Muhammad in the Bible Author: Unkown Muhammad in the Bible Could he be the "Paraklytos"? By: Yusuf Estes (Former Christian Preacher) More than fourteen centuries have passed since the prophet of Arabia made claim to being the last and final 'messenger and slave' of Allah. Yet the intensity of discussion amongst scholars from all religions seems to have increased over the years and gained in velocity in the last few years more so than ever before. Who was this man?, What do his followers believe about him?, How can others understand their undying devotion to his mission?, What do the scholars tell us about this man, Muhammad, peace be upon him, and his 'message' to the world? For more than fourteen centuries scholars from Judaism, Christianity and Islam have been discussing whether or not the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, could have indeed, been a true prophet from Almighty God. Was he the long awaited 'Messiah' the Jews have been waiting for so many centuries? Was he the one prophesied in the Old Testament Book of Isaiah, calling in the wilderness? Was he 'That Prophet' mentioned in the New Testament Gospel of John? We would like to share some of the findings of these scholars from their own sources and invite the reader to consider these evidences. The most recent claim of revelation coming from the God of Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus, peace be upon them, is the claim of Muhammad, peace be upon him, regarding the Quran. The Quran makes the claim, Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the 'slave and messenger' of Almighty God. But more importantly pertaining to our subject at hand, the Quran makes the claim that Muhammad, peace be upon him, is mentioned by name in the previous revelations (meaning the Bible). Can this claim be substantiated? Let us begin by examining the statement in the Quran contained in the 61st chapter (As-Saff [the ranks]), verse 6: {وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُم مُّصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَمُبَشِّراً بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِن بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ} Transliteration: Wa 'Idh Qāla `Īsaá Abnu Maryama Yā Banī 'Isrā'īla 'Innī Rasūlu Allāhi 'Ilaykum Muşaddiqāan Limā Bayna Yadayya Mina At-Tawrāati Wa Mubashshirāan Birasūlin Ya'tī Min Ba`dī Asmuhu 'Aĥmadu Translation: And when Jesus said; "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving glad tidings of an apostle to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." [Holy Quran 61:6] Please take notice of the name mentioned, 'Ahmad'. This is one of the most common of several names given to the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, by his own people. Now let us turn to the Old Testament (Torah of the Jews) and notice the book called Songs of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 16: His mouth is very sweet; he is totally desirable. 33 This is my beloved! This is my companion, O maidens of Jerusalem! Check the footnote (33) to discover what the word was BEFORE it was translated as "totally desirable" and in some versions of the translations we find, "altogether lovely." (makhmaddim, “desirable”) is the plural form of the noun (makhmad, “desire, desirable thing, precious object”; (see below note #33) It is asserted that this word "Makhmaddim" is in reality the word "Akhmad" or "AHmad". The reason for the emphasis on the "kh" sound is to prounouce the very hard "H" sound of the two types of "h" in the Semetic languages. There is a word used in a passage of the New Testament of the Bible, located in the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verse 16, that many Muslim scholars refer to as pointing to the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Let us review it and then observe what non-Muslim scholars comment about it. 14:15 “If you love me, you will obey 34 my commandments. 35 14:16 Then 36 I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 37 to be with you forever— 14:17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept,38 because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides39 with you and will be40 in you. Old Testament Song of Solomon 5:16 note 33tn The term (makhmaddim, “desirable”) is the plural form of the noun dm^j=m^ (makhmad, “desire, desirable thing, precious object”; HALOT 570 s.v. 1; BDB 326 s.v.). Like the plural (“sweetness”) in the preceding parallel line, this use of the plural is probably an example of the plural of intensity: “very desirable.” 34tn Or “will keep.” 35sn Jesus’ statement If you love me, you will obey my commandments provides the transition between the promises of answered prayer which Jesus makes to his disciples in vv. 13-14 and the promise of the Holy Spirit which is introduced in v. 16. Obedience is the proof of genuine love. 36tn Here kaiv (kai) has been translated as “Then” to reflect the implied sequence in the discourse. 37tn Or “Helper” or “Counselor”; Grk “Paraclete,” from the Greek word paravklhto" (paraklhto"). Finding an appropriate English translation for paravklhto" is a very difficult task. No single English word has exactly the same range of meaning as the Greek word. “Comforter,” used by some of the older English versions, appears to be as old as Wycliffe. But today it suggests a quilt or a sympathetic mourner at a funeral. “Counselor” is adequate, but too broad, in contexts like “marriage counselor” or “camp counselor.” “Helper” or “Assistant” could also be used, but could suggest a subordinate rank. “Advocate,” the word chosen for this translation, has more forensic overtones than the Greek word does, although in John 16:5-11 a forensic context is certainly present. Because an “advocate” is someone who “advocates” or supports a position or viewpoint and since this is what the Paraclete will do for the preaching of the disciples, it was selected in spite of the drawbacks. 38tn Or “cannot receive.” 39tn Or “he remains.” 40tc Some early and important witnesses (ج66* B D* W 1 565 it) have ejstin (estin, “he is”) instead of e[stai (estai, “he will be”) here, while other weighty witnesses ({ج66c,75vid ح A D1 L Q Y ث13 33vid د as well as several versions and fathers}), read the future tense. When one considers transcriptional evidence, ejstin is the more difficult reading and better explains the rise of the future tense reading, but it must be noted that both ج66 and D were corrected from the present tense to the future. If ejstin were the original reading, one would expect a few manuscripts to be corrected to read the present when they originally read the future, but that is not the case. When one considers what the author would have written, the future is on much stronger ground. The immediate context (both in 14:16 and in the chapter as a whole) points to the future, and the theology of the book regards the advent of the Spirit as a decidedly future event (see, e.g., 7:39 and 16:7). The present tense could have arisen from an error of sight on the part of some scribes or more likely from an error of thought as scribes reflected upon the present role of the Spirit. Although a decision is difficult, the future tense is most likely authentic. For further discussion on this textual problem, see James M. Hamilton, Jr., “He Is with You and He Will Be in You” (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003), 213-20.
Ok...I'll give you "the Comforter" that they mention in the Gospel of John was the referring to the Angel Gabriel who visited the Prophet Muhammad and 1st told him to "Iqra" or "read". But you are drawing at straws with all these other biblical references. Just let it go, brother. Most of the Bible isn't even addressing Islam as we know it.
All of the books in the Christian Bible were written by the early second century CE. Mohammed didn't have his purported revelation and his prophetic career until the first half of the seventh century CE. That's a 500 year gap. Unless we believe that the Bible writers had fore-knowledge of things yet to happen, an idea that I most emphatically don't share, it's hard to see how anything in the Bible can refer to Mohammed.
Brother Yousuf estes...thanks for your work. i watch you in peace tv.nways sorry to say but some people claim that Bible & other religious scriptures actually aren't talking about Muhammed (phuh)...well..dats sounds good but with the limited knowledge i've people who are upto not believing sure have got their point but i really would suggest them to study more and read the scriptures being in a neutral zone. In the Hindu scriptures Muhammed (phuh) is very clearyly mentioned and ofcourse was revealed before Muhammed (phuh) came. If any brother still feels confused i may somehow help by giving references though i know people around are much smarter than i am. And coming to the point...I want to pose a question to all the segments of Christians that...Did Jesus ever claimed divinity? If you feel he was a prophet then a question remains...Did Jesus fulfilled his prophecy? And scientifically Bible has got thousands of errors...well that's a good sign for the ATHEISTS!!! Refer to me if you still don't believe in God..!! nways i never meant to hurt anyones feelings or emotions..thnx even if you are cursing me!
"Prophecy"? And not by 'writers' but by influential individuals called 'prophets'? You may not agree they were prophets or prophesied- but those who believe they were, I think this thread is for them (or at least must be approached from that 'angle') Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Christian theology and the New Testament would reject such an interpretation out of hand, seeing that they consider Jesus of Nazareth to be that Anointed One. I'm fairly certain Judaism would also; they reject Jesus, after all, who was at least Jewish and (supposedly) of the House of David, which the Old Testament insists Messiah should be. Christians would again oppose that idea, since the New Testament identifies that person as John the Baptist. As for Judaism, there have been various interpretations of Isaiah 40 in different times; not sure right now what the canonized Talmud has to say. I wouldn't bet it's too very favorable to the idea, though. That was most likely a reference to the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18: Since this prophecy speaks of the prophet coming from within the Jewish people ("from the midst of thee, of thy brethren"), I'd say that probably doesn't intend to refer to Muhammad, either. The Song of Solomon is not read as prophetic in most traditions I'm aware of. It's just ancient erotica. To read that kind of content into it, one has to more or less ignore the context. Then again, it's not really all that much worse than the passages from the Old Testament prophets the Gospel of Matthew quotes out of context, so I guess it can work for some. The last one I find just unsubstantiated. What would the possible connection be between Muhammad and the "Paraclete" of John?
Sorry man- the Qu'ran came out of nowhere 600 years after Christ. It is a seperate book altogether, which claims its roots in the Bible. Not related.
An angel appeared to Muhammad in a cave and gave him the right scoop, over all other angel appearances. Yep, sure thing. (not)
Mohammed is NOT mentioned in Hindu scripyures. Period. For argument sake assume he is than: Hindu scriptures are 100% true, not only in this respect but in all other respects too. In that case it would be foolish to pick and choose something and reject the others. I am not confused, but your confusion is hard to remove.
In that case, this thread is in the wrong subforum. This one is Comparative Religion. It is the study of religions from the standpoints of the various "soft" sciences: psychology, anthropology, sociology, politics, history, literary analysis, and even the "hard" science of biology, since it has been suggested that belief in the supernatural is an archetype, an instinctive belief pre-progammed into the synapses of one of our ancestors by an accident of mutation and passed down through a second accident of a genetic bottleneck. Nowhere on this subforum are supernatural beliefs accepted as truth; the scientific method dismisses them as false since there is no empirical evidence for them. Therefore, any one who believes in the supernatural phenomenon of "prophesy" is on the wrong subforum. No assertion of the reality of prophesy can be made here because it would be trolling. Any assertions that there is any truth in supernaturalism are restricted to the Religion subforum under Philosophy. That, as well as the Pseudoscience and Parapsychology boards, are the only places where we relax the rules of science and allow people to babble about gods, prophets, angels, the Loch Ness monster, telepathy, past-life regression, clairvoyance, astrology, and similar forms of idiocy, as though they were real. If you wish to speak to these people, please go to one of those three ghettoes where such antiscientific discussion is permitted. It is not permitted here and you will be penalized for pursuing it, now that you have been warned by a Moderator.
Gospel of john refers to the comforter/distinguisher as a male clearly over 5 times. Angels are not males nor are they females. scroll of Isaiah states "And Jibril will be sent to the Un-lettered/Illiterate prophet, and when asked Iqra (Read) The prophet will repy "I cannot read". The only totally un-lettered prophet was Mohhammed. Also check Songs of solomon, "Lips are sweet he is all-together Lovely O mohhamed." Edit-PS: Oh yeah. PPS: Dueteronomy Scrolls, "The LORD (YHWH The selt sufficient, self Sustaining) came from Sinai, dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, and from his mountain slopes." Moses peace be upon him From Sinai, Jesus Reveleations in Seir, Peace be upon him, Muhammed from Paran peace be upon him. peace.
Also Christians Claim that it was referring to "Jesus" 'peace be upon him' when told of a prophet like Moses 'peace be upon' him will come, Moses was like Mohammad 'peace be upon them' They were both law bringers, both leaders, both men of the sword, even though jesus 'peace be upon him' is also a warrior prophet he is not a leader, He is the Messiah. The Holy ghost isnt god, Trinity is false and has no home in Monotheistic Religion, it is a new fabrication that is not apart of any of the Law givers books, only found in the new corrupted Gospels.
Firstly, to be academic, we should acknowledge there is NO good contemporary evidence of either Mohammad or Jesus having existed. As such, these stories are most likely completely fictional works grown out of medieval mythology. Interesting for their insight into the superstitious-mind of that period, sad in that so many mutton-heads still obsess over said superstitious nonsense. Firstly, it's patiently obvious the people who made up the Qur'an had access to some Biblical texts - Islam is a branch of Gnostic Christianity. Obviously the codified Qur'an used in the construction of Islam attempted to pick and choose certain religious stories to model the Mohammad literary character / protagonist after. In that sense Mohammad could indeed meet the characteristics of some minor character from the Bible that happens to be in use today. I say: SO WHAT? Is THAT really interesting? I certainly can't really see why when so many other things are interesting about that period in history. For example: While we ZERO contemporary evidence for Mohammad the person ever existing. We have a Christian Syrian coin with Mohammad the "Title for Christ" existing. Now, that is interesting. How did early mutton-heads turn a Title for Christ into a Prophet? Well, once you read the sort of "research" and "reasoning" that goes into the Theological "Expert" thinking, it's actually quite obvious. I've seen the same mentality at play in people who LOVE Dungeons and Dragons.
Howmuch do you get paid to go around forums posting this, and havent you got a script change at-least? you have these arguments copy pasted.
They are often brought up because they are important points which need to be addressed and which aren't. There are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus and even if you were to grant the existence of a person upon which the stories are based when you remove all the supernatural stuff (which no amount of claims could substantiate to the point of rational acceptance) then you're left with a rabbi with some new ideas, nothing more. Besides, it's a bit hypocritical to whine about Michael bringing up common points of contention when I'm sure the original poster did a copy and paste. How many religious people do copy and pastes on things like "the Quran predicts relativity" or "Carbon dating is wrong" or "The second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution". If they weren't doing a copy and paste and understood what they type then they'd know how laughably ignorant such claims are. As such complaining someone who disagrees with your religious beliefs is just copying and pasting is a touch hypocritical.
Are you answering for Michael?, interesting. This thread is about Mohammed peace be upon his soul, and him being mentioned in previous scriptures.
No, I'm making a general comment. I have no idea what Michael normally posts, I don't recognise his avatar at all. My point was that the issues he brings up are not something you can just say "Oh you always bring that up" and then ignore. Issues like whether Jesus really existed are pretty important, wouldn't you say? The truth of claims about divinity and whatnot are the foundation of Christianity and Islam so they should be examined, lest you end up believing something false. Or do you not think its important to have justified belief? Perhaps you don't care whether or not your beliefs are true, I have no idea. Personally I care whether or not what I believe is rational and based on reason and evidence. The complete lack of contemporary accounts for Jesus makes me reach the conclusion it is not reasonable to believe the claims made about Jesus by Christians. In regards to the original poster the argument is much the same as the "The Quran predicts relativity" claims I've seen some muslims make. It's always based on dubious interpretations of things after the fact. In both Christianity and Islam there are believers claiming their holy book is full of scientific facts etc but they never reveal themselves until after science has done it for them. Once that's been done suddenly certain passages take on new interpretations and oh look, Jesus and/or Mo' predicted whatever you want. Why is it God/Allah/Santa has such an important message everyone must receive lest they make 'the naughty list' and yet they reply on cryptic vague metaphorical word games? If Allah's passing down ultimate truth and knows all things to come saying something precise isn't exactly hard. If he/it wants to pass down scientific understanding why not come out and say specific things clearly? Why play word games, where a single passage can be interpreted many different ways? It's the lack of clarity which leads to the fracturing of religions, why there's more than 30,000 Christian denominations. Likewise, if the Quran is perfect why isn't there one and only one denomination of Islam? Is the invisible guy in the sky that bad at communication?
I did ask you a question or two : "Issues like whether Jesus really existed are pretty important, wouldn't you say? The truth of claims about divinity and whatnot are the foundation of Christianity and Islam so they should be examined, lest you end up believing something false. Or do you not think its important to have justified belief? Perhaps you don't care whether or not your beliefs are true, I have no idea." and "Why is it God/Allah/Santa has such an important message everyone must receive lest they make 'the naughty list' and yet they reply on cryptic vague metaphorical word games?" and "Likewise, if the Quran is perfect why isn't there one and only one denomination of Islam? Is the invisible guy in the sky that bad at communication?" They weren't rhetorical, I want to know what your response is. You complained in another thread atheists never get past "Your scriptures are bunk", perhaps you're just not engaging us in discussion properly?
