Islam Why call Muhammad a prophet?

[mindlight]

I'm not an expert, but I'd think ordinary people could have predicted famines... At some point at least.

Living in Egypt you might have predicted it by a high Nile. But this guy predicted this before the high Nile and from Syria not Egypt. He also predicted the manner in which Paul would be arrested before witnesses and obviously before it happened.

 

[Limo]

“He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter…” (Isa. 53:7).

“Surely He has borne our infirmities, and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we ourselves are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned each one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all…. Yet the LORD willed to crush Him and He has put Him to grief: You shall make His life an offering for sin. He shall see His seed; He shall prolong His days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper in His hand. He shall see of the travail of His soul. He shall be fully satisfied. By His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many; and He shall bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:4-6, 10-11).

“Dogs have surrounded Me; a band of evildoers have encircled me; they have pierced My hands and My feet…” (Psa. 22:16).

“And they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced…” (Zech. 12:10).

First, there is nothing up there about crucifixion. Some odd words about piercing but no crucifixion. Don't till that piercing implies crucifixion, this is just play with words.

Jews didn't recognize Isa as a prophet, logically for sure they didn't beleive that these statements are talking about crucifixion of the Isa.

In old testy, the Messiah is a king who will fights Romans and all disbelievers who are enemies for israiltes, not a crucifixed Messiah. Jews consider a "crucifixed Messiah" is a silly joke.

Nothing in old testimony about a "crucifixed Messiah" but a "victory Messiah"

Again, which Prophet told that the Messiah is crucifixed?

 

[dzheremi]

Nothing in old testimony about a "crucifixed Messiah" but a "victory Messiah"

These are one and the same person, so there's no contradiction here.

 

[mindlight]

First, there is nothing up there about crucifixion. Some odd words about piercing but no crucifixion. Don't till that piercing implies crucifixion, this is just play with words.

You read the words without understanding them. Christs hands and feet were pierced at the crucifixion as was his side. This is anticipated by prophecy. The Isaiah prophecies anticipate the character of his sufferings for us quite precisely. The why matters more than the detail.

Jews didn't recognize Isa as a prophet, logically for sure they didn't beleive that these statements are talking about crucifixion of the Isa.

Yet Mathew 24 prophesises the destruction and was written down a decade before it happened. The Jewish historian Josephus describes this destruction in his Jewish wars

In old testy, the Messiah is a king who will fights Romans and all disbelievers who are enemies for israiltes, not a crucifixed Messiah. Jews consider a "crucifixed Messiah" is a silly joke.

Nothing in old testimony about a "crucifixed Messiah" but a "victory Messiah"

Again, which Prophet told that the Messiah is crucifixed?

In the desperate circumstances of Roman occupation Jews often did focus on those passages at the expense of the others. This same blindness would lead them to rebel against the Romans and be massacred by the hundreds of thousands so clearly it was not a spirit or movement blessed by God. But those Jews who believed the word left Jerusalem before the city was destroyed knowing that it would happen in advance and they spread the word around the Roman empire and beyond. The Christian church became far less Jewish as a result of the destruction of Temple and City and the scattering of the Jewish people. There are a great many Jews even today who continue to misread these bible passages.

 

[Limo]

You read the words without understanding them. Christs hands and feet were pierced at the crucifixion as was his side. This is anticipated by prophecy. The Isaiah prophecies anticipate the character of his sufferings for us quite precisely. The why matters more than the detail.

Best people who should be able to understand are the Jews, but they totally disagree. Nevertheless, their Messiah is a saviour a victory king not a crucifixed one.

I find best response to claims that Jesus is the suffering survent by Bart Ehrman.
I'll copy-past his words
"In this case, the author is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other people’s sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. And so this not about a future suffering messiah.
In fact, it is not about the messiah at all. This is a point frequently overlooked in discussions of the passage. If you will look, you will notice that the term messiah never occurs in the passage. This is not predicting what the messiah will be"
Simple answer.

Yet Mathew 24 prophesises the destruction and was written down a decade before it happened. The Jewish historian Josephus describes this destruction in his Jewish wars

Mathew in the best guess is written about 80-90 CE With a possibility 70-120 CE.
Destruction of the temple 70 CE.
There is no future predection at all.
Why didn't Josephus record the prophecy?

In the desperate circumstances of Roman occupation Jews often did focus on those passages at the expense of the others. This same blindness would lead them to rebel against the Romans and be massacred by the hundreds of thousands so clearly it was not a spirit or movement blessed by God. But those Jews who believed the word left Jerusalem before the city was destroyed knowing that it would happen in advance and they spread the word around the Roman empire and beyond. The Christian church became far less Jewish as a result of the destruction of Temple and City and the scattering of the Jewish people. There are a great many Jews even today who continue to misread these bible passages.

As far as I know, there is no nonbibilical record of believers who flew out Jerusalem because of what is written in Mathew. I'm not sure even about something in the new testimony.
There was no Christian Church in Jerusalem and neither in palastine. There were Jewish-Christianits (Nazarth Christians) who watched Moses law and lived exactly as Jesus of new testimony lived.
It's detailed in Acts, The relationship of Pauline Christianity and Jerusalem was ended before it starts, whenever the crowd (Jewish - Christians) tried to kill Paul himself in Jerusalem because he asked followers not to follow the law. then Romans protected him as a Roman citizen and guarded him out of temple, Jerusalem, and whole palastine.

 

[Limo]

Best people who should be able to understand are the Jews, but they totally disagree. Nevertheless, their Messiah is a saviour a victory king not a crucifixed one.

I find best response to claims that Jesus is the suffering survent by Bart Ehrman.
I'll copy-past his words
"In this case, the author is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other people’s sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. And so this not about a future suffering messiah.
In fact, it is not about the messiah at all. This is a point frequently overlooked in discussions of the passage. If you will look, you will notice that the term messiah never occurs in the passage. This is not predicting what the messiah will be"
Simple answer.

Mathew in the best guess is written about 80-90 CE With a possibility 70-120 CE.
Destruction of the temple 70 CE.
There is no future predection at all.
Why didn't Josephus record the prophecy?

As far as I know, there is no nonbibilical record of believers who flew out Jerusalem because of what is written in Mathew. I'm not sure even about something in the new testimony.
There was no Christian Church in Jerusalem and neither in palastine. There were Jewish-Christianits (Nazarth Christians) who watched Moses law and lived exactly as Jesus of new testimony lived.
It's detailed in Acts, The relationship of Pauline Christianity and Jerusalem was ended before it starts, whenever the crowd (Jewish - Christians) tried to kill Paul himself in Jerusalem because he asked followers not to follow the law. then Romans protected him as a Roman citizen and guarded him out of temple, Jerusalem, and whole palastine.

Then back to question :
which prophet predicts or even filed the crucifixion of Gospel's Jesus ?

 

[dzheremi]

Best people who should be able to understand are the Jews, but they totally disagree. Nevertheless, their Messiah is a saviour a victory king not a crucifixed one.

Of course the Jews don't accept Muhammad as a prophet or his Qur'an, but that doesn't stop you from appealing to them, now does it? Hypocrite.

I find best response to claims that Jesus is the suffering survent by Bart Ehrman.
I'll copy-past his words

Hahaha. Of course you will. Ehrman is the only name any Muslim ever knows, and it's always by copying and pasting his words everywhere.

"In this case, the author is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other people’s sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. And so this not about a future suffering messiah.

With the caveat that I do not know Hebrew and hence am not familiar with the linguistic terminology surrounding the study of it:

Technically these verb forms are participles of the Pual form (this page suggests that it marks "actual presents"; whatever that means in this context, it's not past). Note carefully how many [was] in brackets you see at the first link.

In fact, it is not about the messiah at all. This is a point frequently overlooked in discussions of the passage. If you will look, you will notice that the term messiah never occurs in the passage. This is not predicting what the messiah will be"

Because it can't be a prophecy of anything unless it uses exactly that word? On what basis does Dr. Ehrman assert this?

Gee...it sure would be a good thing if you had whatever book this came from (we don't know, because you don't cite your sources, which are probably crappy Islamic apologetics websites which grabbed these quotes from other crappy Islamic websites), so that you could look up the fuller context from which the section you've decided to c&p comes from.

When you do that, do let us know what Ehrman is on about.

Simple answer.

And very unsatisfying, as it is without justification and possibly contradicts the grammar of the language in question. Perhaps Ehrman was only looking at English translations.

As far as I know, there is no nonbibilical record of believers who flew out Jerusalem because of what is written in Mathew.

This is a weird objection for a Muslim to make. Should we go through all the things claimed in your religion about Muhammad and/or the Qur'an and/or the founding of Islam that have no backing outside of Islamic sources, or do you only wish to apply such a standard to Christianity even though your own religion could in no way meet it?

I'm not sure even about something in the new testimony.

Clearly.

There was no Christian Church in Jerusalem and neither in palastine. There were Jewish-Christianits (Nazarth Christians) who watched Moses law and lived exactly as Jesus of new testimony lived.

Jewish Christians are still Christians, so this makes no sense...

It's detailed in Acts, The relationship of Pauline Christianity and Jerusalem was ended before it starts

...one famous Jewish Christian was Paul...

whenever the crowd (Jewish - Christians) tried to kill Paul himself in Jerusalem because he asked followers not to follow the law.

Which is absolutely not what happened, if you are referring to Acts 23. The plot to kill him is written about starting in verse 12, but let's start from the beginning of the chapter to get some wider context:

1 Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." 2 And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?" 4 And those who stood by said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 5 Then Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'
6 But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!" 7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. 8 For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection--and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. 9 Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees' party arose and protested, saying, "We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God." 10 Now when there arose a great dissension, the commander, fearing lest Paul might be pulled to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the barracks. 11 But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, "Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome."

+++

So he spoke against one of the high priests and got himself in the middle of a debate between the Pharisees (his sect of Judaism, believers in the resurrection) and the Sadducees (another sect, which denied the resurrection). The latter is why he himself said he was being persecuted. Nothing about asking followers not to follow the law in any case.

 

[mindlight]

Best people who should be able to understand are the Jews, but they totally disagree. Nevertheless, their Messiah is a saviour a victory king not a crucifixed one.

The New Testament was written by Jews. The ones that held to a victory Messiah got massacred. Those that believed in the suffering servant founded a church that is the largest religion today.

I find best response to claims that Jesus is the suffering survent by Bart Ehrman.
I'll copy-past his words
"In this case, the author is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other people’s sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. And so this not about a future suffering messiah.
In fact, it is not about the messiah at all. This is a point frequently overlooked in discussions of the passage. If you will look, you will notice that the term messiah never occurs in the passage. This is not predicting what the messiah will be"
Simple answer.

The actual words mirror the life of the messiah quite precisely so their prophetic quality is clear. There is a difference between exegesis in original context and the typologies and future fulfilments of words inspired by God.

Mathew in the best guess is written about 80-90 CE With a possibility 70-120 CE.
Destruction of the temple 70 CE.
There is no future predection at all.

You are conservative with Islam but choose liberals when referring to Christianity. The traditional date is 58AD

Why didn't Josephus record the prophecy?

Jesus was not his main concern. He does not quote from New Testament. His comments about Jesus are not from Christian sources.

 

[mindlight]

As far as I know, there is no nonbibilical record of believers who flew out Jerusalem because of what is written in Mathew. I'm not sure even about something in the new testimony.
There was no Christian Church in Jerusalem and neither in palastine. There were Jewish-Christianits (Nazarth Christians) who watched Moses law and lived exactly as Jesus of new testimony lived.
It's detailed in Acts, The relationship of Pauline Christianity and Jerusalem was ended before it starts, whenever the crowd (Jewish - Christians) tried to kill Paul himself in Jerusalem because he asked followers not to follow the law. then Romans protected him as a Roman citizen and guarded him out of temple, Jerusalem, and whole palastine.

The Christian tradition was that an angel came to the church before the siege and got them out. There was a flight to Pella. This was undisputed for most of Christian history till 1951.

There was always a tension between Paul and James in the Jerusalem church. The church fled after James was killed. Josephus records his death as being 4 years before the troubles began. The martyrdom of James caused a rift between the church and the Jerusalem Jews which makes it unlikely they would have allied with the Zealots against Rome as was suggested in 1951 without any factual basis.

The flight to Pella is a warning to the Muslim world also. The presence of Christians offers divine protection to Muslims. When the last Christian leaves that Divine protection is removed

 

[Limo]

The New Testament was written by Jews. The ones that held to a victory Messiah got massacred. Those that believed in the suffering servant founded a church that is the largest religion today.

Absolutely incorrect, The true Jews have their Gospels which might be Injeel Almaseeh. The true Jewish-Christians who followed Almaseeh are the Nazarth, Ebinites, Essenes, Unierian.
But for sure not Pauline-Christians.
Pauline-Christians are anti-Jews and anti-Judaism, actually antiChrist who lived as a Jew according to the LAW.

The actual words mirror the life of the messiah quite precisely so their prophetic quality is clear. There is a difference between exegesis in original context and the typologies and future fulfilments of words inspired by God.

My friend, This claim has been refuted by all Jews and many Christian Scholars. I found the best is Ehrman's one which makes very sense. I didn't find (may be there are) any fundamental Christian discussing it REASONABLY.
You decided not to discuss but some generic words.
Just answer ot copy-paste a response to the claim

You are conservative with Islam but choose liberals when referring to Christianity. The traditional date is 58AD

(modern scholars) The following introductions & Bible dictionaries date Matthew as follows:

• W. D. Davies (1969): 85 CE
• Ralph Martin (1975): 80-90 CE
• Ancho Yale Bible Dictionary (1992): 80-90 CE
• McDonald & Porter (2000): 80-90 CE
• Lea & Black (2003): pre-70 CE
• DeSilva (2004): post-70 CE
• Drane (2001): 80-100 CE
• Ehrman (2008): 80-85 CE
• Elwell & Yarbrough (2013): pre-70 CE

Only 20% are saying it's pre-70, are these 80% are liberals ?
If you just do google search you'll find all headers date it after 70 CE.

Where it's documented that Jews believed in Jesus flew out Jerusalem based on Matthew prophecy ?
Where it's even in ACTS or Epstels ?

Jesus was not his main concern. He does not quote from New Testament. His comments about Jesus are not from Christian sources.

He was in the middle of the war, actually he was one of the leaders.
If there is a warning from someone (Jesus is not someone, he should've been well known) , He should've noticed or heard bout it. Right ?
Where it's documented that Jews believed in Jesus flew out Jerusalem based on Matthew prophecy ?
Where it's even in ACTS or Epistles ?

 

[Limo]

The Christian tradition was that an angel came to the church before the siege and got them out. There was a flight to Pella. This was undisputed for most of Christian history till 1951.

There was always a tension between Paul and James in the Jerusalem church. The church fled after James was killed. Josephus records his death as being 4 years before the troubles began. The martyrdom of James caused a rift between the church and the Jerusalem Jews which makes it unlikely they would have allied with the Zealots against Rome as was suggested in 1951 without any factual basis.

The flight to Pella is a warning to the Muslim world also. The presence of Christians offers divine protection to Muslims. When the last Christian leaves that Divine protection is removed

The tension wasn't only between James and Paul but also all disciples and all Jewish-Christians.
As per Acts James and disciples tried to help Paul be suggesting share in the worship by cutting hair to show respect to the LAW but the crowed Jewish-Christians never believed Paul.
The Jewish-Christians who tried to kill Paul away from James and other disciples influence or knowledge.
As per Acts, Paul was kicked off Antioch as well.
All followers of Almaseeh in all Palestine and even Antioch were Jewish-Christians.

 

[Limo]

Then back to question :
which prophet predicts or even filed the crucifixion of Gospel's Jesus ?

Away from Isiah 53, Even if you reject the claim that it's about the past of Israelite, you should agree that :

• it's ambiguous and doesn't talk explicitly about Crucifixion
• It's doesn't relate explicitly Jewish Messiah with this verses at all

Then the question still (Other that Prophet Mohamed who denied the Crucifixion) :
which prophet predicts or even filed the crucifixion of Gospel's Jesus ?

 

[mindlight]

Absolutely incorrect, The true Jews have their Gospels which might be Injeel Almaseeh. The true Jewish-Christians who followed Almaseeh are the Nazarth, Ebinites, Essenes, Unierian.
But for sure not Pauline-Christians.
Pauline-Christians are anti-Jews and anti-Judaism, actually antiChrist who lived as a Jew according to the LAW.

Ebionites and Nazarenes were Christian Judaising sects that grew out of the Jerusalem church that fled to Pella. The Essenes of Qumran did not follow Jesus at all and were a sect of Judaism. Not sure what Unierian refers to. There is no difference between Paul and gospel writers properly interpreted and even his difference with James was exaggerated. Paul considered the law to be a signpost for faith not the means by which someone was saved. Romans is about justification by faith not righteousness by works.

Should add 2 books were written by the gentile Luke- Luke and Acts.

My friend, This claim has been refuted by all Jews and many Christian Scholars. I found the best is Ehrman's one which makes very sense. I didn't find (may be there are) any fundamental Christian discussing it REASONABLY.
You decided not to discuss but some generic words.
Just answer ot copy-paste a response to the claim

(modern scholars) The following introductions & Bible dictionaries date Matthew as follows:

• W. D. Davies (1969): 85 CE
• Ralph Martin (1975): 80-90 CE
• Ancho Yale Bible Dictionary (1992): 80-90 CE
• McDonald & Porter (2000): 80-90 CE
• Lea & Black (2003): pre-70 CE
• DeSilva (2004): post-70 CE
• Drane (2001): 80-100 CE
• Ehrman (2008): 80-85 CE
• Elwell & Yarbrough (2013): pre-70 CE

Only 20% are saying it's pre-70, are these 80% are liberals ?
If you just do google search you'll find all headers date it after 70 CE.

Where it's documented that Jews believed in Jesus flew out Jerusalem based on Matthew prophecy ?
Where it's even in ACTS or Epstels ?

He was in the middle of the war, actually he was one of the leaders.
If there is a warning from someone (Jesus is not someone, he should've been well known) , He should've noticed or heard bout it. Right ?
Where it's documented that Jews believed in Jesus flew out Jerusalem based on Matthew prophecy ?
Where it's even in ACTS or Epistles ?

The traditional date is 58AD and few authentic believers believe in a post "fall of Jerusalem" dating for Matthew. Western liberal theology is not highly regarded by 90% of Christians. Those who argue dates after this often do so on the basis of antisupernatural, antiChristian or liberal assumptions. So your list is a list of shame not biblical scholarship including Ehrman (who is an agnostic atheist not a Christian by the way). Jesus warned of the destruction of Jerusalem and it came true after his prophecy is the simple message.

A reputable book (though not one I entirely agree with) arguing for earlier dates of the actual witness statement recorded in a scholarly way is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony [Richard Bauckham] . The later dating theories are based on out of date assumptions and scholarship.

 

[mindlight]

The tension wasn't only between James and Paul but also all disciples and all Jewish-Christians.
As per Acts James and disciples tried to help Paul be suggesting share in the worship by cutting hair to show respect to the LAW but the crowed Jewish-Christians never believed Paul.
The Jewish-Christians who tried to kill Paul away from James and other disciples influence or knowledge.
As per Acts, Paul was kicked off Antioch as well.
All followers of Almaseeh in all Palestine and even Antioch were Jewish-Christians.

Cornelius was a Roman Christian, there are reports of numerous Samaritan converts and the Jewish apostles spread the message all over the place to people from all backgrounds. The Jerusalem church did contain a strong Judaising element but the book of James itself was written very early probably well before 50AD and so at a time when the church was mainly Jewish. There is no mention of the later controversies over Gentile circumcision for instance. So comparing James and Pauline epistles is comparing an early phase of the church with a later one. A phase of the church before the revelations received by Peter about the place of gentiles in the church for instance. To describe this difference as a division was rather disingenuous. Paul rebuked Peter when he slipped into Judaising tendencies but the harmony between the difference dimensions of the church was mainly maintained with the gentile church providing famine relief to the Jerusalem church later for instance. The fall of Jersualem and the growth of the gentile church meant that distinctively Jewish styles of doing Christianity became less and less relevant as the church grew. With later Greek dominance the Jewish dimension was arguably suppressed. Indeed to the point where Jews were not even allowed to read the Torah in Hebrew or live in Jerusalem. This may well be why many Jews welcomed invading Muslims when they came and found it convenient to side with Islamic scholars on the antichristian scholarship. With the reformation also Martin Luther maintained a strong scepticism towards the Jews and to wards the book of James which he regarded as a book ofstraw. It was not till the period of reflection after the holocaust and reestablishment of the state of Israel that the Christian church recovered a more healthy perspective on Jews and Israel and the distinctive modes of Jewish worship that existed in the early church.

In other words there is no tension between a true Jew and true Christian.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

When I look at Muhammad's so called prophethood I have to question his place in history. What did he accomplishe by uniting the Arabs? He set the foundation for a military and religious force that would conquer Indian and Persian civilization and nearly half of Christian civilization.

His status as a Prophet to me is impossible given what I believe about Jesus and God's overall plan for humanity. Muhammad's mere presence, if of God is an answer to all of God's failures beforehand. Judaism failed, Christianity failed, but Islam succeeded and in a way so violent and brutal and theocratic as to leave modern Islamic civilization a cultural and religious backwater? Why is this better than the Christian success of slowly converting an empire and in time coming to dominate it?

I can't place Muhammad well with the teachings of Christ. That we have the New Testament and Old Testament and this is why Muslims have to reject both of those things. They want to rewrite God's history and start over with Muhammad and insist everything that came before them has been distorted or is lies and falsehood. It's the same restorative narrative that a lot of new religions have.

Jesus in Christianity, did not overthrow the Old Testament or Judaism itself for that matter. Yes he revealed more things and we are not Jews but Christians, but he didn't say the prophets before him were lies or that the Torah was corrupted. Muhammad, or at least Islam, did exactly that but in an inconsistent way that demonstrates the author of the Quran had no idea what he was talking about, especially when came to describing Christianity of the time and the Quranic author's knowledge of the Bible. Why should I then accept Muhammad as the successor Prophet of Jesus?

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed, Ignatius. This is easiest to see in the way that Christians and Muslims talk about those who came before them. Whereas we have from a very early time inherited from St. Justin Martyr this concept of "Seeds of the Word" in preexisting non-Christian religions (those things which prefigure the coming of Christ, hence pointing to truth), the Muslim is obliged to consign all before the establishment of Islam to "the time of ignorance" (al-jahiliya). The few figures which Islam itself recognizes as prophets from that time (Moses, Noah, etc.) are excepted by virtue of being rewritten as Muslims or at least proto-Muslims, belonging to this vague monotheistic non-Christian and non-Jewish religion of the hanif, which for that reason is spoken of very positively in an Islamic context (they say Abraham -- errrr, excuse me, Ibrahim -- was a hanif, for instance), as I guess the Muslims themselves are ignorant of the fact that this is but the Arabic form of the Syriac hanpa (a borrowing into Arabic, as per Jeffreys, Griffith, etc.), which in the original means not "monotheist" but "pagan"!

It's dangerous what you can do with a little jahiliya...first you make words like "prophet" and "gospel" mean something other than what they mean, then you make entire other communities into something other than what they are...do that enough and you may even end up inventing your own religion...

...

(Here's were I'd put a picture of Muhammad...)

 

[mindlight]

When I look at Muhammad's so called prophethood I have to question his place in history. What did he accomplishe by uniting the Arabs? He set the foundation for a military and religious force that would conquer Indian and Persian civilization and nearly half of Christian civilization.

That the movement he created was so successful a force for conquest and even of Christian provinces of the old Byzantine empire places him alongside figures like Alexander or Nebuchadnezzar but not Jesus

His status as a Prophet to me is impossible given what I believe about Jesus and God's overall plan for humanity. Muhammad's mere presence, if of God is an answer to all of God's failures beforehand. Judaism failed, Christianity failed, but Islam succeeded and in a way so violent and brutal and theocratic as to leave modern Islamic civilization a cultural and religious backwater? Why is this better than the Christian success of slowly converting an empire and in time coming to dominate it?

Yes there is no continuity with previous revelations and it does not answer questions raised by these. The fruit in the long run has not been peace and prosperity. The Christian growth has been slower but more comprehensive and transformative

I can't place Muhammad well with the teachings of Christ. That we have the New Testament and Old Testament and this is why Muslims have to reject both of those things. They want to rewrite God's history and start over with Muhammad and insist everything that came before them has been distorted or is lies and falsehood. It's the same restorative narrative that a lot of new religions have.

Yet he praises those who came before him and claims to stand in continuity with them

Jesus in Christianity, did not overthrow the Old Testament or Judaism itself for that matter. Yes he revealed more things and we are not Jews but Christians, but he didn't say the prophets before him were lies or that the Torah was corrupted. Muhammad, or at least Islam, did exactly that but in an inconsistent way that demonstrates the author of the Quran had no idea what he was talking about, especially when came to describing Christianity of the time and the Quranic author's knowledge of the Bible. Why should I then accept Muhammad as the successor Prophet of Jesus?

Yes Jesus fulfilled the predictions and themes of the Old testament and showed respect for the law and the prophets. Muhammed , an illiterate who had never read the bible, had only heretics to inform him of the content of Christian teaching in his formative years. So he praises biblical figures , but his understanding of them is built on hearsay and lies. He did not really understand how much until his various conflicts with the Jewish tribes of the Arab peninsula. He resolved those conflicts by killing those who opposed him. Later Muslims come up with explanations of how the prophets understandings were so radically at odds with all previous revelation as understood by Christians and Jews by suggesting that Muhammad refered to lost revelations of which there is no proof whatsoever

Net result how can Muhammad be regarded as a prophet?

 

[mindlight]

Away from Isiah 53, Even if you reject the claim that it's about the past of Israelite, you should agree that :

• it's ambiguous and doesn't talk explicitly about Crucifixion
• It's doesn't relate explicitly Jewish Messiah with this verses at all

Then the question still (Other that Prophet Mohamed who denied the Crucifixion) :
which prophet predicts or even filed the crucifixion of Gospel's Jesus ?

In my bible study today I was reading John 5. The below verse made me think of you. You suggested that many Jews also objected to Jesus which was true despite the scriptures. Jesus said this speaking to Jews that did not believe in him:

"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say." John 5:45-47

Mosaic prophecies about Jesus include:

Genesis 22:1–18
Exodus 12:1–51
Numbers 24:17
Genesis 49:10
Genesis 3:15
Genesis 12:3
Numbers 21:6–9

Various prophecies indicate how Jesus would die, as the sacrifice by God of his only Son (ie like with Abraham) , lifted up like sin for us on a pole, and the meaning of his sacrifice (the parallels with the Passover Lamb)

The prophecies also indicate he would be of the tribe of Judah

 

[Limo]

In my bible study today I was reading John 5. The below verse made me think of you. You suggested that many Jews also objected to Jesus which was true despite the scriptures. Jesus said this speaking to Jews that did not believe in him:

"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say." John 5:45-47

Mosaic prophecies about Jesus include:

Genesis 22:1–18
Exodus 12:1–51
Numbers 24:17
Genesis 49:10
Genesis 3:15
Genesis 12:3
Numbers 21:6–9

Various prophecies indicate how Jesus would die, as the sacrifice by God of his only Son (ie like with Abraham) , lifted up like sin for us on a pole, and the meaning of his sacrifice (the parallels with the Passover Lamb)

The prophecies also indicate he would be of the tribe of Judah

Law us cut it short.
What we need is a neighbor sentences talking about Messiah and within context crucifixion

 

[mindlight]

Law us cut it short.
What we need is a neighbor sentences talking about Messiah and within context crucifixion

The verses are there in the list i gave regarding Mosaic examples referring to the manner and meaning of Christs cruicifixion. Basically the details of Christs cruicifixion are anticipated and the patterns and themes of sacrifice are articulated in the cross. No such anticipation in scriptures exists for Muhammad. He fulfils no patterns and no details are predicted.

It is not written in the format of the messiah will be cruicified like x and y. There are various odd phrases in the OT and patterns of understanding in the OT which the cross makes sense of proving the original prophetic inspiration of Moses and Isaiah and the other prophets. The fact is the life of Christ animates and explains the revelations that came before him and demonstrates their prophetic quality. As with Zechariah he enters Jerusalem on a donkey. At the cross his hands pierced but not a bone in his body is broken. Detail after detail, pattern after pattern is there in the OT anticipating his life