muhammed?

Greetings all.

First and foremost, Christianity and Islam are not the same. There are a lot of folks who want you to believe that they are, and even though their intentions are good, the religions are simply very different. Yes, they have many of the same prophets, though they are looked upon differently! For example, the Isa of the Koran is not the same picture of Jesus that the Bible paints. Another example is that Jesus says to avoid rehearsed and repetitive prayer, yet the Koran commands Muslims to do the same prayer five times a day everyday.

I find that Muslims will often take Bible verses out of context to try to reinforce some kind of connection with Muhammad. The fact is, he is not mentioned. The two verses quoted were making reference to the Holy Spirit and Jesus, as a few others have pointed out.

So what does the Koran say?

And (remember) when Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: "O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah unto you confirmed the Taurat [(Torah] which came] before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed. [Surah 61:6]

Let's begin with SomewhereinBetween's argument. The scripture in question was..

"He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie." (John 1:27)

SomewhereinBetween goes on to quote verses 1:19-21, but leaves the other verses leading up to (and after) John 1:27 out. Now the Bible says that John the Baptist lived out in the "wilderness," and that he had his own disciples. SomewhereinBetween has correctly quoted the verses, though is apparently using the King James Version. KJV is rather cryptic by today's standard with its "thou"'s and sentence structure, so I'll be quoting the New International Version (NIV) which is in modern English. The NIV is pretty darn reliable. I use the Study Bible version, and verses that are sometimes interpreted differently are often included at the bottom of the page. FYI: No other interpretations are given for these verses. What follows is the accepted interpretation of John 1:19-34 by various different Christian sects. I'll make a few comments when necessary.

Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ."

They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
"Are you the Prophet?"
He answered, No."

[John 1:19-21]

First, even though John said he wasn't Elijah he actually was...

The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the lawy say that Elijah must come first?"

Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. [Matthew 17:10-13]

Also see Mark 9:9-13 and Luke 1:17.

Okay, so who is "the Prophet"? Very good question. The NIV Study Bible has a note for practically every line of scripture. This is its note on "the Prophet"..

"The prophet of Deuteronomy 18:15. The Jewish people expected a variety of persons to be associated with the coming of the Messiah. John the Baptist emphatically denies being "the Prophet." He had come to testify about Jesus, yet they kept asking him about himself. His answers became progressively more terse." - NIV Study Bible

Remember that John the Baptist had many followers, so it was likely for him to be noticed by the Jewish community. So, a prophet was expected with the coming of the Messiah, and that's why John was asked if he was the Christ, Elijah, or "the Prophet." Now that we know that John lied about being Elijah, who was the third guy? Well, the Bible never flat out said that there would be three individuals, it's just what the Jews assumed. FYI: The Jews also assumed that Christ would be a great warrior who would deliver them from the oppression of the Romans. That also didn't happen as the Jews thought. But we need more solid evidence than just this.

First, we know it's a fact that Muhammed was not associated with the coming of the Messiah, which is a good indication. So what does Deuteronomy 18:15 say? Moses says..

The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. [Deuteronomy 18:15]

Remember that Muhammad was not a Jew, who were all descended from Moses, he was an Arab who was descended from Ishmael.

What else does Deuteronomy specifically say about "the Prophet?"

You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. [Deuteronomy 18:21-22]

In other words, "the Prophet" will make prophecies about the future. Muhammad never made prophecies, nor did he ever try. He never claimed to have any special powers. On the other hand, Jesus and John the Baptist both made prophecies, and theirs came true. Furthermore, there is no other mention of "the Prophet" anywhere in the New Testament. Therefore, Muhammad could not be the prophet spoken of in John.

But that still isn't the smoking gun. The answer lies in Acts 3:22-26 where Peter quotes Deuteronomy 18:15 and argues that Jesus has fulfilled all the prophecies "from Samuel on." Christ was a prophet and a Jew like Moses said he would be, he was foretold by Samuel concerning David, and he brought blessing to all people as Abraham said he would.

I will talk more about why I believe Muhammad wasn't a prophet later.

Continuing with the Gospel According to John..

Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"

John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'"

Now some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"

[John 1:22-25]

Note: Pharisees were the religious leaders of the day.

"I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one that comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."

[John 1:26-27]

Hmmm. "But among you stands one" is in the present tense. Muhammad didn't appear until about 600 years later. Therefore, the verse is not making a reference to Muhammad, no matter how much Muslims want you to believe it.

This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."

[John 1:28-31]

Now this line, "A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me." may seem sort of confusion. He has already said that Jesus is the one who would come after him. He says that Jesus has "surpassed" him, so we know John thinks highly of Jesus. Then he says that "he was before me," implying the divinity of Jesus. Jesus has come after John, just as John said, but Jesus was before John because of Jesus's divine connection with God--the Son of God. John continues..

Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, "The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen an I testify that this is the Son of God."

[John 1:32-34]

This is undeniable proof that the verse was referring to Jesus, and not Muhammad.


Was Jesus the Messiah, or just a mere Prophet like Muhammad claimed?

The coming of the Messiah was predicted in Daniel 7:13.

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming from the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was lead into his presence. He was given authority, glory, sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." [Daniel 7:13-14]

Note that Jesus referred to himself as "Son of Man" throughout the Gospels. Some Muslims translate this literally and argue that this is proof that Jesus is not the Son of God--which is what Muhammad claimed--but Jesus is clearly referencing the scripture in Daniel, which is part of the Old Testament. Jesus refers to himself as "Son of Man" while traveling through towns to perform miracles and gain followers. Claiming to be the Son of God would have got him killed almost immediately, since the Jews would consider it blasphemy. Logically, Jesus had a lot to do and reveling his identity too early would have a negative impact on his ministry. Only after Jesus's death was sealed did he actually admit to being the Son of God.

So where does Jesus say that he was the Son of God?

[The high priest said to Jesus,] "I charge you under oath of the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. [Matthew 26:63-64]

------

[Jesus] asked [Peter], "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." [Matthew 16:15-17]

------

[Jesus said,] "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." [John 10:36-38]

Other Gospel verses that reference Jesus as the Son of God are.. Matthew 4:6; 8:29; 10:32; 11:27; 16:15-17,27; 27:43; 28:19; Mark 1:11; Luke 2:49; 10:22; John 3:16-18; 5:17-18,25; 10:36; 11:4

Yet Muhammad says that "an angel" told him Jesus wasn't the Son of God..

No son (or offspring) did Allah beget, nor is there any ilah (god) along with Him. [Koran, Surah 23:91]

Say [O Muhammad]: "If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship." [Koran, Surah 43:81, Ali translation]

But that was my point. According to Islam and Muhammad, the Koran is not considered another gospel, but is preaching the same message as Jesus, Abraham and the rest.

Not at all! I highly recommend studying both the Bible and Koran. Islam and Christianity aren't even in the same ballpark. The similarities basically end at Monotheism, and the messages are very different. I can tell you some shocking stuff about Muhammad and his teachings if you'd like to know, but my purpose isn't to divide Christians and Muslims, it's to provide intellectual stimuli and to inform those who want to know. What I've concluded from my research is that Jesus and Muhammad are almost total polar opposites with only a few similarities. After examining both men's lives, it became increasingly apparent to me that Jesus was authentic and Muhammad was probably a false prophet. The words of Jesus touched me, while Muhammad's seemed to be telling me what a seventh century mortal man would want to hear.

so stupid, how can a woman a child without sex.

Do a google search on phantom pregnancy. It is medically possible, though I believe no human cases have thus yet been recorded.

The Bible are inspired by Jesus Christ, the only true God, and our Creator and Redeemer. The Koran was from a so called angel who claimed to be from God. It was preaching about Jesus and depreciated him from being God to be a regular prophet.
Why would God change his gospel?

Precisely. Muhammad claims he was visited by an angel--more specifically Gabriel. According to the Old Testament, Satan is also an angel--though very good at deceiving man no doubt.

In the words of Jesus:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." [Matthew 7:15]

.. this leads me to my next point..

Early Christianity was spread by believers preaching the Gospel (translated "good news") and by performing miracles and healing the sick. Jesus urged his disciples to not force anyone to accept him as the Christ. If towns did not accept his disciples they were to simply "shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town." [Matthew 10:14] Jesus goes on to say that God will deal with them on Judgment Day.

Some Muslims will try to tell you that Jesus said violence was okay, but if you read the Gospels you will know that he was a pacifist who preached the importance of loving each other. Muslims will try to contort what Jesus says. For example, Jesus tells the disciples to take a dagger/sword with them because soon they will need to start preaching outside of the Holy Land. Muslims will try to tell you this is Jesus okaying the use of violence. If one reads closely, the real reason for this was that the disciples were being sent to preach the Gospel in far away lands. They had to walk long desert roads all by themselves where criminals would often mug and kill lonely travelers. They did not travel together. Walking without any protection could get a disciple in trouble, and it was very important to spread Jesus's message outside the Holy Land. When Jesus walked with his disciples as a group they did not carry weapons. Violence simply was not something that Jesus allowed. I'll give a specific example of this later.

So how was Islam spread by Muhammad and his disciples?

A.D. 624:
- Attack on Al-Albuwaa.
- Battle of Badr.
- Attack on Beni Salib (idol worshipers).
- Attack on al-Sawiq (idol worshipers).
- Seven raids (suriya)

A.D 625:
- Battle of Uhad
- Assassination of Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf (a Jewish leader)
- Three more raids (suriya)

A.D. 626:
- Attack on Beni-Nadir (Jewish tribe)
- Two more raids (suriya)

A.D. 627:
- Raid on Dumatu'l-Jandel
- Battle of Trench
- Attack on Jewish tribe of Beni-Qurayah (All men killed, all women and children taken as slaves.)
- Assassination of Abi-Rafa (another Jewish leader)
- Attack on Zi-kerd
- Attack on Beni al-Mustaliq

A.D. 628:
- Only sent out a few raids (suriya)

A.D. 629:
- Five more raids (suriya)
- Attack on Khaybar (Jewish village)

A.D. 630:
- Raid on Mu'ta
- Battle of Zat-al-Salasil
- Invasion of Mecca
- Battle of Hunan
- Raid on Utas
- Raid on al-Ta-if

A.D. 631:
- Year of Submission (see note below)

A.D. 632:
- Sent governors to rule over conquered areas

A.D. 634:
- Muhammad dies

The war mongering doesn't end with Muhammad's death. Some Muslims claim that Muhammad fought to protect Islam so Allah's message could survive. This does not explain why Muhammad sent out messengers to 48 unthreatening groups telling them to submit to Islam or die. Is this something that a loving God would have his prophet do? I don't think so. The groups replied with, "We Submit." (Source: Gabriel, Mark A. (PhD), "Jesus and Muhammad: Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities." pgs. 70-72, Charisma House.

You see in the past few hundred years Christians in high power have changed the fact that Jesus was a prophet sent from god (and his miracles where performed by god) to the fact that he was Gods son. this is just an attempt to make the religion more popular

Actually scholars have very early copies of the New Testament from the first and second centuries. Today's interpretations are taken from these copies. Despite what some want you to believe, today's Bible is pretty consistent with the originals. A museum in England has copies, but its name has escaped me.

There are NO original manuscripts of the Bible - all we have are copies of copies of copies from LONG afterwards.

True, there are no *original* manuscripts, but we do have "copies of copies of copies" from the first century, which are likely pretty darn reliable.

I know there are corrupt Bible translations. For example the Jehovahs Witnesses bible. If you want a "clean" Bible, you have to get a copy of the original manuscript which is written in Greek. The King James Version (1611) is a good translation of the original manuscript.

Not really. A translation is simply an interpretation, and all modern Bible's strive to be the most accurate. No one is trying to fool anyone, just doing the best job available with the best resources available. I suggest reading the Bible and making your own interpretation.

The stories of the resurrection of Jesus are LATE additions to the myth.

Not really. Someone tried to complete Mark later on, this is true, but a resurrection is described in Luke, Matthew, and John; and it is agreed that John was written completely independent of the other three. There is no smoking gun to confirm your theory, though plenty of room for assumptions. Sorry. For all we know the original ending could have been lost, because the earliest Marks end very abruptly.

Jesus was son of god, why did he died in such pain, where was god when he was tortured

This is very commonly misunderstood, I'm glad you brought this up. In John, Jesus is described as "the Lamb of God." Why? During the passover the Jews have "the Feast of Unleaved Bread." It was a Jewish tradition to sacrifice a lamb. During the passover Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. Jesus is called "the Lamb of God" because he sacrificed himself for everyone's sins. He suffered the punishment for the sin of the world. It is a gift from Jesus to you, but you have to accept the gift. Jesus is not going to force anyone to believe in him, or to accept his (and God's) gift to the world. It is believed by the Jews that when you die you will pay for your sins--eye for an eye, and the such. This is not the case in Christianity. Have you done evil? Believe that Christ sacrificed himself for your sins, and become a follower of Christ by doing as he does and you'll be with the Father. This is NOT a get-out-of-jail free card. Christians can not purposely do evil and think that they can easily get away with it by asking for forgiveness. God knows the truth of what's in your heart. Everyone sins, and sin separates us from God. Jesus is the bridge to connect us to God. As a Christian, what's important is that I follow in Jesus's image. He is the standard that we have to try to live up to What's that? We are supposed to love everyone unconditionally, be peaceful, have modesty, and help others in need--just as Jesus done.

Paul pretty much sums it up when he writes, "If I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." [1 Corinthians 13:2]

In other words, having faith in Christ isn't enough, Christians have to love as Christ did. (It's very hard to do. Though the only thing that matters is that I try.) Jesus ate, preached, and befriended the most hated and loathed people in the Holy Land. His purpose was to turn them on a path toward God and away from evil. He saw the religious leaders of the day as hypocrites, and called them out on it, which is why they wanted Jesus dead.

When Jesus was being arrested the disciple Peter took a sword and attacked one of the men who was arresting Jesus..

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to (Peter), "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twleve legions of angels. But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" [Matthew 26:52-54]

In other words, it was his duty to die for the sins of the world, and to complete the prophecies of the Old Testament. He would not allow himself to be saved. An interesting note, one of the things a crowd yelled at him while he was on the cross was why he didn't save himself from the cross if he was the Son of God.

The people in the early days could not accept that there is another prophet like jesus, because it would put both in same level, that measn Muhanmed is son of god and his mother was a virgin. i believe we are all equal.

Muhammad never claimed to be anything more than a mortal man. We are certainly all equal, I agree. Believe it or not, this ideology was taught in the New Testament and was developed to a greater extent in the letters of Paul the Apostle.

"By myself I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear." [John 5:30 (incomplete verse)]

Some Christian sects believe that Jesus was God, most believe that he is the Son of God. Jesus never really said he was God. When he said things like, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." [John 14:9], he is referring to his close relationship with God (the Father) and that Jesus represents God as all prophets do. BTW, you've forgotten the rest of the verse.. "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me." [John 5:30 (complete)]

The "him" Jesus is referring to is God. Until his "trial," Jesus never flat out said he was the Son of God, but he would often allude to it in his ministries. Case in point.

If you say that Jesus called God "Father" and that means he is His son, here is another quote:

I've already addressed the main argument of this up the page. In Christianity, God loves us like a "Father" and we are His children. You don't have to be "the Son of God" to be a child of God.


BTW, the Barnabas scriptures you quoted were considered heretical by the early church, and were not included in the canon. Not all early Christian gospels were considered authentically inspired by God. The early church weeded through the ones they believed to be forged, and kept the ones that were agreed to be authentic. For example, in one of Paul's letters he even mentions that someone has been writing letters in his name, which he never gave permission for.

For those who say salvation through Jesus only, does that mean Jesus himself, or only his message?

This is subject to interpretation. Different Christians will tell you different ideas. I believe that purely good non-Christians, can go to heaven. On the other hand, I know others who aren't as liberal. Only God knows for sure.

Muhammad never claimed to be a Christ, or even anything more important than a man with a message from God.

Yes. Muhammad was a mortal man, though he DID claim to be a prophet. To become a Muslim you must confess that "Muhammad is Allah's Prophet." There *is* a difference between a prophet and Christ. There have been many prophets, but only one Christ. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that 'Christ' is the Greek word for 'Messiah.')

"many false prophets should rise", how the hell do you know that it didnt say
"there will be other prophets"

Hmm. Apparently because I'm one of the few people here who has actually read and studied the New Testament.

accept the facts!

And they are?



What toolmaker says about other books are true. Though the purpose wasn't to hide the truth, but to destroy heretical texts. Most of the texts that were destroyed were agreed to have been written in the second and third centuries. For example, some were written in a newer style of writing, while others referred to Jesus as 'Savior'--though no one started calling him savior until late in the second century. This is desparing today for the people who don't want to accept the scriptures chosen as authentic, but the reason they were burned was to "keep the story of Christ pure," which is what the early church thought they were doing.


I was searching google and ran into this thread. Sorry for the long post. God Bless!

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by babloyi

?He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie." (John 1:27)

The passage you seek is John 1:21, as in "that prophet." Christians don't like to address that phrase much, I suspect it managed to elude elision.



[edit on 1/1/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

John the Baptist said the first one and was asked the second question. I am a christian and these verses don't cause a problem.

That first quote is in all four gospels and it is defintly John the Baptist talking about Jesus and how he is not worthy to untie Jesus' sandals. It would actually be quite amazing if muslims believed this to be Jesus speaking about Muhammad.... i dont think it could actually be more clear as to what it is referring to.

Originally posted by G_SFirst and foremost, Christianity and Islam are not the same.

First of all let us make the distinct clarification here, I have yet to find anyone saying that Christianity and Islam are the same. What is charged is that the Godhead is the same, in that Islam recounts their religion back to Abraham the father of Ishmael, who as you know is purported to be the first born of Abraham in the Judaic and Christian bibles. The assertion then is they have the same God, which islam readily admits to. So there is no issue there, and should be no confusion as to the claim.

SomewhereinBetween goes on to quote verses 1:19-21, but leaves the other verses leading up to (and after) John 1:27 out. Now the Bible says that John the Baptist lived out in the "wilderness," and that he had his own disciples. SomewhereinBetween has correctly quoted the verses, though is apparently using the King James Version. KJV is rather cryptic by today's standard with its "thou"'s and sentence structure, so I'll be quoting the New International Version (NIV) which is in modern English. The NIV is pretty darn reliable. I use the Study Bible version, and verses that are sometimes interpreted differently are often included at the bottom of the page. FYI: No other interpretations are given for these verses. What follows is the accepted interpretation of John 1:19-34 by various different Christian sects. I'll make a few comments when necessary.

I prefer to not pollute the already muddied waters by introducing yet another version because thees and thous are not understood, we are already in the predicament we find ourselves in because of translations to modern language and need no more, for 100 years from now, some fool might decide to write the new eubonics version.

For your edification then, I go through it once more, it is not difficult:

John denies right away that he is not Jesus Christ. He is not asked if he is Jesus Christ, the Jews know of no Jesus Christ, as he has not yet been credited with performing miracles, and John denies that he is Jesus.

He is directly asked if he is Elias and answers; no!

He is directly asked if he is "that prophet" then denies this also. He has already denied being Jesus, and Elias, there is no need then for him to deny any of them another time. The gospels are not made so complicated that John would not have said they asked again if he Jesus Christ.

I understand full well that Jesus claims John to be Elijah, but be very careful here what you ascribe to, for you are suggesting that John lied about himself. And let us not use the NT quoting the Old to make your case, especially if you wish to suggest that John is a liar and John offering this as proof:

I saw the Spirit come down from heaven…

because then you have to contend with John now either pretending he had no idea of this messiah, or lying for a second time, which one do you one to go with and why should we be deceived so if we are to accept Jesus as saviour?:

Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, art thou that he that should come, or do we look for another?

The assertion that Jesus is the messiah rests on the principle that he has saved the world. Yet, 2,000 years after that fact, we have no evidence that he has saved anything. In fact, all we have is another prophecy that believers link to him as saving the world when in fact it brings nothing but destruction, with the contention that people are to believe that Jesus has saved his followers from this destruction. It is a never-ending story.

So my question stills stands unanswered, who is “that prophet?”

I prefer to not pollute the already muddied waters by introducing yet another version because thees and thous are not understood, we are already in the predicament we find ourselves in because of translations to modern language and need no more, for 100 years from now, some fool might decide to write the new eubonics version.

Let's stick to the facts. If you actually read my post, you would see that I've already proven that "that prophet" could not have been Muhammad, and was actually Jesus Christ himself. Muhammad did not fit the description of "that Prophet" that was given in the Old Testament. There is no argument; according to the actual scripture from the Bible, "that Prophet" was Jesus himself.

I understand full well that Jesus claims John to be Elijah, but be very careful here what you ascribe to, for you are suggesting that John lied about himself.

The Bible says, in several places no less, that John the Baptist *was* Elijah. I've already give the exact scriptures in my previous. If you consider the Bible a reliable source, there is no argument whether or not John was Elijah. So he certainly lied to the Jews about his identity, and no one who accepts the Bible can deny that.

The assertion that Jesus is the messiah rests on the principle that he has saved the world. Yet, 2,000 years after that fact, we have no evidence that he has saved anything. In fact, all we have is another prophecy that believers link to him as saving the world when in fact it brings nothing but destruction, with the contention that people are to believe that Jesus has saved his followers from this destruction. It is a never-ending story.

As I have said to others in the past, if you want to remove the hate and destruction from Earth, then you need to remove mankind from it. God (or Jesus for that matter) is not responsible for the problems on Earth, mankind is. Jesus simply came to show us how to live--whether or not we accept his advice is a whole other issue. If we all loved each other as thoroughly as Jesus wanted, the world *would* be saved.

Hello G_S. You raised some interesting points that I would like to discuss.
First of all, you gave as an example how Islam and Christianity are different, that Jesus said to avoid rehearsed prayer. Yet if you notice, Earlier in the thread I quoted Jesus explaining how to pray (the "Our Father in Heaven ...etc" thing).

You then went to explain how Muhammad could not be "that prophet". While you showed that John could have been lying about not being the Elijah, and that Muhammad probably was not "He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie", you did not explain "that prophet" except to claim that it was the same guy.

You say that Muhammad was not a Jew. However, he was descended from among the Jews. You also say that Muhammad never made any prophecies. However, what Muhammad proclaimed "In the name of the Lord" (the Quran) DID come true. The Quran referred to the Romans (who at the time were suffering great losses), saying that they would be victorious in battle again, which did happen. There are many more examples, if you need.
You gave many examples of how Jesus was shown to be Son of God. I find your arguement that Jesus hid his divinity till the end so as not to be a bit weak (I say this with no intention of insulting you, please don't take it that way). If it was such a central part of his religion, he would be decieving his ministry and followers by saying the exact opposite. I also gave many examples of where it shows Jesus was NOT divine. This issue seems unresolvable. Let us leave it where it is and move on.
You said:

Not at all! I highly recommend studying both the Bible and Koran. Islam and Christianity aren't even in the same ballpark. The similarities basically end at Monotheism, and the messages are very different. I can tell you some shocking stuff about Muhammad and his teachings if you'd like to know, but my purpose isn't to divide Christians and Muslims, it's to provide intellectual stimuli and to inform those who want to know. What I've concluded from my research is that Jesus and Muhammad are almost total polar opposites with only a few similarities. After examining both men's lives, it became increasingly apparent to me that Jesus was authentic and Muhammad was probably a false prophet. The words of Jesus touched me, while Muhammad's seemed to be telling me what a seventh century mortal man would want to hear.

It is very interesting that I feel the exact opposite of you (with the exception of Jesus, who I seem to give more respect than you do to Muhammad). I would be very interesting to see your "research". With references, or course . You say that Muhammad was probably visited by Satan, and not Gabriel. I am sure you agree that Satan cannot pretend to be God, right? So, what do you make of the Miraj/Nightly Ascension of Muhammad, where he is said to have spoken to God?
Then comes the issue of violence. You say that Jesus did not advocate violence. What about when he "took the whip" to those who were using "the house of God" for wrong things? However, that is besides the point. Your comments imply that Islam advocates violence. This is wrong. Islam advocates self defence. You give a long list of "violences" commited by Islam. Could you referrence the Hadith where they are from? Specifically these large number of "raids" the assasination and "the killing of men, and taking as slaves of women and children". Let me explain some of them that I DO know about:
The Battle of Badr was initially meant to be an attack by muslims on a caravan supplying meccans with weapons to attack the muslims. However, the Caravan escaped, and an army of 1000 Meccans attacked the 300 Muslims. Although heavily outnumbered, the Muslims still won.
The Battle of Uhud was a full blown battle initiated by the Meccans. They Meccans planned to attack Medina, where Muhammad was, but instead of letting them lay siege on the City, the muslims decided to go against them in open field.
The Battle of the Trench was when the Meccans attacked the city of Medina, where the Muslims had built a trench around the city to protect themselves.
The Siege of Khaybar fort occured because the people there, annoyed that the Muslims had made a treaty with the Meccans, began attacking the muslim caravans that passed there, and refusing to let them drink water from the wells.
The invasion of Mecca occured without a drop of blood. Muhammad was let into the city, where he took over peacefully. There was no "killing of all the men and making of slaves of all women and children" incase you want to say that.
You said that a message was sent to 48 unthreatening groups to "Submit to Islam or die". This is a huge generalisation. There was nothing about dying. There was no threat. They were just sent the message of Muhammad and invited to join them. It is these other groups (specifically the Babylonians and Romans, in addition to some of the 360 Arab tribes) that declared war on Islam.
Ok, enough with violence. Now about the reliabilty of the current Bible. You say yourself that they are copies of copies of copies. How does this make them "likely pretty darn reliable"? You concede that someone may have added to Mark, and the end may be missing. You also comment on the heritic nature of the Barnabas scriptures. How do you know the early church did not include it BECAUSE it could have predicted the coming of another prophet, something that they did not want. You say yourself that many gospels were not inspired by God. How can you be sure the correct ones got included in the Bible?
Then comes a misconception you seem to have about Islams version of Christ. Muslims DO believe that Jesus was the Messiah. The messiah was also a prophet of God. Muhammad was also a prophet of God. Muhammad was NOT the messiah that the jews were waiting for.

Just adding something more to the mix, Isaiah 21 has a prophecy against Babylon.

Isaiah 21:7
When he sees chariots with teams of horses,
riders on donkeys [and] riders on camels,
let him be alert, fully alert.

While most agree that Jesus is the one referred to on the donkey, who are the riders on the camels? It is the Muslims that conquered Babylon and finished the idol worshipping there.
Also:

(Jude 1:14-15)
And Enoch also, the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

and

Deuteronomy 33:2
And he said, The LORD came from Si'-nai, and rose up from Se'-ir unto them; he shined forth from mount Pa'-ran [Mecca in Arabic], and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

This could be referring to the Muslim invasion of Mecca (which you also referred to), where 10,000 muslims surrounded the city before being let in. There is no other occurence of 10,000 in history that could relate to this verse.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Editted to correct grammar

[edit on 29-1-2005 by babloyi]

There were prophets before Mohammed and Mohammed is the last of the prophets.

Since there are no more prophets after Mohammed, there will be the era of the end of the world.

Simply, this is the final chance for us to find the truth of the existence of the prophets before Mohammed and the non existence after Mohammed. The prove of Mohammed is the last prophet is simple, no saviour except the last day of our miracly temporary existence.

Ignorant of the existence of the prophets and the last prophet is no excuse.

Isa is the second last prophet and therefore not last, hence, Mohammed is the last for the world to end their miracly temporary existence since ADAM and EVE.

The evidence of the end of the world are a lot of evils, veto evils, super evils, wars, natural evils and no saviour of another prophet except DOOM.

Originally posted by G_SLet's stick to the facts. If you actually read my post, you would see that I've already proven that "that prophet" could not have been Muhammad, and was actually Jesus Christ himself. Muhammad did not fit the description of "that Prophet" that was given in the Old Testament. There is no argument; according to the actual scripture from the Bible, "that Prophet" was Jesus himself.

Yes let us please stick to the facts, and the fact is you have jumped all over the place trying to prove that "that prophet" was in fact Jesus, called John a liar, and did not explain John's separation of Jesus and "that prophet."

Backing up to your original post where you wrote: "Well, the Bible never flat out said that there would be three individuals, it's just what the Jews assumed." This is also incorrect, and I will get to that momentarily. But first things first. I know of no prophecies John the Baptist made that came true, since he had to question if Jesus was the Christ, the man he prophecised to come after him. The big question with him is why would he, a man supposedly one of the greatest prophets from the past lie? Well one of three people are lying, it is either Malachi, Jesus or John.

Malachi's statement is that God will send back Elijah to turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to the fathers. John has done no such thing as recounted to us, we are only told he was a prophet. It stands to reason that when God sends Elijah, then it will be more than just a passing reference to his presence back on earth. Furthermore, Christ seems to have come to counter exactly that which Malachi claims Elijah is to do. Matt. 10:35.

Now then, which one is lying? Is it Malachi, Jesus for saying john is Elijah, Or john for denying that he is Elijah? Faced then with the obvious ripping apart of what Elijah is supposed to do, Matthew paints Jesus as John's adversary, for Malachi specifically states that God said this is what Elijah is to do:"turn the heart of the fathers to the children... lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." By accepting the claim John was Elijah, you may not know it, but you hold that curse to be Jesus.

The mystery deepens even more. We already had John the Baptist and Jesus roaming the area together, yet, Matthew confused as all get out has Jesus answer to whether he is John. Why they ask him this, and why would Herod also as accounted by Matthew state that Jesus was John incarnate when everyone is supposed to have known that John baptised this man?

There was a third and you miss it. The issue seems to lie with the translations, redaction and more specifically the fact that the author of Matthew as is evident all through his gospel, was not well versed in the OT. Both Jesus and John were asked if they were Elias, and this is taken to mean Elijah. I say it is not. Elijah hardly can be construed to be Elias, but Elijah appointed one Elisha a prophet as great as Elijah himself, and it is he that is meant by Elias, and that prophet is meant to be Elijah himself.

Furthermore, the prophecy of Immanuel in Isaiah has been wrongly assigned bits and pieces from Isaiah to make it fit the description of Jesus.

Now about Muhammed, whether or not he is that prophet, which is Elijah, cannot so readily be discounted despite your attempts to do just that, for just as Jesus claimed to be the saviour, Muhammed claims to be the last prophet. You have two men both making the direct claim, and no announcement from God himself, and forget the "This is my son.." bit because John seems to have no recall of this while in prison. And could Muhammed be the last prophet? Absolutely! Jesus tells his desciples he will send a comforter.

quote:
Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, "The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen an I testify that this is the Son of God."

[John 1:32-34]

John confessess that he didn't know Jesus, and that he wouldn't have known who he was, unless he wo sent him to baptize with water wouldn't have told him.

My problem is that, John was the son of Elizabeth, and Elizabeth and Marry were sisters. John and Jesus were first cousins, and they didn't know eachother? Is this odd, or am I remembering wrong?