original Gospel accounts found today in the NT weren't disciples; why would we even believe what they had to write? Some of their stories may be true, some may not (of what Isa actually did)

There is an abundance of evidence showing that there were many different churches in the early days of Christianity, so to talk about just one unified church is out of the question. They all had their manuscripts, all of them apparently written by disciples, all of them teaching greatly different things.

The huge difference between the NT and the OT is theological as well as the obvious pointed out by brother Mujahid- that the NT is considered the Word of God although it is the word of anonymous writers, along with some famous writers (Paul). How is that the Word of God? Anyway, your answer to this particular objection of the brother was given according to Christianity but if Christianity is false...

[gueremaisse]

In my Catholic upbringing we were taught to understand that the parakleet referred to the holy spirit. In my childs mind I always remembered this because the holy spirit was always depicted as a dove/bird, and the word for it reminded me of parakeet!

Sorry for the humor, I do appreciate this thread and will read it more thoroughly when I have some time. I have done some reading on the history of the New Testament....it's very complex.

wa salam

[Theorsell]

The followers of Jesus are different from prophets, because, according to Christianity, they were witnesses of the resurrection. They saw what the prophets foretold. Jesus personally tought them. I don't know where's the huge difference that makes NT unreliable.

You dont know where the difference in the revelation of the NT from the revealtion of OT books?

The OT books were revealed to Prophets - these men conversed with God - they received revealtion from God - and in some cases, they received direct books from God (Moses(AS)) - also, these men were confirmed as prophets by the jews, and they performed miraculous feats in order to prove their prophethood - When Moses received a book - he related to his people the way God had told him, word for word.

The NT is said to have been written by the apostles - these men werent Prophets - they never claimed Prophethood - they were never bestowed the title of prophet by their contemporaries - they were companions of Jesus(AS) - Now weather or not you think Jesus(AS) was god or not does not matter here - because we dont have a single book authored by Jesus(AS). What we have are books which are said to have been authored by companions of Jesus(AS) - and Now their writtings are considered divine. In addition - you have one apostle, Paul, whose simple letters are considered to be the Word of God by christians - yet Paul never met Jesus(AS) nor was he taught by Jesus(AS) - so this man could not transmit the word of God unless he was a Prophet - and not even Paul dared to claim prophethood.

Do you see the difference in revelation? Do you see how the revealtion of the NT is not in line with the way God sent down previous books.

If you were a Jew in the time of the apostles - you never met Jesus(AS) - and a man named Paul came to you with a letter and said "abandon the law and worship this man" this would be an insane proposition to you because:
1. This man is not a Prophet - he has no authority to change the law given to Moses, a true Prophet.
2. This man is telling you to break the main tennet of Judaism - worship God alone - If God wanted jews to eventually worship His begotten son - why was it so emphasized in the past to do exactly the opposite?

The jews of the apostlelistic era did not deny christianity out of Pride or malice - but because the message being brought by the christians was alien to them - it was not the way God had done things EVER - and there was no man around with the authority to say "Things are different now"

[Katoabralia]

The Quran is the unchanged Word of God so we do in fact still have the pure revelation along with true knowledge as God has preserved this. The reason why these other revelations were not preserved was because of God sending more Prophets and more Revelations. However, the Prophet Muhammad is the Last and Final Messenger and the Quran is the Last and Final Revelation and as such, the Quran has been preserved for all of humanity as have the deeds/words of the Messenger and true knowledge of these two have been preserved in the rightly guided scholars.

Did you know that the New Testament claims exactly the same: It is the final revelation from God to humanity. So I think that alones makes Qu'ran highly questionable revelation. My question is then: You have a book (NT) that claims to be the final revelation, there isn't any historical evidence for falsifying of the text so why believe in the Qu'ran?

And another question that relates to the topic: How do you interpretate that verse in the Qu'ran that says that there is a mention of Muhammad in the Gospel?

[JTS_tv]

Did you know that the New Testament claims exactly the same: It is the final revelation from God to humanity. So I think that alones makes Qu'ran highly questionable revelation. My question is then: You have a book (NT) that claims to be the final revelation, there isn't any historical evidence for falsifying of the text so why believe in the Qu'ran?

And another question that relates to the topic: How do you interpretate that verse in the Qu'ran that says that there is a mention of Muhammad in the Gospel?

How can the NT claiming to be the final revelation in anyway make the Quran highly questionable? The only way that could be is if the NT was proven to be God's Word. Want to give that a try?

Now, you also claim that there isn't any reason for falsifying the text. Yet I had previously explained to you how the text wasn't even written by people that had met Isa . So why would you even believe what it said, on a historical point of view?

You also asked me why I would believe the Quran- the reason is because the Quran is without doubt the word of God and there is enough proof for this. If you want the proof, start a new thread as that's a different topic altogether from the original.

I interpret it to mean that the Messenger is mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel. Pretty self explanatory

[allvideO]

Dear, This May Help:

The Qur’an mentions in Surah Al-Araf chapter 7 verse 157:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) in the law and the Gospel".

1. MUHAMMAD (PBUH) PROPHESISED IN THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY:

Almighty God speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

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

The Christians say that this prophecy refers to Jesus (pbuh) because Jesus (pbuh) was like Moses (pbuh). Moses (pbuh) was a Jew, as well as Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew. Moses (pbuh) was a Prophet and Jesus (pbuh) was also a Prophet.

If these two are the only criteria for this prophecy to be fulfilled, then all the Prophets of the Bible who came after
Moses (pbuh) such as Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc. (pbut) will
fulfill this prophecy since all were Jews as well as prophets.

However, it is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is like Moses (pbuh):

i) Both had a father and a mother, while Jesus (pbuh) was born miraculously without any male intervention.

[Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 and also Al-Qur'an 3:42-47]

ii) Both were married and had children. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not marry nor had children.

iii) Both died natural deaths. Jesus (pbuh) has been raised up alive. (4:157-158)

Muhammad (pbuh) is from among the brethren of Moses (pbuh). Arabs are brethren of Jews. Abraham (pbuh) had two sons: Ishmail and Isaac (pbut). The Arabs are the descendants of Ishmail (pbuh) and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac (pbuh).

Words in the mouth:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered and whatever revelations he received from Almighty God he repeated them verbatim.

"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."

[Deuteronomy 18:18]

iv) Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment. Jesus (pbuh) said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36).

v) Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime but Jesus (pbuh) was rejected by his
people. John chapter 1 verse 11 states, "He came unto his own, but his own received him not."

iv) Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not bring any new laws. (Mathew 5:17-18).

2. It is Mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 18:19

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not harken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."

3. Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:

It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."

When Archangel Gabrail commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying Iqra - "Read", he replied, "I am not learned".

4. prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned by name in the old testament:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters
of Jerusalem."

In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet present.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the New Testament:

Al-Qur'an Chapter 61 Verse 6:

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said, 'O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed.' But when he came to them with clear signs, they said, 'This is evident sorcery!' "

All the prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament regarding Muhammad (pbuh) besides applying to the Jews also hold good for the Christians.

1. John chapter 14 verse 16:
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

2. Gospel of John chapter 15 verse 26:

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which
proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

3. Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 7:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you".

"Ahmed" or "Muhammad" meaning "the one who praises" or "the praised one" is almost the translation of the
Greek word Periclytos. In the Gospel of John 14:16, 15:26, and 16:7. The word 'Comforter' is used in the English translation for the Greek word Paracletos which means advocate or a kind friend rather than a comforter.
Paracletos is the warped reading for Periclytos. Jesus (pbuh) actually prophesised Ahmed by name. Even the
Greek word Paraclete refers to the Prophet (pbuh) who is a mercy for all creatures.

Some Christians say that the Comforter mentioned in these prophecies refers to the Holy Sprit. They fail to realise
that the prophecy clearly says that only if Jesus (pbuh) departs will the Comforter come. The Bible states that the
Holy Spirit was already present on earth before and during the time of Jesus (pbuh), in the womb of Elizabeth, and again when Jesus (pbuh) was being baptised, etc. Hence this prophecy refers to none other than Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh).

4. Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 12-14:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is
come, he will guide you unto all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me".

The Sprit of Truth, spoken about in this prophecy referes to none other than Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

NOTE: All quotations of the Bible are taken from the King James Version.

I Hope it helped,
Tried to do my best,
Regards.