- NEW!
by borasalama on July 18th, 2008
Here’s what Deuteronomy 18:18 says:
“I will raise them (the Jews) up a Prophet
(1) FROM AMONG THEIR (the Jews’) BRETHREN,
(2) LIKE UNTO THEE (Moses), and
(3) WILL PUT MY WORDS IN HIS MOUTH; and
(4) HE SHALL SPEAK UNTO THEM ALL THAT I SHALL COMMAND HIM.”
In the next verse God commands people to obey the prophet because what he utters will be
(5) “MY WORDS WHICH HE SHALL SPEAK IN MY NAME"
Below we examine in detail how each of these prophecies has been fulfilled:
(1) FROM AMONG THEIR (the Jews’) BRETHREN
The Arabs and the Jews are both semitic peoples. The Arabs are Ishmaelites having descended from Ishmael son of Abraham from Hagar, while the Jews are Israelites having descended from Jacob (aka Israel) whose father was Isaac son of Abraham from Sarah. The Arabs (the Ishmaelites) are thus the brethren of the Jews (the Israelites). The Bible confirms this, “and he (Ishmael) shall dwell in the presence of all HIS BRETHREN” (Genesis 16:12). “and he (Ishmael) died in the presence of all HIS BRETHREN.(Genesis 25:18). This particular prophecy was not of the Messiah, therefore it does NOT apply to Jesus because Jesus was not from the brethren of the Jews, he was actually a Jew himself and he was prophecied as the Messiah elsewhere in the OT. However, Mohammed WAS, like Deuteronomy 18:18 predicted, from among their (the Jews’) brethren.
(2) LIKE UNTO THEE (Moses)
This is the second clue telling us that this is NOT a prophecy of the Messiah because there are many ways in which Mohammed the Prophet was like unto Moses but Jesus the Messiah was NOT like unto Moses, for example:
2.1 Mohammed and Moses both have no record of any divine intervention associated with their conception, but Jesus has.
2.2 Mohammed and Moses both had a biological father, but Jesus did not.
2.3 Mohammed and Moses both married, but Jesus did not.
2.4 Mohammed and Moses both became fathers, but Jesus did not.
2.5 Mohammed and Moses both started their missions at around age 40, but Jesus started at 30.
2.6 Mohammed and Moses both were accepted by their people, but Jesus was not. (not according to John 1:11) And even today, ofter two thousand years, his people- the Jews, as a whole, reject him
2.7 Mohammed and Moses both exercised temporal power, but Jesus did not.
2.8 Mohammed and Moses both brought new laws, but Jesus did not. (Jesus followed Moses)
2.9 Mohammed and Moses both led an exodus of their people, but Jesus did not.
2.10 Mohammed and Moses both physically triumphed over their enemies, but Jesus did not.
2.11 Mohammed and Moses both died natural deaths, but Jesus did not.
2.12 Mohammed and Moses both are NOT claimed by their followers to have died for the sins of others, but Jesus is.
2.13 Mohammed and Moses both were buried in graves, but Jesus was not.
2.14 Mohammed and Moses both are NOT claimed by their followers to have spent three days in hell, but Jesus is.
2.15 Mohammed and Moses both were never seen after their death, but it is claimed that Jesus was.
2.16 Mohammed and Moses both, physically, remained in the earth, but Jesus did not.
2.17 Mohammed and Moses both are NOT generally regarded as God by their followers, but Jesus is.
(3) WILL PUT MY WORDS IN HIS MOUTH
The Holy Qur’an (HQ) was not a scripture that was put together after Mohammed’s death but a collection of revelations uttered by Mohammed exactly as they came down to him. These were God’s words put into Mohammed’s mouth. The revelations came down to and were spoken by Mohammed a few verses at a time as the occasion demanded over a period of 23 years. This spread out and made easy the accurate memorisation and writing down of the verses.
(4) HE SHALL SPEAK UNTO THEM ALL THAT I SHALL COMMAND HIM.”
Mohammed had no control or choice of what went into the HQ. He had to utter what was commanded to him even if it made his task of conveying the message more difficult. His first and immediate audience were the Arabs who were bitterly opposed to the message of the HQ. Winning them over seemed impossible yet he was ordered to say things that would make his task even more difficult. For example part of the HQ revelation he had to recite to them says that the most honoured woman in the world is a Jewess, Mary, the mother of Jesus. Anyone free to choose would have chosen to praise the mother, daughter or wife of the nobles amongst his audience.
(5 A) “MY WORDS WHICH HE SHALL SPEAK IN MY NAME"
History tells us that the very first verse to be revealed to Mohammed was the command "Read! IN THE NAME OF THY LORD AND CHERISHER, Who created” (HQ 96:1)
(5 B) “MY WORDS WHICH HE SHALL SPEAK IN MY NAME"
History tells us that the very first verse to be revealed to Mohammed was the command "Read! IN THE NAME OF THY LORD AND CHERISHER, Who created” (HQ 96:1)
Furthermore if we examine the HQ we will find that all bar one of its 114 chapters which Mohammed spoke begin with the words "IN THE NAME OF GOD, Most Gracious, Most Merciful" Thus the words of God (the HQ) which the prophet (Mohammed) spoke begin in the name of God.
I hope you’ll agree that it is clear from the above detailed analysis that all the prophecies in the qouted verses have found precise fulfillment in Mohammed.
But do we need to believe in Mohammed. Well, the next verse, Deut 18:19, warns us that "it SHALL come to pass, that WHOSOEVER will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I WILL require it of him". Now that sounds pretty serious.
Is there a study guide along with"Know the Bible in 30 Days"?
by Answerbag Staff on July 11th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What year did ronald knox publish the new testament?
by Answerbag Staff on July 6th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Is the Bible covered under SOPA?
by Mister_Bromide on January 18th, 2012
| 3 people like this
Who publishes the new King James Bible?
by Answerbag Staff on June 14th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Christians, does the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) still apply and still matter today? This is a follow up of my first question.
by Parepidemos on January 14th, 2012
| 2 people like this
You're reading We have established, beyond doubt, that there is "Allah" in the Bible, but does the Bible make any references to Mohammed?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
You have no idea how offensive this is to Christians.
by Mystical on July 30th, 2008
You are absolutely right there, and your comment hasn't left any clues, either. Needless to say no offence was meant, just some plain, reasoned analysis.
.
Mohammed is a prophet to about 1.4 billion people. Even non-Muslim historians have a great respect and admiration for him. Yet people who call themselves Christians have openly, repeatedly and unceasingly called him a paedophile. They dismiss all protestations, explanations and appeals for decency and respect for a world class leader. Now that IS very offensive, very disrespectful and extremely arrogant.
.
Biblical personalities, including Jesus, are mentioned in the answer above. However, there is no disrespect, insult or filth associated with any of them. In fact Jesus is accorded his title of Messiah without any dispute.
.
I have numbered most of the items in the answer for ease of reference, so please let me know which part is offensive.
by borasalama on July 30th, 2008
assalaam alaykom Bora, once again I find myself smiling ear to ear as I read one of your posts. This line of reasoning is exactly why I converted from Christianity to Islam.
Mystical, I was raised Christian and was an active member of my youth group and have family on Christian Missions all over the world. I was very devout in my Christian beliefs and then I started to research Islam. It makes sense. I'm not trying to convert anyone...Muslims aren't crusaders...but please understand that logic shouldn't be offensive no matter the topic. Stating what he believes in a non aggressive manner is what conversation is by definition, the exchange of ideas.
My question to you Mystical, is what branch of Christianity do you believe in? Islam is larger than any single sect of Christianity, wouldn't it be wise to at least understand where 1.4 billion people are coming from in their beliefs?
by Spengo on August 12th, 2008
Also mystical, forgot to mention this, "Allah" is in the bible many many many times. "Allah" is simply the arabic translation for the "God", if it was in spanish and someone said "Dios" you wouldn't say "Dios" isn't in the bible.
by Spengo on August 12th, 2008
TY very much Spengo, I hope at least Mystical will understand you. She's very offensive towards Mohammed when we're being very respectful towards Jesus and most faithful to Christ's teachings.
by borasalama on August 12th, 2008
Boras, calling Jesus a mere prophet is insulting to Xtians. Using YOUR beliefs about Jesus and His mother to defend Mo is not as repectful as you seem to think. Mo believed Christians worshipped Mary as part of the Triune God, Mo also mistakes mother of Jesus as the sister of Aaron both these "facts" he foolishly includes in the Q. I dont have any respect for Mo because he lied about being a prophet of God and has lead many good people to view evil as good...like yourselves. I'm just being honest. Cheers
by Mystical on August 13th, 2008
No, remember, I was raised Christian. To abbreviate "xtian" is just as bad since you are literally taking Christ our of it. We don't see Jesus PBUH as a "mere profit" we see him as the messiah, we just don't believe he was crucified. We know that Christians see it as Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Even if Islam was wrong, or Christianity for that matter, I don't think that anyone who is trying as hard as they can with fervor to find THE GOD, is evil. People might be wrong about a lot of things, but if their ultimate answer to the ultimate question ends up with The One True God, I don't think anyone of those people can be classified as evil.
If you had read the post about the prophet Mohammed PBUH saying Jesus PBUH was born of Mary and was a prophet of God, and the Bible states that no false prophet will bear witness to Jesus Christ PBUH, doesn't that mean that the BIBLE is saying thet Mohammed PBUH, can't be a false prophet? Which part of the bible you are you saying is incorrect?
by Spengo on August 14th, 2008
In Acts 3:20-26 Peter understands Deuteronomy 18:18 is referring to Jesus. So the Apostle Peter clarifies this for us. Belief in Mohamed as a prophet is not a scriptural teaching. It is cancelled out by the inspired Apostle Peter. The attempt to use the Hebrew scriptures is thus not a harmonious way of reasoning.
by no_one_special on September 18th, 2008
(1) FROM AMONG THEIR (the Jews’) BRETHREN Just means brothers. Remember there were 12 tribes so brother could have been any thousands of them or millions actually.
(2) LIKE UNTO THEE (Moses) Means he is like him in a spiritual sense. Jesus is also referred to as the greater Solomon, Greater Melchizedek and hey Solomon had many wives Jesus had none. So the similarities were limited to the spiritual sense not the physical.
(3) WILL PUT MY WORDS IN HIS MOUTH Jesus said he spoke what the Father wanted and the Father taught him.
(4) HE SHALL SPEAK UNTO THEM ALL THAT I SHALL COMMAND HIM.” Again read number (3) he spoke not of his own initiative but what the read John 8:28
by no_one_special on September 18th, 2008
Please see http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/1087042 and
http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/3674410
by borasalama on September 18th, 2008
The second link I addressed already on that very same thread. Yes the scriptures you mention do tell us that there was a variety in beliefs. However, Peter in Acts 3:19-26 tells us who Moses was told about, Jesus.
by no_one_special on September 18th, 2008
I note what it says in Acts 3:19-26 but it is clear according to the Gospel that there were three that were expected. We also agree that the first two were Elias and Jesus. The overwhelming evidence points to the third one being Mohammed.
by borasalama on September 19th, 2008
Look in Acts 3:22,24,25 in 22 God says to Moses that he will raise up a prophet, then in 24 the Apostle says that in "these days" meaning those days which for him the Apostle, would be during his time period so it is clear Mohamed was not implied because Mohamed came much later after the Apostles. Also verse 25 speaks of the covenant established with Abraham, that covenant was specifically about the promised seed. The seed was Jesus Christ.
by no_one_special on September 24th, 2008
we are not debating whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. We accept that he was. He is NOT under question.
.
What we are discussing here is the third person that was yet to come, the one referred to as "that prophet" by the delegation sent on the fact finding mission. The proposition here is that he was none other than Prophet Mohammed, and the answer above provides detailed evidence to back up that propostion.
.
I end by repeating that this prophecy does NOT challenge or diminish the position of Jesus. In fact the HQ repeatedly calls Jesus the Messiah or the Christ. HQ 4:171 even calls Jesus a Word from God and a spirit from Him. “Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no less than) a messenger of God, and His Word, which He (God)bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him". The message of the HQ is so simple and universal that many embraced it then and are doing so now and throught it accepting Jesus, even Rabbis, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_ibn_Sailam
by borasalama on September 24th, 2008
I am glad we are not debating whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. But your belief that Mohamed is "the prophet" that Moses was informed about in Deuteronomy 18:18 is inaccurate. Why? Peter makes reference about that very same scripture in Acts 3:19-26 and tells us who Moses was told the prophet was and Peter makes it clear it was Jesus. Make sense?
by no_one_special on September 24th, 2008
I'm happy with my understanding of the Biblical passages for three main reasons
.
1 it doesn't challenge the position of Jesus, I accept the NT's identification of Jesus as the Messiah
.
2 the Biblical profiles of 'that prophet' and the 'comforter' and 'spirit of truth' fit Mohammed like a made-to-measure coat, without encroaching on the prophecies about the Messiah
.
3 by ackowledging the HQ given to Mohammed I get confirmation in it of the exalted position of Jesus. The HQ is after all the least controversial, best preserved ancient scripture available to mankind
.
There may be interpretations that want to extract a different, much narrower view, that may be fine for the narrow minded. As long as there is nothing outrageously wrong with my interpretation it would not make much sense to abandon it for a narrower view.
by borasalama on September 25th, 2008
You are happy because it fits your beliefs but you are not addressing the issues presented to you. Peter addresses and identifies the Messiah as the Prophet. You discredit Peter? Also just for thought, the Apostle Paul fits more closely to what you call the next prophet, even more closely than Mohamed.
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2008
I have laid out in detail how the profile fits Mohammed. You can see that too. But you don't have to accept it, it's your choice. Muslims don't go against their reason, they accept the evidence. What's more by accepting it they do not have to throw out Jesus, they get to keep Jesus too, and they end up being more faithful to his teachings as well see http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/888471
by borasalama on September 26th, 2008
Yes you have laid out in detail how you believe it applies to Mohammad. However you leave out other scriptures. John 14:17 and it reads, "that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, BUT YOU KNOW Him BECAUSE He ABIDES WITH YOU and WILL BE IN YOU."... Get it? It abides already with them so it does not refer to Mohamed due to the fact Mohamed came much later. Why are you side stepping that verse? Why do you as a Muslim not take this as evidence? You claim you do yet you disregard other parts of the Holy word of God.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2008
I think we've got to a stage where we are going round in circles. So I'll repeat my position for the final time.
.
On Deut 18:18 for you the words of Peter and others is Holy and you cannot consider any evidence that goes against their reported sayings. That's fine by me. I understand your position, but that doesn't mean you can stop others taking into account evidence that you are not allowed to. FOR ME the evidence we now have about Mohammed as presented in my main answer above far outweighs the conclusion of Peter or others during his time because they did not have information about Mohammed who came centuries later.
.
On the prophecies by Jesus himself, I know of the text you quote but I do not fully understand what Jesus means by it (as he APPEARS to be contradicting himself) and therefore I did not include it with the parts of the text that strongly support my case.
by borasalama on September 27th, 2008
I cannot consider the evidence? borasalama you do not consider, John 14:17 and it reads, "that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, BUT YOU KNOW Him BECAUSE He ABIDES WITH YOU and WILL BE IN YOU."... Get it? It abides already with them so it does not refer to Mohamed due to the fact Mohamed came much later. Why are you side stepping that verse? Why do you as a Muslim not take this as evidence? BUT YOU KNOW Him BECAUSE He ABIDES WITH YOU and WILL BE IN YOU... Run if you want borasalama. I have considered your points and more importantly ADDRESSED them. YOU have not addressed them, run if you would like from the evidence. I know it must be very hard for you to grasp it since you do not have any answers to contradict the bible position other than Moses and Mohamed were married. Great logic borasalama.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2008
noone...the thing you aren't fully comprehending is that Muslims don't put as much faith in the Bible as we do the Qur'an. Much like if we quoted clear evidence from Qur'anic scripture you would say "well in the bible...". So repetitive bible scripture doesn't have the same weight with us as it does with you although we do still follow a lot of the Biblical teachings. This entire argument, and the one you have had on every forum I've read, is a matter of faith and interpretation. We all believe that we have to have faith to follow a religion, even if that faith isn't followed by others and even if others don't have faith at all. We all agree that the people of the book all have faith in God, that is the most important step. Our faith is guided to a different place and there is no shaking that. Again, you quote biblical scripture and ignore Qur'anic scripture but our faith lies in the Qur'an.
by Spengo on September 28th, 2008
I understand your faith is in the Qur'an and not in the bible. And I thank you for admitting that. It is borasalama who would not admit that. This is all that is necessary, to tell the truth. My problem with borasalama and anyone Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever is do not quote the word of God to support your position and disregard the other parts not convenient. How can you hold as evidence one part and not the other. Be honest and say you do not hold the bible as credible. Simple. Borasalam uses scriptures in a convenient way, which you indirectly admit that he does. Because he picks and chooses what he wants. Would it be fair if I pick and choose things out of the Qur'an? Take things out of context and tell you, your beliefs are wrong because in Surah such and such it says this and that, then you point out I left things out in the very next verse and I ignore it because it is not convenient? What would you think of me? Very weak arguments on my part right? Do you see my point?
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2008
The OT aka the Hebrew scriptures was meant for the Jews, no one will dispute that.
.
Jesus was a Jew. No one will dispute that.
.
Jesus is reported to have said that his mission was confined to the Jews. For those who may want to dispute that, here's just one quote "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:24
.
If a scripture is not meant for you then there is no obligation on you to follow it. However, there is surely nothing wrong with studying it or discussing it with others, and who better to discuss it with than those who claim it to be theirs.
.
The HQ is for the whole of mankind. HQ 2:185 declares that "Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur'an, AS A GUIDE TO MANKIND, (containing) clear (directions) for guidance and a tool for judging (right from wrong)"
.
You have every right, even obligation, to study the HQ. Muslims would be delighted to discuss any HQ verse even if you've got it completely out of context.
by borasalama on September 29th, 2008
Sorry borasalama but the Christian scriptures were for us. Follow this link. I already had this discussion with someone else. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/927192
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2008
noone...bora said they were for you...He was implying that, since he is Muslim, he follows the Qur'an as THOSE scriptures apply to him.
by Spengo on September 29th, 2008
If they are for me they are for him since there is only one God. If Jesus died for me, he died for him as well. There cannot be two faiths.
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2008
Some people are asked at the point of commitment 'do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?' I suppose it is a bit similar with scripture. You choose (and you'd better choose wisely, it could be hell otherwise) you commit yourself to it and you be faithful to it.
.
A Jew will choose the Tanakh and reject the NT and all other scriptures
A Protestant will choose the Bible, throw out the "Apocrypha" and reject all other scriptures
An RC will choose the Bible and reject all other scriptures
A Muslim will choose the HQ and, of all the scriptures that came before it, he will accept all that is in agreement with the HQ and reject only what goes against the teachings of the HQ.
.
So if a scripture teaches that there is more than one God or no God at all then a Muslim will reject that teaching. Similarly a Muslim will reject a claim that someone else can die for his sins. A Christian should too, because as I showed to you it goes against the teaching of the Bible itself.
by borasalama on September 29th, 2008
It does not go against the bible I already addressed it on another thread and will gladly re post it here. And thanks again for admitting again you are being dogmatic and will not hold yourself to the standard you held me to when you thought you had me beat.
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2008
In comparing Exodus 34:7 with Ezekiel 18:20. The first text states that God would bring “punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons,” while the latter states that “a son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father.” Why do these texts appear to be contradictory? Because they are taken out of context. Examine the surrounding material and setting. It then becomes obvious that when God mentioned punishment as coming upon not only fathers but also sons and grandsons, he was speaking of what would result to Israelites as a nation if they sinned against him and were taken into captivity. On the other hand, when mentioning that a son would not be liable for the error of his father, he was speaking of personal accountability.
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2008
"when you thought you had me beat" is again you assuming your thought process applies to others. For me this whole discussion is about trying to understand why you believe what you do when it is possible to come to a different belief using the same scripture. I saw the comment you are referring to where you posted it first and I suggest we continue the discussion there and close this thread. TY for all your comments here.
by borasalama on September 29th, 2008
We can continue where every you'd like. However your attitude was that of one of having beaten me because how strongly you held me to that standard of evidence and saying "I know it is difficult due to you beliefs that but that is the evidence" and things like of that nature, yet when I presented the reasoning and asked you to do the same you became dogmatic.
by no_one_special on September 30th, 2008
Your position is - in my Bible Peter says the prophecy in Deut 18:18 is Jesus. Anyone that's prepared to examine another possibility is a hypocrite.
.
My position is not 'the HQ says Deut 18:18 is Mohammed, end of argument' no. I am saying Deut 18:18 is making a prophecy, let's objectively examine who most closely matches this prophecy. It is this match that is described in the main answer above. If there is a closer meaningful match let's see it.
.
Now it is clear which of those two positions is dogmatic.
.
It is possible to view the JW as having taken two brave and major steps away from the mainstream Christian beliefs and closer to the mainstream Muslim ones regarding Jesus - the rejection of God as a trinity and the rejection of Jesus as God. Put Mohammed to one side for a while and carry on along the same lines to examine the 'original sin' doctrine - yet another thing NOT taught by Jesus in his lifetime. We've started that in another thread, let's take it up there.
by borasalama on September 30th, 2008
No my position is not in "MY bible" because I use many bibles and anyone states in essence the same thing. I am not saying anyone prepared to examine another possibility is a hypocrite, I am saying anyone using the bible to make a case for something and completely ignoring relevant information that clarifies statements is a hypocrite. Do not take things out of context and not expect someone to point it out to you... As for the original sin it is not just in the Christian scriptures but in Genesis it is clear everything changed after they sinned.
by no_one_special on September 30th, 2008
Genesis 3:17-23 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
by no_one_special on September 30th, 2008
Genesis 3:2324 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
by no_one_special on September 30th, 2008
We can finish on the other thread if you like.
by no_one_special on September 30th, 2008
Aah, my fault, when I said your bible I didn't mean the NWT, I just meant the Bible.
.
My fault again for not clarifying that I meant original sin as a doctrine.
.
Anyway, we'll continue on this other thread. TY
by borasalama on October 1st, 2008
NWT? The above is from the NASB if I remember correctly. Like I said I use and quote from many bibles. Which threads shall we continue in?
by no_one_special on October 1st, 2008
we are talking with a lot of crossed wires aren't we? I didn't say you were quoting from the NWT, I was just trying to explain the sense in which I was using the phrase "my Bible", but never mind let's forget all that.
.
The thread in question is the one in wgich we're exploring the original sin.
by borasalama on October 1st, 2008
Ok so whose turn was it??
by no_one_special on October 1st, 2008
It's @ http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/3967618 and I reckon we're about to wind that one up as well. C U there.
by borasalama on October 2nd, 2008
i am not offended in the least ...Ishmael was not a Jew , of Judah.....we are all of Adam , but not all of Seth...there was Cain also...Abraham was of Seth...the Savior was of Isaac....not of Ishamel.....Ishmael is not a prophet of Judah 's Tribe ....Judah was of Isaac/Israel .....Ishmael plain and simple was not of the Messianic lineage , he was Abrahams son too ,same as Cain was Adam's son ..but Abraham was of Seth.....
Cain was just as Ishmael ,not of the Messianic lineage...end of MY BOOK...
by thatsJustme on June 4th, 2009
My arguments above are based on the prophecies of Moses and @ http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/3674410 on the prophecies of Jesus. Both are regarded as great prophets in the Bible and the HQ, and in neither of these scriptures do they talk of Isaac and Ishmael in terms of Cain and Abel. There is no association of evil, hatred or dislike in what God is supposed to have said about Ismael according to Genesis 17:20 "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have BLESSED him, and will make him FRUITFUL, and will MULTIPLY him EXCEEDINGLY; twelve PRINCES shall he beget, and I will make him a GREAT NATION."
by borasalama on June 5th, 2009
-2DR for the question and a -2DR for the answer, good trolling.
by borasalama on July 29th, 2009
I have posi-trolled you to get your points back :) Salaam brother
by Spengo on July 29th, 2009
wa alaikum assalaam Br Spengo, TY and I hope you're doing well.
by borasalama on July 29th, 2009
doing very well thank you. I just found that +100 is the most you can give a single person per week :)
by Spengo on July 29th, 2009
AB has put a curb on your freedom to exercise unlimited generosity!
by borasalama on July 29th, 2009
:) I'll not be upset with them about it though.
by Spengo on July 29th, 2009
Mystical:
they have no idea how offensive this is to GOD!
by angelzz on July 29th, 2009
I can say with certainty that I would never do anything knowingly that would be offensive to God and He knows my true intentions. That being said, God knows that I am not knowingly offending Him, His work, His intentions, His love, or His world. I think that you presuming that I am and presuming that you knows God's feelings is something that you should tread carefully with before you make the pitfall you have just accused Bora and I of...I don't presume that you have offended God though because, although we disagree, your heart seems to be aimed at God and His love...for this you are a wonderful person but please refrain from accusing myself and Bora of anything disrespectful to Allah Most Merciful and Most Wise.
by Spengo on July 30th, 2009
Revelations 22:18-19 says that whoever adds or takes away from the Bible they will be cursed and not accepted into the Holy City. The Bible has no mention of Muhammed. The Dead Sea Scrolls and all of the translations that followed have no mention. Muhammed was somehow added in. That is disobeying God.
I follow what God's word says, not some other person's.
by angelzz on July 30th, 2009
You are correct in everything that you said except for the statement "That is disobeying God". You said "whoever adds or takes away from the Bible they will be cursed and not accepted into the Holy City". You then said "The Bible has no mention of Muhammed". That being the case, If you are a Christian, you can't say that anyone added Muhammed to the bible and that they are cursed.
by Spengo on July 30th, 2009
Muslims like to interpret the Bible and equate Mohammad with the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised to send for the protection and guidance of the Church. That is adding to the Bible, Spengo and well you know it. Stop with the lies Spengo it doesnt work on those of us who are truly Christian.
by Mystical on July 30th, 2009
I can assure you that Muslims try VERY sincerely and AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE to follow what they see as being from God.
.
You quote "whoever adds or takes away from the Bible they will be cursed". Muslims would extend that ruling to cover all genuine scripture. This is why they
.
1 are amazed at what Christians do to the Bible. The discovery of words and passages that were ADDED IN by scribes, forgeries brought to light by the discovery of older manuscripts and whole books (seven of them) TAKEN AWAY by some churches as apocrypha.
.
2 have never added or removed even a single letter from the HQ since its revelation.
.
Muslims cannot ignore the HQ because even the Bible warns against that. Deut 18:19, which I'll add to the answer, warns "And it shall come to pass, that WHOSOEVER will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I WILL require it of him". Now that sounds pretty serious.
by borasalama on July 30th, 2009