[TeamManager]

Virtually every religion that began after Christianity attempts to show that it is compatible with the Bible. They also endeavor, usually quite laboriously, to show that their founder or faith is referred to in the Bible. Thus it comes as no surprise to find that Muslims also claim that their founder was prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments.

Our question still needs to be answered: Although Islam is not unique in claiming to be verified by the Bible, might not its claims be nonetheless true? There are some minor, less detailed verses which Muslims claim are "prophecies" related to Muhammad. However, the verses which most Muslims cite as the most explicative are Deuteronomy 18:15-18 and John 14:16; 15:26; and 16:7.

1. Deuteronomy 18:15-18

The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear.

According to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, "Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die."

And the Lord said to me: "What they have spoken is good.

I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him."

This is universally held by Muslims as a prophesy pertaining to Muhammad. There are a number of reasons why they believe it cannot be referring Jesus.

First, the Promised Prophet was to be a Lawgiving Prophet.... Jesus laid no claim to giving a new law.... Secondly, the Promised Prophet was to be raised not from among Israel but from among their brethren and Jesus was an Israelite.... Thirdly, the prophecy was: "I will put my words in his mouth." But the gospels do not consist of words which God put in Jesusf mouth. They only tell us the story of Jesus and what he said in some of his public addresses and what his disciples said or did on different occasions. Fourthly, the Promised One was to be a prophet, while the Christian view is that Jesus was not a Prophet, but the son of God.

The Muslim will then point out the many ways in which Muhammad and Moses were alike. Each appeared among idolaters. They were both lawgivers who were initially rejected by their people and had to flee into exile, only to return later to lead their nations. They both married and had children, and were military leaders as well as spiritual leaders. After both of their deaths their successors conquered Palestine.

The Muslim conclusion is that this prophecy was fulfilled only by Muhammad: "If these words do not apply to Muhammad, they still remain unfulfilled."

Before we continue any farther, let us first analyze these points. The first objection raised against this prophecy having been fulfilled in Jesus was that Jesus was not a lawgiver. Muslims who claim this only show their own lack of understanding of the New Testament, as shown in John 13:34 and Galatians 6:2:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love another.

Bear one anotherfs burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ

The next objection to this prophecy having been fulfilled in Jesus was that "brethren" must refer to the Ishmaelites, not to the Israelites themselves. This argument can easily be refuted by simply looking at how the term "brethren" is used in the Bible. One cogent example is found in Deuteronomy 17:15. Moses instructs the Israelites:

"You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother."

Now, did Israel ever appoint a foreigner as king over them? More specifically, was an Ishmaelite ever appointed king over Israel? Of course not. To choose a king "from among your brethren" refers to choosing someone from one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Likewise, the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18 was to be an Israelite.

Another objection to Deuteronomy 18:15-18 being fulfilled in Jesus is that the Gospels allegedly do not consist of words which God gave Jesus, vitally important in light of verse 18. However, to say that Jesus did not speak what God the Father gave Him again betrays an abysmal ignorance of the New Testament: "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak" (John 12:49)21

The final objection raised against Jesusf fulfilling these verses is that Christians supposedly only view Jesus as the Sun of God, not as a prophet. Once again we see that the Muslim too often has little familiarity with the New Testament. Jesus Himself, prophesying His impending death, said that He must continue His journey to Jerusalem "for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33).22

The Muslim will point out that I still have not explained the many similarities between Moses and Muhammad. It is true that they have many correspondences, but there are also many differences. For example, if Muhammad was illiterate as virtually all Muslims assert, then he was not like Moses who "was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22). Muhammad is said to have received his revelations from the angel Gabriel, while Moses received the Law directly from God. Muhammad performed no signs or miracles to verify his calling, yet Moses performed many signs. Also, Muhammad was Arabic, while Moses was of Jewish origin.

If one were to peruse the Gospels, he would see that although Jesus was unlike Moses in some ways, in other ways He was very much like him. They were both Jewish, which is very important in light of what we have learned about the term "your brethren." They both left Egypt to minister to their people (Heb. 11:27; Matt 2:15). Both also forsook great riches in order to better identify with their people (Heb. 11:24-26; John 6:15; 2 Cor. 8:9).

So we see that both Jesus and Muhammad had similarities with Moses. In what special way then was this coming prophet to be "like unto Moses"? The answer is found in Deuteronomy 34:8-10 where two distinguishing characteristics of Moses are listed:

But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,

In all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, before Pharaoh, before all his servants, and in all his land,

And by all that mighty power and all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel.

This is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 18:15-18. Notice that two specific things are mentioned about Moses here in referring back to the earlier prophecy. The first is that the Lord knew Moses "face to face. " Muhammad never had this type of relationship with God; indeed, in Islam God is so transcendent that except for the unique case of Moses He never spoke directly with men.

Jesus, "the Word made flesh" (John 1:14), is the only one who ever had a relationship with God like Moses had. In fact, Jesusf relationship far surpasses that of Moses: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

The second characteristic feature of Moses, that he came with many "signs" and "wonders," hardly needs to be expounded on. The many miracles that both Moses and Jesus worked are well known. The Qurfan itself testifies that Muhammad worked no miracles.24

And finally, Jesus Himself tells us who the prophet is that Deuteronomy 18:15-18 is prophesying: "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me" (John 5:46).25



2. John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7

Muslims claim that the verses speaking of the coming "Comforter" ("Paracletos" in the original Greek) are actually references to the coming of Muhammad. The reason for this is that in the Qurfan Jesus is made to say that after Himself an apostle would be sent, "Whose name shall be Ahmad" (Qurfan 61:6). The following is Yusuf Alifs commentary on this verse:

"Ahmad," or "Muhammad," the Praised One, is almost a translation of the Greek word Periclytos. In the present Gospel of John, xiv. 16, xv. 26, and xvi. 7, the word "Comforter" in the English version is for the Greek word "Paracletos," which means "Advocate," "one called to the help of another, a kind friend" rather than "Comforter." Our doctors contend that Paracletos is a corrupt reading for Periclytos, and that in their [sic] original saying of Jesus there was a prophecy of our holy Prophet Ahmad by name.26

Thus Muslims believe that all of our Bibles have been corrupted and that the apostle John really used the word "Periclytos" in these verses, not the word "Paracletos."

In examining the Muslim claim that the text has been corrupted the textual critic would quite rightly look to the actual textual evidence. There are over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament which date from before A.D. 350. Not once in any of the manuscripts which contain these passages do we find the word "Periclytos" used. The word that we find used every time is "Paracletos." Thus, there is absolutely no textual evidence which would back up their contention that the text was corrupted.

The Muslim position is even more lamentable when we carefully read these verses to see what Jesus was saying. There is a great deal which could be said about each verse; however, we will limit our review to the obvious discrepancies between the Islamic position and what is actually being said: "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter,27 that He may abide with you forever" (John 14:16). First of all, Jesus said that the Father "will give you another Comforter." Who was Jesus addressing in these verses? The Arabs, or more specifically, the Ishmaelites? Of course not. He is speaking to Jewish believers. Hence the "Comforter" would be sent initially to them. This cannot be referring to Muhammad.

Second, this verse states that the "Paracletos," the "Comforter," would "abide with you forever." How can this apply to Muhammad? The Muslim prophet has been dead and buried for over 1,300 years.

"Even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you" (John 14:17). Here "the Spirit of Truth" is used as another title or synonym for the "Paraclete." We see from this verse that the "Paraclete" would be "in you." Again, it is impossible to reconcile this statement with the Islamic position.

John 14:26 completely devastates the Muslim hypothesis that Muhammad was actually the one being prophesied in the verses dealing with the coming "Comforter" (or "Paraclete"): "But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." Jesus said that the "Comforter" is "the Holy Spirit." This is the reason why all of the Muslim apologists stay away from this verse, only quoting the verses they like. Jesus commanded His disciples \ in Acts 1:4-5 \ not to "depart from Jerusalem," for they would "be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Do these verses really apply to Muhammad appearing 600 years later in Mecca? Only a person already biased and completely credulous could believe this. The fulfillment of Jesusf words occurred 10 days later on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), not six centuries later, hundreds of miles from Jerusalem.

Prof. eAbdu eL-Ahad Dauud, in Muhammad in the Bible, states that this alleged prophecy "is one of the strongest proofs that Muhammad was truly a Prophet and that the Qurfan is really a divine revelation"28 (emphasis added). If these verses constitute one of their "strongest proofs," then I will not belabor the reader with "lesser proofs." I believe that Blaise Pascal succinctly summarized the situation: "Any man can do what [Muhammad] has done; for he performed no miracles, he was not foretold. No man can do what Christ has done."29

http://www.equip.org/free/DI200-2.htm

[spairo]

The article is fantastic and it is morally correct, I give you credit for that.
I do concur that the biblical prophesy is about Mohammed and no body else, just answer this question first;
a. You do believe Jesus was God…if so? Then the prophesy is for a human being “raised a brethren” not “raised a god among you”
b. You people believe Jesus died because of your sins…the prophesy talk of a prophet who will come with new laws but not atoning for sins
c. Jesus did raise the dead, Moses and Mohammed did not.
Just clear the air on this issues first.

[TeamManager]

>The article is fantastic and it is morally correct, I give
>you credit for that.
>I do concur that the biblical prophesy is about Mohammed and
>no body else, just answer this question first;

The only probable mention of Muhammad is ......one of the antichrists.

Guess you never read the conclusions before calling the article 'good'.

[Coach]

TM,
1.The Jews believe in Moses (PBUH) but reject Jesus (PBUH) - they even insult him (read the Talmud and you'll find out how much contempt they have for him).

2. The Christians believe in Jesus (PBUH) but reject Muhammad (PBUH) - they even insult him (as the ignoramus resident priest here has demonstrated many a times).

3. The Muslims believe in Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (PBUT). They love and respect them all for they are the Messengers of God.

Just as the Jews reject and insult Jesus (Peace and blessings be upon him) the Christians reject and insult Muhammad (PBUH). The Talmud says "Jesus is in hell, being boiled in 'hot excrement'" (Gittin 57a).

They also say that Jesus (PBUH) was killed because he performed sorcery (magic with help from evil spirit). TM, you are no different than those who insult Jesus (PBUH).

[joeNM]

Jesus Himself claimed to be God and others recognized Him as such. He said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). The original Greek is literally, "I and the Father, we are one." Jesus also declared that He is the only way to God: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6). Again, looking at the Greek, Jesus didn't use the words "a way," He said "the way."

Therefore, the important question is whether we can accept what Jesus claimed? The most dramatic evidence for Jesus Christ being the Son of God is the historical reality of His resurrection from the dead after His crucifixion on a Roman cross. In fact, we do have multiple eyewitness testimonies regarding the resurrection of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, Paul establishes the following: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living."

Manuscript studies indicate that this was a very early creed of the Christian faith, written within a few years after the death of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it's dramatic that Paul ends the passage with "most of whom are still living." Paul was inviting people to check out the facts. He wouldn't have included a statement like that if he was trying to hide something like a conspiracy, hoax, myth or legend.

The resurrection of Jesus was also declared in numerous other accounts, including the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene (John 20:10-18), to other women (Matthew 28:8-10), to Cleopas and his companion (Luke 24:13-32), to eleven disciples and others (Luke 24:33-49), to ten apostles and others (excluding Thomas) (John 20:19-23), to the apostles (including Thomas) (John 20:26-30), to seven apostles (John 21:1-14), to the disciples (Matthew 28:16-20), and to the apostles on the Mount of Olives (Luke 24:50-52 and Acts 1:4-9). The ultimate test of credibility for these eyewitnesses was that many of them faced martyrdom for their testimony. This is dramatic! These witnesses knew the truth. What could they possibly gain by dying for a known lie? The evidence speaks for itself, these weren't just religious faithful dying for a religious belief, these were followers of Jesus Christ dying for a historical event - His resurrection that established Him as the Son of God.

The primary reason that Christians profess Jesus Christ as the only way to heaven is that He forgives sin and offers eternal life (John 10:28), something that no other religious founder or leader has ever claimed. Every human is separated from God by sin. According to God's holy standards, each human must either pay the penalty for his sin (death) or find a willing, sin-free substitute to pay the penalty for him (Hebrews 9:14, 22). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the only possible substitute. Out of love, He demonstrated His willingness to pay the world's penalty by dying on the cross for each and every one of us. In His divinity, He saw the sins we would commit before we were even born. Yet, His love poured out to us before we even knew Him. That's why Jesus is the only way to God and heaven

Who is Jesus Christ? Humble Beginnings
Who is Jesus Christ? He is God's only begotten son, yet He came from the throne of His Father to the womb of a woman. He became Son of Man that we might become sons of God.

He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. He lived in poverty, and was unknown outside of Nazareth. He had neither wealth nor influence.

He laid aside His purple robe for a peasant's gown. He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor. He slept in another's stable; He rode another's donkey; He was buried in another's grave.

Who is Jesus Christ? Miraculous Ministry
Who is Jesus Christ? History has never known such as He. In infancy, He startled a king. As a boy, He stunned the theologians with His knowledge and wisdom, for His knowledge was directly from God.

In manhood, He ruled the elements and quieted the raging sea. He healed without medicine, and fed thousands from a boy's lunch. Even demons obeyed Him and He gave back life to those who were dead.

Yet He suffered and sustained in body and soul the anger of God against the sin of the whole human race. He was despised and rejected of men. Though He was innocent, He was condemned by a civil judge and sentenced to death on a cross.

Who is Jesus Christ? Life-changing Impact
Who is Jesus Christ? By His suffering and death, He paid completely for the sins of all who believe in Him. He set us free from the certain judgment and eternal condemnation of God that was to fall on all of us.

Some have given their lives for others, and great men have come and gone, yet Jesus Christ lives on. Herod could not kill Him. Satan could not stop him. Death could not destroy Him. The grave could not hold Him. Having fully satisfied God's perfect justice, He conquered death and rose on the third day as He said He would.

Who is Jesus Christ? A Question for Each of Us!
Who is Jesus Christ? For the last 2,000 years, every man, woman and child has been confronted with this same question. In Mathew 16:15, Jesus put it this way, 'But who do you say that I am?' One of His disciples, Simon Peter, replied: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Now it's your turn. Who do you say that He is?

[TeamManager]

>TM, you are no different than those who insult Jesus (PBUH).

Whats this business with a prayer (i.e PBUH) after the name of Jesus. Jesus is nowhere in a tomb BUT He is alive and reigns on high.

One of my problems with Muhammed is that he has 'deceived' many people to think that they can one day stand before a Holy and perfect God....and claim that their 'goodness compared to their badness' while on earth merits them a place with God for ethernity. Millions are dying today in their sins cause the anti christ lie.

ati....and cause Muslims 'love' Moses and Jesus they are sort of correct. People have been hated and loved for many different reasons- false or truth.

Always wondering, Since the time of Abraham...Moses...Joshua...King David....Elijah....Daniel...John the Baptist, God always used Jewish prophets for a particular purpose.....WHY DID HE jump onto a Gentile prophet in the name of Muhammed?

[TeamManager]

It is astonishing to us that many Muslims use liberal arguments to propagate the thesis of the falsification of the Gospel, while they refuse to apply a much needed text critique to their own scriptures. They completely ignore the fact that although the Qurfan is of a considerably younger date, it has similar, if not more complex problems. I am aware of the explosiveness of this statement, but it cannot be more offensive to you than many Islamic statements concerning the Bible are to us. In short, I suggest we will have to play by the same rules. Muslim doctors who propagate that the Bible was corrupted also overlook that most eminent Muslim theologians like at-Tabari (died AD 855), al-Bukhari (died AD 870), as well as al-Ghazzali (died AD 1111) believed in the authenticity of the (Greek) Gospel text. And that is the very message the Qurfan promotes:

"Say ye: We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses, and Jesus, and that given to all prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them." (Surah al-Baqara 2:136)

"It was We who revealed the Law (to Moses); therein was guidance and light ... If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers. ... We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: Therein was guidance and light ... a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. Judge what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires." (Surah Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52)

"Say: we believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you." (Surah al-Ankabut 29:46)

It is quite clear that at the time the Qurfan was written, there was no hint given anywhere about a possible corruption or unreliability of the Bible. Anyone contradicting it now will not only go against the Qurfan, but will also have to provide an answer to questions like: WHO changed or corrupted the Bible? WHEN was the Bible corrupted? WHERE is the original, or evidence that shows there was such an original? So far I have not heard an answer to these.

If the Bible was corrupted before or at the time of Muhammad, the Qurfan would hardly have spoken of the Bible in such a positive manner. Had the Bible been changed or corrupted thereafter, the many existing old manuscripts that predate Muhammad by hundreds of years, would have given proof of that fact. Besides, we have just read from the Qurfan that the Bible is Godfs Word. We should add, also from the Qurfan, that "no man can change the words of God" (Surah 6:34 and 10:64). So, what are Muslim critics of the Bible trying to do?

Some Muslims reason that the Qurfan does state that the Bible was distorted. They quote:

"Ye People of the Book! Why do ye clothe truth with falsehood, and conceal the truth, while ye have knowledge?" (Surah Al-Imran 3:71)

"There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is part of the Book, but it is not part of the Book." (Surah Al-Imran 3:78)

These passages say nothing more than that the Bible, rendered by the Jews in public, as the context suggests, was distorted with their tongues, not with their pens. Else the Qurfan would not suggest that Muslims should ask the People of the Book about the content of the Bible:

"...Ask of those who possess the Message" (Surah al-Anbiyaa, 21:7)

We may well ask, why so many Muslims believe that the Bible was corrupted, when history, archaeology and the Qurfan deny this? The answer seems to be rather intriguing.

Ibn Khazem (died AD 1064) ruled the South of Spain for some time as the vizier of the caliph. When reading the Qurfan he came across a verse that referred to Jesus speaking of Good News of an Apostle who was to come after him and whose name should be Ahmad (Surah 61:6). The meaning of this Arabic word is similar to the meaning of the name eMuhammadf. He also must have read about gthe unlettered prophet (i.e. Muhammad) whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), in the law and the Gospelh (Surah 7:157). So he began to search the Bible for these clues about Muhammad. Probably to his surprise he did not find them. What he did find, however, were a number of contradiction between the two Books, which were assumed to have come from the same divine source. We can see the problem ibn Khazem was facing. Both, the Bible and the Qurfan, are stated to be Word of God\and they contradict each other.

Ibn Khazem made the decision not to question the integrity of the Qurfan. He rather assumed that since the Gospel should agree with the Qurfan, and because Muhammad had spoken so highly of it, the existing Gospel text must have been falsified by the Jews and Christians. This assumption may display his zeal for the Qurfan, but it is not based on historical facts.

Since that time Muslims have questioned the integrity of the Bible. Their argument is not only contradicted by the Qurfan, but also by the ever-increasing strong archaeological and historical arguments, which support the genuineness of the Bible. Besides, why should anyone, for any reason, attempt to change the Word of God?

Perhaps this letter has helped you to take a glimpse at what most Muslims seem not to know. Practicing Christians have a very special place for the Bible in their hearts and lives. It is Godfs love letter to them.

Because it may hurt your feelings it is a rather painful effort for me to write a letter, which questions the source of your deepest convictions. But I am sure that our concern for the foundation of our faith in God will enable us to overcome some sentimental hitches.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Nehls/Abdallah/abdal2.htm

[Coach]

TM,

>Whats this business with a prayer (i.e PBUH) after the name of
>Jesus. Jesus is nowhere in a tomb BUT He is alive and reigns
>on high.

It is a mark of respect Muslims have for ALL of God's Messengers. Whenever we mention them we add Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH), it has nothing with someone beaing dead. We also greet each other by saying 'Assalamu Alilkum...' meaning 'peace, mercy and blessing be upon you...'.



>One of my problems with Muhammed is that he has 'deceived'
>many people to think that they can one day stand before a Holy
>and perfect God....and claim that their 'goodness compared to
>their badness' while on earth merits them a place with God for
>ethernity. Millions are dying today in their sins cause the
>anti christ lie.

One man's truth is another man's lies. Ask ATLian and his ilk and they'll tell you that YOU are the one living a lie.


>ati....and cause Muslims 'love' Moses and Jesus they are sort
>of correct. People have been hated and loved for many
>different reasons- false or truth.

True, but we love ALL the Messengers of God and have a lot of respect for them. It is one of the tenets of faith to believe in all the Messengers of God and one is not a Muslim if he/she doesn't believe in His Messengers.





>Always wondering, Since the time of
>Abraham...Moses...Joshua...King
>David....Elijah....Daniel...John the Baptist, God always used
>Jewish prophets for a particular purpose.....WHY DID HE jump
>onto a Gentile prophet in the name of Muhammed?

Muslims believe that every people on earth have been sent a Prophet/Messenger. This is why we agree with some aspects of the Veda, Upanishad and other religion's scriptures for they have divine origin but in the case of i.e. Hinduuism polytheism has taken root and the original Messgae got lost in the midst.

Muslims believe that there have been around 300 000 Prophets sent by God but there are 25 mentionned in the Qur'an. The Prophets that have come after Abraham(Abraham [PBUH] was NOT a Jew) have mainly been Jews (descendants of Isack PBUH) while Mohamed PBUH is the descendant of Ishmael PBUH. Prophet's are not sent exclusively to Jews, and Muslims believe that even Africans, Latin Americans etc have been sent Messengers throughout history. This is why you find that despite people living in different areas of the globe they have similar views on values, morals, the belief in a Higher Being etc.



"...Since that time Muslims have questioned the integrity of the Bible. Their argument is not only contradicted by the Qurfan, but also by the ever-increasing strong archaeological and historical arguments, which support the genuineness of the Bible. Besides, why should anyone, for any reason, attempt to change the Word of God?"

I find this to be ironic! The Christians don't agree on the authenticity of parts of the Bible among themselves. The Protestants omit the seven Pseudepigraphal books while the Catholics recognise them as "words of God". So who is right? If you (Christians) can't decide which is RIGHT then what is an 'outsider' to make of it? There are also about 17 (!) English versions of the Bible and with every version you have different words, with the differeing words comes different intepretations and the essence is eventually lost!

[TeamManager]

@Coach
>One man's truth is another man's lies. Ask ATLian and his ilk .....

Let those fellow alone....the only real problem they have with God is the requirement for 'good morals' and/or 'not having received favours from God'.

>Muslims believe that every people on earth have been >sent a Prophet/Messenger. This is why we agree with some >aspects of the Veda, Upanishad and other religion's
>scriptures for they have divine origin but in the case
>of i.e. Hinduuism polytheism has taken root and the
>original Messgae got lost in the midst.

Would like to know more, please.

>This is why you find that despite people
>living in different areas of the globe they have similar >views on values, morals, the belief in a Higher Being >etc.

Since men and women were created by God (in His own image) they will always have the desire to worship (God or any other idol). Godd and bad are defined in their inner man.

>I find this to be ironic! The Christians don't agree on the authenticity of parts of the Bible among themselves. The >Protestants omit the seven Pseudepigraphal books while the >Catholics recognise them as "words of God". So who is right?

Not until AD 1546 in a polemical action at the counter-reformation council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church. Before then, they were never accepted because :-
1. Were not written by an Apostle or under his direction.
2. The writers were not confirmed by acts of God.
3. Unlike the other books, these did not come with the power of God to transform lives and for evangelization.
among other reasons.

>If you (Christians) can't decide which is RIGHT then what is >an 'outsider' to make of it?

My point is that Muhammed and 400 years of Islam did not question the Bible in the way most morden muslims think. It only when people discovered that Muhammed was not mentioned un the Bible that all the noise started.

>There are also about 17 (!) English versions of the
>Bible and with every version you have
>different words, with the differeing words comes different
>intepretations and the essence is eventually lost!

For someone who is well knowlegded, you surprise me. Translations are not from copy 1 to copy 2...then copy 2 to copy 3......until copy 17. Current translation are being done from greek mnuscripts written between 100 and 250AD

[Coach]

TM<

>>Muslims believe that every people on earth have been >sent a
>Prophet/Messenger. This is why we agree with some >aspects of
>the Veda, Upanishad and other religion's
>>scriptures for they have divine origin but in the case
>>of i.e. Hinduuism polytheism has taken root and the
>>original Messgae got lost in the midst.
>
>Would like to know more, please.

Since every people in the world had a Prophet sent to them, there would inevitably be found traces of beliefs/morals that make people have things in common. For example, if you are read through the Veda or Upanishads (two Hindu scrpitures considered to have divine origin) they both predate the Torah, Bible and Qur'an but you'll find that there some things that are in accordance to the books of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. But the Hindus consider the Veda to be the most important one and none of their other scriptures can overrule it.


>Since men and women were created by God (in His own image)
>they will always have the desire to worship (God or any other
>idol). Godd and bad are defined in their inner man.

True. But without guidance, man easily goes astray. That is why Prophets and Messengers were sent to humanity throughout time. Just as i.e. if you have a child and you don't give it guidance by teaching it morals, ethics etc then the child will grow up to be almost inhuman.





>>If you (Christians) can't decide which is RIGHT then what is
>>an 'outsider' to make of it?
>
>My point is that Muhammed and 400 years of Islam did not
>question the Bible in the way most morden muslims think. It
>only when people discovered that Muhammed was not mentioned un
>the Bible that all the noise started.


There are two main reasons why some Muslims became hostile towards Christians after the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). In the 15th century, a man named John Andre Maure wrote a book against Islam which were full of lies. Most anti-Islamic writers that came a few centuries after him could not know Arabic so they took his words to be facts and wrote very many books using Maure's book as reference. The 'written Crusade" began in the start of 18th century where insults and false accusations about Islam nad the Prophet were spread all over Chrsitian territories. They called the Prophet an adulterer, a thief and many other foul names. Even you seem to have taken from them a lot when you refer to him as the "anti-Christ" despite Muhammad PBUH having great respect for Chrsitians and above all Jesus Christ (PBUH). If you read the history of islam, you'll realise that Muhammad PBUH sent some of his followers to Abyssinia where King Negus was the leader. He had heard about his kindness and his devotion to Christianity and he sent his people to escape prosecution from the Polytheists of Mecca. The Prophet always had good relations with the Christians but things changed dramatically a few centuries on.

Another reason was the atrocious Christians who led a Crusade against Islam. These people destroyed every form of life they met on their way, homes, trees and even animals were not spared. You probably know how the Crusade affected the views of Muslims and Jews towards the Christians. This together with the writngs against Islam caused Muslims not believe that the follwers of the Prophet of God could do such horrendous acts and this led to people questionning their (Crusaders' and the anti-Islamic authors') beliefs.


>>There are also about 17 (!) English versions of the
>>Bible and with every version you have
>>different words, with the differeing words comes different
>>intepretations and the essence is eventually lost!
>
>For someone who is well knowlegded, you surprise me.
>Translations are not from copy 1 to copy 2...then copy 2 to
>copy 3......until copy 17. Current translation are being done
>from greek mnuscripts written between 100 and 250AD


I think you totally misunderstood what I meant. There is one problem with translating works and that is the people doing the translation always write the word they believe is CLOSEST to the word in HEBREW/ARAMAC/GREEK. With this, you are left with many different words trying to describe teh same thing but ultimately the message gets lost in translation. This is the reason why Muslims have to learn Arabic in order to understand the Qur'an, but can still read a translated version which we don't regard even to come close to the original language and doesn't have the same respect. I'll give you one example of words getting 'lost in translation'. One English version of the Bible says...

"...Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14 King James Version)

while another one reads...

"...Behold, a YOUNG WOMAN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14 RSV)

The origianl word in Hebrew is ALMAH (and the Greek word PARTHENOS which means virgin but somehow people translating it to English choose to translate the word to mean "young woman" instead of virgin. There is a massive difference between the two and the "young woman" version even disregards the MAJOR fact that even Muslims acknowledge that Jesus (PBUH) was born to a virgin. All the different translations lead to different messages at times, I hope you get my point.