What The Bible Says About Muhammad.

[Servetus]

Hence, the tendency of Muslims to hold the Bible at a distance and to claim, in my opinion plausibly so, that it is redacted to the point of corruption ...

that must be why we find it such a useless text...not.

Perhaps corruption, in this case, is too strong a word. After all, in Abu Fauzi’s absence, I, as a non-Muslim, would not want to be guilty of perpetuating his thread by giving bad dawah (lol). At any rate, given that the Quran says, or implies, in this and other instances, that we, Jews and Christians, as People of the Book, are supposed to be able to find Muhammad foretold in our books, and given that many of us, strangely enough, cannot, Muslims seem logically forced -given that they accept the Quran as prima facie true- to conclude that our books have been tampered with and that, to borrow a convenient phrase from Prophet Jeremiah, the "lying pens of the scribes" have sometimes, in our case, been active.

Anyway, the claim is hardly controversial. Richard Friedman reports from academia that three quarters (or some such number) of the philologists and higher critics at Harvard and elsewhere hold to the Documentary Hypothesis, which claims the interpolation of upwards to (is it?) three different versions of the Old -correction, Earlier - Testament alone. Even as a child, when I was made to sit in Sunday School classes and cringe at what were ostensibly morality tales within which I could, at times, detect precious little morality, and later, when I read the books, I sensed the hand of the Levitical redactor on practically every page of the Bible, and not just in the Book of Leviticus. It was only later that Richard Friedman and others confirmed my bias (said with tongue somewhat in cheek).

of course, nobody could ever make such claims about the Qur'an, could they?

Is the question rhetorical? Naturally, the argument is as omni-directional as it is infinite.

islamic claims of bible corruption are ideologically motivated and self-serving, just like the christian claims before them.

And what, do you suppose, motivates Richard Friedman and the blokes at Harvard? Ideology. Of course. Because ideology, like money, makes zee vwerld go 'round, zee vwerld go 'round.

what can i say - typically they are not familiar with the oral tradition, which is like saying that the lecture was rubbish because you are trying to make sense of the powerpoint slides in isolation.

Oral laws and traditions do have a remarkable propensity to escape redaction, provided, that is, that they remain oral. But, like the Gospel of Jesus, which originally was oral, once it is written by secondary sources, it can easily become redacted, whether to the point of corruption is another, arguable matter.

Serv

 

[Sandy K]

Many thanks for a detailed, thoughtful and complimentary post. To avoid exponential growth in the post length, I'll keep to a couple of points.

In this case, I agree with Deedat. According ...<snip>... St. John’s Gospel had had any contact with those sectarians and was aware of the belief.

the Jewish authorities were expecting not only a messiah but also a prophet.

Surely Deedat must be wrong? My point being that Judaism in the first century had a range of messianic beliefs, which could include more than one Messiah (and more than those at Qumran could have believed that). Therefore any argument built on the premise that the Jews were expecting only one Messiah must be faulty.


The Jewish leadership referred to in John 1 historically rejected the idea any Messiah of any kind was to come. Their questioning should be read as antagonistic in tone “The return from exile has happened, so why the need for eschatological baptism?”.

Who, then, is the unnamed “Jewish” prophet, and, to compound the complexity, who says that he has to be Jewish?

The belief was based on Deuteronomy 18, especially vv18,19:


“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.”


This gave rise to the expectation in some first century Jewish quarters that a Jewish prophet would inaugurate the Kingdom. John was denying that was his job.

Would that be Jesus, the (or, if it applies, "a") Messiah? Who, then, is “the prophet?” Moreover, a new question arises: are “the prophet” and the Paraclete identical?

The question John was answering was three versions of “are you bringing in the Kingdom?”, to which he replied three times “no”. The next thing he does is say who is bringing it in (Jesus, vv29-33)

It's ambiguous whether that means he'll inaugurate it (denial from John), or whether he'll appear without that job (Jesus comment on John).

Sorry. I didn’t understand this sentence.

Elijah was here, but apparently did not know who he was.

The statement from Malachi 4:5 “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes” is ambiguous. Does it mean Elijah will bring the Kingdom in himself? Does it mean he'll appear and someone else will bring it in?


In John's gospel, John is referring to the first interpretation, and denying he'll be doing that. In the synoptic statement, Jesus is referring to the second interpretation, and saying it's happened, with John as Elijah.

 

[Servetus]

Thank you, Sandy K. I have no more questions at this time, your honor, Servie says, addressing the bench.

Serv

 

[Thomas]

Hi Sandy K, welcome to IO —

I'm still waiting for any positive reason to connect Muhammad to the Paraclete.

There is none, as I'm sure you would agree. I was most surprised, when I attended a lecture by Dr Martin Lings, a Muslim scholar and promoter of the 'Perennial Philosophy', to hear him declare that references to the Paraclete in John 'obviously' pointed to the Prophet ...

Christianity does need Judaism, in the same way that my head needs its body.

Nice Pauline reference.

I'm trying very hard to think like an early model Christian...

I'm with you all the way there. It's a tough job, but enlightening.

God bless,

Thomas