Salaam Alaikum.
The relation between Israelites and Ishmaelites is one of being brethren, both Ishmael and Isaac been of the seed of Abraham as I pointed out, and hence part of the prophecy given to Abraham about his descendants, also promising to make a great nation out of Ishmael. Were the Arabs ever great before they became monotheists as Muslims? And what sort of greatness was it if they had numbers but were corrupt of faith, becoming polytheists? So, the prophecy of greatness only became fulfilled through Islam.
Yet Deuteronomy 18:1-5 makes clear that "brethren" means "Israel". Ishmael and Isaac are both seed of Abraham, and it was promised to Ishmael that he will become a great nation. However, this doesn't mean that the prophet would come from him.
And I never rejected that meaning. However, show me one verse of the Bible which specifically states that it can not have any other meaning, even if it be so linguistically, and/or that the Ishmaelites are not brothers of the Israelites.
There is no need to do either. I have shown you where the Bible states that the brethren are fellow Israelites. Deuteronomy could easily have said that the Levites would not have inheritance from their Ishmael or Israel. It said they will have no inheritance from their brothers... they will have no inheritance with Israel.
I didn't say otherwise. My point still holds.
Verse 9 makes it clear the transfiguration was only a vision, not a physical occurrence. So it cannot possibly be a fulfillment of the prophecy of the return of Elijah. Visions of Elijah and Moses and other prophets were most probably seen by other Israelite prophets and saintly men whether they are recorded in the Bible anywhere or not.
Why would a vision not count?
And I accept that the prophecy of Elijah was fulfilled metaphorically in John the Baptist, but I can easily see why it is a stumbling block for Jews in accepting Jesus, because the Elijah was meant to come before the Christ, and if Elijah did not appear, any claimant to being the Messiah could not be true. And I can also see why the prophecy of Deut 18:18 can become a stumbling block for Jews and Christians, but just as I consider the Jews to be in manifest error in rejecting John the Baptist as Elijah and Jesus as Messiah, I similarly consider both Jews and Christians to be in manifest error in rejecting Muhammad s.a. as the Prophet of [Deut 18:18].
I see what you are saying. As you pointed out, however, the prophecy of Elijah was fulfilled by Jogn the Baptist. I don't believe that Deuteronomy 18 was fulfilled through Muhammad, since the text clearly states the prophet will be an Israelite. It is made clear that he would be from among the brothers, and brothers is defined as being Israel.
I already did. Verse 10 states he will prolong his days and he will see his offspring. According to your beliefs, Jesus did not see any offspring of his own, so it does not fit him.
His followers are His spiritual offspring.
And if Elijah himself had descended from the sky as prophecied and understood by Jews, it would have been easier for them to accept Jesus as Messiah, or so they would claim.
Probably that is correct.
The only problem with Tacitus's account is that it ignores that Christians claim the disciples saw Jesus alive in his physical body having wounds on it, and eating food infront of them. It does not even take this into account. It assumes that any such claims are absurd, because he is reported to have died on the cross before being taken down. So he could not possibly have been alive after that. But if we accept the Biblical record of him been seen physically alive by his disciples, then the only conclusion he would have made was that Jesus did not actually die on the cross. Because this is invariably the conclusion made when anyone presumed dead is later seen alive.
It is considered that those who said he was dead, even if they were doctors who certified him dead, were all in error. The person was mistaken for dead, but he did not actually die. This even happens at times when the vital signs of the person have been checked by a qualified doctor. Whereas in the case of Jesus, there is no record of his vital signs being checked. Infact, checking the vital signs to confirm death became a medical practice centuries after the time of Jesus.
So, if he was seen alive by his disciples but not by the Jews and Romans, then it is evidence that he was afraid after having survived the cross that he would be captured and killed for sure this time. So Tacitus was just stating the assumption that he was crucified, but he had no clear proof that Jesus did indeed die on the cross; his account is based on what was said, and that is not proof of actual death; it is only evidence of presumed death on a cross.
Tacitus was a respected historian. He was not careless in his work, and would not have used the beliefs of Christians, who he found detestable and hated, as evidence.
The fact that Tacitus reported the crucifixion of Jesus and not His resurrection is to me strong evidence that Jesus was crucified. The crucifixion of Jesus was witnessed by crowds of people, Jews and pagans and Christians (His followers). The resurrection was witnessed only by His followers. Had Tacitus reported the resurrection, one could have more easily accused him of being a Christian, or copying his sources from them. He didn't. He reported His crucifixion, which would have been something that was publicly witnessed.
Should I assume this was the strongest point in your mind?
Not the strongest, but among the most easy to prove.
I will have to look into this and get back to you on it. It requires some historical study along with a study of the relevant verses which I have not done so far. If you have a more easily proven point, bring it up, because one could easily argue that there is a mistake in one's knowledge of history.
Feel free to do so and get back to me.
Would you like an even easier example? OK, no problem.
16:68,69
And your Lord inspired to the bee, "Take for yourself among the mountains, houses, and among the trees and [in] that which they construct.
Then eat from all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord laid down [for you]." There emerges from their bellies a drink, varying in colors, in which there is healing for people. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought.
16:69 states that God told the bee to, among other things, eat from all the fruits.
Yet we know that there are some fruit that bees are unable to get access to, and others that poison them.
Was the Quran's author unaware of this? Why would God tell bees to eat food from plants that He knows will kill them, or that they will be unable to get anything from? It would be implying that He enjoys playing cruel practical jokes on His creation.
The Yucca is a fruit producing plant that only a certain type of moth is able to pollinate. Bees, wasps, bumblebees, other insects and animals are incapable of pollinating it. Only the Yucca moth can.
The female moth, after mating, deposits her eggs in the ovary at the base of the flower. Then she collects a ball of pollen from other flowers and places this pollen ball in a special depression in the stigma of the flower, to ensure that the flower is fertilised (image 3). This pollination system is so precise that only yucca moths can pollinate these plants. Yuccas grown in regions where the yucca moth is absent will never produce seeds unless the plants are hand-pollinated. Moreover, there is growing evidence that the many different Yucca species are pollinated by different yucca moths, specialised for the plant species.
YUCCA
Some fruit producing plants, like the California Buckeye, kill honey bees by poisoning them.
Wildlife
Do not plant buckeyes near apiaries as the
flowers are poisonous to honey bees. No wildlife eat
buckeye seeds except squirrels, such as the California
ground squirrel (Citellus beecheyi).
http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/cs_aeca.pdf
Is the Quran suggesting that God is unaware of these two plants? Or that He tells His creation to do things that will end up killing them?
The translation is not quite accurate. If there is a barrier between them, how can they be said to be meeting? A better translation is:
He has made the two bodies of water flow. They will (one day) meet. Between them there is (at present) a barrier; they cannot encroach upon one another. Which then of the favours of your Lord will ye twain deny? There come out from both of them pearls and corals. [55:19-22]
Below is a website that gives a word-by-word breakdown of the verses. The verse does not say that the waters one day will meet, or that the barrier is only for the present time.
It states that the bodies of water (or "seas") meet, and do not "transgress". How can there be a barrier between waters if they are said to be meeting? That is a good question.
Some Muslims claim that this is a reference to the halocline, which stratifies water into a fresh level and a salty level. The problem with this explanation is that in many cases there is a level between these two, which is comprised of mixed water... or in other words, water that has "transgressed". The other problem is that the same two bodies of water meet at other points, and do mix.
Pearls and corals are found both in the Suez and Panama canals. So it is a prophecy which was fulfilled (twice).
How is this a reference to the Suez and Panama Canals?
Also, how can the verse be a prophecy if it is referring to something in the present?
You also.