Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
February 11, 2000 11:46 pm
D3: Is there a prophecy of Muhammad in the Injil?
We now come to the final claim by Muslims, that a prediction of Muhammad can be found in the Injil, in other words in the New Testament.
D3i: Parakletos or Periklytos?
The two ayas quoted at the beginning of this lecture speak of a prophet or messenger who will be described in the Taurat and Injil, who can neither read nor write, who will come after Jesus, and will be called Ahmed. Attempts have been made by Muslims since the middle of the 10th century to quote definite verses from the Bible which speak of Muhammad; verses such as Genesis 16:9-12; 17:20-21; 21:21 and Deuteronomy 33:2,12. These are easily defendable, and need little of our time.
Another scripture which is often quoted by Muslims as the definitive proof of a prediction concerning Muhammad is that found in the New Testament in John 14:16 and John 16:7. These are the passages which we will deal with here.
Let's open to those passages. (Read John 14:16 and 16:7)
The problem comes with the word "Counsellor". All the misunderstanding which separates Jews, Christians and Muslims come from the manner in which one pronounces or writes parakletos, which the translators of the gospel have rendered as "counsellor." There are two popular spellings of this word, the one parakletos and the other periklytos.
Muslims, aware that the original New Testament was written in Greek, choose the latter spelling, periklytos, which in Greek is translated as 'glorious', over parakletos which means 'counsellor', or 'lawyer'.
On the strength of the Qur'anic text Muslims claim that John 14:16 and 16:7 are predictions of the coming of Muhammad, as the word periklytos (glorious), refers to the Ahmad spoken of in Sura 61:6, a form of the name Muhammad, since both mean "the Praised one".
D3ii: Greek language confirms parakletos
What the Muslims have tried to do with this word is to replace the vowels as they see fit (replacing the a-a-e-o in parakletos with e-i-y-o in periklytos). In Hebrew and Arabic, where the vowels are not included in the words, there is room for debate as to which vowels the author intended (such as YHWH), however, this is not so in Greek, as the vowels are clearly written in all Greek texts.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his footnotes in the Qur'an referring to this passage says: "Our doctors contend that Paracletos is a corrupt reading for Periklytos, and that in their original saying of Jesus there was a prophecy of our Holy Prophet Ahmad by name" (pg. 1461, note no.5438).
D3iii: Greek manuscripts confirm parakletos
It would have been helpful if Ali and his learned "doctors", before making such an erroneous claim, had referred to existing manuscripts (MSS) which are easily accessible for examination (including two of the oldest, the Codex Siniaticus and the Codex Alexandrinas, both in the British Museum in London).
There are more than 70 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in existence today, dating from before the time of Muhammad, and not one of them use the word periklytos! All use the word parakletos. In fact the word periklytos does not even appear at all in the Bible!
D3iv: Therefore Muhammad could not be the parakletos
So why do Muslims continue to cling to the erroneous rendering of this word? Obviously, as we have mentioned before, Yusuf Ali and his friends have a deep desire to find any prediction for the coming of Muhammad in the Taurat and Injil. Not only does the Qur'an mention that the predictions exist, but more damaging for today, without it the sole criteria for Muhammad's authority takes on an invalid circular reasoning, which goes something like this: Muhammad receives his authority from the Qur'an, which receives its authority from Muhammad, who receives his authority from the Qur'an...so on and so forth. There is no outside authority which can provide him with the credibility he needs.
The evidence for any prediction by Jesus concerning Muhammad just does not exist in the Injil, creating a problem for Muslims who must, therefore, produce some further external criteria for the authenticity of their prophet. It's an unenviable task, one which I wouldn't want to have to do myself.
D3v: So who is the parakletos?
A further problem for the Muslim exists once they open to the verses in question. John 14:16 says: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor (parakletos) to be with you for ever." Most Muslims quote only the first half of this verse, as well as John 16:7, and then shut the Bible.
What they fail to realize is that, as is the case in most pieces of literature, it is dangerous to read any verse or phrase without looking at the context first.
When we continue reading beyond chapter 14:16 and chapter 16:7, we find that Jesus predicts the specific details of the arrival and identity of the parakletos. Therefore, according to the context of John 14 & 16 we find that:
a.Jesus said the parakletos is not a human being:
14:16: "he will be with you for ever" (a human doesn't live forever)
14:17: "he will be the spirit of truth" (a human is distinct from spirit)
14:17: "the world neither sees him..." (a human is visible)
14:17: "...nor knows him" (a human would be known by others)
14:17: "and he will be in you" (a human cannot be within others)
b.Jesus said that the parakletos has a specific mission; to point to Jesus:
14:26: "whom the Father will send in my (Jesus') name"
14:26: "will remind you everything I (Jesus) have said to you"
16:8: "he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin..."
16:14: "He will bring glory to me (Jesus)..."
c.Finally, Jesus said that the parakletos is a spirit:
14:17: "the Spirit of Truth"
14:26: "the Counsellor (parakletos), the Holy Spirit"
D3vi: The answer is the Holy Spirit, who arrived 50 days later
It is clear from the context that no human prophet or angelic being can qualify as the parakletos. Consider what these verses say: He will be with them forever, not seen, nor known, yet within others, and will set about reminding the people of what Jesus did, while bringing glory to Jesus. There is only one being who qualifies in all these areas, the Holy Spirit of the Injil, whom Jesus pointedly identifies as the parakletos. He fulfills all the above requirements.
In Acts 1, Jesus, just before He was to be taken up into heaven, and 40 days after He had first promised the Holy Spirit, again spoke about this "gift":
a.v.4: "wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about" b.v.5: "in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
It is obvious that this counsellor, of whom Jesus speaks is indeed the Holy Spirit, who came in power, 50 days after these promises were given to the disciples; on the day of Pentecost (which is translated as the 50th day), and 570 years before the birth of Muhammad.
E: Conclusion
So what have we learned? We began this paper by asking whether Muhammad could qualify as a true prophet of God. We presented the Muslim positions, positing that they claimed his prophethood due to the supernatural witness to his prophethood during his early childhood, as well as the fact that he delivered the Qur'an, though he was illiterate, and because both his prophesies and miracles pointed to his prophethood.
We then gave rebuttals to all four of these positions and followed up with four criteria of our own, concluding that Muhammad could not qualify in any four of these categories.
Following that we took the question further by asking whether Muhammad's message was for Arabs alone, or whether it was universal. Though verses can be found in the Qur'an which maintain both positions, we determined that this particular revelation had possibly evolved and followed the natural polytheistic reality on the ground at that time.
We asked whether Muhammad could be a prophet to the Jews and Christians, and came away bruised and battered from the violence with which he enjoined those two groups.
From there it was only natural to ask whether Muhammad could be understood as the seal of the prophets? In comparing him with Jesus and the former prophets we soon found that he didn't even come close. Not only did he concede his revelations to the people around him, but he had an enormous sexual appetite, while elevating himself almost on par with Allah. And finally, he, himself, realized that he had sinned and needed forgiveness.
In all these categories Muhammad failed to persuade us that he could legitimately claim to be a prophet of God. But our enquiry was still not finished. We needed to ascertain if others had spoken previously about this prophet who was yet to come.
In Suras 7:157 and 61:6 we read of a prophet, Ahmad (or Muhammad), who was revealed beforehand in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injil (Gospel). Because these Suras are included in the "eternal and perfect" authority for Muslims, it is imperative, therefore, that these passages be found, since without them, Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood, other than himself.
Muhammad's word worked fine in the heady days of the seventh century, where no-one dared counter his claim to prophethood, and where convenient revelations "descended" regularly to give him credibility before his people. But today, outside the realm of Islamic jurisdiction, and on the heels of an invigorated and ongoing literary criticism, the critics demand more proof. Without it the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims then hangs on the single testimony of this one finite man, Muhammad. And many of those beliefs go diametrically against the intrinsic revelations espoused in the scriptures which preceded him, the very scriptures which Muslims must now use to find a prediction for their prophet in order to give him credibility.
There are, however, no passages in the Taurat or the Injil which speak of him, not one.
Muslims will certainly come forward and point to the passages in Deuteronomy 18, or the Song of Solomon 5:16, or John 14 and 16 as the one's which refer to Ahmad, or Muhammad. Yet, are they? Can this prophet like Moses, the promised one, this counsellor, be a mere human or a mere prophet; or is He more than that? Is He not God Himself, in the form of a man, or, as we found in John, in the form of the Holy Spirit?
As we read these verses and consider what has been said here, it will be good to feel encouraged that we do indeed serve the true God, who chooses to reveal Himself clearly and simply, from Genesis through to Revelation, and chooses to be in relationship with us as His creatures, by coming to us as a man in the line of Moses, while still relating to us by means of His Holy Spirit, mediating Christ in us.
Because Muslims do not understand God within these parameters, it is no wonder that they are confused to find that it is Jesus and not Muhammad who is prophesied to carry on the mission of reconciliation, and that it is the Holy Spirit who has been promised to continue that same mission today, right here and right now, until we will all be with Him together for eternity; providing we believe.
- by Joseph Smith (not related to the founder of Mormonism of same name)
February 12, 2000 12:43 am
Turk
What the •••• does sex life has to do with Chechnya? You telling me motherfucker that you never heard about slavery in Turkey? How about those Russian girls that you motherfuckers kidnap from Russian and force them to work as prostitutes? What planet are you from? Have you ever been in Turkey? Even one my friend from Turkey admitted that there are a lot of Russian young girls forced to work as prostitutes and fuckers like you don’t let them go back home. What do you call that? I think that’s a ••••••• slavery. So why don’t you blind •••••• shut you mouth because you don’t know ••••.
February 12, 2000 12:55 am
U gde blea eto ebanae syka balalaika??? ili kak on seba teper nazivaet PARASHA? xyili ti baklan opet' viebivaeshe? ti pizda ebanae, gde sychara babki za proshlei mesec? xyili opet' ne tverskoi ne bil yrodec? Ti gandon naxya v proshlei raz tampon proglatil? Y teba che mesecnie nachinalis shtoli shalava debilane, tak nado bilo sebe v pizdy syvat' sterva, ny ti zje blea zjivotnoe vanuchie nexya ne ymeesh.
February 12, 2000 1:03 am
Antonio, you are a deranged man, needing professional help. You can commit all the sin you like by equating Jesus with GOD, but you won't be able to avoid punishment.
"""And of mankind are some who take others besides Allâh as rivals. They love them as they love Allâh. But those who believe, love Allâh more. If only, those who do wrong could see, when they will see the torment, that all power belongs to Allâh and that Allâh is Severe in punishment."""
Do not think that I am trying to warn you to correct path, I think you are beyond help.
"""Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.
Allâh has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment."""
February 12, 2000 1:21 am
"""By Svoloch ( - 202.160.12.31) on Friday, February 11, 2000 - 11:43 pm:
Turk
What the •••• does sex life has to do with Chechnya? You telling me motherfucker that you never heard about slavery in Turkey? How about those Russian girls that you motherfuckers kidnap from Russian and force them to work as prostitutes?"""
Are you real? If what you are saying is correct, then what sort of government you have. It can not even protect young Russian girls from being kidnapped, and forced into prostitution in Turkey.
You guys are really a lost case. Blaming everyone but yourselves for your problems.
Mate if average wage in your country is a lousy $20, and if your society's values are decayed to such a point that there is no more shame or dignity left, then don't be surprised if your sister is working willingly as a prostitute for a $5 in Turkey.
If you are not happy with this situation, first fight to install a non-corrupt government who will look after its own people, then try to preach some moral vaues in to your countrymen.
Russians are the worlds most hungry people when it comes to material things. If you had a little brain, you would pause for a second and start thinking that there might be more important things in the life than material things.
February 12, 2000 1:39 am
Svoloch, buddie, read this article.....
http://www.russiatoday.com/features.php3?id=132899
I know you won't like it, because you Russians are feeling so inferior that you are in denial mode. Mate, I won't be cruel to you. It's not your fault. It is your "so called" great leaders' fault. They made a joke out of the mighty Soviet Empire.
If you love your country, you must study what makes West such a power house, while Russia is strugling to survive. Could it be human rights, open and accountable democratic governments, independent justice system, rule of law, .....
In the West we learned that you fight for the rights of even your enemy, because if you don't do that, one day your rights will be taken away from you, and you won't find anybody defending you.
Before you answer in a rush, with your ususal bad-mouth, take a deep breath and think, then reply good old svoloch.
February 12, 2000 1:41 am
Antonio
Thanks for your text that brought me lightening and understanding. You gave me a good theological and historical explanation.
February 12, 2000 2:00 am
Yes TURK I agree all those bastards except Putin should be shot and pissed on.They all lined their pockets at the expense of the people who are still paying off debts of which they never saw a penny.Mind you the west had a hand in it.I posted to that effect before but can not be bothered to look it up again.
February 12, 2000 2:09 am
Chechen Government Searches for a New Home
2150 GMT, 000211
Coming just after Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov claimed that Chechen fighters will now revert to partisan war in Chechnya, it appears that the Chechen leadership is looking for a new home for its government. But even though many countries have condemned Russia’s actions in Chechnya, few countries are likely to play host to Chechnya’s government-in-exile. In the end, Afghanistan becomes the most likely option.
The Chechen leadership has already encountered roadblocks as it ventures forth in search of a new home. On Feb. 11 Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, a representative of Chechnya’s Maskhadov government, was detained by Pakistani authorities. And on that same day Iran denied Yandarbiyev a travel visa.
Few countries are willing to host a Chechen government-in-exile that maintains powerful ties with organized crime, the drug trade and Islamic fundamentalism. Such a government would be quite unlike, for example, the Tibetan government-in-exile in India.
This search for a government-in-exile has met resistance before. In recent months, Chechen leaders have repeatedly visited Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan, where their attempts have been rebuffed. Georgia, fearing reprisals from Russia, refused to recognize offices the Chechen leadership had set up as somewhat of a consulate. That same fear of Russian rage limits the Chechens’ options in Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Other candidates include Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan, all Islamic countries with a tradition of backing fundamentalist regimes. Pakistan’s decision to briefly detain and then expel Yandarbiyev indicates an unwillingness to host a controversial government. Hosting the Chechen government-in-exile would damage Pakistan’s effort to promote itself as a stable investment environment and it would increase Pakistan’s isolation, which began with the military coup of October 1999.
Saudi Arabia’s alliance with the United States would make it politically difficult for Riyadh to host the Maskhadov regime. But more importantly, hosting a Chechen government-in-exile, complete with Chechen militants, would grossly complicate Saudi efforts to keep a lid on its own militants. Saudi Arabia prefers to continue supplying financial support to the Chechens from afar.
Iran, despite its claim to be an Islamic state, even refused to grant Yandarbiyev an entry visa when he visited the Iranian consulate in Karachi. Tehran’s desire to maintain good relations with Moscow continues to override the principles of an Islamic foreign policy.
It is Afghanistan’s Taliban government – complete with its dependence on drug smuggling and no-holds-barred Islamic fundamentalism – that will offer the Chechen government its new home. After all, the Taliban is the only government to recognize Chechen independence. Such a move will play directly into Russian hands, allowing the Kremlin to fully equate Chechen forces with a regime thoroughly disliked throughout most of the world.
Iran and Pakistan Ally Against Taliban
- 19 November 1999
Musharraf Keeps Taliban in Line
- 17 November 1999
Taliban Position Uncertain After Pakistani Coup
- 16 October 1999
Pakistan-Taliban Relations Cool as China Tries to Curb Islamic Militants
- 15 September 1999
Russia 2000
CIS Intelligence Center
Trans-Caucasus Hotspot
Kosovo Hotspot
CIS Economy Center
CIS Global Intelligence Update Archives
Country Information
February 12, 2000 2:10 am
Pay particular attention to this part Turk
Few countries are willing to host a Chechen government-in-exile that maintains powerful ties with organized crime, the drug trade and Islamic fundamentalism. Such a government would be quite unlike, for example, the Tibetan government-in-exile in India.
February 12, 2000 2:24 am
The unwillingness to host Chechen government does not mean much. In the past, after Russian Revolution, Great Britain denied hosting Zarist Government in exile as well as refused to grant an asylum to Russian Zar himself. The same was done other European countries.
Australia until recently declined immigration for anyone of Eastern European origin and Jorg Haider is trying to do the same in Austria nowadays. It's just a politics, not a proof that someone is bad or good or ugly.
February 12, 2000 2:29 am
Saw story on Babitski, had in his possession pictures of Russian prisoners getting executed.One would have to ask how this is possible.
February 12, 2000 2:30 am
"""By IGOR ( - 206.47.244.62) on Saturday, February 12, 2000 - 01:00 am:
Yes TURK I agree all those bastards except Putin should be shot and pissed on.They all lined their pockets at the expense of the people who are still paying off debts of which they never saw a penny."""
Well, this reply is showing that perhaps I should not write you off, since it is indicating that you are not entirely deluding yourself. It's pleasing.
"""By IGOR ( - 206.47.244.62) on Saturday, February 12, 2000 - 01:10 am:
Pay particular attention to this part Turk
Few countries are willing to host a Chechen government-in-exile that maintains powerful ties with organized crime, the drug trade and Islamic fundamentalism. Such a government would be quite unlike, for example, the Tibetan government-in-exile in India.
"""
Well, we can change the names of the governments, and see what's happening. Let's try
a Pakistani government that maintains powerful ties with organized crime, the drug trade and Islamic fundamentalism.
a Russian government that maintains powerful ties with organized crime, the drug trade and Christian fundamentalism.
a Turkish government that maintains powerful ties with organized crime, the drug trade and Islamic fundamentalism.
a Ukranian government that maintains powerful ties with organized crime, the drug trade and (?) fundamentalism.
So, as you can see there are a lot of governments around the world maintaining powerful ties with organised crime. Even USA can not claim full immunity. This is actually becoming one of the biggest problems democracy is facing today.
As far as the religious ties is concerned, all those politicians will go bed with anyone who is useful in getting them into power.
However don't get me wrong, I understood your main point.
Page 1 / 4
Next
