Proof of The Prophet Muhammad in the Bible

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by skajkingdom
 


Your question is not based in curiosity but in skepticism and anger. You are just attempting to make yourself feel superior. I do not understand how this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Here is your answer however,
God the father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the son are all one in the same and yet they are all seperate. You either belive this to be true or you don't. The concept is difficult to understand, like it is difficult to understand that God does not have a beginning or an end, he simply is. There are going to be things that it is difficult to understand about the creator of the universe and a supreme being, but that is the important thing about faith and belief.

I have much more intelligent people than myself explain the trinity in very concise ways, but the best I can do is state that God is like the heart, Jesus is like the brain, and the Holy Spirit is like the soul, and unlike humans God has the ability to use them independantly.


I am not stating that you have to believe, I would like for you to for the sake of your soul, but that is your choice. But, I do ask that you not mock my religion and show the same respect to me that I have showed you in my post. As a christian, I work diligently not to be judgemental to others, and almost every Christian I have met does the same. We want to share the joy that we have found in God, but we do not want to force on anyone. We believe that it is our place to point the way, but not force anyone down the path. I understand that there are Christians that believe differently than this and they have done some horrible things in the past. But, is it proper for us to talke to in this manner by people who acclaim to be tolerant. No. The atheiest that believe religion is the root of all evil seem to be starting a war with religion, while stating how evil it is.

Seems a little contradictory to me. It seems like atheiest are currently on a crusade to destroy religion. While it is currently not violent, as the atheist grow in power I believe they will attempt to make it illegal to have churches or publiclly proclaim faith.




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
With reference to the OP , and the website linked with the video , by looking at alot of the replies to the video on that site , alot of people clearly dont know the difference between racism and not liking someone elses religious beliefs.
Alot of very confused people follow religion it seems


reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


Technically if we truly want to break free from all this religious dominance over mankind then we should revise the calander to the date that man first stood tall and walked the earth , not from when we had some mythical dude born of immaculate conception!




edit on 21-9-2010 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by skajkingdom
 


Um...

You don't know much about the truth I guess.

Firstly, even if it was deception what Paul was doing, it brought people to the truth, and the truth is good.

But still, what Paul did was not deception - in fact, the best way to make friends is to relate to people and practice what they do to understand their mindset so that you are able to tackle their issues and really get how people feel. When you do that, you are better able to have a true and open conversation with someone.

What truth is there in a man who prides himself in being the "one who is praised"? How is he for a god above him when his very name shows how he takes glory for himself - not for God? Islam claims Allah is the only God, and yet, Muhammed is worshipped. The irony!

And do not go crazy with the whole "Trinity" is pagan thing. God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It's not pagan to realize that God is a family. It's pagan to worship other gods because God is the true God.

So until you have a real argument against Paul... worry about your Muhammed.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


Technically if we truly want to break free from all this religious dominance over mankind then we should revise the calander to the date that man first stood tall and walked the earth , not from when we had some mythical dude born of immaculate conception!





Boy, if only people had been smart enough to start counting then. Hmm. Oh wait, we'll use our time machine to figure out when that happened!

And you say you don't have faith. Pshhh.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by russ212
 


We really are wasting our time with the op and this thread.
All non- muslims are considered kufar(not sure of spelling)
just like cattle to be slaughtered.
Muhammad is not the person described in the Song of Solomon..



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mamabeth
 


Originally posted by mamabeth
The muslim prophet is not mentioned in the old
testament.My stepson studied greek and hebrew
in college.I listen to a Messianic rabbi about twice
a week.
There isn't anything you can post that will ever make
me change my mind!I am steadfast in my beliefs and
am prepared to answer for them.
He lives,He lives,Christ Jesus lives today.
Yeshua Ha Mashiach

You may do well to study the scripture yourself instead of relying on your son or your Messianic Rabbi. They may not be purposely misleading you, but they could always be mistaken- and it is a little dangerous to so adamantly state that you'd never change your mind based on their understandings. At least the *name* of the Muslim prophet IS in the OT.
And no muslim denies that Yeshua Ha Mashiach, and most would probably agree that he "lives" today.

PS: If I ever tried hugging my cat, I'd be scratched to death.

reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Originally posted by boondock-saint
Is Jesus mentioned in the Koran????

Yeah. By name, more times than even Muhammad.


reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Who cares if people switched the designation from "A.D." to "C.E." -- C.E. is still based upon A.D.

This argument is like saying that the sky isn't blue, it's now "gumperfrak", even though "gumperfrak" was made up to suit the needs of the anti-blue society. So the sky is "gumperfrak" you uneducated fool.


While I agree that AD is still much more commonly used than CE, I think you are missing the point. It doesn't really matter what year the calender is based off of. In fact, it is VERY unlikely that Jesus was born in the year 0 or 1. The calender could be based off anyone.
The issue, for me at least (although I still use AD sometimes, because I'm lazy) is that while I have no issue with a calender based off the year of the birth of Jesus Christ, and I don't even mind the term "Before Christ", AD, meaning "Anno Domino", translates to "In the year of our Lord", which is not something I agree with. Thus the change from AD to CE is fairly relevant, even if it is just a change in the name of the same thing.


Originally posted by TarzanBeta
Who cares if a word in the hebrew bible can be translated to muhammad? Muhammad could simply be translated to mean "praised" or "one who is praised". I'm sure that the muhammad of the Bible is more likely than not a verb and not a name, and even if it is, the muhammad of the Bible is certainly not the founder of Islam.

If it is a name (which is certainly contextually possible), then which Muhammad would it be, if not the Arab prophet?


reply to post by gravitational
 


Originally posted by russ212
The called the prophet was born in 570 AD, and I don't believe he was the first and only one name Mohammad

It is recorded (by Islamic sources, certainly, but you are likely to find contemporary sources that are not Islamic) that this was the first time someone had used that name among the Arabs. Do you know of a time previous to that?


reply to post by kingofmd
 


Originally posted by kingofmd
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

But then what about the same exhortation in the OT which Christians ignored? Or what about what Peter preached separate from Paul?

At the risk of once again side-tracking, the reason it is so difficult to explain the Trinity is because it makes no logical sense.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I learned to read during the Kennedy administration.
I read my Bible for myself and I do listen to what
others may think.I let the Holy Spirit be my guide!

Ha Mashiach is hebrew for the Messiah,Trust me,the muslims
DO NOT believe that Jesus/Yeshua was the Messiah.








edit on 21-9-2010 by mamabeth because: forgot something



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by russ212
 


I thank you for your answer.
It is not my intention to be "superior" or show off or whatever.

There would be no problem whatsoever if you as christian had certain different aspects of belief, for example you consider drinking alcohol to be OK, but I don't.
That, in my belief, is a sin. But it is not something that will condemn you in the face of God.

The problem is SHIRK.

It is the arab word used in Qur'an for ONE and ONLY sin which God will NEVER forgive.

God is all merciful, he can forgive EVERY sin. Except for shirk.
And shirk means ascribing partners to God.
Elevating a person in the rank of God. Like saying that a prophet of God IS actually God.

And, this is not something I am trying to force on you, based on Qur'an or what not.
I am putting forth arguments from THE BIBLE which for centuries were unchangeable. There was always only one God. There is not even one mention of the word trinity in the Bible.
If Trinity is the very nature of God, how come it was never mentioned.
That is a fundamental tenet of faith. Yet we find no mention of it.

The only time when this "deification" of Jesus starts, is the time Paul lived.
He was was heavily opposed by the original disciples of Jesus, who condemned him (some of this even survived in the Acts) and accused him of HERESY.

Eventually however, the pauline doctrine superseded all others, those of the original teachings of Jesus included.
And - voila - we got ourself Paulianism.

By the way, although this might seem out of topic - it is not - because what I am trying to show is that teachings got changed and distorted, and this directly influences prophecies about Muhammad in the Bible. One example of it being that of the Paraclete.

Since Pauls followers WANTED Jesus to be the one and only Savior and Son of God and Holy One - logically there could be no other prophet AFTER him. So, they reflected this in their writings.

All of the NT writings we have today are in way or another influenced by Paul. E.g. Luke, the "supposed" author of the Gospel of Luke is thought to have been close to Paul. And Mark too.
Since Mathew and Luke based their Gospels on Mark - then no wonder the doctrines there are similar.
John comes much later, when the Pauline doctrine was already established and regarded as THE doctrine.
All other teachings, like those of the ebionites, nazarenes etc. who HAD the original teachings of Jesus, were suppressed. And they believed Jesus was a man, and a prophet sent by God. But NOT God, nor Son of God.

So, even if there were clearer prophecies from Jesus about Muhammad - these were gradually supressed, changed and distorted.

But there are more in the OT...



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mamabeth
 

Trust me, they do. Even better, they believe he IS the Messiah (was that "was" a slip? :O)


edit on 21-9-2010 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by babloyi
 


,Trust me,the muslims
DO NOT believe that Jesus/Yeshua was the Messiah.




edit on 21-9-2010 by mamabeth because: forgot something



You just proved that you have poor knowledge about Islam.



O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ (Messiah) Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God.
- Qur'an, 4:171



edit on 9/21/2010 by skajkingdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


They believe that Jesus existed they do not believe
in His Divine nature...God in flesh!



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by babloyi
 


They believe that Jesus existed they do not believe
in His Divine nature...God in flesh!


"Messiah" does not mean "God in flesh". It means anointed. Nothing MORE, nothing less. And we believe he was anointed. he was Messiah. Mashiah. Christ.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FamiliarBoyOfGoodFortune
 


Im sayen Muhmmad was visited by Gabriel and so was Mary upon being told she would have the incarnate Jesus Christ within her womb.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by babloyi
 


I learned to read during the Kennedy administration.
I read my Bible for myself and I do listen to what
others may think.I let the Holy Spirit be my guide!

Ha Mashiach is hebrew for the Messiah,Trust me,the muslims
DO NOT believe that Jesus/Yeshua was the Messiah.

edit on 21-9-2010 by mamabeth because: forgot something



It's great that you've read the Bible, what you need to do now is read the Quran. Your opinions are biased, how do you expect to destroy and enemy if you do not even understand them? You do not fully understand what Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are...yet you are quick to point the finger and judge. And your foolish for even thinking they do not believe he is the Messiah, Jesus is Isa in the Quran and he is mentioned more times than Jesus.

I could go on and write a million errors with Christianity for example but that is not what this thread is about. As for the atheists, Nothing makes them happier than crashing a religious thread making us all look stupid. I don't see any point in posting hate messages here and ridiculing people just because they believe in a supreme being/entity. The OP is asking you to confirm if.....PROPHET MUHAMMAD IS IN THE BIBLE? Confirm or deny as simple as that.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

 



While I agree that AD is still much more commonly used than CE, I think you are missing the point. It doesn't really matter what year the calender is based off of. In fact, it is VERY unlikely that Jesus was born in the year 0 or 1. The calender could be based off anyone.
The issue, for me at least (although I still use AD sometimes, because I'm lazy) is that while I have no issue with a calender based off the year of the birth of Jesus Christ, and I don't even mind the term "Before Christ", AD, meaning "Anno Domino", translates to "In the year of our Lord", which is not something I agree with. Thus the change from AD to CE is fairly relevant, even if it is just a change in the name of the same thing.



"Anno domini". And yes, it is guessed that the calendar is a few years off. But then what is the basis for CE except for that it is based upon A.D.? The basis is still flawed, so it doesn't matter at all to which it refers. Trust me, if people found out exactly what year Jesus was born, they wouldn't change the calender to that - but rather make up a new designation like "From the year of our Lord" or De Domino (it would be Domino in this case because "de" takes the ablative - and De Domino is not the name of a story in this context, therefore it wouldn't take another voice). But the point is that A.D. is simply A.D. and the change to C.E. is just suit the self-serving supposedly educated whiners in an attempt to wipe the Lord completely from our history - however mistaken our observations might be.





Originally posted by TarzanBeta
Who cares if a word in the hebrew bible can be translated to muhammad? Muhammad could simply be translated to mean "praised" or "one who is praised". I'm sure that the muhammad of the Bible is more likely than not a verb and not a name, and even if it is, the muhammad of the Bible is certainly not the founder of Islam.

If it is a name (which is certainly contextually possible), then which Muhammad would it be, if not the Arab prophet?


If it is a NAME, then the name is not Muhammad because a name keeps its original language basic structure and meaning. If the hebrew word is Yehuda or a form of it(which is the hebrew word for praise), then the name would probably be Judah, which we know Judah DOES exist in the Bible.



At the risk of once again side-tracking, the reason it is so difficult to explain the Trinity is because it makes no logical sense.


The fact that y'all think it is so hard to figure these basic things about God out is silly.

Everytime I read about some wiseman who has a hard time figuring out these "mysteries" of God, I wonder.

What is so hard to understand? The Father is the origin from whom all power exists, the Son is the one through which the universe was created and people are saved, and the Spirit is the one by whom the people receive the power and comfort of God.

What is so incredibly difficult for you people to comprehend?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
reply to post by skajkingdom
 


Islam claims Allah is the only God, and yet, Muhammed is worshipped. The irony!


Please stop spreading ignorance.
Bring one single claim, verse, religious ruling or anything in Islam that says we should worship Muhammad or that show that muslims worship anyone but God alone.

Thank you.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
"At least the *name* of the Muslim prophet IS in the OT."

2Corinthians-
the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.(The Glory of the New Covenant)
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

Hebrews-
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Isaiah-
you will be called by a new name

Revelation-
my new name.

Acts-
The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus."

Luke-
repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
"He was made king, however

those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by skajkingdom
 


Messiah means...Saviour and Deliverer.
I know,in my heart,that Jesus was crucified
on the cross as an atonement for our sins.
Muslims are taught that Jesus was not crucified.
Besides,what is of real importance is that one day
every knee shall bow before Jesus/Yeshua,including
muhammad!



edit on 21-9-2010 by mamabeth because: link was removed



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by skajkingdom
 


SHIRK as you say is why he was killed by the elders. This idea while not called shirk (the word not used-the word used was blasphemy- βλασφημία blasphēmia).

John 10-Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[e]? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

The idea that John and some of the other just wanted Jesus to be God is very much more complicated than you present.

By the way many christain believe strong drink is bad as well. So whats new? Big deal? I love how you start out youre post with that as if it gives you special qualification to run the idea of Jeses as God into the ground.






edit on 21-9-2010 by Logarock because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FamiliarBoyOfGoodFortune
Well, many of the Jews in arabia migrated there because they knew that the last prophet would appear in that region according to their scriptures. Also half the Rabbi's in Medina accepted Islam, including the most learned one among them.

You obviously don't know about banu Qaidaqa. They were originally Jews before Islam...The current Saudi Royal family are their descendants!

It's tragic humour that Israelis are now busily killing a bunch of Semites, and amongst them are the original Jews who have lived in the Palestine area for aeons, and at the same time they brand as Anti-Semites those who try to prevent the killing.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join