IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Biblical Prophecies About Muhammad  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Biblical Prophecies About Muhammad
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
AhmadJoyia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AhmadJoyia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 April 2006 at 12:25pm

Hi Bro George,

Welcome to this thread and the website. Sure you can put forward your thoughts and hopefully someone among us shall see how to comment upon them. Coming to your idea when you say "I think that the prophet like Moses was ultimately Jesus and there is much evidence in support of that view."

First of all, I must say that I fully respect your thoughts, though not necessarily agree with them. In that notion, we already had some discussion with sis Katharine {amended} on this thread right in the begining of it when she pasted few instances to show her proofs. Kindly see as how she got responded about them. If you have anything more to it, I love to hear that. May God be with all of us. Amin!



Edited by AhmadJoyia
Back to Top
George View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 14 April 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 406 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote George Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 April 2006 at 10:26am

Hello to everyone,

This is my first post on this site.

I think that the prophet like Moses was ultimately Jesus and there is much evidence in support of that view.

But, I think that if the Muslims want to believe it is Muhammad, then they should go ahead and believe it.

Now I will look around at the other subjects and see what else I may be able to contribute to the discussions.

I do want to say that it is wonderful that a Muslim forum would want to encourage meaningful debate between Muslims and Christians and people of other faiths.

It is a giant step forward to get to know each other's beliefs and correct any misconceptions of those beliefs.  Ultimately the world will become a better place because of the efforts of this site and all of its participants.

 
Back to Top
AhmadJoyia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AhmadJoyia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 April 2006 at 9:13am

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

ahmad - if you want to prove that jesse is a contraction of ishmael, you will have to produce something without question marks - that is the bottom line.

What?? Did I ask Biblical scholars to link "Jesse" as a contraction of "Ishmael"? I don't think so. Probably someone needs house cleaning for themselves than asking others to do it for them. Remember we are analysing the evidence from your own biblical encylopedia. The question of "?" is more appropriate to be addressed to them as what does it mean to them rather taking a stance on conjectures. We are simply reading it from their own writtings, though for us, this is not a big issue to even worry about. 

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

.. then once you have produced this, you will then have to establish beyond any doubt that the jesse in isaiah 11 is in fact ishmael son of abraham and not jesse father of david, if, that is, you wish to take this to a higher level than just another piece of muslim wishful thinking.
If "jesse" is a contraction of "Ishmael", then it is only a matter of interpreting the same prophesy but with a different lens. That is not difficult I suppose as usually been done by my Christian brothers despite the Jewish critic. On the other hand, as I have said before, my Muslim brothers only trying to patch up with the existing Bible by looking at some info that might help them establish the fact that the scriptures used by the pre-Islamic Jewish and Christian monks to look at Arabia for their prophised Massiah are the same. The fact that some of them did recognize Mohammad as the one mentioned in their scriptures. But my present day Christian brothers are bent upon differentiating between their own scriptures of the old from the present one. Is their any specific reason to keep such hostility towards Islam?

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

we on the other hand are not required to produce anything at all.  we know that davids father was called jesse, nowhere referred to as ishmael, and we know that abrahams son was called ishmael, nowhere referred to as jesse.
Brother wheather you like it or not, the prophesy clear negates the presence of any divine personality being alluded at. So its really against your own concept of divine Jesus. Secondly you believe about this propesy whatever you think it is, irrespective the owners of the scripture agree with you or not. Since they don't, the same reason can be used by Muslims as well. Its just so simple to understand.

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

saying "oh well muhammad was righteous, and he judged the poor with equity just like the guy in isaiah 11..." will just not do - 
Ok so, at least, you do see this harmonising with the prophesy which is quite naturally 180 degree opposite to your understanding of "faith" based justice.

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

 you cannot pick and choose snippets here and there, passing over the rest of the prophesy or ignoring it as you are doing, and hope to appeal to any rational mind ----////---if you do not think the bulk of the prophesy is literal, perhaps you might like to outline briefly exactly how it was fulfilled in muhammad
So my dear, if the first part of the prophesy doesn't tally with your understanding, aren't you also making the same error, as you say, picking cherries that you like, in other part of the prophesy? You can't blame others for what you yourself are blamed for.

Originally posted by Fridifreeloader Fridifreeloader wrote:

i was not criticising solely on the meaning of the name.  in fact i mentioned it as an aside.......

Ok!!

Originally posted by Freidfreeloader Freidfreeloader wrote:

---------also there is no burial ground mentioned in the chapter - the word in v.10 is rest/resting-place/abode, referring to the place where he is - it has nothing to do with death-------
Well you need to prove it, as you say "beyond doubt" instead of simply stating it against the common understanding of the phrase "and his resting-place shall be glorious" by A Hebrew-English Bible according to the Masoretic Text and the JPS 1917 Edition. I do notice why few Biblical translations are even avoiding such a situation by simply twisting the verse so much as not to get embarrsed by it? Here, from Contemporary English Version we read V.10 as "10 The time is coming when one of David's descendants will be the signal for the people of all nations to come together. They will follow his advice, and his own nation will become famous."

One can clearly see a baisness in such translations using the phrase "David's descendants" and totally omitting the words relating to resting-place etc. 

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

you raised a number of other points which are irrelevant to the issue of "muhammad in the bible?"
That is upto you, no compulsion at all.



Edited by AhmadJoyia
Back to Top
Servetus View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Male
Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2109 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Servetus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 April 2006 at 12:16pm

Not at all, Fredi.  It is just that the only point that I tried to address in this thread is to establish a genealogical link between Muhammad and Ishmael.  I have offered what I know.  I think that most of the other points, especially as they relate to Biblical blessings and prophecies, are best addressed by others and by resident Muslims in particular.

 

If anything needs to be clarified from my side, I am willing to continue.  I just don�t want to become too deeply entangled in genealogies, etc., for reasons that I have given.

 

Ok?

 

Serv
Back to Top
fredifreeloader View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar
Joined: 17 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 456 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fredifreeloader Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 April 2006 at 12:03pm
oh dear servetus - that sounds pretty final.  hope it was nothing i said  
for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
Back to Top
Servetus View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Male
Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2109 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Servetus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 April 2006 at 10:04am

�now you [Servetus] seem to be laying great stress on the fact of circumcision, ��

 

I am not meaning to interrupt, but please know that I only mention circumcision as one in a series of indications that Muhammad can be physically linked first to Ishmael and then to Abraham.   For statements of proofs that Muhammad and his progeny, or �Nation,� or �Ummah,� is directly connected to Ishmael, I refer first to Heinrich Graetz and then to Moses Maimonides, among others.

 

�now you seem to be laying great stress on the fact of circumcision, implying ? that it indicates inclusion in the covenant ��

 

Again not meaning to interrupt, but I might have been more careful in my wording.  Unless and until I want to involve myself in a complex game of Biblical Twister, or of convolutions in which the vouchsafed and God-given rights of the first-born are, through an at times surreptitious switching of hands, conferred instead upon the second-born, I know better than to participate in discussions concerning the details of the �covenant.�   I shall simply conclude by saying, in the Biblical manner, that as for me and my house, we shall take St. Paul�s advice to Timothy and not involve ourselves, beyond a point, in controversies related to �endless genealogies.�   Furthermore, we have heard and at least to a certain degree have understood:

 

�And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him ... and I will make him a great nation.� [KJV] (Genesis 17:20)

 

That said, I trust you will understand if I now excuse myself from this discussion and from this thread.  I have enjoyed talking to you and thank you for your contributions.

 

Best regards,

 

Servetus

Back to Top
fredifreeloader View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar
Joined: 17 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 456 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fredifreeloader Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 April 2006 at 9:29am

ahmad - if you want to prove that jesse is a contraction of ishmael, you will have to produce something without question marks - that is the bottom line.  then once you have produced this, you will then have to establish beyond any doubt that the jesse in isaiah 11 is in fact ishmael son of abraham and not jesse father of david, if, that is, you wish to take this to a higher level than just another piece of muslim wishful thinking.  we on the other hand are not required to produce anything at all.  we know that davids father was called jesse, nowhere referred to as ishmael, and we know that abrahams son was called ishmael, nowhere referred to as jesse.    saying "oh well muhammad was righteous, and he judged the poor with equity just like the guy in isaiah 11..." will just not do -  you cannot pick and choose snippets here and there, passing over the rest of the prophesy or ignoring it as you are doing, and hope to appeal to any rational mind ----////---if you do not think the bulk of the prophesy is literal, perhaps you might like to outline briefly exactly how it was fulfilled in muhammad

i was not criticising solely on the meaning of the name.  in fact i mentioned it as an aside.......---------also there is no burial ground mentioned in the chapter - the word in v.10 is rest/resting-place/abode, referring to the place where he is - it has nothing to do with death-------you raised a number of other points which are irrelevant to the issue of "muhammad in the bible?"
for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16
Back to Top
AhmadJoyia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AhmadJoyia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 April 2006 at 4:25pm

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

ahmad - you said:  "For example, you provided the meaning of 'jesse' as equivalent to 'wealthy', where as there are other multiple meanings of the same word; one source says it mean "the Lord exists", something closer to "Lord hears", and another one says it mean "firm, or a gift"."  --------- in other words these unspecified sources do not give the meaning "God will hear".  your reference to twotot is neither here nor there, as i was not talking about comparisons of  the parallels of names and the meanings of names, i was giving the meaning of the name.

My dear, the whole notion of having 'same meaning' for the same word used at numerous places is a week logic, if not flawed as I have already shown you, not only through historical veracity of the occassions of the occurances of the word at two places, but as well through an example. Even now a days a simple word has multiple meanings; could this mean the name for the two is different? I don't think so. The reference to twotot is a direct one to substantiate this concept and not "neither here nor there". Hence your critic, sololy on the 'meaning' of the word is on thin ice.

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

now it is only natural, as a muslim, that you should try to appropriate the characteristics of Christ to muhammad.
 As long as you keep Christ as divine, any sensible man with logic and wisdom, can never accept your point of ascribing this prophesy to him but only to an human prophet. Do you agree with this? Look at the burial place of this prophet venerated in the same prophesy "And His (W)resting place will be glorious. " Do you tend to ascribe this to your Lord??

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

 qualities such as judgment (although i have already shown that the judgement spoken of in isaiah 11 can only belong to Christ), righteousness and faithfulness.  the latter two characteristics also belong to God, as our God is a covenant God, establishing covenants in righteousness and carrying them out through faithfulness.
 Kindly substantiate your assertion. Especially, once we do know and understand that many prophets did judge among their nations justly and faithfully with the commands and laws presecribed by God. I also do notice your silence over the issue of Prophesied Masaih to come and your concept of him killing people on the basis of faith alone. Is that too hard to explain in view of your concept of Trinity?

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

however you have singularly failed to address the other aspects of the prophecy-----, namely the conditions on earth which will result from the advent of the person described, the peace and safety which will prevail throughout creation, v.6-9, the geographical changes which will take place, v.15, and the historical events, namely the regathering of israel v. 11-12, and the cessation of internal wrangling among the jews, and the cutting off of the enemies of judah,  v.13, and the new order in the middle east, namely the domination of israel over the rest, v.14 -----none of this occurred with muhammad! --not only that, his modern-day followers are doing their very utmost to prevent some of it happening at all!
O my dear brother, these aspects are very simple to understand from my point of view, simply because I never put any literal undrestanding of them, as opposed to what you are proposing it to be. It is for this very reason the yoke is quite tighter on the literal understanding of the passages especially once the concept of Trinity is also involved.

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

basically all that there is to link this passage of the bible to muhammad is the notion that "jesse is a contraction of ishmael" and even this is only on the basis that muhammad is descended from ishmael.
Well my brother, as I have always maintained the position on the issue of prophies that they are more of hypothesis based upon conjectures and no one really can say anything with conclusive arguements. Our faith in God, is not based upon such conjectural work. However, the same is not true for my Christian brothers (through gospel accounts etc) who are heavily relying on such works to justify their doctrines. Aren't their doctrines only based upon conjectures? Is this the reason you felt so much disturbed about the post as your whole faith had been shaken to ground? As I said before, if "?" is ambigous to the link on one direction, isn't it equally ambigous on the other direction as well?  

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

 (it also does not take onto account the fact that jesse is the predecessor of Christ) 
 In fact it does take into account, Jesse as Ishmael, is predecessor to Jesus Christ. So???

Originally posted by Fredifreeloader Fredifreeloader wrote:

 ------now it has come to my attention that there is no genealogy of muhammad in the quran - this being the case (unless you can prove otherwise) can you point to any clear statement in the quran which indicates that muhammad is descended from ishmael?

I think bro Servetus has already provided you with a befitting reply on this. I would rather go a step in a different direction ask you to account for differences in geneologies mentioned by the different gospel accounts? 

Secondly, on the issue of foreskin and circumcision, I don't think covanent or no covanant has anything to do with the keeping of the traditions, especially if such are divinely ordained. The fact that many arab tribes used to practice it even before the advent of Islam, can also be a good clue in this link.



Edited by AhmadJoyia
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.