Muhammad in the Bible?

| | Comments (51) | TrackBacks (1)

A friend of mine works as the Baptist Campus Minister at my university. He occasionally takes part in interfaith dialogues, and he tells me about his interactions from time to time. One such instance struck me as being apologetically significant and worth blogging about (with his permission). The conversation started out with what the Qur'an says about Jesus, and it ended up moving to what the Bible says about Muhammad. You might be wondering what the Bible could possibly say about Muhammad, since he was around long afterward, but you can't rule something like that out if you're open to predictive prophecy. Why couldn't a divine revelation have something to say about someone who hasn't come around yet? Christians believe the Hebrews scriptures point to Jesus, after all. It doesn't do to insist on that when you like it and then rule it out when you don't like it.

But the particular example many Muslims give of Jesus in the Bible makes no sense. They say that Deuteronomy 18's future prophet like Moses is Muhammad. Many Christians take this prophet to be Jesus. The first-century Christians certainly did, including the book of Acts. But there's one reason even within Deuteronomy that makes it very unlikely that this passage could be referring to Muhammad. Deuteronomy 18 speaks of this prophet as "one of your brothers". That means the prophet like Moses will be Jewish.

Muslim apologists take "one of your brothers" to mean that the prophet will come out of an ethnic group that is a brother group to the people of Israel. Since they take Arabs to be descended from Ishmael, they can happily say that Muhammad is thus one of the brothers of Israel. There's only one problem with this. My friend noticed this immediately, because the day before he'd just been reading the previous chapter, Deuteronomy 17. That chapter uses the same Hebrew expression for "one of your brothers" in its requirements for kingship. It isn't saying that the king ought to come not from Israel itself but from one of its brother peoples. The requirement simply restricts the kingship to Israelites. So why should we think the exact same expression one chapter later would mean something very different? The prophet would come out of Israel, not some related people group.

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Muhammad in the Bible?.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

For your reading pleasure, Wittenberg Gate presents the latest edition of the Christian Carnival, a collection of links to the week's best posts from a variety of Christian blogs. If you are a Christian who writes a blog and would like to contribute to... Read More


Great job! Witnessing and apologetics to Islam is needed more than ever today! It is my firm belief that only the Love of Christ will stop the evil of Islam. I will file this away for future reference. Thank you.

It's quite clear that your argument doesn't make sense. Why? because 'One of your brothers" simply means one of the brothers of the israelites because if it was one of the israelites themselves it will be one of you and since Issa "Jesus"peace be upon him,is one of the israelites and not one of there brothers ,than moussa"moses"peace be upon him refferd to someone else.

I don't follow your argument at all. I'm not sure I have any idea what you're saying, in fact. But you do seem to be saying something that requires the king of Israel to be an Arab, and that sounds really silly and completely at odds with everything we know about ancient Israel.

I believe the original context was one of your brethren not one of your brothers. Brethren in this case being children of Ishmael whose uncle would be Isaac. Brother is of a direct link of mother or father or both, and brethren is of a family link from aunty and uncle.

The English word 'brethren' is just an older English version of the word that is now 'brothers'. Older English translations of the Bible used 'brethren' in places where newer translations use 'brothers'. The words are exact synonyms and translate the Hebrew word.

If what you mean is that something in the context of the passage indicates the brothers of the people of Israel (i.e. brother peoples) rather than the brothers of an Israelite (i.e. other Israelites), please show me what in the context indicates that. I have already shown what in the context indicates the opposite, so any statement to the contrary is simply against the evidence unless you can show me similar evidence in the other direction.

In the New American bible it says: "A prophet like me will the LORD, your God, raise up for you from among your own 'KINSMEN'; to him you shall listen"

in other versions it says "…from among the brothers of the Israelites…" Jesus was from the Israelites so how could it be him?

There is no word for Israelites in the Hebrew. More dynamic translations may add words to convey a meaning hard to capture in English without such words, but I've never seen a translation do it the way you have it. Here are some of the most important English translations of Deuteronomy 18:18a:

(KJV) I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren

(ASV) I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee

(NIV) I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers

(NASB) I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you

(CEV) So when I want to speak to them, I will choose one of them to be a prophet like you.

(NET) I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites.

(NLT) I will raise up a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites.

(ESV) I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers.

(HCSB) I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers.

(TNIV) I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their people

The only two that add the word for Israelites have done it in a way that eliminates your interpretation rather than favoring it.

Well First of All i am a Jew, a speaker of Hebrew, and i would just like to thank the original blog starter for the comment about the Kings which is very Valid and True! and also i would like to add something G-d willing,
If you tell some one a Joke in French, and then try to translate it to say English which both are very very closely related languages, the joke will some how lose its context amd it will not be funny any more, in other words the joke will not have the same meaning it had when was told in French, Similarly, alot of the Biblical words, verses, and passages had lost thier true and original meaning when translated to english, also because originally the Hebrew bible was translated to Aramaic, then Greek and in the End Roman, and after that all other languages, so u can see that some where along the line some words or even whole verses may differ and seem wierd when compared with the Hebrew words,
Jacob Had 12 Sons, each later became a whole tribe, i.e Judah, and Benjamin, are both regarded to as Brothers or even Brethern, yet they are also two different tribes, and are also Israelites, so they can be categorised into three different categories. so in many occasions in the Hebrew bible when G-d our L-rd spoke to the Jews, he said you and your brethern or you and your borthers etc (differs according to translation) this had nothing to do with our so called brothers that come from ishmael, it refers to the 12 tribes as brothers, also i would like to add Ishmaelites infact are not our brothers, Ishamel was the Step son of Abraham (his mother was not Isaacs mother....) and so Step brother of Isaac, in Judaism u are only a Jew if u r born to a Jewish Mother! so that part contradicts are views, also even if we did take him as Isaac's real brother it is important to notice that the Jews themselves came from Jacob(Israel) who is Isaac's son, again it will make the ishmaelites are step cousins and not brothers. and moses also says that the prophet will be like me, meaning he will have similar qualities to moses, and therefore maybe be even able to perform miracles? or at least be able to give people a sign that he really is a prophet of YHVH(G-d's sacred name) like all previous prophets did, even Jesus be him a real or false prophet (im not gonna get into that) did perform miracles, and even the jews agree that he did (although there are different reasons) yet when mohammed was asked to perform a miracle or prove that he really is a messenger of G-d, he replied by saying, but i am only a Human! we also have these fabricated verses, Mohammed was a religous leader for 26 years roughly and throughout that time he contradicted himself in so many verses, abrogated some, and cancelled the others, and the funny thing is that its the Jews and Christians that had Changed thier scripts...hhhh...Muslim Quran has never been changed yet it contradicts it self. also at first mohammed said they had to face Jerusalem when praying and so for 16 months they did that...and after 16 months they turned the Qibla(where u face when u pray) to Macca, and belive it or not recently they have found evidence that links the Kaaba with the Hindus...and not with abraham who never visited arabia like they claim, throughout mohamed's life we can see him sin, we can see him change his words, we can see him change his acts, and we can see him massacare people even though he preaches a religon of PEACE! now my friends do you still think that this is the Guy that our holy scripts speak of? do u think that he is any where even comparable with Moses? if yes than u r a Muslim hhh, and if not than seek the truth that is out there,
AND i am not here to discuss whether the prophecy refers to Jesus or not, but i just wanted to disproof these evil links of Mohamed to our pure and holy books, and religon
Peace be Upon you
and may G-d almighty lead us all in the right path

Ishmael was the half-brother of Isaac, just plain son of Abraham, but I agree with your general point. Ishmael and Isaac's kids would have been half-cousins, not step-cousins. Step-cousins are not related, as step-brothers are not related. Half-cousins share one grandparent, as half-brothers share one parent.

The rule of Judaism having to do with a Jewish mother came much later, though. I don't think it was operating during any of the biblical times. For example, Ruth wasn't Jewish, but her children were not considered converts but were Jews because her first husband was Jewish (and Boaz as a relative counted as her husband for the sake of legality, at least with the first son).

This comment is in reply to Daniel's comments which are totally absurd. The key point which you fail to miss is the fact that the old testiment says, "there will be a NON-JEWISH profit to descend the earth". I believe Jesus (peace be upon him) was born a Jew, so it can be safe to rule him out. It is clear it can only be the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh).

Secondly, please do your research before making fabrications on abrahamic faiths including your own.

Peace Be Upon You

Oz, what fabrication is going on here? If you think anyone here has said anything false about what Muslims believe, please say which thing someone has said that isn't true.

As for the Old Testament saying that there will be a non-Jewish prophet descending to the earth, you (1) need to provide a reference for that. Your quote sounds pretty unfamiliar to me, and I've read the entire Bible a number of times. If that quote is genuine, then you also (2) need to provide an argument why that should be connected with this passage. This is especially so given that the context of this passage makes it extremely unlikely that it could possibly be talking about a non-Jew, as I've already explained several times without anyone giving a decent counter to my argument. Therefore, you will also (3) need to explain what's wrong with my argument. I very much doubt you will do any of those, never mind all of them. But all of them must be done for your point to affect my argument.

It still doesnt explain that moses is nothing like jesus, especially so in christian doctrine. You have only "explained away" the smallest point of the Muslim's claims. Address the issue properly and completely or dont bother - ut just makes your arguements seem week.

Rob, are you saying that I haven't given an argument that the only way to interpret Deut 18 is that it's about Jesus? Of course I haven't done that. But I haven't claimed to. What I've argued is that it cannot be about Muhammad, because he wasn't Jewish. All that's necessary to refute the Muslim position is to say what I've said. Since I'm only arguing for that weaker point, I would say that my argument is incredibly strong. It would be weak if I had pretended to be arguing for the strong point you seem to be taking me to be arguing for, but I never did that.

Now there are several things in common to Jesus and Moses. Both appear at times when there hadn't been consistent prophetic messages from God to Israel. Both initiate new covenants previously unknown. Jesus claims to be the fulfillment of the entirety of the law as given to Moses. Moses was political leader, prophet, and in some senses priest (before Aaron took over that role). Jesus is also priest, prophet, and king. Moses reported the word of God to Israel. Jesus is the word of God incarnate. Moses initiated a new system of worship with the tabernacle in a very particular location for a very particular people. Jesus declared this system to have expanded to all places and times. I don't have any idea how you can fail to see the connections between Jesus and Moses in Christian theology unless you simply know very little about Christianity.

the late master of balliol benjamin jowett, once wrote to a lady who sought his opinion that the gospels are fragments of unknown age full of incredible things and few will today maintain the narratives which survived amongst the christians, of the life of the founder jesus of nazareth, to be as full, accurate and authentic as the supposed importance of their subject matter demands. of socrates plato aristotle and many other teachers of antiquity not to mention great military and political leaders we can out of the records bequeath to us construct lifelike pictures, can trace with certainty the gradual development of their minds and characters and exhibit in detail their careers often we have theirvery letters andwritings and coins and sculptures preserve to us the lineaments of their countenances yet of jesus whose birth is supposed to have opened a new era not only for this earth but for the entire universe we know all too little and we have not enough material to write a life of him in the sense in which we wsrite lives of julius caesar or cicero or augustus and of many theres who were nearly his contemporaries.
but the gospels ane not the earlist christian documents which we possess for the earliest of them that of mark is nearly ageneration later than the epistles of paul of which several were written within a generation after jesus's death
there is a reason that the history of jesus is vague, god wanted it that way he wanted to see just what humans would fabricate concerning his life to exploit the ingorant grandmothers you know and i know that very few beleive. in that the churches are empty the men have given up the church the angelicians of south africa dont even beleive in the resurrection
so you parableman have the inside track to god.christ's freinds didnt even know the answer to his riddles, you two thousand years later can figure it out. one verse ten pastors with ten different interpertations, see the problem is the meaning of the text has been lost, god gave his words and the meaning of those words (and i bet they had a fixed meaning)to his sent ones now no one knows what was intended by the text whats the boast about, the text of the book might be preserved but the intended meaning of the text has been lose hence so many different interpertations by church leaders but they like it that way so everyone can say no one is wrong in his/her interpertations, for this one has to put their brain on the shelf because all of them cant be right. ripoff artists are happy to exploit that fact (no fixed meaning i'll just make up one for the little old ladies)for their donations people always claim that they know the meaning to parables so as to appear to know the the hidden as is they have an inside track to god and that they are so spiritual and in touch with the cosmos ( an please stop all that nonsense humans are dumb Hitlet killed six million jews in the name of christ americans annilated the entire continent of of indians here. bartheomew de la casas wrote in 1540.. how the entire island of hispanolia was annilated of its inhabitents by catholics one cheif was asked to accept christ before he was killed so he would go to heaven but through his life he had seen the killing of his people by catholics so he had asked the attending priest would his catholic that killed his people would be there in heaven the preist answered in the affirmative and the cheif answered that he would rather go to hell than be in heaven with the conquisitors (murderers)(yes i am part indian)
(so what about the spelling you can never miss spell a word in hebrew)... phonetic baby.

first of all hindu is one of the world religions
hinduism christianty and islam. judaism only has 10 million? followers. hence is not a major religion it is mainly a national movement with religious overtones it's like aparteid you know whites only GENESIS 12:2-3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. abraham never read the torah is he saved.
where did the pharoes (egyptians) get their laws from, you know not to kill. methusalae didnt read the torah egyptians had a high civilization that we are still uncovering they just didnt wander on the desert they ruled from the nile to mesoplatinia with out any torah. they are just trying to make you beleive you need them but history is empty of them they try to make you think you need them but they wont sit down and teach you their book because its a... racist thing. god to them is like a genie in a bottle
at their disposal and no one else. you will find
egyptian mummies in part of egypt that is now called palenstein/isreal that land is right next to egypt it is inconceivable that they ruled all the way to anceint chaldea and not in their own neighborhood that is just nonsense.

god named his religion after what he wanted you to do not after a race or a human or a geographic
location or tribe because that wouldnt include all the people on the earth isnt he the creator of us all some will say yeah, but, there is no if and's or butts or you will sound racist and tribal.

Well, most biblical scholars disagree with you on a number of points. For one thing, we have almost nothing on the life of Socrates. We have three sources, two of which are very scant. Plato is probably our best source, and he may not have written all that close to Socrates. It may well have been as far away as the earliest NT writings were from Jesus, which is not a whole generation but is more like a decade. The difference with the NT is that we have lots of different sources from different authors.

You're right that the gospels aren't the earliest Christian writings we have. The epistles are, at least some of the epistles. But the early ones, e.g. Galatians, the Thessalonian letters, and probably James were likely written by the 40s-50s. The Corinthian letters and Romans are also usually dated before 60. Most scholars agree that material in I Corinthians 15 and Philippians 2 is very early, perhaps even within a few years of Jesus lifetime but certainly within a decade. All of these sources testify to what Christians consider to be the most important aspects of Jesus' life, namely his death and resurrection, but there are plenty of echoes of his teaching in those letters, which the gospels, although written later, give in more depth.

Most scholars today believe that the gospel traditions go back long before the actual compiling of the final form of the gospel writings that we possess today. If the synoptics were written before the destruction of the temple, as I think is likely, then Matthew and Luke would have been published by the 60s, and Mark would have been existent in something close to its current form earlier enough to have gotten around. That means it was probably before 60 itself. But its traditions would have circulated long before the 50s. Paul refers to them more than once in his letters. I suspect there were gospel accounts circulating either orally or in written form at least as early as the early 40s, which is only a decade after the events they describe, making it easy to check with eyewitnesses to see if the accounts are reliable, allowing for discontinuation of any unreliable traditions.

You make some snide remarks about empty churches and few grandmothers who believe. All I have to say is that your experience is extremely limited, which gives you little right to comment. In mainline denominations that have gone liberal in their theology and departed from scripture, there really is a trend of diminishing congregation size. Among evangelicals, the reverse is true. Evangelical congregations thrive while theologically liberal ones die out. So the evidence is flatly against your premise.

People have killed for whatever reason they have wanted to. There's a long history of taking the Bible in different directions, but there's also a careful scholarship devoted to placing the biblical texts in context, both in terms of the social and historical setting they came from and in terms of their relation to other scriptures. You ignore the possibility of positive hermeneutics. The mere fact that people have taken the Bible in different ways doesn't mean there's no original meaning and intent, and it doesn't mean that it's impossible to come to an understanding of what it meant through careful scholarship, especially with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But you've ruled out this possibility without argument.

According to Wikipedia, Judaism has 14 million followers, not 10 million, and it is the 11th largest religion in the world. I'd consider that major. Even if that isn't sufficient for the label, the fact that Judaism has so strongly influenced Christianity and Islam should place it on the map simply because of its huge influence. But, whatever else is true, Judaism is not a national movement. Perhaps you are confusing the religion of Judaism with the smaller political movement called Zionism that is found among some Jews (with loyal support from some dispensationalist Christians).

The Bible teaches that Egypt ruled in Palestine. I'm not sure your point. That doesn't undermine the biblical historical claims. It confirms them.

Lots of moral and legal codes existed before the Torah. Duh. Again, your point? That's entirely consistent with God giving a special revelation at a particular time to a particular group of people that God expected people to follow from that point on. Islam has to say the same thing, right? This isn't something particular to Judaism or Christianity.

The name 'Judaism' was given to the Jewish religion by later conquering people. They were simply the Hebrew people or the political entities of Israel and later Israel and Judah until then. Religions didn't have names in the ancient near east, not until conquering European empires needed to refer to them by names. The name 'Christian' was invented by the Romans as a derogatory term, for example. Early Christians called themselves The Way to refer to what Christians did. They followed the one true way to God.

The Bible explicitly does say that Jesus will not return until every people-group has heard the gospel, and it does explicitly say that every tribe, nation, and people will be in the new creation at the end of time.

[the folliowing text was from a comment that got accidentally deleted because it was submitted twice, and somehow deleting one of them removed both]

somebody please tell jeremy the following 3 words... "like unto thee"!! the bible is saying that among the brethren will rise a prophet like moses(like unto thee). lets compare moses, jesus n mohamed shall we? moses n mohamed both had 2 parents(mothern father) jesus did not! he had only a mother(mary). both moses n mohamed were given a revelation, moses the torah n mohamed the quran. jesus wasn't given a "book". both moses n mohamed had offspring of their own, jesus did not. both moses n mohamed died n were buried in earth. jesus, as the christians say "is in heaven". lets further take 18:18, "I will put my words in his mouth"... god spoke to moses on mount sinai n when moses spoke, he was actually speaking the words of god. mohamed was told by the angel gabriele in the cave, "recite!" mohamed said "I cannot recite because I am not learned. the angel once again told mohamed to recite! n mohamed recited the 5 verses which can be found in chapter 96 of the quran. so both moses n mohamed were alike(like unto thee). prophecy is something that is predicted or will happen in a future date or a "later time". so, if the bible made or has over thousands of prophecies, why didn't it mention a man who is responsible for over one billion muslims today?!!

[fhe following text was from this comment initially]

can someone tell me why a man in flesh(jesus) is being worshipped as god??!!

you know anytime we get hurt or sick or were stressed out about something, maybe we endup in the hospital cus of some sickness... humans always think or say.."why is this happening to me. I wish it could have happened to somebody else." this is what christianity is ALL about! they believe jesus died for their sins(wish it could have happened to somebody else). why did god go through all of this sending jesue, resurrection ect ect to "forgive evrybodies sins"?? he's god! why couldn't he just forgive evrybody? I asked a christian..."what does one have to do to get into heaven?" he said "repent" so I said "basically your saying is one can commit any sin n all he/she has to is repent?" he said "yes! just repent n jesus will save you". no wonder society is all screwed up! people are doing whatever they want n they will get away with it if they repent. murder, rape, gays n lesbians, fornication, gambling, drugs, alcohol ect. the bible is the moral decay of society!!

Bobby, your first comment is part of the answer to the first statement of your second. You present some clear ways that Jesus isn't like merely human prophets. Why would God need to give Jesus a book to present to others when he's the embodiment of the divine word itself? Why would he need a human biological father (he had a human father, btw, and you just insulted every adopted child and adoptive parent in history) if God miraculously conceived him without one?

That isn't a complete answer, but this post is about whether Muhammad is in the Bible. It's not a defense of the Christian view of Jesus as fully divine and fully human.

Now your argument seems to be that the prophet like Moses would have to be like Moses in every respect. That means Muhammad couldn't be that prophet, because he didn't part the Red Sea, give a law to Israel, kill an Egyptian guard and get exiled from Egypt because of it, see God in a burning bush, have a brother who spoke for him, etc. If I really wanted to take your argument seriously, I'd have to insist on waiting for the second coming of Moses to admit that a prophet is a prophet like Moses. Otherwise I can accept that a prophet who isn't exactly like Moses in every respect can be the prophet like Moses.

As for why the Bible doesn't ever refer to Muhammad, I don't think that's true. There are lots of times when the Bible refers to people who will come and deny the divinity of Jesus, as Muhammad did.

As for your second comment, you have quite a jaundiced view of Christianity. Read some of Paul's letters, and you can see how clearly opposed he is to the kind of license you imagine Christianity teaching. He presents the gracious gift of salvation from God, but he goes on to say that this isn't a free ride to get away with whatever you want. In fact, he says that someone who treats it that way hasn't really received forgiveness at all. That's not the kind of trust in God that has to do with salvation. The letter of James makes the same point by saying that faith without works is dead.

I suggest you spend some time actually reading the foundational documents of Christianity so that you can have a basic understanding of Christian beliefs. It's not a very effective argument if you spend all of your time complaining about things the person you're speaking to doesn't even believe.


I only have one question..

out of the 4 gospels, mathew, mark, paul n john which one is the word of god? what I am really asking you is.. what are the reasons for following scriptures or books that were written by hand? the bible has over a thousand contradictions and I'm saying this because I believe a word of god has no contradictions!! I believe these contradictions exoist because the books n scriptures were written by hand.

plz explain

The third gospel is Luke. Do you see what I'm talking about? You're not qualified to make accusations against the Bible if you don't know something as basic as the names of the four gospels. It's fine to ask questions, but you're making accusations about something you know almost nothing about. I know a lot more about the Qur'an than you seem to know about the Bible, and I'm very careful in what I say about the Qur'an.

I know of no contradictions in the Bible, and I think it's safe to say that I know it a lot better than you do. I've read the entire thing more than a handful of times, and I've studied most of it very carefully. I realize that some people try to find contradictions, but I've never found a proposed contradiction that turns out on reflection to be a contradiction.

I don't see how it's relevant whether God reveals something through someone writing by hand, preaching by mouth, or whatever. If God inspires someone, then the method is irrelevant.

jeremy, you muust give references to your quotes or still have time to look them up ,or even better the opposition party can do so .

Lisa, I'm not remotely sure what you're referring to. Are there specific things I've said that you think I need to support? It wouldn't be hard, but I have no idea what you're calling an allegation and what you're thinking needs support. I did say a number of specific things and tied most of them to biblical passages.

Jeremy, the Quran/mohammad do not contradict any thing , but you are confusing a LAW that comes down in the fist part of the Quran , then God decides to change it for REASONS ie: people might not deserve it any more, or sinned like the chosen people did many times after all the blessing and the miracles that Mioses or Jesus showed them.

We all know that at one point God withdrew his so called covinent from the jews only to promise it changing the face of prayer from jerusalem to Kaaba discredit nothing!!. don`t you think some muslim if not Mohammad could have OMITTED the old verses like the Bible scolars did and jewish scolars as God warned us.

Where is this evidence that links the Kaaba with Hindus, and by whom?

Please do explain why are the children of wives like ruth, billah ...etc children are counted as Jews?

MASSECRE??? well maybe you should read YOUR MISHNA AND GAMORA and some of Moses history of wars Genocide of the children and weak.

Mohammad in song of solomon,not the conveniently translated to English, but the Greek and Hebrew text.

People cannot start translating the meanings of names and claim it is not them .Like Ismail and isaac both their names have a meanng.

I don't know what contradiction you're trying to respond to, but it doesn't seem to be the one I pointed out. The contradiction I'm talking about is a contradiction between what the Deuteronomy passage says and how the Qur'an applies the same passage. It's true that God could give a law for a time and then remove it. But I don't see how the same prophecy can refer to one person when given but not later on unless it's a false prophecy by the very criteria of Deuteronomy.

The next two points don't seem to me to have anything to do with what I've said, but you did say two things I don't agree with, so I'll respond to them.

I don't know of anywhere that says God withdrew his covenant with the Jews and then promised it back. I do know of the New Testament seeing the covenant that Israel failed to keep fulfilled in a new covenant, as promised by Jeremiah.

I have no idea what part of the Song of Songs is supposed to refer to Muhammad. If you give a specific reference, I could investigate it.

jeremy you are not following facts or LOGIC but rather go back to quoting from boooks that tell you something that contradicts its brother book, just because you HAVE TO.

As for the promise/covenant taken away from the jews:

1-"christ said the kingdom of god will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce it`s fruite" (MATHEW 21:43)

2-" there will be no Kigdom of David in Israel,for it`s brutality(which has not left them since beginig of time).It will be crushed...., NO messiah will cometo an evil country.Israel wiil NOT be allowed to come on an Armmagaddan, rather have it dne to it self"

3- "..... i shall depart from them (hosea 9:12
4- "I hate them , iwill drive them out of mine house.......(hsea 9:15)+++++

As for MOHAMMAD in (song of solomon 5:16)in GREEK/ARAMAIC and NOT the conviniantly translated
to English using the meaning of the word!


Please do not say it is spelt different, because words and names slightly some times totaly vary from one dialict to another

check the verbal sound even more nearer to the name on : WWW.SEARCHGODSWORD.ORG/LEX/HEB/VIEW

You mention new covenant and new testament and not old.Really as a christian you should follow the old too, even though it contradicts most of the new.Also how can christians bless the jews whom according to the new test killek and hated jesus then and now??

Jesus did warn us about them, and the reference is ready when asked for.

Matthew 21:43 is addressed to the priests and elders of a particular generation. If he meant all Israel, it would contradict the fact that some Jews continued in the promise. It's not an ethnic thing, or there wouldn't have been any Jews in the new covenant. Yet he hand-picked Jews to be the apostles of that new covenant.

I'm not sure what your #2 is quoting. #3 and #4 come from Hosea, who was speaking to the northern kingdom of Israel. That kingdom was indeed destroyed by the Assyrian empire in the seventh century BC. The southern kingdom of Judah continued on as the remnant until it too was destroyed, and then the remnant took a different form. The remnant eventually came to be the followers of Jesus.

I consider the old covenant to be as much God's word as the new, and they don't contradict. Jesus initiated the new covenant and said the old will never be abolished but is fulfilled in him.

My Greek translation of the Old Testament is in a room where a small child is going to sleep, so I can't look at it right now, but I just looked at a couple commentaries, and there's no indication of anything like that in the original Hebrew. The fact that the Greek translation happens to use a word that sounds like Muhammad's name is not an argument that it refers to him. The meaning makes perfect sense from how the Hebrew is translated. Turning a love poem amidst a bunch of other love poems into a prophecy for some completely unrelated future figure is quite a stretch.

I managed to look at my Greek translation of the Song of Songs, and there is nothing remotely like what you give above for 5:16.

Hey, so I dusted off my BHS to see what this verse says in Hebrew. The word in question does indeed look/sound similar to Mohammad (a more guttural "h"), though in Hebrew the word is plural. So maybe this verse predicts multiple Mohammads?

The word literally would be translated "delightfulnesses" according to BDB, a standard Hebrew lexicon. But, let's suppose lisa is correct, it would look like this: "all of his is Mohammeds."

This could actually be a fun means of exegesis. I mean, I'm prophecied about all over the Bible if that's the case. You too, Jeremy. I mean, that's just as close to "Jeremiah" as "Mahammadim" is to "Mohammed."

Of course, since this word simply means "desireable" or "lovely", and since this is in the middle of love poetry, I don't think it's that hard to figure out what this verse is talking about. Prophecy it ain't.

Danny, their are many jeremys and Dannies and pauls...etc, the fact is every name Has a meaning.

well then in that case the jesus in the Bible is not the same as YASHUA the Discilpes talk about, cause both names do not sound or spelt the same.Infact the letter J only came to the English language in the late 1500th cent.Hebrew language was a consonant language , later from 9th-10thC Masoreles added vouls, dotes and dashes like the Quran to preserve the oral pronounciation.

Jhon is Yohanna , David is Dawoud,Solomon sulaiman...etc as i said before and you being an intelligent man that names ca sometimes slightly or totaly change with different dialicts and languages.

Please tell me where in the Old testament is the name Yashua let alone Jesus mentioned???. OH, is it the LAMB!??.

If you dust more books you will see that Mohammad is refered to and spelt slightly different in many dialects :MOHAMMAD, NOHAMAD,MOHAMMADAN, MAHAMMAD, AHMAD,and other names drived from his name :HAMMADA,HAMDAN,HAMMAD, MAHMOUD, ALLAH ELOAH,ELLAH,ELAHI(Aramaic), or doese that not mean the same?

Check the pronouciation of Machsmad in the Hebrew dictionary of Ben Yehuda.It is pronounced the Mahammad and not Mahmad, but because of the intri=oduction of VOWELS in the 8th cent it became pronounced different.

If Machamad is a mere reference to a love sick girl`s object of disire , then why is this machamad called the girl`s Parental UNCLE, as well as a ccomrade and co-worker?

Chemdan (Hemdan was eldest son of Dishon of Anah the HOrite.

chamad (Hamad) was son of Adbeel who was son of Kedar

As for meanings it doese not matter what the meaning is, cause for instant JUDE in English has a different meaning than jude in Arabic.

Last but not least if Macamad was not Mohammad, then why is it that one of the greatest and respected jewish scolar!? MAIMONIDS in 1135-1204 wrote in a letter to TEMAN, of a mad prophet named MACAMAD....(he was threatened by him and disliked him )???so the name appleis when it suites the Christians or jews .

Any way mohammad in description is mentioned in other verses of the old and original new testament

" the law giver will be of Judah UNTIL SHILOH comes as a law giver to Gentiles" (jesus was of judah so it cannot be him) Shiloh means peace-salam/Islam.

"Jesus was sent to the house of Israel only (mathew 15:24)

"Shilo migrated from KEDAR (son of Ishmaile) to TEMA...transforming the promised land thinking a new Jerusalem.

"his people pray SHOULDER TO SHOULDER...gather for pilgrimage every year....

Check Isiah 42:8-12 = new song , new prophet,and new language..

Isiah 28:10= shows how the new book will come down, bit by bit precpt upon precept

Isiah 28:11 = " for with stammering lips and another tonggue will he speak to the people

Isiah42:11= letting the wilderness of KEDAR (son of ISHMAIL lift up their voices and the tenants of the ROCK (kABA) REJOICE....THE ISLAND SOUNDS HIS PRAISE ( calling of praise in minarates )

Duet 33:2kjv= ...he (new prophet) will come with 10,000 of saints....( as did Mohammed do with his followers into Mecca.

Your sarcism was not very catchy saying " i must be prophecied all over the Bible, you too Jeremy.." but you are NOT that special prophet Daniel . Then all the jesus in Latin America must be the ones the new testament talks about.All the Marys, Josephs..are in the Bible.Please be logic.

Lisa, no one said anything about names having to be spelled exactly the same way, and no one said anything about someone having to be named to be prophesied. Anyone following the conversation in this comments thread should know that no one here thinks a name must be given for the person to be the prophet like Moses. The text gives no name, so of course the name need not be mentioned.

The argument Danny and I have both presented is that it's completely insane to look for a prophecy about a future figure in a love poem when there is absolutely no contextual clue that it's anything other than a love poem, and the sentence doesn't even make much sense if you take the word as a name, while the word does make perfect sense if it means what it normally means in Hebrew.

I have no idea what your Shiloh reference is to.

Jesus was sent to Israel, and he sent his disciples to the Gentiles (see the end of Matthew 28 and the beginning of Acts).

I don't see anything in Isaiah 42 about a new language, but even if there were it wouldn't have to be Arabic. Presumably all the Gentile nations who will convert to the true God will praise him in their own language, though. There are lots of languages besides Hebrew anyway, including the Greek that the NT was written in. So I don't see how this must have anything at all to do with Muhammad.

Isaiah 28:10 is part of a speech by those in Judah who didn't want to listen to the prophets who (in the sarcastic mind of the prophet) are explaining how they view the prophetic word. They see the words of the prophet Isaiah as just nonsense of repetitive but unimportant commands. Then v. 11 comes along and shocks them by saying a foreign nation will teach them, which in context is Babylon, teaching them through the exile that their hope in things that weren't of God was ultimately in vain.

Deut 33:1-2 is talking about God, not any prophet. The divine name is the immediate referent of "he". There's a textual difficulty about who the 10,000 are, but it's probably either angels or Israel. It's clearly a symbolic number either way (100 x 100 = 10 x 10 X 10 X 10).

As Jeremy noted, I'm not arguing that SoS 5:16 isn't referring to Mohammed because the spelling is different. I can accept variations in spelling, though you'd have to answer why the plural is used in SoS 5:16, but that's even besides the point.

The point is that why would you see a prophecy about someone in the middle of a love poem? That's the real issue.

I apologize for my sarcasm.

jeremy, till these days people use religious names/figures in songs and poems whether love or not.Especialy in the Middle east.

Lets say you have a point. then why would Solomon in the same paragraph writes HE, and this is my BELOVED,this is my FREIND if this is a love song to a girl as you imply????.So this proves that it was originaly written MACHMAD (a noun & masculin) rather than".... so sweet....he is altogether lovely..etc). If the translaters were not afraid of the reall meaning then they should and would have left it.

As well you did not answer to my question concerning the letter from MAIMONID to TE`MAN describing the prophet Mohammad as mad , and calling him by his name MACHMAD!!?. Or only when it is convenient the name implies??.

SHILOH = shalom, salam,peace, to submit...which describes the coming of Islam/Salam = submitters.What a coincidence that SHILOH, MACHMAD boyh who very strongly have connection to each other , have to do with Islam.

I`l repeat : " the scepter shall not depart from Juah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, UNTILL SHILOH comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the people" ( genesis 49:10).

Seeing all the prophets were jewish including jesus, then it must mean Mohammad being the only one not Jewish.So where is your confusion?

As for for the sending of Jesus to the House of Israel ONLY, what have his deciples got to do with God?. God never mentions any thing about any one besides his messangers.half of his deciples never met jesus, and the other half have been made falsifeid and acused of Blasphemy by soe Medivel Monk who did not like what he heard.

the deciples contradicted each other and disagreed on many things.This is why Islam confusingly love and respect jesus and his mother, but beleive that the Teaching of Jesus was omitted in some parts, making it unreliable.and that Jesus is the Messiah who will come back with the TRUE BOOK OF GOD.

As for a NEW SONG :"sing for the Lord a NEW SONG, his prayer from the end of the earth......"(isiah 42:10)

"former things are to pass, new things do i declare..(isiah 42:9)

" let the wilderness and citeis lift up their Voices, the villages KEDAR doth inhabit, let the Inhabitants of the ROCK sing, shout from the top of the mountains" (isiah 42:11)

" lord go foth like a mighty man,he shall stir up jealousy like a man of WAR, he shall cry, yea, roar,privale against his enemy" (isiah 42:13)

" will i cry like a travelling woman, i will DESTROY and devour at once"(isiah 42:14

Doese any of these discription sound like Jesus???
especialy that jesus has nothing to do with the people of KEDAR who was the son of Ishmail.Jesus did not war any one, cry, roar, shout.Yet while the Army of mohammad went to war they shouted "Allah ho Akbar" and howeld with their Tongues,

Concerning a new language ,what language do you presume God sent after jesus to the Arabs of Kedar .All the gentile Nations did not Convert to christianaty so did Non Arab nations Convert to Islam!.yes there are a lot of languages beside hebrew and Arabic, but God did not send the greeks any prophet or Book.

Isiah 28:10-11 Sorry but you have not made any logic sense of what are you trying to say?!!!.what has Judah got to do with Kedar? what prophetic word?!!!.When did isiah repeat nonesense?!!.Who got shocked and where.who will teach them what?!!!

The 10,000 saints are documented as the exact amount of Followers who entered the city of Macca with the prophet Mohammad.

sorry ,i did not realise that i had already sent same one before.It is 1.3 am london and i am half asleep.

People use names in poems, but they make contextual sense, and they make grammatical sense. What you're suggesting does neither.

There may well be a common Semitic root for peace and submission. So?

Gen 49:10 says Judah will rule until Shiloh (or tribute, depending on which vowels are original) comes. You assume this means Judah will stop being the ruling tribe once Shiloh or tribute comes, but I don't think the Hebrew means that. I don't know if "until" means an endpoint the way it sometimes does. If I say I'll be faithful to God until the day I die, it doesn't mean I'll stop being faithful in the afterlife.

As for for the sending of Jesus to the House of Israel ONLY, what have his deciples got to do with God?. God never mentions any thing about any one besides his messangers.half of his deciples never met jesus, and the other half have been made falsifeid and acused of Blasphemy by soe Medivel Monk who did not like what he heard.

I have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. The disciples Jesus spoke to in Matthew 28 did indeed know him, and I don't care what some medieval monk might have accused anyone of. And God does indeed mention the disciples of Jesus. He does it throughout the gospels whenever Jesus speaks. Even if you don't accept Jesus' divinity, he is the prophet of God according to Islam, and thus he speaks God's words. So when Jesus addresses his disciples, it's God speaking.

the deciples contradicted each other and disagreed on many things.

They obviously had disagreements during Jesus' earthly ministry before the coming of the Holy Spirit, and there were disagreements among the apostles afterward (one is recorded in Galatians), but the writings of the New Testament make it clear who was right (in that case Paul was and Peter wasn't), and Peter's writings are entirely in agreement with the view Paul presents in Galatians, so he would agree with that assessment of that particular case. As for disagreements between the New Testament writings, I think I've probably spent a lot more time in them than you have, and I'm not aware of any.

Jesus told the disciples to go to all the world, and that includes Kedar.

As for war, I assume you have little familiarity with the book of Revelation, which depicts Jesus as a mighty warrior coming to judge the world. He has a sword coming out of his mouth, and there is much description of the coming of the day of the Lord accompanied with a shout and the blowing of horns. The New Testament consistently describes Jesus as accomplishing redemption at the cross in his first coming and judgment on the world and restoration of the cosmos at his second. This fits entirely with the picture of the coming servant as a warrior. It's much harder to fit the servant Isaiah to someone who didn't suffer and die at the hands of enemies whom he was submissive to (Isa 53).

God did not send prophetic revelation of the form of the Hebrew prophets or in written form once the final revelation in Jesus came. The New Testament in fact teaches that. The gospel as revealed in God in human flesh is the final word. The message did indeed go out to all the nations surrounding that region, and it did indeed include Arabs and others who did not speak Greek and Hebrew. It has gone all over the world, in fact.

so where is the sence on deciding that jesus is the LOSY SHEEP ? which the jews whom extremist Christians support TOTALY disagree with and hate?.

As for making sence in poems, the bigest Evangelical leaders and Preachers of today translate SOLOMON`S songs like this :

Song 4:5 = ....2 breasts like 2 fawns, twins of a gazzelle..(2 breasts explained as faith and love of neighbours!!!!) so why did Solomon not use the proper words strait forward?.

"...climeb the palm tree...hold its branches, may your breasts be like clusters of vine,scent of your breath like apples...(explained as JESUS climing a palm tree....!!!)

"kisses your mouth like the best wine...( explained as Jesus`s words are HOINEST &PURE!!) cosidering we all know a little too much wine can cause you to sin!!.

Many more of these fantasy translation.

It has been agreed by most of the biggest Christian theologians(spelling)that the old and new testaments have been omitted under the hands of later translaters, wether intentionaly or by mistake.

Here we go again jeremy you are taking a very clear meaning of a word and pressuming it to have another meaning , yet when a sentence stares rihgt in the face clear of its meaning you decide to CREAT apossible other meaning.
then please explain what other thing could UNTIL mean???

What vouls are you talking about, remember hebrew language had NOOO vowels till the Late 9th-19thC then hell broke loose with western translation.

But Isiah is talking about life on EARTH and not after death , and a new lawgiver coming to the people on earth NOT heaven,So what are you on about?

No NO No , it is a known fact that NOT all the deciples knew jesus the flesh,Explore your knowlage a little further and you will see.

The Medival Monk who you do not care what he said is the founder of the new testament and translater of the first English one, DENNIS THE LITTLE, who was a moody, arogant and full of hatred.So i pressume you do care now.

How does it make sence that God mentions the deciples via speaking to Jesus??you are not making sence again and talking utter nonsence.Please GIVE references when you quote or explain.You are mixing Jesus and the diciples together in status.

The gospels are not eye witness text, infact they were written ON BEHALF of the deciples 30-40 yrs after.can you imagine the errors that were done by the translaters?. At one stage in Germany at the begining of Christianaty preists were ordaning "IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER , THE DAUGHTER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT" it was obviouse that it was not intentionaly but a Gramatical mistake.

No the writting of the New Test does NOT make it clear which deciple`s story was right.The dicision was done by a group of 1/2 PAGAN 1/2 newly converted Rome, and it was decided by the NICEN COUNCIL in 325AD that the ORIGINAL gospels in Hebrew to be Distroyed, but the POPE of 383 secretly kept copeis of some gospels ,BARNABAS being one of them which in many aspects contradicts what the New Test says.When his remains were found in 478AD he had his gospel with his OWN hand writting lying on his chest.Also the Gospel of Judas was found,and the NAG HAMMADI,and soon more and more of the truth will be discovered.Bleive it or Not the VATICAN has some of the most powerfull and secretive books hidden from the public for reasons.

I will give examples of omitting letters and words from the translated Bibles from greek to English:

Mathew 1:23(kjv)=...for that which is conceived in her is of THE holy Ghost"

Greek version there is NO (THE) before Holy Ghost.In the greek Spirit(Ghost) comes before Holy and is separated by the verb "TO BE".

So it should have been translated as =" for that which is conceived in her from spirit is Holy.

A contradiction = Mathew 1:22 =" and she shall his name Jesus, for he SHALL save HIS PEOPLE from their sin"!!

We all know that his people for 2000 yrs have rejected him and still do and he has not saved them from their sins. So who adds these sentenses??

Where does it mention Jesus as a mighty warior with a sword coming out of his MOUTH!! and thre rest of your quote????? please give reference.Concerning metioning of names as previously you deneid that MACHMAD is MAHAMMAD even though they are so similar, then i will expect to see a name similar to jesus/Yashua/yashoo...etc.

As for the message going out to all nations including Arabs(KEDAR).So did Mohammad`s as i said before, only difference is that Mohammad`s went out to the Arabs more and christianaty was accepted by the Arabs (KEDAR) less( as in numbers).No they did not need to speak Greek or hebrew as the Old and new test was taught in ARAMAIC which is similar to ARABIC.

I see what you are trying to do by stating the Arabs (KEDAR). you are trying to state that the people of Kedar are NOT the decendents of Ishmail who`s son was Kedar and God blessed him.

1- You still have not answered my previouse questions concerning Machmad amd the letter of Jewish MAIMONAD to te`man???

2- and the question concerning Song of solomon, mentioning HE, MY FREIND,IF IT WAS A LOVE LETTER???

Try this for a contradictin of the Bible:


I don't know what you mean about Jesus as a lost sheep.

I do know that any Christians who support Israel as a state do so for either political reasons or because they think Israel is currently not following God properly but is prophesied to do so. I disagree with their view of prophecy, but I don't see any inconsistency with either justification. You can politically support a state that consists mostly of people who disagree with your religion.

The biggest evangelical leaders do not interpret the Song of Songs allegorically. Almost all scholars, whether evangelical or not, see it as a love poem or a series of love poems. The most important evangelical commentaries are by Tremper Longman, Duane Garrett, Richard Hess, Tom Gledhill, and Iaian Provan. Other important commentaries are by Roland Murphy, Marvin Pope, Othmar Keel, and Bloch and Bloch. Not one of them endorses an allegorial interpretation of the book, at least not at the level of details. The most any of them might say is that because the relationship between humans and God can sometimes be portrayed as a marriage relationship in the Bible, this poem does point to that relationship because it's about marriage, but that's a pretty weak allegorical interpretation.

It has been agreed by most of the biggest Christian theologians(spelling)that the old and new testaments have been omitted under the hands of later translaters, wether intentionaly or by mistake.

I'm not sure what you mean there. There have been small, inconsequential copyist mistakes, and one or two passages might have been added, not omitted. But that's a far cry from saying much of consequence has been altered, as Islam claims. There's no textual evidence for that.

Here we go again jeremy you are taking a very clear meaning of a word and pressuming it to have another meaning , yet when a sentence stares rihgt in the face clear of its meaning you decide to CREAT apossible other meaning.
then please explain what other thing could UNTIL mean???

If you mean the Hebrew consonants that can mean either of two words, depending on the vowels, then it's easy to see how your caricature of my position is inaccurate. The Hebrew language was originally written with only consonants. (It's false to say that it had no vowels. It just had no written way of indicating what they were.) The Masoretes added vowels to the texts later on, but it's never clear if they added the right ones. We can go by their vowels or by another set that would also make contextual sense. Either way is compatible with what we know about the original text.

No NO No , it is a known fact that NOT all the deciples knew jesus the flesh,Explore your knowlage a little further and you will see.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I know of no facts that show that the people described in the gospels as Jesus' personal acquaintance who followed him didn't really know him at all. It's certainly true that people later became disciples who didn't know him, but Matthew 28 is Jesus meeting with the disciples who knew him in the flesh. (If he is meeting with them, how could they not have met him?) They are then commanded to make disciples of all nations, and those later disciples obviously didn't know him in the flesh. Paul is the only one who met him after his ascension. But I was speaking of the people who met with Jesus in Matt 28. It is not a known fact that those people didn't all know Jesus, and I don't know where you're getting that from.

The Medival Monk who you do not care what he said is the founder of the new testament and translater of the first English one, DENNIS THE LITTLE, who was a moody, arogant and full of hatred.So i pressume you do care now.

No, the founder of the New Testament is God, who inspired apostles and their associates to write it. It was in existence long before any medieval monk existed. It was even recognized as canonical by church councils long before the medieval period. So no, I don't care all that much about some medieval monk, particularly if he's as you describe him. The Nicene Council wrote none of the works we call the New Testament. There were other documents that for good reasons did not become recognized as canonical. Their quality and content differs widely from the core gospels and epistles, and their connection with apostles is also much more suspect. The texts you mention were in some cases written hundreds of years later, including the Gospel of Judas and the other Gnostic writings. Gnosticism didn't really get going until the second century.

The gospels were written by eyewitnesses or people who were very close associates of eyewitnesses. The only one that's very late seems to have been written by an eyewitness. The others were written within the lifespan of many eyewitnesses.

The Greek article appears before proper names. In Plato's writing, he puts it in front of Socrates' name. That doesn't mean we should translate it as "the Socrates". Similarly, it doesn't appear in many cases before descriptions. "The Holy Spirit" is grammatically a description, and in English we use an article when in Greek they might not do so. The Holy Spirit is clearly given personal attributes throughout the Bible, especially in the NT.

The NT defines his people as his genuine followers. It distinguishes between the physical Israel and the spiritual Israel. The ones who are saved are the latter. That group includes many from physical Israel. I know quite a number of Jewish Christians.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ is the last book in the NT. The scene with the sword coming out of his mouth is in the first chapter, and his actual conquering comes in chapter 19.

Islam and Christianity have both gone out to many nations. My point is that there's no requirement to see the reference to Islam. It fits Christianity equally well. I am not saying the people of Kedar are or are not anything. The point is that Christianity fits the text at least as easily as Islam, even if it refers to Arabs. There are, after all, Arab Christians.

Your link doesn't work.

I ment the PASS OVER LAMB pridicted in we are connecting a Lamb with no name to Jesus as being one. Yet the Machmad in Solomon is NOT !!!!.( yet it could have well meant Jesus )

Israel has not followed God properly for over 2000 yrs and even worse now after what they wished and did to jesus, who clearly warns us about them and thier leaders.Any way when Jesus shall return ALL people will be ONE not just the Israelites who are very very Few in this world(as in seed).

Acording to Jesus " woe unto you ,scribes,pharasees, hypocrits .....apear beutifull outwards, but are full of dead men`s bones and of all uncleanliness" (mathew 23:27)

"ye serpants, ye generation of vipers, how canye escape the Damnations of hell" (mathew 23:33)


The biggest Evangelical leaders do not represent all Christianity ,it is enough coming from other Christian leaders.

Why should MAN made passeges be added to the supposidly words of God ? there are far more than your 1-2 passeges added or a small incosiquential mistakes , but rather over 50+ contradictions and they are not difficult to find.

you are wrong , the Bible has been Omitted.If man can add , then he can subtract to suite his aime.This is not been only claimed by Islam but also by most of the biggest Christian Theologians.The TEXTUAL evidence eg: the Jerico story (chapter 10: 46)it cuts suddenly without finishing the sentence, and you could see the sighns of removal.
They should have left all the Gospels for people to decide which to follow.It is logic that the older testaments are more genuine whether we like what is in it or not.

Just type : contradictions in the Bible - theological doctrines.

It is a fact Hebrew had NO vowels, that is according to the HEBREWS and the people who would know better than you and i.In your case even if you are forced to accept the fact, you make an excuse of not being the right ones!!!What evidece do you need?

His deciples were not always first hand eye witness to Jesus`s mission and sayings, and i never specifeid which ones.But if they were all witnesses to all things , then they would NOT HAVE CONTRADICTED each other on some of the Most important events .
Eg: Birth,his missing childhood,seremon on the Mount,crucifiction, resurruction,Judas`s so called death, his first appearace, his ascendens,...++++

PAUL NEVER KNEW JESUS, he came to the scene around 50 CE( 15 yrs ) after Jesus, yet he was a major writter of !/2 of the Epistles , here is an admittance of paul

"...the Gospel i preached is NOT something that man made up.I did NOT receive it from any man, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, rather i received it by revelation from Jesus!!??" (Galatians 1:11-12). so either he is lying or he copeid it from other deciples and that is why he angered them.

He was in conflict with James(step brother of Jesus) over the law (mark6:3 & math 13:15).James suported the entire law, while Paul opposed it.He was often accused of being a lair(2 corithians 7:14,& 11:7,8,10..).

Paul leid about being born Jewish (Romans 7:9). He changed the teaching 180 degree to suit Romans and Greeks, that even the name Jesus derived from the Roman-God ISEUS & ISUS(Egyptian).

so the founder of the ORIGINAL new testament was Jesus from God.The Ebonite ( Gnostic ) Gospel existed long before the Canonical one

I`m saying that the English version came 100`s of yrs after.

Jesus was decided to be made GOD-SEMI GOD at the NICENE COUNCIL by a bunch of semi Pagan Romans who had just converted on the bases that the idea of a human God like Zeus, Appollo..etc should apply.Paul needing to be accepted and stay in power accepted a little comproming.

Yes there are good reason to bannish MOST of the other Gospels whom the word CORE would apply to them more as they are the older ones.

you say the text i mention were written hundreds of yrs later. so if the gnostic were written 2nd century later, then when was the new test written??

Sorry i did not get any of your eye witness section.

What has Plato and Socrates got to do with the Gospel????

Now the sword coming out of Jesus`s mouth I have read it , but i do not see where it mentions jesus, or a name that share even 1 letter of jesus`s name !!yet you deny Machmad as Mohammad.

How can you fit Christianity to the Ishmail`s seed`s name (KEDAR) when Chritians and jews deny him as Abraham`s legitamate son, and try to dis associate your selves with Him??. Funny when it suits them .

The Arabs who converted to Christianity are one in a thousand , so i do not think the impact was so mighty and great for God to mention it with all the passion and Might.Other wise he would have said the villages of Germania or Europa it had the biggest impact on them.

I think we will stick with Kedar as the MUSLIM ARABS

I'm still not sure what you're asking about with Jesus as Passover lamb. It's a clear teaching in the New Testament. Are you questioning that it teaches that? It's clear that the original Passover lambs were not Jesus. They were lambs. But that doesn't mean there can't be someone later on who fulfills all that the Passover lamb symbolizes.

What the Romans did to Jesus is at least as bad as what the Jewish leaders did. The New Testament clearly teaches that what they did was part of God's plan anyway, not that it excuses what any individuals might have done. Most of the early Christians were Jewish, also. There's no justification for Christians having a negative view of Jews. Paul in Romans 9-11 urgently longed for the salvation of the Jews, not their judgment.

Romans 9-11 is about who really receives the promise of Abraham. Those chapters teach that there was an original people descended physically from Abraham, who were the initial recipients of the promise. A large portion of them rejected it, and God removed them from the community of promise. Those who remained were joined by Gentiles who believed. So not all of physical Israel is truly part of the spiritual Israel, and some of the physical non-Israel becomes part of the spiritual Israel and inherits the blessing given to Abraham. Paul's view has nothing to do with people being in Israel who weren't physically descended from Abraham. It's not about what percentage of modern Israel would be descended from Israel. He was talking about his own generation.

I didn't list just evangelical leaders (although you did use that term). I listed all the top biblical commentators on that book. Virtually no one holds to such an interpretation anymore.

I know of no contradictions. I know of a lot of awful internet sites and bad anti-Christian apologetics sites that pretend to find contradictions. I've spent lots and lots of time considering such supposed contradictions, and I've never found one that's remotely a clear case of a contradiction. A contradiction is of the form "P and not-P". Most of the supposed contradictions are not of that form but are in fact "P and Q" when P and Q are consistent, and the ones that are can easily be shown to be "P in one sense but not-P in another sense", which isn't a real contradiction.

There may have been ancient texts that were used as sources for the Bible, and the biblical authors may not have included every part of their sources. This is actually pretty clear when the authors of Kings and Chronicles refer their readers to these other books for more information. But that's a far cry from parts of the Bible being omitted. The only case I know of where anyone really thinks that is the ending of Mark, where some people think the ending we have is not original (and they're probably right), and then there's disagreement over whether an original (probably one like Matthew's) has been lost or whether the book originally ended at 16:8 (which I think is the majority view and the one most likely to be true). I know of no other major claims about omissions from the Bible. I know of a number of claims of additions to it, e.g. the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 or the verses someone inserted into I John to make the Trinitarian teaching more obvious. But we have good textual evidence to support those not being original. Is there good textual evidence to support parts of the Bible originally being present that aren't there anymore in the Hebrew texts? Nothing that's unambiguous, at least. Some claim the Greek and Syriac translations include lost material from the original Hebrew, but I've never put much stock in such claims. Those are just as easily explained as later expansions. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? I generally place much higher confidence in the Hebrew text than I do in the translations.

I'm not sure what 10:46 you mean. The Jericho account in Joshua isn't in ch.10, and ch.10 doesn't have 46 verses. Do you mean a different Jericho account?

If Hebrew had no vowels, they couldn't have spoken it. All spoken language has vowels, even if they have no means of writing those sounds down. To prove otherwise, you'd need to show that the ancient Hebrews communicated telepathically or wrote down everything instead of speaking it. You can't pronounce a bunch of consonants with no vowels. Hebrew had vowels if it was spoken. They just didn't write them down until much later than the Hebrew Bible was written, when the written language had developed vowel markings.

I know of no contradiction on Jesus' birth. If his childhood isn't reported to us, how can it be contradictory? There are no contradictions in the Sermon on the Mount. Some claim there to be contradictions between the Sermon on the Mount and a similar passage in Luke, but that's not so. Jesus could have taught the same material many times and in many ways. The Sermon on the Mount is a summary of what took him all day to teach, and he may have said all the things in both passages along the way. One might express the core teaching and another the expansion. There are claims of contradictions about the crucifixion, resurrection, and so on, but none stand up under examination. There has been a long tradition of explanations for what seem to be contradictions. I accept no claim of a contradiction unless you can also disprove all of those, and the internet sites detailed these hardly ever even interact with that literature.

According to Acts, Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, and that's how he was converted.

"...the Gospel i preached is NOT something that man made up.I did NOT receive it from any man, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, rather i received it by revelation from Jesus!!??" (Galatians 1:11-12). so either he is lying or he copeid it from other deciples and that is why he angered them.

I don't follow your argument. Paul says he received the message directly from Jesus and not from the apostles or any other mere human. That means either he's lying or he didn't copy it from the other disciples.

The only issue between Paul and the other apostles in Galatians is over whether Peter should have been avoiding Jewish Christians at meals. Such behavior contradicted the gospel Peter taught, and Paul reprimanded him for it. Peter repented and expressed views much like Paul's in his own epistles later on.

Paul and James were in complete agreement. Paul, like Jesus, recognized that the whole law came from God and thus would never pass away. Paul's opponents in II Corinthians were far more extreme than James. He speaks very highly of James in several places. The people he condemns in II Corinthians were not Christians. They merely claimed to be.

Paul leid about being born Jewish (Romans 7:9).

Ludicrous. There's so much disagreement about what Romans 7 is even referring to that it's pretty tenuous to base much on Paul's claim that "he" (whoever the "he" refers to) was once alive apart from the law. Since Paul clearly teaches that Gentiles are dead in their sins, this can't mean that he was a Gentile, whatever else he does mean.

He changed the teaching 180 degree to suit Romans and Greeks, that even the name Jesus derived from the Roman-God ISEUS & ISUS(Egyptian).

Paul confirmed his teaching with the other apostles even though he didn't get it from them. This is clear in Galatians, and it's clear from the complete agreement he has with the writings of the other apostles and the acceptance of what he has to say in Acts 15. I have no idea where you're getting this name "Jesus" thing from, since the name is quite obviously the same name many Jews at the time had, which traces back to Joshua, the successor of Moses. Paul did nothing to change the name to anything. That's how they wrote that name in Greek at the time. There's overwhelming historical evidence of this. It was one of the most common names among Jews during that time.

so the founder of the ORIGINAL new testament was Jesus from God.The Ebonite ( Gnostic ) Gospel existed long before the Canonical one

The four gospels (along with the entire rest of the New Testament) were written in the first century. Christian-like forms of Gnosticism didn't even appear until the next century and didn't reach their full-blown state until the century after that.

The councils that produced the creeds didn't make Jesus anything. They recognized the implications of the biblical teachings. Many people read the texts today and see the same thing with no pagan influence.

I have no idea what you're getting at with this Kedar thing. The Christian gospel goes out to all peoples, no matter their heritage. So of course it goes to Kedar. I have no idea why you would think Christians would deny Ishmael the right to be Abraham's son. The Bible teaches that he was his son and that he even returned from his exile to bury his father. There were a bunch of other kids later too with Abraham's wife Keturah. Only Isaac was the child of promise, and from him came the people of promise, but that doesn't make Ishmael not fully a son. He just didn't receive that one important thing. Not that this is relevant to whether the Christian gospel would be preached to the descendants of Kedar. It certainly has been. It has also included a significant number at times, just not right now. Christianity and Islam are both not racially defined, so there's also no guarantee of what will happen in the future with Arabs.

I don't see this conversation really going anywhere. You assume a lot of false things about what I believe. You read a lot into things that aren't there. You put forward claims about what Christians teach that no serious Christian would think. You misrepresent the state of biblical scholarship. You assert things without argument. You make general conclusions that need a lot of serious work to support and then just refer to shoddy lists of uncareful discussions that make no serious effort to respond to those who have interacted thoughtfully with the critique in question. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but I'm having a hard time seeing much point in continuing this.

please state the Vesre about Paul meeting Jesus on the way to Damascus as i`d like to check it, and if he did then why did Paul say that he received his Gospel VIA REVELATION and was NOT TAUGHT IT, if he was with jesus during his mission??

Is the excuse of adding the Fake (man made ) story of the Adultress woman an admitance of incertion?. If yes, then who gaves the authority to these medelling Popes, Bishops and Preists to do so?.Please don`t tell me they received revelationfrom Christ/God.

Jesus was one of the few who could read and write in his days,yet is it not Ironic why he NEVER EVER wrote one single sentence???He infact forbade any of his Appostals to do so, but to teach it from the Heart.

Unless jesus was in two places at once then explain , did jesus preach on a MOUNT (MATHEW 5:1,2) or a PLAIN (lUKE 6:17,20)

The crucifiction you deny it to be contradicted, then please explain:

1-Christ was crucifeid at the 3rd hour (mark 15:25)
2- christ was NOT crucifeid until the 6th hour (jhon 19:14-15)

The resuruction:

1-Deciples were commanded to go to GALILEE after the resuruction (mathew 28:10)
2-deciples...................go to Jerusalem after the resuruction (luke 24:49)

Appearance of jesus:

1-Jesus first appeared to the 11 deciples in a ROOM in JERUSALEM (luke 24:33-37)
2-Jesus...................................on a MOUNTAIN in GALELEE (math 28:16,17)

1-Christ ascended from MOUNT OLIVE (Acts 1:12,19)
2-Christ..................BETHANY (luke 24:50,51)

You see Jeremy i have checked some of your followers Books, and they are printed EXACTLY as these alleged fraud sites on the net.If not please print the real ones and Enlighten us.You hardly print down your deffence or your source.

More contradictions:

1- Judas commited suicide by hanging (mathew 27:5)
2- Judas did NOT hang himself but deid another way (Acts 1:18)
3- Judas purchased the Potters`s feild (Acts 1:18)
Yet the Potters feild seemed to have been purchased by CHEIF PREIST (MATHEW 27:6,7)

I looked them up in the King James & New.American standard Bible, which i pressume you are a follower of , and if not tell me where to look them up from.

You said earlier that he had met jesus on the road to Damascus and CONVERTED, so how could he be a pure Jew???or even the SEED OF ABRAHAM???

No jeremy,Jesus has nothing to do with YASHUA and not JOSHUA as you stated.look it up in Hebrew names!!There were no jews called Jesus.I`m surprised you know nothing about Isus.I did not say Paul changed Jesus name.The Greeks are not Jews.

No Jeremy the Gnostics are the Original Jew/Christians , just type History channel!!.

Christianaty went out as far as India and China as Islam did, but a few converted.The Arabs of the Rock (Gulf ) stayed 90% Pagans and Jews.It did not have a huge impact on Arab tribes and Villages as described in Isaiah, with wailling and Singing.That was ISLAM.

How can you accuse me of misinterpreting biblical scolars when it stares you right in the face ?? I am producing the Sentences in most and sources.

Usually when a person cannot get an answer , he will consider backing out.Not surprised no one else is on line to Back you or me or neither.

Last are you AMERICAN Jeremy, cause your lack of knowlage sounds very much so?

The conversion of Paul is in Acts 9. It amazes me that you call me ignorant if you've never heard of this. Also, he was not with Jesus during his ministry. He was still persecuting Christians for a while after Jesus' ascension. His conversion was later. He was always a Jew, to the point where he later describes himself as being a Hebrew of Hebrews (Philippians 3:5). This incident was his conversion to Christianity. No serious scholar disputes that Paul was a Jew or that he continued to see himself as a Jew after he was a follower of Jesus.

I never said the story of the adulteress was fake, just not originally part of the gospel of John. I suspect it reflects a real event, and some follower of Jesus probably inserted it into John's gospel because they had some understanding that it had taken place roughly in that period of Jesus' ministry. I can't imagine someone putting a known fictional account into a story of the life of someone they revere, particularly one who had such an important concern with the truth as Jesus did (and putting it into a book that so emphasizes the truth, as John's gospel does). So I think it's likely that it did happen.

Where did Jesus forbid his apostles to write anything? And how do you know that he never wrote a sentence? I also think you're grossly underestimating the literacy of a Torah-based society. I suspect most Jews of the time could read, even if they weren't formally educated. The apostles could, and several of them were working class. There's little evidence that Jesus never wrote a sentence, even though it's pretty clear that he didn't write books to pass on. There's no shred of evidence that he told any of his disciples not to write anything down. That's ridiculous.

Unless jesus was in two places at once then explain , did jesus preach on a MOUNT (MATHEW 5:1,2) or a PLAIN (lUKE 6:17,20)

1. You assume that these addresses were given at the same time.
2. You assume that there's no way something can be both on a mount and on a plain. Have you ever heard of a plateau?

1-Christ was crucifeid at the 3rd hour (mark 15:25)
2- christ was NOT crucifeid until the 6th hour (jhon 19:14-15)

It's possible that there are two methods of reckoning time. That would remove the difficulty. I don't think that's the most likely explanation, though. What's most likely is that this is just an artifact of imprecise methods of telling time. Suppose it happened at precisely halfway through the 4th hour. That's an hour and a half after the beginning of the third hour and an hour and a half before the beginning of the sixth hour. When someone says it happened at about the third hour, they might easily be an hour and a half off. When someone else says it happened at about the sixth hour, they also might be about an hour and a half off. Imprecise methods of reporting don't mean there's a contradiction.

1-Deciples were commanded to go to GALILEE after the resuruction (mathew 28:10)
2-deciples...................go to Jerusalem after the resuruction (luke 24:49)

How is this a contradiction? If they're commanded to go to Galilee but in fact go to Jerusalem, then either they simply disobeyed the order, something happened in between and they went back to Jerusalem, or something happened to prevent them from going immediately to Galilee. Not one of those possibilities is a contradiction, and all three of them are consistent with the two facts you point out.

1-Jesus first appeared to the 11 deciples in a ROOM in JERUSALEM (luke 24:33-37)
2-Jesus...................................on a MOUNTAIN in GALELEE (math 28:16,17)

Where does the Matthew passage say that it was the first appearance?

1-Jesus first appeared to the 11 deciples in a ROOM in JERUSALEM (luke 24:33-37)
2-Jesus...................................on a MOUNTAIN in GALELEE (math 28:16,17)

Luke (in his gospel) says he led them as far as Bethany, and then they went back to Jerusalem (which would mean crossing the Mt. of Olives, since Bethany is on the other side of the Mt. of Olives from Jerusalem). Luke (in Acts) then says that they returned to Jerusalem from the Mt. of Olives, which they would have had to cross to get back to Jerusalem from Bethany. Where is the contradiction? Can you see how insane this is to accuse the same author of contradicting himself in his final chapter of volume 1 and his first chapter of volume 2 after he spent all that time in the first few verses of each volume indicating how carefully he spent examining witnesses? It's stupid to assume a contradiction so blatant as what you're charging him with, especially when simply knowledge of geography resolves the supposed contradiction. I'm not a fan of making the ancients out to be morons, but your method of exegesis does just that.

1- Judas commited suicide by hanging (mathew 27:5)
2- Judas did NOT hang himself but deid another way (Acts 1:18)

Acts doesn't say Judas didn't hang himself. It says he fell headlong, which is compatible with hanging. There have been lots of proposals over the centuries for how these might fit together, some more plausible than others. It would make perfect sense if he intended to hang himself and in the process fell headlong. It would also make perfect sense if the hanging causes his death but he fell down and his body split open after his death. Some have argued that the word for hanging here has a broader scope than in English and can include being suspended on a stake or sword, as in the case of Saul's death in I Samuel 31. In any case, both texts speak truly but emphasize something different. At the very least, though, it's not a contradiction. Saying that someone did A and also did B does not make a contradiction unless A implies not-B or unless B implies not-A, and that's what doesn't seem to be true.

3- Judas purchased the Potters`s feild (Acts 1:18)
Yet the Potters feild seemed to have been purchased by CHEIF PREIST (MATHEW 27:6,7)

Luke probably had access to Matthew's gospel in writing Acts. My suspicion is that his description of Judas in Acts 1 is not about the literal transactions that took place but about the effect. Judas betrayed Jesus and got nothing for it but a field that his guts were strewn all over. He didn't even get the silver that was his reward, because he threw it in the temple, where it was then used to buy the field that he had died in. That makes sense of Luke's statement, since he's trying to draw attention to Judas' final fate's significance.

I don't "follow" any English translation. They all have their good and bad aspects. I don't use the NASB all that much. It's too wooden and doesn't sound like English. I don't use the KJV at all. It's not remotely contemporary English, and it has many inaccuracies that contemporary translations usually correct. I most often use the ESV, HCSB, TNIV, and NLT. I occasionally use the NRSV also. I don't often refer to other translations except if I want to see a wide variety.

There are several other people called Jesus (Iesous in Greek) in the New Testament, other than the famous one. They were Jews, and they as well as he were named after Joshua. It's the same name. Here is a good summary of the lingustic facts. Here is another one. See also the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on Jesus.

No Jeremy the Gnostics are the Original Jew/Christians , just type History channel!!.

You're not serious, are you? You trust the History Channel's sensationalism over actual scholarship?

Last are you AMERICAN Jeremy, cause your lack of knowlage sounds very much so?

That statement reveals an awful lot more about you than it does about me. It doesn't deserve a response, and neither do you. The fact that you're getting one shows that I'm more concerned about the truth than I am about trading insult for insult, as you seem to prefer to do.

Usually when a person cannot get an answer , he will consider backing out.Not surprised no one else is on line to Back you or me or neither.

As you can see, I'm continuing to respond to your baseless accusations. I'm not backing out. I don't see the point of all this, and I don't see how it counts as fitting into the conversation of this thread. This kind of trollish behavior isn't welcome. But these are charges that can easily be answered, and I have been answering them.

My friend Jeremy Pierce:

You have said "But the particular example many Muslims give of Jesus in the Bible makes no sense. They say that Deuteronomy 18's future prophet like Moses is Muhammad. Many Christians take this prophet to be Jesus. The first-century Christians certainly did, including the book of Acts. But there's one reason even within Deuteronomy that makes it very unlikely that this passage could be referring to Muhammad. Deuteronomy 18 speaks of this prophet as "one of your brothers". That means the prophet like Moses will be Jewish." Now if
your debate is centered around whether Deu 18:18 meant Mohammed or Jesus than my answer will be Mohamed and here is why?

The English translation reads as follows:
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren,
like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he
shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
Deut.18:18. Now, To whom does this prophecy refer? JESUS!,Why Jesus?, his name is not mentioned in the verse.You might answer: "Since prophecies are word-pictures of something that is going to happen in the future, you and some christians find that
the wordings of this verse adequately describe him. You see
the most important words of this prophecy are(like unto thee),- LIKE YOU- like Moses, and Jesus is like Moses. I ask you Jeremy: "In which way is Jesus like Moses?" From your answers, I conclude that these are the reasons why You thought of Jesus as the one like moses:
In the first place Moses was a JEW and Jesus was
also a JEW; secondly, Moses was a PROPHET and Jesus was also a
PROPHET- thereof Jesus is like Moses and that is exactly what
God had foretold Moses- If these are the only two criteria for discovering a candidate for this prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18, then in that case the criteria could fit any one of the following Biblical personages after Moses:- Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel,
Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist etc., because they were
also ALL Jews as well as Prophets. Why should we not apply
this prophency to any one of these prophets, and why only to
Jesus? Why should we make fish of one and fowl of another?" The
You see, my conclusions are that Jesus is most unlike Moses, and if I am wrong I would like you to correct me.

Three Unlikes

In the FIRST place Jesus is not like Moses, because, according to you- 'JESUS IS A GOD',but Moses is not God Therefore Jesus is not like Moses! SECONDLY, christians believe - 'JESUS DIED FOR THE SINS OF THE - WORLD', but Moses did not have to die for the sins of the world. Therefore Jesus is not like Moses!
"THIRDLY, according to christians- 'JESUS WENT TO HELL FOR THREE
DAYS', but Moses did not have to go there. Therefore Jesus is not
like Moses! But Jeremye,these are not hard facts, solid facts, they are mere matters of belief over which the little ones can stumble and fall. Let us discuss something very simple, very easy that if your little ones are called in
to hear the discussion, would have no difficulty in
following it

Father and Mother

(1) Moses had a father and a mother. Muhummed also had a
father and a mother. But Jesus had only a mother, and no human
father. Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like

Miraculous Birth

(2) Moses and Muhummed were born in the normal, natural
course, i.e.the physical association of man and woman; but
Jesus was created by a special miracle. You will recall that
you were told in the Gospel of St.Matthew 1:18 "... BEFORE THEY
CAME TOGETHER,(Joseph the Carpenter and Mary) SHE WAS FOUND

And St.Luke tells you that when the good news of the birth of a
holy son was announded to her, Mary reasoned:'... HOW SHALL

The Holy Qur'an confirms the miraculous birth of Jesus, in
nobler and sublimer terms. In answer to her logical question:

ME?" The angel says in reply: "EVEN SO: ALLAH CREATETH WHAT HE
AND IT IS " (9) (HOLY QUR'AN, 3:47).

It is not necessary for God to plant a seed in man or animal.
He merely wills it and it comes into being. This is the Muslim
conception of the of birth of Jesus.

Is it true that Jesus was born miraculously as against the natural birth of Moses and Muhummed?Yes Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses. And God says to Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy 18:18 "LIKE UNTO THEE" (Like You, Like Moses) and Muhummed is like Moses."

Marriage Ties

(3) Moses and Muhummed married and begat children, but Jesus
remained a bachelor all his life. Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses.

Jesus Rejected by his People

(4) Moses and Muhummed were accepted as prophets by their
people in their very lifetime. No doubt the Jews gave endless
trouble to Moses and they murmured in the wilderness, but as a
nation, they acknowledged that Moses was a Messenger of God
sent to them. The Arabs too made Muhummed's life impossible.
He suffered very badly at their hands. After 13 years o
preaching in Mecca, he had to emigrate from the city of his
birth. But before his demise, the Arab nation as a whole
accepted him as the Messenger of Allah. But according to the
NOT.' (John 1:11). And even today, after two thousand years,
his people- the Jews, as a whole, have rejected him.THEREFORE JESUS IS NOT LIKE MOSES, BUT MUHUMMED IS LIKE MOSES.

"Other-Wordly" Kingdom

(5) Moses and Muhummed were prophets as well as kings. A
prophet means a man who receives Divine Revelation for the
Guidance of Man and this Guidance he conveys to God's
creatures as received without any addition or deletion. A king
is a person who has the power of life and death over his
people. It is immaterial whether the person wears a crown or
not, or whether he was ever addressed as king or monarch: if
the man has the prerogative of inflicting capital punishment -
HE IS A KING. Moses possessed such a power. Do you remember
the Israelite who was found picking up firewood on Sabbath
Day, and Moses had him stoned to death? (Numbers- 15:13).
There are other crimes also mentioned in the Bible for which
capital punishment was inflicted on the Jews at the behest of
Moses. Muhummed too, had the power of life and death over his
people. There are instances in the Bible of persons who were
given gift of prophecy only, but they were not in a position
to implement their directives. Some of these holy men of God
who were helpless in the face of stubborn rejection of their
mesage, were the prophets lot, Jonah, Daniel, Ezra, and John
the Baptist. They could only deliver the message, but could
not enforce the Law. The Holy Prophet Jesus (Peace b.u.h) also
belonged to this category. The Christian Gospel clearly
confirms this: when Jesus was dragged before the Roman
Governor, Pontius Pilate, Charged for sedi- tion, Jesus made a
convincing point in his defence to refute the false charge:
NOT FROM HENCE"(John 18:36) This convinced Pilate (A Pagan)
that though Jesus might not be in full possession of his
mental faculty, he did not strike him as being a danger to his
rule. Jesus claimed a spiritual Kingdom only; in other words
he only claimed to be a Prophet. Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses."

No New Laws

(6) Moses and Muhummed brought new laws and new regulations
for their people. Moses not only gave the Ten Commandments to
the Israelites, but a very comprehensive ceremonial law for
the guidance of his people. Muhummed comes to a people steeped
in barbarism and ignorance. They married their step-mothers;
they buried their daughters alive; drunkenness, adultery,
idolatry, and gambling were the order of the day. Gibbon
describe the Arabs before Islam in his "Decline and Fall of
CREATION.'There was hardly anything to distinguish between the
"man" and the "animal" of the time; they were animals in human
form "From this abject barbarism, Muhummed elevated them, in
the words of Thomas Carlysle, 'into torch-bearers of light and
WORLD... 'The fact is that Muhummed gave his people a Law and
Order they never had before.

As regards Jesus, when the Jews felt suspicious of him that
he might be an imposter with designs to pervert their
teachings, Jesus took pains to assure them that he had not
come with a new religion - no new laws and n new regulations.
I quote his own words: 'THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY
ALL BE FULFILLED.'(Mathew 5:17-18). In other words he had not
come with any new laws or regulation he came only to fulfil
the old law. This what he gave the Jews to understand, unless
he was speaking with the tongue in his cheek trying to bluff
the Jews into accepting him as a man of God and by subterfuge
trying to ram a new religion down their throats. No! This
Messenger of God would never resort to such foul means to
subvert the Religion of God. He himself fulfilled the laws. He
observed the commandments of Moses,and he respected the
Sabbath. At no time did a single Jew point a finger at him to
say,'why don't you fast' or 'why don't you wash your hands
before you break bread', which charges they alwasy levied
against his disciples, but never against Jesus. This is
because as a good Jew he honoured the laws of the prophets who
preceded him. In short, he had created no new religion and had
brought no new law like Moses and Muhummed. Therefore,
Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses.

How they Departed

(7) Both Moses and Muhummed died natural deaths, but
according to Christianity, Jesus was violently killed on the
cross.Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like

Heavenly Abode

(8) Moses and Muhummed both lie buried in earth, but
according to you, Jesus in heaven. Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses.

Ishmael The First Born

So far what I have done is to prove only one
point out of the whole prophecy- that is proving the phrase
'LIKE UNTO THEE' - 'Like You' 'Like Moses'. The Prophecy is
much more than this single phrase which reads as follows: "I
UNTO THEE... " The emphasis is on the words- "From among their
brethren." Moses and his people, the Jews, are here addressed
as a racial entity, and as such their 'brethren' would
undoubtedly be the Arabs. You see, the Holy Bible speaks of
Abraham as the "Friend of God". Abraham had two wives - Sarah
and Hagar. Hagar bore Abraham a son - HIS FIRST-BORN- '... And
Abraham (11) called HIS SON'S name, which Hagar bare Ishmael.'
(Genesis 16:15).'And Abraham took Ishmael HIS SON... "
(Genesis 17:23).'And Ishmael HIS SON was thirteen years old,
when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.'(Genesis
17:25). Up to the age of THIRTEEN Ishmael was the ONLY son and
sed of Abraham, when the covenant was ratified between God and
Abraham. God grants Abraham another son through Sarah, named
Isaac, who was very much the junior to his brother Ishmael.

Arabs and Jews

If Ishmael and Isaac are the sons of the same father Abraham,
then they are brothers. And so the children of the one are the
BRETHREN of the children of the other. The children of Isaac
are the Jews and the Children of Ishmael are the Arabs - so
they are BRETHREN to one another. The Bible affirms, 'AND HE
HIS BRETHREN. (Genesis 25:18). The children of Isaac are the
brethren of the Ishmaelites. In like manner Muhummed is from
among the brethren of the Israelites beause he was a
descendant of Ishamel the son of Abraham. This exactly as the
prophecy has it- 'FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN'. (Deut.18:18).
There the prophecy distinctly mentions that the coming prophet
who would be like Moses, must arise NOT from the 'children of-
Israel' or from 'among themselves', but from among their

Words in the Mouth

The prophecy proceeds further: '... AND I WILL PUT MY WORDS
INTO HIS MOUTH...' What does it mean when it is said 'I will
put my words in your mouth'? You see Jeremy, if I ask you (the
to open Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 18, at thebeginning, and if I had asked you to read, and If I were to teach you a language like Arabic about which you have no knowledge, and if I asked you to read or repeat after me what I utter i.e.
UNTO HIM. (Holy Qur'an 112:1-4)(I read them in Arabic)

Would I not be putting these unheard words of a foreign
tongue which you utter, into your mouth?
In an identical manner, I said, the words of the Holy Qur'an, the Revelation vouchsafed by the Almighty God to Muhummed, were revealed.

History tells us that Muhummed was forty years of age. He was
in a cave some three miles north of the City of Mecca. It was
the 27th night of the Muslim month of Ramadaan. In the cave
the Archangel Gabriel commands him in his mother tongue:
'IQRA' which means READ! or PROCLAIM! or RECITE! Muhummed was
terrified and in his bewilderment replied that he was not NOT
LEARNED! The angel commands him a second time with the same
result. For the third time the angel continues.

Now Muhummed, grasps, that what was required of him was to
repeat! to rehearse! And he repeats the words as they were put
into his mouth:


These are the first five verses which were revealed to
Muhummed which now occupy the beginning of the 96th chapter of
the Holy Qur'an.

The Faithful Witness

Immediately the angel had departed, Muhummed rushed to his
home. Terrified and sweating all over he asked his beloved
wife Khadija to 'cover- him up!' He lay down, and she watched
by him. When he had regained his composure, he explained to
her what he had seen and heard. She assured him of her faith
in him and that Allah would not allow any terrible thing to
happen to him. Are these the confessions of an imposter? Would
imposters confess that when an angel of the Lord confronts
them with a Message from on High, they get fear-stricken,
terrified, and sweating all over, run home to their wives? Any
critic can see that his reactions and confessions are that of
an honest, sincere man, the man of Truth- 'AL-AMIN' - THE
Honest, the Upright, the Truthful.

During the next twenty-three years of his prophetic life,
words were 'Put into his mouth', and he uttered them. They
made an indeliable impression on his heart and mind: and as
the volume of the Sacred Scripture (Holy Qur'an) grew, they
were recorded on palm-leaf libre, on skins and on the
shoulder-blades of animals; and in the hearts of his devoted
disciples. Before his demise these words were arranged
according to his instructions in the order in which we find
them to-day in the Holy Quran. The words (revelation) were
actually put into his mouth, exactly as fore told in the
prophecy under discussion: 'AND I WILL PUT MY WORDS IN HIS
MOUTH.'(Deut. 18:18).

Un-lettered Prophet

Muhummed's experience in the cave of Hira, later to be known
as Jabal-un Noor - The Mountain of Light, and his response to
that first Revelation is the exact fulfilment of another
Biblical Prophecy. In the Book of Isaiah. Chapter 29, verse
12, we read: "AND THE BOOK" (al-Kitaab, al-Quran the
'Reading', the 'Recitation') "IS DELIVERED TO HIM THAT IS NOT
LEARNED," (Isaiah 29:12)

"THE UNLETTERED PROPHET " Holy Qur'an 7:158)

and the biblical verse continues:

"SAYING, READ THIS, I PRAY THEE:" (the words "I pray thee",
are not in the Hebrew manuscripts; compare with the Roman
Catholics' "Douay Version and also with the "Revised Standard
Versions") "AND HE SAITH, I AM NOT LEARNED." ("I am not
learned." is the exact translation of the Arabic words which
Muhummed uttered twice to the Holy Ghose - the Archangel
Gabriel, when he was commanded : "READ!").

Let me quote the verse in full without a break as found in the
"King James Version," or the "Authorised version" as it is
NOT LEARNED." (Isaiah 29:12).

Important note :

It may be noted that there were no Arabic Bibles (12) in
existence in the 6th Century of the Christian Era when
Muhummed lived and preached! Besi- des, he was absolutely
unlettered and unlearned. No human had ever taught him a word.
His teacher was his Creator-

IN POWER," (Holy Qur'an 53:3-5).

Without any human learning, 'he put to shame the wisdom of the

Grave Warning

See Jeremy! how the prophecies fit Muhummed like a glove We do not have to stretch prophecies to justify their fulfilment in Muhummed.

If you tell me that you Christians have Jesus Christ the "incarnate" God, who has redeemed you from the Bondage of Sin!"

My answer will be, God didn't think so! He went to a great deal of trouble to have His warnings recorded. God knew that there would be people like you who will flippantly,light-heartedly discount his words, so he followed up Deuteronomy 18:18 with a dire warning: "AND IT SHALL- COME TO PASS," (it is going to happen) "THAT WHOSOEVER WILL NOT HEARKEN UNTO MY WORDS WHICH HE SHALL SPEAK IN MY NAME, I WILL REQUIRE IT OF HIM. (in the Catholic Bible the ending words are
- "I will be the revenger", I will take vengeance from him - I
will take revenge!)

Does not this terrify you? God Almighty is threathening
revenge! We shake in our pants if some hoodlum threathens us,
yet you have no fear of God's warning?" "Miracle of Miracles!
in the verse 19 of Deuteronomy chapter 18, we have a further
fulfilment of the prophecy in Muhummed! Note the words-'... MY
Muhummed speaking?" open the Holy Qur'an, at chapter 114- 'Sura Nas', or Mankind - the last chapter, and notice the formula at the head of the chapter: and the meaning: "IN THE NAME OF GOD, MOST GRACIOUS, MOST MERCIFUL." And the heading of chapter 113: and the
And every chapter downwards 112, 111, 110... was the same
formula and the same meaning on every page, because the end
SURAS (chapters) are short and take about a page each.

"And what did the prophecy demand? '... WHICH HE SHALL SPEAK
IN MY NAME and in whose name does Muhummed speak? 'IN THE NAME
fulfilled in Muhummed to the letter "Every chapter of the Holy
Qur'an except the 9th begin with the formula: IN THE NAME OF
every lawful act with the Holy formula. But the Christian
begins: "In the name of the Father, son and holy ghost.'"

Concerning Deuteronomy chapter eighteen, I have given you more
than 15 reasons as to how this prophecy refers to Muhummed and
NOT to Jesus.

My reason for taking it to refer to Jesus is because inspired scripture says so. It's not in the Deuteronomy passage. It's in the gospels. I know you don't accept those as authoritative, but I do.

I don't think Jesus' being like Moses is that he was a Jew. His being one of their brothers is his being a Jew. His being like Moses is his giving the word of God and doing so in a much more full way than Moses could, because he is the very incarnation of God's word. He is God's word, John tells us.

Now I do think other prophets have aspects of the full sense of the prophet like Moses. It's just that all prophecy finds its truest, fullest fulfillment in Jesus. I'm not denying partial fulfillments in other prophets. Typology is very important in scripture, and there may be more than one anti-type of a type, just as there are often many types of an anti-type.

So why exactly does the prophet like Moses have to be like Moses in every way? It says "like Moses" not "exactly like Moses". If he had to be exactly like him, he'd be Moses, and you don't think Muhammad is exactly like Moses either.

Moses was both rejected and accepted at different times. He was ousted from Egypt for 40 years and certainly suffered in that incident. He was rejected by his people once Pharaoh got upset and made Israel work harder. He was rejected by them once they were in the wilderness and didn't have anything to eat or drink. He was rejected when they got sick of manna and wanted meat. He was rejected when they got sick of just Levites being in the tabernacle or just priests among the Levites. He was rejected by God ultimately from going into the land.

Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world, but the word 'world' in the Bible often refers to the order opposed to God, not to the physical world. The Bible in many places describes Jesus' kingdom as physical when he returns.

Jesus provided a new covenant. Moses provided the old covenant. They are the two most important covenants in the history of God's dealings with humanity post-fall. I don't think it affects much that Jesus didn't set up a legal system with the physical stuff that Moses only pointed forward to but that Jesus fulfills. You yourself admitted that Jesus fulfills all of the law and prophets, which includes Moses. So Jesus is a second Moses, one who is much fuller and complete. Every bit of Moses is fulfilled in him.

But it hardly matters that Jesus doesn't have every property of Moses. He isn't Moses. Duh.

It says "from among you, from among your brothers". The two expressions are in apposition. Being from among your brothers means being from among you. It's not the Ishmaelites but the Israelites who would count as "among you". You're also ignoring the only point that's actually on-topic for this post, which is my original argument that "from your brothers" refers to the Israelites in the immediate vicinity of this passage when referring to the kings who will come from their brothers, who were of the tribes of Benjamin and then Judah, not from Ishmael.

The prophets often speak of themselves as speaking God's words, and the model of inspiration is not usually dictation. It's usually God operating through the human processes of the prophet speaking God's message in an infallible way. That's the Hebrew model of revelation. That's what God putting his words in someone's mouth usually meant to the Hebrew.

You can cite the Qur'an all you want. If it's from God, then it's true. If it's not, then it's not, and it won't convince someone. Muhammad could have written it because it was dictated to him by God. He could have written it because it was dictated by a demon. He could have written it because it was made up to look as if it had been dictated by God. He could have written it because his subconscious was speaking to him in a way that he took to be God. What it says itself doesn't decide between any of those possibilities, so simply quoting it tells me nothing, since I don't accept it as a genuine revelation of God.

It doesn't actually matter when the whole Bible was translated into Arabic. Muhammad either (1) didn't have the Bible in front of him, because he got so much wrong if he was trying to take from it or (2) was deliberately changing things. So his not having the Bible says little. He may have heard accounts of it orally from people who had read it, and I think that's likely. That's one reason he's gotten them so wrong. On the demon-revelation view, there's obviously another potential source for why so much of the Qur'an resembles the Bible. So there are plenty of possible sources besides getting it directly from God.

If God is not triune, then it is indeed blasphemy to speak in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But if God is triune, then it is exactly speaking the name of the most merciful God to speak with such a formula. Your argument is question-begging, as are many of your other arguments.

I would never say that I have no fear of God's warnings. I in fact do. That's why I accept his messenger and follow him as my Lord. He revealed God fully in flesh, and it is indeed a grave matter to reject him. Salvation comes only by the name of Jesus. So I have great fear of God's warnings. I just don't think rejecting Islam counts as violating God's message. Accepting it does. I greatly fear the consequences of doing such a thing as following Islam and falling under the wrath of God.

First Congratulations to all believers the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims taking part in this discussion with somewhat open mind. I understand that each one is limited by their beliefs but what I admire about each is their faith. For both Quran and Bible, faith is the key, You cannot unlock the code in either of the books without having faith.

So Believers listen, Quran is in Arabic and a translation in any language will be just a translation and not Quran. Similarly Bible is Hebrew so any translation of Bible is just that. By reading Bible in English, you are reading the Biblical interpretation of the person who translated it and not the real thing.

When a person translates from a source language to a target language, It is almost impossible to find a 100% substitute of one word in source to one word in the target language.

If you cannot substitute a single word, it is even more difficult to substitute a whole sentence.

I can go on and on… but consider this even the English words and their meanings differ from one place to another. The word so talked about in this discussion "Brother" has different meanings in different part of a single state in US, let alone the whole world.

One translation describes only one point of view the translator understands, however both Quran and Bible convey several meanings within one sentence and even more within one group of sentences. Your priests will be able to give you various interpretations of one single verse from the KJV Bible, guess what the translator will have to translate the same verse several times just to explain you all the meanings one verse in Hebrew Bible conveys. Have you read an English Bible where the translator admitted this human limitation and had used multiple translations of the same word to cover this aberration?

If someone did do such an undertaking of trying to translate all the meanings known to him/her, it still would simply not include the meanings not known to him/her and definitely not the concepts unknown at that time.

Bottom line, the whole discussion back and forth was immaterial; but I enjoyed the fact that believers of the Same God are having a civilized exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Folks Muhammad is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible by name. Muhammad's name appeared in Haggai 2:7. Please refer to the article below for more details.

So Believers listen, Quran is in Arabic and a translation in any language will be just a translation and not Quran. Similarly Bible is Hebrew so any translation of Bible is just that. By reading Bible in English, you are reading the Biblical interpretation of the person who translated it and not the real thing.

Muslims do have this attitude toward the Qur'an, but I don't share that view of translation. The word of God is the content. It's expressed in words, but the content is translatable, even if any translation isn't perfect. You can capture truths in any language. Interpretation does go in to translation, of course, but your argument assumes interpretation is always wrong. If the translators interpret it correctly, then they've captured the content accurately.

When a person translates from a source language to a target language, It is almost impossible to find a 100% substitute of one word in source to one word in the target language.

That's right, but the same content can be expressed without such a word-centric hyper-literalism.

Your priests will be able to give you various interpretations of one single verse from the KJV Bible, guess what the translator will have to translate the same verse several times just to explain you all the meanings one verse in Hebrew Bible conveys.

My priests? I assume you mean my fellow believers, since every believer is a priest.

Have you read an English Bible where the translator admitted this human limitation and had used multiple translations of the same word to cover this aberration?

Yes, most English Bibles give alternative translations in the footnotes. That's pretty common. Most good commentaries give all the likely options too, and I've got good commentaries on every book of the Bible. I've got 5-6 on some books. So I'm not lacking at all in this kind of resource from language specialists even when my own language skills are lacking. (I know some Greek but no Hebrew or Aramaic.)

Folks Muhammad is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible by name. Muhammad's name appeared in Haggai 2:7. Please refer to the article below for more details.

Haggai 2:7 is about God shaking the nations. I don't see anything in there about a future prophet. Perhaps you mean the word for glory or splendor that God says he will fill his house with. That's the closest word in that verse to anything about praise. Perhaps you're suggesting that God was predicting Muhammad to fill the temple. Is that the idea? It certainly wouldn't make much sense to a Hebrew speaker hearing such a sentence. Why would a word that has a very clear meaning in the original context refer to some person whose presence in the verse would make the meaning very obscure and strange? This claim isn't quite as far toward the ridiculous as the claim about the Song of Songs, but it's still extremely implausible.

about Muhammad in the Bible i as a former Muslim scholar categorically disagree with such accusations of him being in the Bible see my new book FROM ISLAM TO CHRISTIANITY:MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE FACTS OR FICTION BY ABDULLAHI A ISBN 978-1-4092-0833-4
visit for more details

The prophecy in Deut 18:15 (to the end) makes it clear that the only miracle expected of the prophet is the words God will put in his mouth. The Prophet himself said the Quran is his standing miracle.
Earlier in the prophecy God informed Moses that He would not show the Israelites awesome physical miracles anymore, in accordance with the Israelites' own request, which was like telling God, "stay far from us". So God agreed and made this prophecy. It is in this light that "from among their brethren" should be understood. The Prophet must not be an Israelite. True to this Prophecy, the Prophet always pointed to God's Word the Quran as his standard miracle. NO PROPHET EVER MADE THIS CLAIM. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUHAMMAD pbuh AND ALL OTHER PROPHETS. Study it for yourself and wonder at its scientific accuracies.

Well, the test for a genuine prophet doesn't require any miracles beyond just speaking the truth. But that doesn't mean prophets wouldn't ever do miracles of other sorts.

Earlier in the prophecy God informed Moses that He would not show the Israelites awesome physical miracles anymore, in accordance with the Israelites' own request, which was like telling God, "stay far from us". So God agreed and made this prophecy.

This is a reference to an occurrence in Exodus. When God appeared to all Israel, they couldn't bear the direct appearance and asked for Moses to be a mediator of the remainder of God's law. God granted that request. He mentions that event here and now indicates that the prophetic office will serve the same purpose. But that doesn't mean it must do so only by using words. Miraculous events can also speak to the power behind the one speaking words.

As for no other prophet claiming that their main prophetic mission was God's word, that's demonstrably false. Almost every prophet focused more on the word they delivered than anything else. Elijah and Elisha are the only exceptions I can think of where the miracles were more of an emphasis than the word spoken.

I am not a scholar, or someone hugely important. but reading through basically all of what was said in this like 4 year discussion, is I just don't understand the point of any of this. Knowledge is important, respecting others knowledge is important. We can read all we want, state facts, recite things.. but we won't know until the end- [or whatever we believe in]. Just let everyone be....why bash on someone's Prophet or Religion when there are clearly misunderstandings in each and every one of them?
Debating on these topics are significant to "getting to a closer truth," but instead of saying they are completly wrong or "well i don't know what u meant by saying this," "i don't really understand why your saying this.." "i don't understand what you mean by.." etc. etc. is a little demeaning to both who you're saying it to as well as yourself. We can't know everything...afterall we are not God.
hence, these arguments are in a sense pointless if they are not made to find common ground. no one is ever going to say i'm sorry i'm wrong or my beliefs are wrong- they might sit quietly in a corner and ponder every once in a while, but if Faith is what keeps them be it. this shouldn't let anyone have a hateful or unrespectful view of others beliefs.
Have an open mind and atleast be accepting that something can or cannot happen. where has this whole discussion led you? no where.
Thanks anyway for everyones miraculous knowledge on so many things. it has inspired me to learn more.
And again, I am in means a scholar..but couldn't "brother" or brethren," just mean a human of flesh and blood? as in when people say "We are all brothers and sisters?"

Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To