The Bible tells us:

A true prophet will not make false predictions. If a prophet is of God, the things he or she says will come to pass. However, accuracy alone does not automatically qualify a person as a true prophet. Deuteronomy 13:1-3 warns that false prophets can give signs that will come to pass and then use their influence to lead people to follow other gods. A true prophet must lead people to worship God according to the Bible.

To whom does the Lord reveal His final plans?

Amos 3:7  Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Will there be both true and false prophets in the last days?

Matthew 24:11  And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Yes, there will be both true and false prophets in the end time. The Scriptures also teach that prophets can be either men or women.

What types of false prophets are specifically condemned in the Bible?

 "An observer of times [astrologer]." Deuteronomy 18:10.

"An enchanter [magician]." Deuteronomy 18:10.

"A witch [female psychic]." Deuteronomy 18:10.

"A charmer [person who casts spells or charms]." Deuteronomy 18:11.

"A consulter with familiar spirits [spirit medium]." Deuteronomy 18:11.

"A wizard [male psychic]." Deuteronomy 18:11.

"A necromancer [person who claims to consult with the dead]." Deuteronomy 18:11.
Deuteronomy 18:9-12 says that all who do these things are an "abomination" to the Lord. For this reason, Christians should have nothing to do with them.

Will God's end-time church have the gift of prophecy?

Revelation 12:17  And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 19:10 I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy

In what ways does God speak to a true prophet?

Numbers 12:6, 8  If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. ... With him will I speak mouth to mouth.

Zechariah 4:1 And the angel that talked with me came again, and waked me, as a man that is wakened out of his sleep.

The Lord speaks to His prophets by visions, in dreams, face to face, and through angels. Crystal balls, palm readings, tea leaf deciphering, star gazing, and claiming to talk with the dead are not God's methods of communicating with a prophet.

Are miracles definite evidence of a true prophet?

Revelation 16:14  For they are the spirits of demons, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world.

No, miracles are not proof that someone is a true prophet. They prove only one thing--supernatural power. But supernatural power may come either from God or from Satan. That is why the Lord tells us: "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1.

What is the most important test of a prophet?

Isaiah 8:20  To the Law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The "law and the testimony" was an Old Testament expression for "Bible." In other words, a message from someone who claims to have a prophetic utterance from God must be compared with the Bible. We must test the prophet by the Bible, and not the Bible by the prophet. Any true prophet of God will always agree 100 percent with Scripture. This is the true test.

What is the second test of a prophet?

1 John 4:2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.

A prophet of God must acknowledge and teach the truth about Jesus Christ--that He was God in human form. True prophets must also exalt Jesus, not themselves. Most false prophets seek to draw attention away from God's Word and to their own ideas.

What is the third test of a prophet?

Matthew 7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits.

This does not mean that the prophet will be perfect. God's prophets have always had faults. However, there must be consistency between what true prophets teach and the lives they live.

What is the fourth test of a prophet?

Jeremiah 28:9  When the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him

A true prophet will not make false predictions. If a prophet is of God, the things he or she says will come to pass. However, accuracy alone does not automatically qualify a person as a true prophet. Deuteronomy 13:1-3 warns that false prophets can give signs that will come to pass and then use their influence to lead people to follow other gods. A true prophet must lead people to worship God according to the Bible.

 The subject matter has been spread out too much and become lengthy. A prophet of God is a one who receives messages from God and then he passes on those messages in the name of God to the people. The messages should be clear (not ambigous) and should be plenty, not just one or two. The quality and quantity is very important.

A false prophet will not achieve the quality and the quantity.

Also, according to the Quran and Bible OT (Deut 18:20) a false prophet will be killed. The church has now reworded that verse (18:20) saying the false prophet will die. that is not a correct statement. That is, because all prophets die. Whether they are true prophets or false prophets, they all die. The correct wording which used to be in the bible was "Even that prophet will be killed".

It is necessary to understand that any one declaring himself to be a messenger of God is trying to represent God. If he is a true prophet then it will be alright. It won't harm any one. But if he is a false man trying to pass messages from God, then God will look after him. God will not let him misguide the people. Whatever happens, it will not be our duty to harm that person. God will look after his affair.

 The next sign is that a false prophet will not succeed. His prophesies will not come true and he will not succeed in his mission.

An extremely cursory approach to such an important idea.

It is very difficult to follow your work, as you try and mix the NT with the OT, and you bury unproven assumptions in your work.

As an example, in your second test, you stated:

What is the second test of a prophet? 1 John 4:2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. A prophet of God must acknowledge and teach the truth about Jesus Christ--that He was God in human form. True prophets must also exalt Jesus, not themselves. Most false prophets seek to draw attention away from God's Word and to their own ideas.

This is Christian theological doctrine, not a "truth". You cannot expect me, or any non Christian, to believe that a prophet must agree with 1 John? If everyone held this belief as true, then we would be Christians. My reply would be, "Gee, I did not read 1 John! What can I say? I am astounded Buddy! See you at church on sunday!". 

1) I reject 1 John and ask you to authenticate this as having an authority from Jesus(or from any author that knew Jesus). You have an unproven, buried assumption about the validty of 1 John, and Christian doctrine.

2) I do not believe Jesus was divine, which is yet another assumption you buried in this theological hyperbole.

I say that any man who claims Jesus, or anything of this world is God, is false.

Moses did not teach of Jesus, and never prayed to him.

Prophet Muhammad (saw)

1) brought miracles

2) abolished idolatry

3) brought a message that was consistant with all other prophets and messengers

4) gave prophecy

If he had taught that Jesus was a godman, then he would not only have fulfilled your Christian twist on prophethood (1 John), but then he would be a Christian and we would not be having this conversation.

buddyman wrote: The Bible tells us:

Moses did not preach or teach about Mohammed. Moses did preach about a coming prophet. In case you forgot let me refresh your memory. Once the Israelites were delivered from Egyptian bondage, God gave Moses the 10 commandments, correct? Didn't the Israelites get angry and ask Moses why God only spoke to him? Yes... So then God told them, ok I'll talk to the people. he told them to be prepared, etc. When they all lined up to talk to God, they couldn't bear it, could they. So god then promised a prophet from amoun their own, correct?

Jesus

Moses did not teach of Jesus, and never prayed to him.

Prophet Muhammad (saw)

1) brought miracles

2) abolished idolatry

3) brought a message that was consistant with all other prophets and messengers

4) gave prophecy

1) Mohammed brought miracles....Satan uses every conceivable approach to deceive and destroy people. His demons can appear and pose as righteous people, even clergymen. And Satan will appear as a glorious angel of light with power to call fire down from heaven. He will impersonate Jesus. But you have been warned, so don't fall for it. When Jesus comes, every eye will see Him (Revelation 1:7). He will remain in the clouds and not even touch the earth (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

2) abolished idolatry - so why does a crescent moon represent Islam?

3) brought a message consitant with othe prophets...that is FALSE

4) gave prophecy - which ones?

Is Jesus Fully God?

As we compare Scripture definitions for God with the Bible record of Jesus, we see the characteristics of Jehovah are also ascribed to Jesus. Note these powerful examples:

• He is self-existent (John 1:1�4; 14:6); only God is self-existent (Psalm 90:2).
  
• Jesus defines Himself as eternal. �I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty� (Revelation 1:8).
  
• He is, and has, eternal life (1 John 5:11, 12, 20).
  
• He is all-powerful (Revelation 1:8).
  
• He created all things (John 1:3). �In the beginning God created the heaven and the

earth� (Genesis 1:1). �For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him� (Colossians 1:16 NKJV).

• The Father even calls Jesus God. �But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom� (Hebrews 1:8).
  
• Jesus is able to forgive sin (Luke 5:20, 21); The Bible says only God can forgive sin (Isaiah 43:25).
  
• Jesus accepted worship that according to the Ten Commandments is reserved only for the Almighty (Matthew 14:33). �And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, �All hail.� And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him� (Matthew 28:9). Upon seeing the risen Savior, the converted skeptic, Thomas, confessed, �My Lord and my God!� (John 20:26�29).
  
• Even the angels worship Jesus. �And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him� (Hebrews 1:6).

• The Scriptures also teach that only God knows the thoughts of a man�s heart (1 Kings 8:39). Yet Jesus consistently knew what people were thinking, �for he knew what was in man� (John 2:25). �Nathanael said to Him, �How do You know me?� Jesus answered and said to him, �Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you�� (John 1:48 NKJV).
  
• Through the Spirit, Jesus is omnipresent. �Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age� (Matthew 28:20 NKJV). �For I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city� (Acts 18:10 NKJV).
  
• He has power to give life, and even resurrected Himself. �No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again� (John 10:18). �I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live� (John 11:25).
  
  

     Therefore, by considering the primary definitions of God, and seeing that Jesus fits every one of those definitions, obviously, Jesus must be eternal God.

No this prophecy about the coming Messiah is very important:

Anointed on time: Daniel 9:25  

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times." Daniel 9:25

Fulfillment
"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:14-15

"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;" Luke 3:1-3

No truth is more clearly taught in the Bible than that God by His Holy Spirit especially directs His servants on earth in the great movements for the carrying forward of the work of salvation. Men are instruments in the hand of God, employed by Him to accomplish His purposes of grace and mercy. Each has his part to act; to each is granted a measure of light, adapted to the necessities of his time, and sufficient to enable him to perform the work which God has given him to do. But no man, however honored of Heaven, has ever attained to a full understanding of the great plan of redemption, or even to a perfect appreciation of the divine purpose in the work for his own time. Men do not fully understand what God would accomplish by the work which He gives them to do; they do not comprehend, in all its bearings, the message which they utter in His name.

"Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." "I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done." Job 11:7; Isaiah 55:8, 9; 46:9, 10.

Even the prophets who were favored with the special illumination of the Spirit did not fully comprehend the import of the revelations committed to them. The meaning was to be unfolded from age to age, as the people of God should need the instruction therein contained.
Peter, writing of the salvation brought to light through the gospel, says: Of this salvation "the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister." 1 Peter 1:10-12.

Yet while it was not given to the prophets to understand fully the things revealed to them, they earnestly sought to obtain all the light which God had been pleased to make manifest. They "inquired and searched diligently," "searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify." What a lesson to the people of God in the Christian age, for whose benefit these prophecies were given to His servants! "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister." Witness those holy men of God as they "inquired and searched diligently" concerning revelations given them for generations that were yet unborn. Contrast their holy zeal with the listless unconcern with which the favored ones of later ages treat this gift of Heaven. What a rebuke to the ease-loving, world-loving indifference which is content to declare that the prophecies cannot be understood!

Though the finite minds of men are inadequate to enter into the counsels of the Infinite One, or to understand fully the working out of His purposes, yet often it is because of some error or neglect on their own part that they so dimly comprehend the messages of Heaven. Not infrequently the minds of the people, and even of God's servants, are so blinded by human opinions, the traditions and false teaching of men, that they are able only partially to grasp the great things which He has revealed in His word. Thus it was with the disciples of Christ, even when the Saviour was with them in person. Their minds had become imbued with the popular conception of the Messiah as a temporal prince, who was to exalt Israel to the throne of the universal empire, and they could not understand the meaning of His words foretelling His sufferings and death.

Christ Himself had sent them forth with the message: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15. That message was based on the prophecy of Daniel 9. The sixty-nine weeks were declared by the angel to extend to "the Messiah the Prince," and with high hopes and joyful anticipations the disciples looked forward to the establishment of Messiah's kingdom at Jerusalem to rule over the whole earth.

They preached the message which Christ had committed to them, though they themselves misapprehended its meaning. While their announcement was founded on Daniel 9:25, they did not see, in the next verse of the same chapter, that Messiah was to be cut off. From their very birth their hearts had been set upon the anticipated glory of an earthly empire, and this blinded their understanding alike to the specifications of the prophecy and to the words of Christ.

70 weeks = 490 years

457 BC - Decree to rebuild Jerusalem (69 weeks or 483 years)

the last week or 7 years = Jesus baptized on AD27 -right on time

in the middle of the week he is cut down - Jesus crucified AD31

His ministry was for 3 1/2 years

the remaining 3 1/2 years the message went out to the gentiles.

AD34 Stephen was stoned.

They performed their duty in presenting to the Jewish nation the invitation of mercy, and then, at the very time when they expected to see their Lord ascend the throne of David, they beheld Him seized as a malefactor, scourged, derided, and condemned, and lifted up on the cross of Calvary. What despair and anguish wrung the hearts of those disciples during the days while their Lord was sleeping in the tomb!

Christ had come at the exact time and in the manner foretold by prophecy. The testimony of Scripture had been fulfilled in every detail of His ministry. He had preached the message of salvation, and "His word was with power." The hearts of His hearers had witnessed that it was of Heaven. The word and the Spirit of God attested the divine commission of His Son.

After His resurrection Jesus appeared to His disciples on the way to Emmaus, and, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." Luke 24:27. The hearts of the disciples were stirred. Faith was kindled. They were "begotten again into a lively hope" even before Jesus revealed Himself to them. It was His purpose to enlighten their understanding and to fasten their faith upon the "sure word of prophecy." He wished the truth to take firm root in their minds, not merely because it was supported by His personal testimony, but because of the unquestionable evidence presented by the symbols and shadows of the typical law, and by the prophecies of the Old Testament. It was needful for the followers of Christ to have an intelligent faith, not only in their own behalf, but that they might carry the knowledge of Christ to the world. And as the very first step in imparting this knowledge, Jesus directed the disciples to "Moses and all the prophets." Such was the testimony given by the risen Saviour to the value and importance of the Old Testament Scriptures

buddyman wrote: Moses did not preach or teach about Mohammed.

Strawman argument, some Muslims only claim that a prophecy is about him that is found in the Torah. What is certain, is that Moses did not ever pray to Jesus or teach in his name.

Moses did preach about a coming prophet. In case you forgot let me refresh your memory. Once the Israelites were delivered from Egyptian bondage, God gave Moses the 10 commandments, correct?

Irrelevant. The 10 commandments have nothing to do with the topic. This is simply a "deflection".

Didn't the Israelites get angry and ask Moses why God only spoke to him? Yes... So then God told them, ok I'll talk to the people. he told them to be prepared, etc. When they all lined up to talk to God, they couldn't bear it, could they. So god then promised a prophet from amoun their own, correct? Jesus

Your "argument" makes no sense, you are saying that God gave the 10 commandments, and then everyone wanted to talk to God, but could not, so therefore God made a promise to send a prophet?

1) there already was a prophet in their midst, his name was moses. Who cares if another prophet is sent, they will still not be able to talk to God

2) no where in the Torah does it say that God promised another prophet because they wanted to talk to them. This is called "conjecture", and it is meaningless theological speculation.

You are simply superimposing your Christian assumptions onto the Torah without a single, valid reason.

You should challenge your preconceptions or they will challenge you!

Some of the Prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus' first advent � Born of a virgin: Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14 This is not a prophecy about Jesus, but an error made by the author of Matthew, which allows us to conclude that the NT is neither "divine" nor "error free".  I dealt with Isaiah 7:14, and you simply ignored it and now you are once again repeating what you originally asserted. This is moving into the realm of "spam", as you are not actually giving a discussion but just repeating your pastes. This is the reason I object to your claim of Isaiah 7:14. It is to an older contribution so I edited the beginning so that nothing is irrelevant.     The key thing to remember is that I am willing, for the sake of argument, to give this point away (for the sake of argument, I am willing to concede that �almah� is strictly virgin, and then through reductio ad absurdum, we shall see the problematic conclusion). In the end, the point given is a double edged sword that causes more problems for the claim. Also, keep in mind that the piece (the apologetic piece that is not relevant to this thread) only dedicates about 1% to the contextual dilemma which is the point I bring forth. The Context (of Isaiah 7:14) demonstrates: 1) That it makes no difference if the female discussed in 7:14 is a virgin or not (the end result and point of the verse is not dependent upon a strict interpretation of the female being virgin) 2) That the verse is irrelevant to the people of the late second temple 3) The verse talks about a sign, not a miracle, relevant to the people of the time period. The context: �       Two armies from two kingdoms are set to destroy Jerusalem and the Davidic throne. �       Gd offers, not a miracle, but a sign to the reigning king of Jerusalem, and the representative of the Davidic line. The Sign: �       A child will be born to a woman. Before the child reaches the age of puberty, the two armies will be destroyed. Conclusion: �       According to the Hebrew Scriptures, this did indeed occur. The sign, according to any common sense reading, according to any serious exegesis, even with the most conservative of uses of the charity principle (seeking the best, strongest interpretation without twisting it to a preconception), is not the birth but the time line given by the child's age that coincides with the destruction of the armies. The birth of the child has no bearing on the armies of the two northern kingdoms, but the child does. According to Christians, it is the birth that is the sign, because the birth is to a virgin, and this is a prophecy about Jesus being born centuries later after the people in Jerusalem are all dead and forgotten about and after the siege had ended. For the sake of the argument, let�s say the verse is about a child born to a virgin, and this is the sign. Let�s also assume it is a prophecy. This implies 1) There were two virgin births, one at that time and one in the late second temple. This would mean the birth of Jesus was not unique. OR; 2) There was one virgin birth, and somehow, the Hebrews were supposed to be able to render almah as young woman who was not a virgin, and then almah as virgin for the double prophecy meaning, which would be relevant to a future generation that had nothing to do with those who were held captive behind the walls of Jerusalem. I would like for Christians to show me the text that allows someone to render almah as non virgin and then as virgin for the prophecy interpretation. If the child born was all together part of a prophecy that has nothing to do with King Ahaz, then 1) Which two warring kingdoms of the north were destroyed when Jesus reached the age of puberty? 2) If this part of Isaiah 7 is not part of the prophecy, then please, I would like for Christians to provide me with the methodology that allowed them to rip the point of the story (the destruction of the two warring armies) out of the verse as a non prophecy, and only keep the mentioning of a child born to a virgin separate from the point? If "almah" in chapter 7 must be strictly interpreted as virgin, then the entire sign should be rendered meaningless. Let�s assume that chapter 7 is about a virgin birth. This would mean that the woman being a virgin is a critical point for 7 to work. I will demonstrate by now assuming this is not a virgin birth in Isaiah 7. The birth is not by a virgin. Before the child reaches puberty. The two warring armies of the north are destroyed. The child reaches the age of puberty.   Conclusion: The end result in the story occurs with or without the word "almah" being rendered "virgin". Matthew's claim of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy is obviously a mistake. No one with any serious intention of learning can look at this claim and look at the actual verse and declare it a prophecy about a virgin giving birth. The main themes of the story are entirely irrelevant to late second temple. What would be the significance at the moment before Jesus knows right from wrong? Would this imply that Jesus did not know right from wrong and had to reach puberty before his true divine self would kick in? What two warring kingdoms were destroyed (armies) before Jesus knew right from wrong? What would Ahaz care about Jesus and late second temple period? Why would Isaiah as Ahaz for a sign for people living in 2 CE? The answers do not exist, and giving the point away that almah is virgin causes more problems, and unanswered questions.   So as you can see, the most sane and rational conclusion is that Matthew was in error, and this verse only works against your assertion.  The rest of your "copy and paste" list is simply a rhetorical "dump". Dumping is not permitted. Incase you are wondering about the word, this is when someone pastes a large list of verses such that it is nearly impossible and time consuming to have to go through each verse on the list and show that the verse does not mean the unproven assertion of the contributor. No one will take the time and pour through each verse. You are making "cutting and pasting" as a large part of your discussion. You need to prove what the verses mean. I have pointed out one verse. You need to deal with it or I will begin editing your contributions. peace

buddyman wrote: Moses did not teach of Jesus, and never prayed to him. Prophet Muhammad (saw) 1) brought miracles 2) abolished idolatry 3) brought a message that was consistant with all other prophets and messengers 4) gave prophecy   1) Mohammed brought miracles....Satan uses every conceivable approach to deceive and destroy people. His demons can appear and pose as righteous people, even clergymen. And Satan will appear as a glorious angel of light with power to call fire down from heaven. He will impersonate Jesus. But you have been warned, so don't fall for it. When Jesus comes, every eye will see Him (Revelation 1:7). He will remain in the clouds and not even touch the earth (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

You need to prove your "charges". You can discuss these types of issues, but you must provide some kind of argument or reasoning. You are simply "asserting" your own personal opinions.

1) You have not provided how you can determine that satan had anything to do with the miracles of any kind of prophet?

2) Can this method you are using determine if Paul was not Satanic? Or if Satan mislead the gentile Christians? (do not give me simplistic missionary responses, you made a claim, now I expect you to back it up)

2) abolished idolatry - so why does a crescent moon represent Islam?

This is called a "complex" question. It is a fallacy. This means you have buried an unproven assumption in the premise of your question.

Prove that a crescent moon negates the claim that Prophet Muhammad (saw) abolished idolatry.

3) brought a message consitant with othe prophets...that is FALSE

Show how it is false.

4) gave prophecy - which ones?

about future events. Have you not read the Quran? Are you making sweeping remaks about a faith you have not event studied yet? (your church pastor or polemical sites does not count as studying)

Andalus,

I can see you really haven't read the Old Testament...you're starting to crumble. Not only that you fail to discuss the other prophecies.

As for the prophecies Mohammed supposedly prophesied, try reading the Book of Daniel and you will see that they had already been foretold.

Mohammed did not bring the same message as Jesus. He also didn't bring the same message as any of the other prophets in the OT.

No one will take the time and pour through each verse. You are making "cutting and pasting" as a large part of your discussion. You need to prove what the verses mean.

I cut and paste verses from the bible and then expain. If you want to know, you would read them.

buddyman wrote: Andalus, I can see you really haven't read the Old Testament...you're starting to crumble. Not only that you fail to discuss the other prophecies.

This is an example of a missionary who has been called out on their claim and has nothing to offer but a claim that I have not read the OT. This is interesting, since I have provided you with a major point that as of yet you refuse to argue. You ignored by objection to your claims of Isaiah and the virgin birth and you simply re-pasted the same claim. Now, instead of dealing with my point, you to deflect and accuse me of not reading the OT. Obviously I have not only read your OT, but I have provided detailed points regarding a verse found in it. Your lack of substance leads me to conclude that your only knowledge of your NT are the common verses that your faith has superimposed with Christilogical significance. Your inability to reply is evidence of your lack of OT study. Do not accuse me of ignorance when it is you who has failed to provide a single original work that is free from "copy and paste".

As far as my reply to the Isaiah claim: All I need is to show one of the major claims from the NT is false to bring the entire house of cards down. Also, I have give you a second point concerning another prophecy claim that you also elected to ignore. Please choose your favorite prophecy fulfillment, and we can discuss it also.

As for the prophecies Mohammed supposedly prophesied, try reading the Book of Daniel and you will see that they had already been foretold.

I have read the book of Daniel. I would be happy to debate your interpretation. The Christian interpretation of Daniel is weak within any measure of scholarly standards, and in terms of a reasonable exegesis.

Mohammed did not bring the same message as Jesus. He also didn't bring the same message as any of the other prophets in the OT.

Actually, your version of Jesus, through the interpretation of Paul, is a huge "innovation" within the scope of prophetic messages. To say that Prophet Muhammad (saw) did not bring the same message as Jesus is erroneous:

1) Muslims have never claimed that Prophet Muhammad (saw) taught the Christian idea of Jesus being a godman.

2) You are assuming as truth and fact that you know what Jesus taught.

Could you provide an example that shows a glaring violation of the message of Prophet Muhammad (saw) from Moses or Noah or Isaiah?

No one will take the time and pour through each verse. You are making "cutting and pasting" as a large part of your discussion. You need to prove what the verses mean. I cut and paste verses from the bible and then expain. If you want to know, you would read them.

Actually, the problem is that you do not explain. You simply "handwave" your belief. You dump verses from the bible without any argument.

I have provided you with a clear point to the Isaiah virgin birth prophecy claim, the absence of a rational, coherent reply to it is a sign to me that you have never actually understood the passage beyond the Christilogical supposition that has been superimposed on it.

buddyman wrote: THE BEAST AND HIS BACKGROUND A Fearful Warning      The most fearful warning of punishment found anywhere in the Bible is contained in Revelation 14:9, 10: �And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.�      This description is so alarming and so very unlike all other verses which deal with God�s character that we almost recoil in horror. But it points clearly to a time when God�s mercy will be withheld from those who have persistently rejected the authority of Heaven. It will be an unparalleled performance on the part of God in His relationship to the human family. For almost 6,000 years, His punishing judgments upon the most wicked men have been tempered with mercy. But now the measure of rebellion reaches a point which makes it necessary for God to intervene and to expose the terrible extent of man�s treason against God�s government.      Right here we are curious to know more about the sin that provokes God�s strange act of fiery punishment. Notice that the final issue involves a false allegiance to the beast power, so often referred to in Bible prophecy. At last, the world shall stand divided into two great camps: those who worship the true God, and those who worship the beast of Revelation 13. But what issue leads to this massive division of the world�s people? After describing the fate of the false worshipers in Revelation 14:9-11, John has this to say in the very next verse: �Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.� We see here a startling contrast between those who follow the beast and those who follow the Lamb.

The book of revelations is not clear enough to give enough details on who is the beast. Your faith has been hurling this book around, and at each other, for almost 1800 years, and so far, not a single interpretation has been correct. Revelations is poorly written and too ambiguous to be of any use, and its wording is in the context of early Christian persecution by the Rome. It really is that simple.

By the way, according to your theology, Jesus could also be a goat, not a lamb. The Passover offering can be goat, and the Yom Kippur event also used to use a "goat". So maybe revelations is not about Jesus? How do you know?

buddyman wrote: As you can see the Book of Revelation describes a punishment in the presense of the Lamb. We all know the Lamb if Jesus.

Actually "we" all do not know, since he could be a goat?

Strawman argument, some Muslims only claim that a prophecy is about him that is found in the Torah. What is certain, is that Moses did not ever pray to Jesus or teach in his name.

  We know what Moses preached. Did he pray to Jesus? So you're basically saying that Jesus is not God. That is your arguement, right? By theway, why do you resort to childish name calling? There really isn't any need.

As for Isaiah, the word "virgin", means a woman who has not had sexual intercourse, correct? Where do you get your interpretation from?

By the way, you haven't answered some of my questions either....

Your "argument" makes no sense, you are saying that God gave the 10 commandments, and then everyone wanted to talk to God, but could not, so therefore God made a promise to send a prophet?

Do you know remember this part in Exodus?

This is not a prophecy about Jesus, but an error made by the author of Matthew, which allows us to conclude that the NT is neither "divine" nor "error free".

Isaiah 7:14. What does your version say??? It has nothing to do with Matthew, this is given in the Book of Isaiah.

Lets study Daniel. Lets start with King Nebechadnezzars dream:

1Now in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar ^(A)had dreams; and his spirit was troubled and his ⁽B)sleep left him.

 2Then the king gave orders to call in the ^[a]⁽C)magicians, the conjurers, the sorcerers and the ^[b]Chaldeans to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king.

 3The king said to them, "I ⁽D)had a dream and my spirit is anxious to understand the dream."

 4Then the Chaldeans spoke to the king in ⁽E)Aramaic: "⁽F)O king, live forever! ⁽G)Tell the dream to your servants, and we will declare the interpretation."

 5The king replied to the Chaldeans, "The command from me is firm: if you do not make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you will be ⁽H)torn limb from limb and your houses will be made a rubbish heap.

 6"But if you declare the dream and its interpretation, you will receive from me ⁽I)gifts and a reward and great honor; therefore declare to me the dream and its interpretation."

 7They answered a second time and said, "Let the king ⁽J)tell the dream to his servants, and we will declare the interpretation."

 8The king replied, "I know for certain that you are bargaining for time, inasmuch as you have seen that the command from me is firm,

 9that if you do not make the dream known to me, there is only ⁽K)one decree for you For you have agreed together to speak lying and corrupt words before me until the situation is changed; therefore tell me the dream, that I may ⁽L)know that you can declare to me its interpretation."

 10The Chaldeans answered the king and said, "There is not a man on earth who could declare the matter for the king, inasmuch as no great king or ruler has ever asked anything like this of any ⁽M)magician, conjurer or Chaldean.

 11"Moreover, the thing which the king demands is difficult, and there is no one else who could declare it to the king except ⁽N)gods, whose ⁽O)dwelling place is not with mortal flesh."

 12Because of this the king became ⁽P)indignant and very furious and gave orders to destroy all the wise men of Babylon.

 13So the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain; and they looked for ⁽Q)Daniel and his friends to kill them.

 14Then Daniel replied with discretion and discernment to ⁽R)Arioch, the captain of the king's bodyguard, who had gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon;

 15he said to Arioch, the king's commander, "For what reason is the decree from the king so urgent?" Then Arioch informed Daniel about the matter.

 16So Daniel went in and requested of the king that he would give him time, in order that he might declare the interpretation to the king.

 17Then Daniel went to his house and informed his friends, ⁽S)Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, about the matter,

 18so that they might ⁽T)request compassion from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that Daniel and his friends would not be ⁽U)destroyed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

 20Daniel said,
         "Let the name of God be ⁽W)blessed forever and ever,
         For ⁽X)wisdom and power belong to Him.
    21"It is He who ⁽Y)changes the times and the epochs;
         He ⁽Z)removes kings and establishes kings;
         He gives ⁽AA)wisdom to wise men
         And knowledge to men of understanding.
    22"It is He who ⁽AB)reveals the profound and hidden things;
         ⁽AC)He knows what is in the darkness,
         And the ⁽AD)light dwells with Him.
    23"To You, O ⁽AE)God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise,
         For You have given me ⁽AF)wisdom and power;
         Even now You have made known to me what we ⁽AG)requested of You,
         For You have made known to us the king's matter."

 24Therefore, Daniel went in to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon; he went and spoke to him as follows: "⁽AH)Do not destroy the wise men of Babylon! Take me into the king's presence, and I will declare the interpretation to the king."

 25Then Arioch hurriedly ⁽AI)brought Daniel into the king's presence and spoke to him as follows: "I have found a man among the ⁽AJ)exiles from Judah who can make the interpretation known to the king!"

 26The king said to Daniel, whose name was ⁽AK)Belteshazzar, "Are you able to make known to me the dream which I have seen and its interpretation?"

 27Daniel answered before the king and said, "As for the mystery about which the king has inquired, neither ⁽AL)wise men, conjurers, magicians nor diviners are able to declare it to the king.

 28"However, there is a ⁽AM)God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the ⁽AN)latter days This was your dream and the ⁽AO)visions in your mind while on your bed.

 29"As for you, O king, while on your bed your thoughts turned to what would take place in the future; and ⁽AP)He who reveals mysteries has made known to you what will take place.

 30"But as for me, this mystery has not been revealed to me for any ⁽AQ)wisdom residing in me more than in any other living man, but for the purpose of making the interpretation known to the king, and that you may understand the ⁽AR)thoughts of your mind.

The King's Dream

 32"The ⁽AT)head of that statue was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze,

 33its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.

 34"You continued looking until a ⁽AU)stone was cut out ⁽AV)without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and ⁽AW)crushed them.

 35"Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed all at the same time and became ⁽AX)like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that ⁽AY)not a trace of them was found But the stone that struck the statue became a great ⁽AZ)mountain and filled the whole earth.

36"This was the dream; now we will tell ⁽BA)its interpretation before the king.

 37"You, O king, are the ⁽BB)king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the ⁽BC)power, the strength and the glory;

 38and wherever the sons of men dwell, or the ⁽BD)beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has given them into your hand and has caused you to rule over them all. You are the head of gold

40"Then there will be a ⁽BE)fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces.

44"In the days of those kings the ⁽BF)God of heaven will ⁽BG)set up a ⁽BH)kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will ⁽BI)crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.

 45"Inasmuch as you saw that a ⁽BJ)stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the ⁽BK)great God has made known to the king what ⁽BL)will take place in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy."

buddyman wrote: Strawman argument, some Muslims only claim that a prophecy is about him that is found in the Torah. What is certain, is that Moses did not ever pray to Jesus or teach in his name.   We know what Moses preached. Did he pray to Jesus? So you're basically saying that Jesus is not God. That is your arguement, right?

It is only your theology that has made the odd claim that HaShem was also a man. There is not a single, solid, explicit evidence that even hints at early Hebrew worship of a triune God. So your belief that God is a man is simply your theological belief, but unfounded in Islam or what is left of the early Hebrew religion, what we now call Judaism.

So my argument is that Moses never prayed or taught in the name of Jesus and there is no evidence to say that he did.

By theway, why do you resort to childish name calling? There really isn't any need.

I do not recall any "childish name calling", please point out my insult.

If I have insulted you I apologize.

As for Isaiah, the word "virgin", means a woman who has not had sexual intercourse, correct? Where do you get your interpretation from?

the word used in Isaiah 7 is "almah", and there is strong evidence to support the view that the word simply means young woman, and to say that it must strictly mean "virgin", requires some supposition on part of the apologist.

For the sake of argument, I am allowing "almah" to be strictly interpreted as "virgin". Doing so creates more problems in the end.

By the way, you haven't answered some of my questions either....

what questions? All I have seen from you is a barrage of bible quotes without any proof of their intended use.

I will, insha'Allah, comment on your view of Daniel.

It is only your theology that has made the odd claim that HaShem was also a man. There is not a single, solid, explicit evidence that even hints at early Hebrew worship of a triune God. So your belief that God is a man is simply your theological belief, but unfounded in Islam or what is left of the early Hebrew religion, what we now call Judaism.

Yes there is. Genesis 1:26 for one.

Note from Mod: You are "dumping". You only need to provide one solid example to prove your case, not dump an entire list that has been copied and pasted with vague assertions without any "argument" that proves the verses mean what you assert.

Lets start with the one example above.

�Lord God and His Spirit� are responsible for sending Him on His mission of redemption (Isaiah 48:16, 17 NKJV).

   The names of God reveal attributes of His nature. God has a long-established habit of using various names to describe a person�s character. Jacob earned his name that means �swindler� when he practiced deception to steal his father�s blessing away from his brother Esau (Genesis 27:35, 36). At his conversion, Jacob wrestled with the angel and insisted on the blessing of God. Then his name was changed to �Israel,� which means �a prince with God� (Genesis 32:26�28).
     Likewise, the names for God found in Genesis and elsewhere tell us volumes about our Creator. �And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness� (Genesis 1:26). The Hebrew word here for God is Elohim. It is a plural noun that is used more than 2,700 times in the Old Testament. This means that inspired authors preferred to use Elohim about 10 times more than the singular form �El� when they described God. Even in the Old Testament book of Daniel, we see a picture of the Father and the Son as two separate persons. �I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him� (Daniel 7:13). The Son of man, Jesus, is seen coming before the Ancient of Days�who is, obviously, God the Father.
     The New Testament writings are sprinkled with this concept of one God with three united, fully divine persons. The apostle Paul wrote that there were three divine persons: �There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all� (Ephesians 4:4�6).
     Paul frequently referred to the three separate persons of the Godhead. �The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all� (2 Corinthians 13:14). �How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?� (Hebrews 9:14).
     Revelation opens by introducing the three persons of the Godhead. �From the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever� (Revelation 1:4�6 NKJV).
     In addition, we clearly see three distinct persons at the baptism of Jesus. �And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased� (Matthew 3:16,17).
     If Jesus is the only person in the Godhead, where did the voice come from that declared, �This is my beloved Son�? Did He trisect Himself into a voice from heaven, the dove wafting down through the sky, and His body on the bank of the river? No. This was not simply a clever act of holy smoke and mirrors, but rather a regal reunion revealing the truth of the trinity. And on top of this, it is through the shared authority of these three persons that we are commissioned to baptize. �Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost� (Matthew 28:19).

I do not recall any "childish name calling", please point out my insult.

If I have insulted you I apologize.

I guess its not what you said, its how you said it. You know, such as I learned what I know from Sunday school, or I'm a missionary. But thank you, I accept your apology

I will, insha'Allah, comment on your view of Daniel.

Looking forward to it. Below are links of history of how my interpretation proves it true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

[edit] Identification of the four kingdoms

One view has traditionally been more prevalent among Christian scholars, at least as far back as Hippolytus (including Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther); it has also been supported by some Jewish expositors (including Japet Ibn Ali, Saadia, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra).[4] It is supported by modern scholars such as E. J. Young and Gerhard Pfandl.[5][6] The sequence is as follows:

In essence, the "fall" of the Roman Empire to a contemporary of that age depended a great deal on where they were and their status in the world. On the great villas of the Italian Campagna, the seasons rolled on without a hitch. The local overseer may have been representing an Ostrogoth, then a Lombard duke, then a Christian bishop, but the rhythm of life and the horizons of the imagined world remained the same. Even in the decayed cities of Italy consuls were still elected. In Auvergne, at Clermont, the Gallo-Roman poet and diplomat Sidonius Apollinaris, bishop of Clermont, realized that the local "fall of Rome" came in 475, with the fall of the city to the Visigoth Euric. In the north of Gaul, a Roman kingdom existed for some years and the Franks had their links to the Roman administration and military as well. In Hispania the last Arian Visigothic king Liuvigild considered himself the heir of Rome. Hispania Baetica was still essentially Roman when the Moors came in 711, but in the northwest, the invasion of the Suevi broke the last frail links with Roman culture in 409. In Aquitania and Provence, cities like Arles were not abandoned, but Roman culture in Britain collapsed in waves of violence after the last legions evacuated: the final legionary probably left Britain in 409.

I will debate the book of Daniel with you, as long as you adhere to common rules of this forum and debate.

1) I am not here to debate your favorite websites. Do not send me long winded copy and pastes as replies to my points and discussion.

2) Do not allow long winded copy and pastes to represent your views. You must be able to debate the material on your own, of course you can use sources, but the bulk of your reply should be your own words.

3) Do not presuppose what I may or may not think (as you have done below) and then dump various links to sites and simply assert that they prove your views correct. In other words, do not "dump" long winded posts with links trying to "cover all your bases" before I have even stated anything. I refuse to go through each of your links, I am having a discussion with you, not your links.

4) if you assert something, then back it up ("backing something up" or "arguing" does not include the act of copying and pasting and leaving various links with your "word" that they are proof of what you are saying).

5) The book of Daniel is probably the most difficult book in the bible to understand. If I debate this book (Daniel) with you, and take the time to gather my notes and info from my previous studies (some going back before I converted to Islam), then I will demand that you take the time to reply directly to my points. If I take the time to show you what I have learned and know, then I demand you take the time to reply. For the next few weeks, I will have to limit my replies to a thread on Daniel to about once a week, maybe twice a week. I do not want to come back to the thread a week later and find tons of copy and paste dumping. I will edit it (by deleting).

If you agree to these rules, then why don't you start and argue for your interpretation of the book of Daniel. This means you begin by stating the prophecy (in general terms) and its fulfillment and then arguing that the book of Daniel indeed is as you say it is.

(do not dump tons of bible verses with about 10 words by you that simply "assert" their meaning)

The reason I will not make a casual or cursory discussion with you is because, in case you are unaware, the book of Daniel is extremely complicated and your claim will have to have a discussion on exegesis of the chapter (especially the key words missionaries point to for their claim that Jesus fulfiulled the prophecy), and the use of other books in the bible to provide context and history.

If you are unaware of the depth I am talking about, then I say that you truly do not understand the book of Daniel and you are only mimmicking or regurgitating what has been fed to you. Truthfully, I have never met a Christian yet who can fully explain and show how Daniel and their prophecy claim works (in detail). They have always appealed to some pastor they know, some book they read, or some website.

The ball is in your court!

buddyman wrote: I will, insha'Allah, comment on your view of Daniel. Looking forward to it. Below are links of history of how my interpretation proves it true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon [edit] Identification of the four kingdoms Scholars have proposed two alternative views regarding the identification of the four kingdoms in Daniel 2. One view has traditionally been more prevalent among Christian scholars, at least as far back as Hippolytus (including Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther); it has also been supported by some Jewish expositors (including Japet Ibn Ali, Saadia, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra).[4] It is supported by modern scholars such as E. J. Young and Gerhard Pfandl.[5][6] The sequence is as follows: Babylon Medo-Persia Greece Rome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar%27s_statue_vision_in_Daniel_2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar%27s_statue_visio n_in_Daniel_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_I_of_Persia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_I_of_Persia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerxes_the_Great - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerxes_the_Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_great - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_dynasty - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_dynasty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonid_dynasty - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonid_dynasty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire In essence, the "fall" of the Roman Empire to a contemporary of that age depended a great deal on where they were and their status in the world. On the great villas of the Italian Campagna, the seasons rolled on without a hitch. The local overseer may have been representing an Ostrogoth, then a Lombard duke, then a Christian bishop, but the rhythm of life and the horizons of the imagined world remained the same. Even in the decayed cities of Italy consuls were still elected. In Auvergne, at Clermont, the Gallo-Roman poet and diplomat Sidonius Apollinaris, bishop of Clermont, realized that the local "fall of Rome" came in 475, with the fall of the city to the Visigoth Euric. In the north of Gaul, a Roman kingdom existed for some years and the Franks had their links to the Roman administration and military as well. In Hispania the last Arian Visigothic king Liuvigild considered himself the heir of Rome. Hispania Baetica was still essentially Roman when the Moors came in 711, but in the northwest, the invasion of the Suevi broke the last frail links with Roman culture in 409. In Aquitania and Provence, cities like Arles were not abandoned, but Roman culture in Britain collapsed in waves of violence after the last legions evacuated: the final legionary probably left Britain in 409.   I'm not going to post everything but you get the gist

Hi Andalus,

I will debate with you also, I don't care if you cut and paste. I'm at work, I can't type everything out.

(do not dump tons of bible verses with about 10 words by you that simply "assert" their meaning)

Don't dump Bible verses??? I only have the Bible, and I don't care about the Quran..

The reason I will not make a casual or cursory discussion with you is because, in case you are unaware, the book of Daniel is extremely complicated and your claim will have to have a discussion on exegesis of the chapter (especially the key words missionaries point to for their claim that Jesus fulfiulled the prophecy), and the use of other books in the bible to provide context and history.

The Reason you WILL NOT? Sounds like a cop out to me. If you have proof of your interpretation of Daniel, you should send it. If I don't know, I will research. Very simple.

If you are unaware of the depth I am talking about, then I say that you truly do not understand the book of Daniel and you are only mimmicking or regurgitating what has been fed to you. Truthfully, I have never met a Christian yet who can fully explain and show how Daniel and their prophecy claim works (in detail). They have always appealed to some pastor they know, some book they read, or some website.

When someone explains Daniel to you, and has History to proove it, then they obviously have a valid interpretation. It is a bit arogant of you to assume otherwise.

Looking forward to your post.

buddyman wrote: Hi Andalus, I will debate with you also, I don't care if you cut and paste. I'm at work, I can't type everything out.

You should care if I do a lot of cutting and pasting. Do you want to discuss this topic with me or websites that disagree with you? If you do not have time to debate the material, then perhaps you do not have the time right now. If we both cut and paste material from other authers then what good will come of the exchange? If two people spout off links and websites and copy and paste material at each other, then it would not be a discussion.

Furthermore, I am not asking you to debate while you are at work, I was simply stating that I would be happy to debate Daniel with you (you initiated the topic) as long as it is a real discussion and not me discussing and you throwing websites and links at me.

(do not dump tons of bible verses with about 10 words by you that simply "assert" their meaning) Don't dump Bible verses??? I only have the Bible, and I don't care about the Quran..

I did not state anything about the Quran...duh! In fact, I never asked you to quote the Quran.

I asked you to not "dump", which pertains to producing a huge pasted contribution with tons of biblical verses, and then about 10 words from you stating something along the lines (just an example), "as you can see, Jesus is god and this was fulfilled...", or something along the lines of "this is clearly.......". If biblical verses were so clear, then everyone would be Christians, even Jews who use your same scriptures and have completely opposing views.

Furthermore, when you dump large quantities of biblical verses and about 10 words of your own that assert your own opinion about them, I am forced to have to go through all of your verses or agree with you (not likely) or ignore it and go on, leaving your post "unrefuted". I am not accusing you of doing something intentionally wrong, but dumping is a rhetorical trick used by many people to bog threads down and bog down the ability of anyone to make reasonable reply. And the "dumper" has it easy, they just keep spamming the thread and assert and assert and kick back and let everyone else do all the work.

The reason I will not make a casual or cursory discussion with you is because, in case you are unaware, the book of Daniel is extremely complicated and your claim will have to have a discussion on exegesis of the chapter (especially the key words missionaries point to for their claim that Jesus fulfiulled the prophecy), and the use of other books in the bible to provide context and history. The Reason you WILL NOT? Sounds like a cop out to me. If you have proof of your interpretation of Daniel, you should send it. If I don't know, I will research. Very simple.

The reason will "not" what?

Cop out?  I am not the one dragging my feet to begin this discussion. It sounds like you rely waaay to much on other people's work and you have no real clue as to why you believe what you believe. Your response tells me that you desire a very "cursory", "superficial", and slightly "juvenile" discussion which will not allow anyone to learn the truth or come to a rational conclusion because

1) the topic requires more than exchaging links, and websites, and copy and pastes; and

2) I am beginning to think that you are unable to debate the material, keep in mind that a debate does not include "copy and pasting", "dumping volumes of biblical verses with about 10 words to assert some unproven meaning", throwing links at each other, etc, etc. I am beyond this, and I know enough about Daniel to understand that no real discussion will take place if we substitute such a juvenile approach to such a complicated book.

If you are unaware of the depth I am talking about, then I say that you truly do not understand the book of Daniel and you are only mimmicking or regurgitating what has been fed to you. Truthfully, I have never met a Christian yet who can fully explain and show how Daniel and their prophecy claim works (in detail). They have always appealed to some pastor they know, some book they read, or some website. When someone explains Daniel to you, and has History to proove it, then they obviously have a valid interpretation. It is a bit arogant of you to assume otherwise. Looking forward to your post.

I have not assumed otherwise, in fact, I am puzzled as to how you took such an inference from what I stated. I simply commented on the complexity of the book and that I have yet to meet a Christian who has been able to show me, in their own understanding, how the prophecy works and was fulfilled with the use of weeks of years and times. Thats all I said.

I have not assumed otherwise, in fact, I am puzzled as to how you took such an inference from what I stated. I simply commented on the complexity of the book and that I have yet to meet a Christian who has been able to show me, in their own understanding, how the prophecy works and was fulfilled with the use of weeks of years and times. Thats all I said.

 I did give you some. Did you actually read what I posted?

Cop out?  I am not the one dragging my feet to begin this discussion. It sounds like you rely waaay to much on other people's work and you have no real clue as to why you believe what you believe. Your response tells me that you desire a very "cursory", "superficial", and slightly "juvenile" discussion which will not allow anyone to learn the truth or come to a rational conclusion because

1) the topic requires more than exchaging links, and websites, and copy and pastes; and

2) I am beginning to think that you are unable to debate the material, keep in mind that a debate does not include "copy and pasting", "dumping volumes of biblical verses with about 10 words to assert some unproven meaning", throwing links at each other, etc, etc. I am beyond this, and I know enough about Daniel to understand that no real discussion will take place if we substitute such a juvenile approach to such a complicated book.

 Andalus,

Are you telling me that everything you learned was all on your own? You didn't get help from anyone?

You should care if I do a lot of cutting and pasting. Do you want to discuss this topic with me or websites that disagree with you? If you do not have time to debate the material, then perhaps you do not have the time right now. If we both cut and paste material from other authers then what good will come of the exchange? If two people spout off links and websites and copy and paste material at each other, then it would not be a discussion.

 I don't care. Now, I have the time to read what you post. You either choose to post and discuss Daniel or you don't. Enough arguing.

 I would ask Buddyman whether Daniel is a prophet of God or not. That will be an important knowledge concerning this discussion.

minuteman wrote:    I would ask Buddyman whether Daniel is a prophet of God or not. That will be an important knowledge concerning this discussion.

Minuteman,

Read the beginning of this thread and decide for yourself. DAniel is a prophet of the Old Testament.

buddyman wrote: Cop out?  I am not the one dragging my feet to begin this discussion. It sounds like you rely waaay to much on other people's work and you have no real clue as to why you believe what you believe. Your response tells me that you desire a very "cursory", "superficial", and slightly "juvenile" discussion which will not allow anyone to learn the truth or come to a rational conclusion because 1) the topic requires more than exchaging links, and websites, and copy and pastes; and 2) I am beginning to think that you are unable to debate the material, keep in mind that a debate does not include "copy and pasting", "dumping volumes of biblical verses with about 10 words to assert some unproven meaning", throwing links at each other, etc, etc. I am beyond this, and I know enough about Daniel to understand that no real discussion will take place if we substitute such a juvenile approach to such a complicated book.    Andalus, Are you telling me that everything you learned was all on your own? You didn't get help from anyone?

No. I am telling you that I am not here to debate favorite websites or links or other authors who are not here. Your question assumes that we are no more than simple automotans that must paste someone elses work to represent our own views because we are unable to know it well enough for a discussion. The deal is this: This is a discussion forum.

regards

buddyman wrote: You should care if I do a lot of cutting and pasting. Do you want to discuss this topic with me or websites that disagree with you? If you do not have time to debate the material, then perhaps you do not have the time right now. If we both cut and paste material from other authers then what good will come of the exchange? If two people spout off links and websites and copy and paste material at each other, then it would not be a discussion.  I don't care. Now, I have the time to read what you post. You either choose to post and discuss Daniel or you don't. Enough arguing.

As long as you abide by my requested guidelines we will be fine. Thanks.

Here is my reply to something you posted earlier. I thought it would be a good start.

buddyman wrote: No truth is more clearly taught in the Bible than that God by His Holy Spirit especially directs His servants on earth in the great movements for the carrying forward of the work of salvation. Men are instruments in the hand of God, employed by Him to accomplish His purposes of grace and mercy. Each has his part to act; to each is granted a measure of light, adapted to the necessities of his time, and sufficient to enable him to perform the work which God has given him to do. But no man, however honored of Heaven, has ever attained to a full understanding of the great plan of redemption, or even to a perfect appreciation of the divine purpose in the work for his own time. Men do not fully understand what God would accomplish by the work which He gives them to do; they do not comprehend, in all its bearings, the message which they utter in His name. "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." "I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done." Job 11:7; Isaiah 55:8, 9; 46:9, 10. Even the prophets who were favored with the special illumination of the Spirit did not fully comprehend the import of the revelations committed to them. The meaning was to be unfolded from age to age, as the people of God should need the instruction therein contained. Peter, writing of the salvation brought to light through the gospel, says: Of this salvation "the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister." 1 Peter 1:10-12. Yet while it was not given to the prophets to understand fully the things revealed to them, they earnestly sought to obtain all the light which God had been pleased to make manifest. They "inquired and searched diligently," "searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify." What a lesson to the people of God in the Christian age, for whose benefit these prophecies were given to His servants! "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister." Witness those holy men of God as they "inquired and searched diligently" concerning revelations given them for generations that were yet unborn. Contrast their holy zeal with the listless unconcern with which the favored ones of later ages treat this gift of Heaven. What a rebuke to the ease-loving, world-loving indifference which is content to declare that the prophecies cannot be understood! Though the finite minds of men are inadequate to enter into the counsels of the Infinite One, or to understand fully the working out of His purposes, yet often it is because of some error or neglect on their own part that they so dimly comprehend the messages of Heaven. Not infrequently the minds of the people, and even of God's servants, are so blinded by human opinions, the traditions and false teaching of men, that they are able only partially to grasp the great things which He has revealed in His word. Thus it was with the disciples of Christ, even when the Saviour was with them in person. Their minds had become imbued with the popular conception of the Messiah as a temporal prince, who was to exalt Israel to the throne of the universal empire, and they could not understand the meaning of His words foretelling His sufferings and death. Christ Himself had sent them forth with the message: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15. That message was based on the prophecy of Daniel 9. The sixty-nine weeks were declared by the angel to extend to "the Messiah the Prince," and with high hopes and joyful anticipations the disciples looked forward to the establishment of Messiah's kingdom at Jerusalem to rule over the whole earth. They preached the message which Christ had committed to them, though they themselves misapprehended its meaning. While their announcement was founded on Daniel 9:25, they did not see, in the next verse of the same chapter, that Messiah was to be cut off. From their very birth their hearts had been set upon the anticipated glory of an earthly empire, and this blinded their understanding alike to the specifications of the prophecy and to the words of Christ. 70 weeks = 490 years 457 BC - Decree to rebuild Jerusalem (69 weeks or 483 years) the last week or 7 years = Jesus baptized on AD27 -right on time in the middle of the week he is cut down - Jesus crucified AD31 His ministry was for 3 1/2 years the remaining 3 1/2 years the message went out to the gentiles. AD34 Stephen was stoned. They performed their duty in presenting to the Jewish nation the invitation of mercy, and then, at the very time when they expected to see their Lord ascend the throne of David, they beheld Him seized as a malefactor, scourged, derided, and condemned, and lifted up on the cross of Calvary. What despair and anguish wrung the hearts of those disciples during the days while their Lord was sleeping in the tomb! Christ had come at the exact time and in the manner foretold by prophecy. The testimony of Scripture had been fulfilled in every detail of His ministry. He had preached the message of salvation, and "His word was with power." The hearts of His hearers had witnessed that it was of Heaven. The word and the Spirit of God attested the divine commission of His Son. After His resurrection Jesus appeared to His disciples on the way to Emmaus, and, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." Luke 24:27. The hearts of the disciples were stirred. Faith was kindled. They were "begotten again into a lively hope" even before Jesus revealed Himself to them. It was His purpose to enlighten their understanding and to fasten their faith upon the "sure word of prophecy." He wished the truth to take firm root in their minds, not merely because it was supported by His personal testimony, but because of the unquestionable evidence presented by the symbols and shadows of the typical law, and by the prophecies of the Old Testament. It was needful for the followers of Christ to have an intelligent faith, not only in their own behalf, but that they might carry the knowledge of Christ to the world. And as the very first step in imparting this knowledge, Jesus directed the disciples to "Moses and all the prophets." Such was the testimony given by the risen Saviour to the value and importance of the Old Testament Scriptures

It is unfortunate that you have implied in your last reply to me that this older contribution represents a "beginning" to your discussion on the book of Daniel. Do not take this personally, nor am I in any way insulting you, but I must say that this copy and pasted contribution is intended for an audience that already believes, or who has lost conviction and needs to be brought back to the flock. This piece is bereft of any serious argument and leaves points that beg to be argued. Keep in mind that we are not looking for your beliefs as a Christian, what we are looking for is evidence for your belief which you say is the truth. I will skip the theological diatribe and focus on the only relevant portion of the entire piece.

70 weeks = 490 years 457 BC - Decree to rebuild Jerusalem (69 weeks or 483 years) the last week or 7 years = Jesus baptized on AD27 -right on time in the middle of the week he is cut down - Jesus crucified AD31 His ministry was for 3 1/2 years the remaining 3 1/2 years the message went out to the gentiles. AD34 Stephen was stoned.

How do you derive 70 weeks? 490 years? The year 457 as a decree to rebuild Jerusalem?

What is 483 years?

How do you arrive at Jesus being crucified at 31 CE? How do you get from 457 BCE to 31 CE?

Your piece presents more questions and mysteries than answers. Do not provide me with links and volumes of material you copied and pasted. Please explain to me the gaps that were left in this presentation. Thanks

It is unfortunate that you have implied in your last reply to me that this older contribution represents a "beginning" to your discussion on the book of Daniel. Do not take this personally, nor am I in any way insulting you, but I must say that this copy and pasted contribution is intended for an audience that already believes, or who has lost conviction and needs to be brought back to the flock. This piece is bereft of any serious argument and leaves points that beg to be argued. Keep in mind that we are not looking for your beliefs as a Christian, what we are looking for is evidence for your belief which you say is the truth. I will skip the theological diatribe and focus on the only relevant portion of the entire piece.

  HISTORY is my evidence Andalus. That's what I've been trying to tell you. I honestly don't believe that my interpretation of Daniel Chapter has ANY specific audience. You should read it, research it and then let me know your interpretation.

buddyman wrote: It is unfortunate that you have implied in your last reply to me that this older contribution represents a "beginning" to your discussion on the book of Daniel. Do not take this personally, nor am I in any way insulting you, but I must say that this copy and pasted contribution is intended for an audience that already believes, or who has lost conviction and needs to be brought back to the flock. This piece is bereft of any serious argument and leaves points that beg to be argued. Keep in mind that we are not looking for your beliefs as a Christian, what we are looking for is evidence for your belief which you say is the truth. I will skip the theological diatribe and focus on the only relevant portion of the entire piece.     HISTORY is my evidence Andalus.

Then it should not be such a difficult thing for me to ask you to prove the assertion in your pasted material? You are the one who claimed that certain dates was proof for your ideas of Daniel. I only sought your explanation of how you derived the dates and time periods.

Please, do show us how history fits into your theory of Daniel!

That's what I've been trying to tell you. I honestly don't believe that my interpretation of Daniel Chapter has ANY specific audience.

I simply respond with: Who cares!

I am only asking you to prove your claims.

You should read it, research it and then let me know your interpretation.

How can I research it when you are unable to prove/verify/demonstrate or show relevance with any of the claims you made (concerning dates and years,etc,etc). You are completely sweeping your claims under the table and "passing" the buck, now I am supposed to read Daniel and figure out how your copy and pasted material derived various dates and times? Why do you demand of me something you are unwilling, or unable, to show upon request? Keep in mind, it was you who made the claim and made an asserted.

Perhaps the truth is, you do not have the knowledge to explain your claims. Buddy, if you are unable to provide even a basic explanation to one of the "key evidences" for your beliefs, if you simply leave all understanding to some pastor or some author, then intellectual integrity demands that you investigate your beliefs. Do not be affraid, be affirmed. If you have the truth, then no amount of investigation will change it. But you should have a solid grasp of your "key evidences".

I am sorry that you are unable to provide an exchange on Daniel.

regards 

Hi

I today sent a post in the thread " False Prophets" which is relevant here also. I copy/paste my post hereunder:

I have gone through the posts and would like to say that the original poster is a Christian and uless we define the Prophets and have criteria for a truthful prophet and criteria of a false prophet we cannot discern false prophet from a true prophet.

To start with I would quote three passages from OTBible:

"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NIV).

Another test for determining false prophets in the Torah is found in Deuteronomy 18:20-22. The text is as follows:

"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 18:20-22 NIV).

The penalty for false prophecy, according to the biblical context, is capital punishment (per Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

Andalus wrote: buddyman wrote: It is unfortunate that you have implied in your last reply to me that this older contribution represents a "beginning" to your discussion on the book of Daniel. Do not take this personally, nor am I in any way insulting you, but I must say that this copy and pasted contribution is intended for an audience that already believes, or who has lost conviction and needs to be brought back to the flock. This piece is bereft of any serious argument and leaves points that beg to be argued. Keep in mind that we are not looking for your beliefs as a Christian, what we are looking for is evidence for your belief which you say is the truth. I will skip the theological diatribe and focus on the only relevant portion of the entire piece.     HISTORY is my evidence Andalus. Then it should not be such a difficult thing for me to ask you to prove the assertion in your pasted material? You are the one who claimed that certain dates was proof for your ideas of Daniel. I only sought your explanation of how you derived the dates and time periods. Please, do show us how history fits into your theory of Daniel!   That's what I've been trying to tell you. I honestly don't believe that my interpretation of Daniel Chapter has ANY specific audience. I simply respond with: Who cares! I am only asking you to prove your claims.  You should read it, research it and then let me know your interpretation. How can I research it when you are unable to prove/verify/demonstrate or show relevance with any of the claims you made (concerning dates and years,etc,etc). You are completely sweeping your claims under the table and "passing" the buck, now I am supposed to read Daniel and figure out how your copy and pasted material derived various dates and times? Why do you demand of me something you are unwilling, or unable, to show upon request? Keep in mind, it was you who made the claim and made an asserted. Perhaps the truth is, you do not have the knowledge to explain your claims. Buddy, if you are unable to provide even a basic explanation to one of the "key evidences" for your beliefs, if you simply leave all understanding to some pastor or some author, then intellectual integrity demands that you investigate your beliefs. Do not be affraid, be affirmed. If you have the truth, then no amount of investigation will change it. But you should have a solid grasp of your "key evidences". I am sorry that you are unable to provide an exchange on Daniel. regards

Just as a little reminder, you told me you read the Book of Daniel. If you did, you could easily give me your interpretation

buddyman wrote: Andalus wrote: buddyman wrote: It is unfortunate that you have implied in your last reply to me that this older contribution represents a "beginning" to your discussion on the book of Daniel. Do not take this personally, nor am I in any way insulting you, but I must say that this copy and pasted contribution is intended for an audience that already believes, or who has lost conviction and needs to be brought back to the flock. This piece is bereft of any serious argument and leaves points that beg to be argued. Keep in mind that we are not looking for your beliefs as a Christian, what we are looking for is evidence for your belief which you say is the truth. I will skip the theological diatribe and focus on the only relevant portion of the entire piece.     HISTORY is my evidence Andalus. Then it should not be such a difficult thing for me to ask you to prove the assertion in your pasted material? You are the one who claimed that certain dates was proof for your ideas of Daniel. I only sought your explanation of how you derived the dates and time periods. Please, do show us how history fits into your theory of Daniel!   That's what I've been trying to tell you. I honestly don't believe that my interpretation of Daniel Chapter has ANY specific audience. I simply respond with: Who cares! I am only asking you to prove your claims.  You should read it, research it and then let me know your interpretation. How can I research it when you are unable to prove/verify/demonstrate or show relevance with any of the claims you made (concerning dates and years,etc,etc). You are completely sweeping your claims under the table and "passing" the buck, now I am supposed to read Daniel and figure out how your copy and pasted material derived various dates and times? Why do you demand of me something you are unwilling, or unable, to show upon request? Keep in mind, it was you who made the claim and made an asserted. Perhaps the truth is, you do not have the knowledge to explain your claims. Buddy, if you are unable to provide even a basic explanation to one of the "key evidences" for your beliefs, if you simply leave all understanding to some pastor or some author, then intellectual integrity demands that you investigate your beliefs. Do not be affraid, be affirmed. If you have the truth, then no amount of investigation will change it. But you should have a solid grasp of your "key evidences". I am sorry that you are unable to provide an exchange on Daniel. regards    Just as a little reminder, you told me you read the Book of Daniel. If you did, you could easily give me your interpretation

Perhaps you need a "little reminder" that you made a claim about the book of Daniel and have not shown any kind of proof or argument or even an explanation of your "claim" about Daniel. You have not moved beyond a simple "assertion". You made the claim, now prove your claim. If all you feel it takes to make a claim true is an assertion, then I could just say, "well.....no the book does not mean that, it means .....(and I can add anything in that disagrees with you).

Will you accept that as evidence? no. So please do not ask me to accept something you would not accept.

 It so happens some time that the people try to ascribe certain meanings to their faith which is not supported by the their holy book. In that way they try to be an advocate of something which is not in the book. That means they are cleverer than the book. The book is quiet and does not make any claim but the people try to make the claim being wiser than their own book.

 Every claim must be supported by the book and the reasons for the claim should also be given from the original book. Not from one self.

That applies to all religions and their books, The Quran, The Bible OT and NT, etc.

minuteman wrote:    It so happens some time that the people try to ascribe certain meanings to their faith which is not supported by the their holy book. In that way they try to be an advocate of something which is not in the book. That means they are cleverer than the book. The book is quiet and does not make any claim but the people try to make the claim being wiser than their own book.  Every claim must be supported by the book and the reasons for the claim should also be given from the original book. Not from one self. That applies to all religions and their books, The Quran, The Bible OT and NT, etc.

Indeed brother, those are wise words...and a lot of meaning with few of them (words).  

 I wanted to present a few words on the topic. A prophet is a chosen man of God to whom Allah reveals some message (news of the unseen). This message is sometime in spoken words, sometime in written words shown in a dream. That is called Wahi (revelation). The quality and quantity of the Wahi of a prophet is always  high. It is not necessary for a prophet to bring any new law (Shariyat). In special cases, the spoken words forms the part of a book of law. That type of Wahi has been stopped and no new person will come with any new law.

But other forms of Wahi are still allowed. They may contain good or bad news only. The prophet s.a.w.s. had said," There is nothing left pf the Nabuwwat except the Mubashshirat." The Sahabah asked Huzoor, "What is meant by Mubashshirat?"

The prophet said " Visions", meaning true dreams only.

minuteman wrote:    I wanted to present a few words on the topic. A prophet is a chosen man of God to whom Allah reveals some message (news of the unseen). This message is sometime in spoken words, sometime in written words shown in a dream. That is called Wahi (revelation). The quality and quantity of the Wahi of a prophet is always  high. It is not necessary for a prophet to bring any new law (Shariyat). In special cases, the spoken words forms the part of a book of law. That type of Wahi has been stopped and no new person will come with any new law. But other forms of Wahi are still allowed. They may contain good or bad news only. The prophet s.a.w.s. had said," There is nothing left pf the Nabuwwat except the Mubashshirat." The Sahabah asked Huzoor, "What is meant by Mubashshirat?" The prophet said " Visions", meaning true dreams only.

The Bible tells us what a prophet is. That is how we can distinguish from a false prophet, which is why I posted what I did previously.

 O.K. Good. Please let us know what bible says about what prophet is. Thanks. Please be accurate and tell it from the Bible OT only with proper reference so that we may also check it up.

Minuteman,

I did. Read the first few pages of this thread:-)

Andulus,

Answers to you questions.

How do you derive 70 weeks? 490 years?

As Imentioned before. We are told, that 1 week is equal to 7 years. There are 7 days in the week. 1 day equals one year. So we then take 7 and times that by 70 and get 490 years (the prophecy is 70 weeks wich is equal to 490 years)

The year 457 as a decree to rebuild Jerusalem?

We get this date because it's the last date at which the decree was given to rebuild the temple (Artaxerxes gave the last decree and Cyprus made it happen)

What is 483 years?

This is when the prophecy gets to the 69th week. This is from the time the decree was given until the temple was rebuilt.

How do you arrive at Jesus being crucified at 31 CE? How do you get from 457 BCE to 31 CE?

From the time the decree was given in 457 BC to when the temple was built the prophecy states that Messiah the Prince. How do we get to the date 31? We are toldin the Bible who was in power during those times and then we just look at history. For example, we know that Pontius Pilate was a Roman governor during Jesus's time.

Please don't forget to read the Book of Daniel. Let me know if you've read any part of it yet and then we can discuss.

 O.K. Buddyman, I have read your first post. It is telling a lot about a true prophet and false prophet but in a vague way. I find the reply by Andalus (of 04 July) the best one for your post. According to your fromula, even Moses cannot be a prophet because he never taught about Jesus. Please see that reply by Andalus again below:

An extremely cursory approach to such an important idea.

It is very difficult to follow your work, as you try and mix the NT with the OT, and you bury unproven assumptions in your work.

As an example, in your second test, you stated:

This is Christian theological doctrine, not a "truth". You cannot expect me, or any non Christian, to believe that a prophet must agree with 1 John? If everyone held this belief as true, then we would be Christians. My reply would be, "Gee, I did not read 1 John! What can I say? I am astounded Buddy! See you at church on sunday!". 

1) I reject 1 John and ask you to authenticate this as having an authority from Jesus(or from any author that knew Jesus). You have an unproven, buried assumption about the validty of 1 John, and Christian doctrine.

2) I do not believe Jesus was divine, which is yet another assumption you buried in this theological hyperbole.

I say that any man who claims Jesus, or anything of this world is God, is false.

Moses did not teach of Jesus, and never prayed to him.

I reserve my right to later add to what is said above. But the reply by Andalus should be an eye opener for the Buddyman. I am surprised that Buddyman has not replied to all those points.

minuteman wrote:    O.K. Buddyman, I have read your first post. It is telling a lot about a true prophet and false prophet but in a vague way. I find the reply by Andalus (of 04 July) the best one for your post. According to your fromula, even Moses cannot be a prophet because he never taught about Jesus. Please see that reply by Andalus again below:   An extremely cursory approach to such an important idea. It is very difficult to follow your work, as you try and mix the NT with the OT, and you bury unproven assumptions in your work. As an example, in your second test, you stated: Quote: What is the second test of a prophet? 1 John 4:2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. A prophet of God must acknowledge and teach the truth about Jesus Christ--that He was God in human form. True prophets must also exalt Jesus, not themselves. Most false prophets seek to draw attention away from God's Word and to their own ideas. This is Christian theological doctrine, not a "truth". You cannot expect me, or any non Christian, to believe that a prophet must agree with 1 John? If everyone held this belief as true, then we would be Christians. My reply would be, "Gee, I did not read 1 John! What can I say? I am astounded Buddy! See you at church on sunday!".  1) I reject 1 John and ask you to authenticate this as having an authority from Jesus(or from any author that knew Jesus). You have an unproven, buried assumption about the validty of 1 John, and Christian doctrine. 2) I do not believe Jesus was divine, which is yet another assumption you buried in this theological hyperbole. I say that any man who claims Jesus, or anything of this world is God, is false. Moses did not teach of Jesus, and never prayed to him. I reserve my right to later add to what is said above. But the reply by Andalus should be an eye opener for the Buddyman. I am surprised that Buddyman has not replied to all those points.

Why would you not use the OT and the NT? That makes no sense. Obviously throughout time God has told us what a true prophet is. Not really that hard, you just have to read the Bible including the OT and you will see.

 Again you have not discussed the reply by Andalus. I may use the OT and NT and the Quran. There is no harm. I have the Quran and you have the OT and NT. OT and NT will suit you most because you believe in them.

Please note that the most important thing for a prophet is to prophesize. If some one does not prophesy then he cannot be a prophet of God. We will again take note of all you items mentioned in your formula of the true prophets. Later. In the meantime, please read carefulkly the reply by Andalus and try to comment because I have given my agreement to those points.

minuteman wrote:    Again you have not discussed the reply by Andalus. I may use the OT and NT and the Quran. There is no harm. I have the Quran and you have the OT and NT. OT and NT will suit you most because you believe in them. Please note that the most important thing for a prophet is to prophesize. If some one does not prophesy then he cannot be a prophet of God. We will again take note of all you items mentioned in your formula of the true prophets. Later. In the meantime, please read carefulkly the reply by Andalus and try to comment because I have given my agreement to those points.

I don't know why you care so much about my conversation with Andulus but I believe I have answered his questions. The Bible tells us what a prophet is, in the OT and in the NT. So far the prophets of the Bible are true because their prphecies were fullfilled.

 Very good. Could you tell me who is a prophet according to your belief?? Is Adam a prophet? Is Noah a prophet? Is Abraham a prophet? Is Moses a prophet?? Is Jonas a prophet? Is John the Baptist a prophet? Please include some more, as much as you know. Thanks.

minuteman wrote:    Very good. Could you tell me who is a prophet according to your belief?? Is Adam a prophet? Is Noah a prophet? Is Abraham a prophet? Is Moses a prophet?? Is Jonas a prophet? Is John the Baptist a prophet? Please include some more, as much as you know. Thanks.

Did I not give you the information already? You ask what is a prophet, I tell you, to read what I orginally posted. But I guess you want actual names..lol! I suggest you read the OT & NT. Remember, there are true prophets of God and False prophets - you should know what the destinction is from my original post.

buddyman wrote: Andulus, Answers to you questions.   How do you derive 70 weeks? 490 years?   As Imentioned before. We are told, that 1 week is equal to 7 years. There are 7 days in the week. 1 day equals one year. So we then take 7 and times that by 70 and get 490 years (the prophecy is 70 weeks wich is equal to 490 years)

You are referring to 9:24:

Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.

The year 457 as a decree to rebuild Jerusalem?   We get this date because it's the last date at which the decree was given to rebuild the temple (Artaxerxes gave the last decree and Cyprus made it happen)

I am still puzzled as to how you came to your date. You have a bad habit of just "asserting" your beliefs as if they are "facts" that everyone accepts and knows.

You need to show how you have come to a 457 date? You are "handwaving" your conclusions and I will briefly demonstrate:

Nehemiah 2:1-8 suggest that the date is 445 BCE when you take the notion of the month of Nissan into account and adjust it to our calender system.

Ezra suggests that the decree to build the temple, as opposed to the city, was 457 by Artaxerxes 7:11-28

Cyrus made a decree to build the temple, as opposed to the city, approximately 538 BCE (2 chronicles 36).

Buddyman, you always "over simplify" the proof of your claims.  

What is 483 years?   This is when the prophecy gets to the 69th week. This is from the time the decree was given until the temple was rebuilt.

You still need to validate your "decree date".

You need to show from where in Daniel 9 you deduced this.

How do you arrive at Jesus being crucified at 31 CE? How do you get from 457 BCE to 31 CE?   From the time the decree was given in 457 BC to when the temple was built the prophecy states that Messiah the Prince. How do we get to the date 31? We are toldin the Bible who was in power during those times and then we just look at history. For example, we know that Pontius Pilate was a Roman governor during Jesus's time.

This is another "handwaving" job. So ask me how I know your faith is wrong? Well Buddyman, that is easy, we know from history and the bible itself and archeology. Ok?

Of course not. The last passover of Jesus would have place the year at 32 CE. Since the "exact" date is dispited even aomgst your own group, you need to establish the year he was "allegedly" killed.

Please don't forget to read the Book of Daniel. Let me know if you've read any part of it yet and then we can discuss.

buddyman wrote: minuteman wrote:    I wanted to present a few words on the topic. A prophet is a chosen man of God to whom Allah reveals some message (news of the unseen). This message is sometime in spoken words, sometime in written words shown in a dream. That is called Wahi (revelation). The quality and quantity of the Wahi of a prophet is always  high. It is not necessary for a prophet to bring any new law (Shariyat). In special cases, the spoken words forms the part of a book of law. That type of Wahi has been stopped and no new person will come with any new law. But other forms of Wahi are still allowed. They may contain good or bad news only. The prophet s.a.w.s. had said," There is nothing left pf the Nabuwwat except the Mubashshirat." The Sahabah asked Huzoor, "What is meant by Mubashshirat?" The prophet said " Visions", meaning true dreams only. The Bible tells us what a prophet is. That is how we can distinguish from a false prophet, which is why I posted what I did previously.

You gave your own cursory interpretation of the bible's definition. Jews use your OT, and they do not believe that a man must teach in the name of Jesus. Your definition was simply theological rhetoric.

buddyman wrote: minuteman wrote:    O.K. Buddyman, I have read your first post. It is telling a lot about a true prophet and false prophet but in a vague way. I find the reply by Andalus (of 04 July) the best one for your post. According to your fromula, even Moses cannot be a prophet because he never taught about Jesus. Please see that reply by Andalus again below:   An extremely cursory approach to such an important idea. It is very difficult to follow your work, as you try and mix the NT with the OT, and you bury unproven assumptions in your work. As an example, in your second test, you stated: Quote: What is the second test of a prophet? 1 John 4:2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. A prophet of God must acknowledge and teach the truth about Jesus Christ--that He was God in human form. True prophets must also exalt Jesus, not themselves. Most false prophets seek to draw attention away from God's Word and to their own ideas. This is Christian theological doctrine, not a "truth". You cannot expect me, or any non Christian, to believe that a prophet must agree with 1 John? If everyone held this belief as true, then we would be Christians. My reply would be, "Gee, I did not read 1 John! What can I say? I am astounded Buddy! See you at church on sunday!".  1) I reject 1 John and ask you to authenticate this as having an authority from Jesus(or from any author that knew Jesus). You have an unproven, buried assumption about the validty of 1 John, and Christian doctrine. 2) I do not believe Jesus was divine, which is yet another assumption you buried in this theological hyperbole. I say that any man who claims Jesus, or anything of this world is God, is false. Moses did not teach of Jesus, and never prayed to him. I reserve my right to later add to what is said above. But the reply by Andalus should be an eye opener for the Buddyman. I am surprised that Buddyman has not replied to all those points.   Why would you not use the OT and the NT? That makes no sense. Obviously throughout time God has told us what a true prophet is. Not really that hard, you just have to read the Bible including the OT and you will see.

The NT does not contain "explicit" details which allow us to "define" a prophet. It has too many "implicit" verses that only allow you to invent a "Christian Prophet".

buddyman wrote: minuteman wrote:    Again you have not discussed the reply by Andalus. I may use the OT and NT and the Quran. There is no harm. I have the Quran and you have the OT and NT. OT and NT will suit you most because you believe in them. Please note that the most important thing for a prophet is to prophesize. If some one does not prophesy then he cannot be a prophet of God. We will again take note of all you items mentioned in your formula of the true prophets. Later. In the meantime, please read carefulkly the reply by Andalus and try to comment because I have given my agreement to those points.   I don't know why you care so much about my conversation with Andulus but I believe I have answered his questions. The Bible tells us what a prophet is, in the OT and in the NT. So far the prophets of the Bible are true because their prphecies were fullfilled.

I did not pose questions in the post I made to you, they were valid points dealing with the problems in your "definition".

So

1) you did not answer my questions, and

2) you never dealt with my points 

The concept of prophet and messnger is ill defined in the Bible, although both terms are used frequently.

According to the Qur'an, A prophet is the righteous man whom God spoke to. There are too many prophets we dont know about. A messenger however is the prophet who was given a new divine message to reform his society. A messenger by definition is a prophet, but not every prophet was a messnger. Messengers were protected from being killed, but the same protection did not apply on prophets only. The Qur'an spoke about prophets being killed but no messenger was killed. John the Baptist is the best examply as he was a prophet and he was kiiled, like Zachria, but Jesus who was a messnger was protected from being killed. All known messngers died naturally except Jesus who is still alife.

The Biblical confusion came from the fact that the Bible uses the term prophet more frequently, because it applies both to messengers and prophets. The distinction between their roles and fate could only be appreciated when the diferentiation between who was only a prophet and who was a messnger 'a prophet by defintion' be clear.

Reflections wrote:   The concept of prophet and messnger is ill defined in the Bible, although both terms are used frequently. According to the Qur'an, A prophet is the righteous man whom God spoke to. There are too many prophets we dont know about. A messenger however is the prophet who was given a new divine message to reform his society. A messenger by definition is a prophet, but not every prophet was a messnger. Messengers were protected from being killed, but the same protection did not apply on prophets only. The Qur'an spoke about prophets being killed but no messenger was killed. John the Baptist is the best examply as he was a prophet and he was kiiled, like Zachria, but Jesus who was a messnger was protected from being killed. All known messngers died naturally except Jesus who is still alife. The Biblical confusion came from the fact that the Bible uses the term prophet more frequently, because it applies both to messengers and prophets. The distinction between their roles and fate could only be appreciated when the diferentiation between who was only a prophet and who was a messnger 'a prophet by defintion' be clear.

No confusion really, you just have to pick up the Bible and read it.