Muhammad predicted in the Bible?

[Kouyate42]

I’m unsure as to which forum this should go in, so mods, please move if needed!

Anyways, a major argument I’ve heard for islam is that the prediction of the ‘Paraclytos’ by Jesus mirrors the same prediction made in the Qur’an by the Muslim 'Isa for the coming of Muhammed.

Anyone care to clarify why this argument is faulty? I’ve heard various issues to do with ‘paracletos/paraclytos’ in manuscripts, but I don’t know.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

The Bible doesn’t prophesy of Muhammad. You have to remember that Catholicism considers both Sacred Scripture (Bible) and Sacred Tradition (teachings handed down through the apostles). Both of these make up public revelation. When the last apostle died (St. John the Apostle, at 100 AD) all public revelation ceased. God had completed all he had to say to Mankind. There could be no new spiritual doctrines or no new messiahs or anything like that. Muhammad was born in 570 AD, which means he was born outside the deadline of public revelation. That immediately makes him a false prophet. No questions really need to be asked. Indeed, Scripture says: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8). If there was anything predicting Muhammad, it would probably be that verse. After all, who was it that claimed to receive a message from St. Gabriel?

This is what the Church teaches, or at least as I understood it when I read it in the past.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9204fea1.asp

 

[Kouyate42]

The Bible doesn’t prophesy of Muhammad. You have to remember that Catholicism considers both Sacred Scripture (Bible) and Sacred Tradition (teachings handed down through the apostles). Both of these make up public revelation. When the last apostle died (St. John the Apostle, at 100 AD) all public revelation ceased. God had completed all he had to say to Mankind. There could be no new spiritual doctrines or no new messiahs or anything like that. Muhammad was born in 570 AD, which means he was born outside the deadline of public revelation. That immediately makes him a false prophet. No questions really need to be asked. Indeed, Scripture says: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8). If there was anything predicting Muhammad, it would probably be that verse. After all, who was it that claimed to receive a message from St. Gabriel?

This is what the Church teaches, or at least as I understood it when I read it in the past.

I will bookmark and highlight this passage in my Bible for reference!

 

[_L]

I’m unsure as to which forum this should go in, so mods, please move if needed!

Anyways, a major argument I’ve heard for islam is that the prediction of the ‘Paraclytos’ by Jesus mirrors the same prediction made in the Qur’an by the Muslim 'Isa for the coming of Muhammed.

Anyone care to clarify why this argument is faulty? I’ve heard various issues to do with ‘paracletos/paraclytos’ in manuscripts, but I don’t know.

It’s faulty because it is a lie, completely taking the Bible out of context in trying to force Islamic theology into scriptures that have nothing to do with Islam. It is ironic because Islam teaches that Jesus did not really die on the cross, but the very gospels that detail Jesus talking about the Paraclete also detail Jesus’ death on the cross.

The Paraclete has always been understood as the Holy Spirit which descended upon the Apostles and the other Christians at Pentecost as detailed in the book of Acts.

 

[Bezant]

I’m unsure as to which forum this should go in, so mods, please move if needed!

Anyways, a major argument I’ve heard for islam is that the prediction of the ‘Paraclytos’ by Jesus mirrors the same prediction made in the Qur’an by the Muslim 'Isa for the coming of Muhammed.

Anyone care to clarify why this argument is faulty? I’ve heard various issues to do with ‘paracletos/paraclytos’ in manuscripts, but I don’t know.

Hello

It precludes that one is a Muslim and accepts the theory that Muhammed is foretold in Judaism and Christianity’s texts. That is to say, it’s only as real as you believe it. If you don’t believe the Quran is the uncorrupted holy text passed from God through the lips of Muhammed, the last of the prophets, then the argument is faulty.

Otherwise, it is impossible to gather from the NT that there would be a Muhammed born 600 years later, without accepting the Quran as a divine source.

Similiarly, and I don’t care what anyone says, it’s impossible to predict Jesus’s coming in the Old Testament without the New Testament as a source.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Similiarly, and I don’t care what anyone says, it’s impossible to predict Jesus’s coming in the Old Testament without the New Testament as a source.

Not really. You see, Judaism is not a “closed-off” religion. Jews are still awaiting their Messiah (Maschiach). Christianity is a closed-off religion, and in fact the first closed-off Abrahamic religion, because it is believed Jesus has fulfilled all the prophecies of old. For example, the major Old Testament prophet Isaiah prophecizes:

“**Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, andd will call him Immanuel. **. . .]” (Isaiah 7:14) and “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not” (Isaiah 53:3).

Who was it that was born of a virgin? Who was it that was rejected by men? Christianity, as I’ve said in my other post, is a closed-off religion. Christians won’t be receiving any new doctrine or revelation from God until the Second Coming. Islam, thus, is redundant by virtue of the fact that mainstream Christianity regards God as having finished all He has had to publicly reveal to Mankind. Judaism is an open-religion still awaiting their Messiah, and this conforms perfectly to Isaiah’s prophecy again:

"He said, "Go and tell this people: "'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ (Isaiah 6:9). This was explained in the Gospel of Matthew to show that even though they saw the Messiah face-to-face, they did not grasp Him. It also indirectly shows us that we can never divorce the Old Testament from the New Testament:

“This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.” (Matthew 13:13-14)

 

[Bezant]

It’s faulty because it is a lie…

Do you have proof that it’s a lie?

I’m sure that the Muslim apologists promoting that view are sincere that the NT forecasted Muhammed’s coming. They have little reason to lie.

Whether or not it’s a true claim is a different story.

For me, and perhaps some Muslims, I don’t think saying the “original” NT was corrupted or misunderstood by human beings can support the claim that the NT predicts Muhammed’s coming. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. But who cares anyway.

…completely taking the Bible out of context in trying to force Islamic theology into scriptures that have nothing to do with Islam.

You would do well to be careful with that argument. Christianity did the same thing to the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is ironic because Islam teaches that Jesus did not really die on the cross, but the very gospels that detail Jesus talking about the Paraclete also detail Jesus’ death on the cross.

It’s ironic that Luke and Matthew write two (contradictory) genelogical accounts of Davidic descent through Joseph (to prove Jesus is the messiah), even though Jesus’ father is supposed to be God…heck, Jesus is God…but doesn’t that contradict Deuteronomy 6:4, Exodus 20:2-3, Deuteronomy 20:5-7…?

When they come up it’s best to leave the matters in faith’s limits, at least in our interests, since we didn’t show up first. It suffices to say “The argument is invalid because we don’t believe in Islam.” The end.

 

[Bezant]

The Bible doesn’t prophesy of Muhammad. You have to remember that Catholicism considers both Sacred Scripture (Bible) and Sacred Tradition (teachings handed down through the apostles). Both of these make up public revelation. When the last apostle died (St. John the Apostle, at 100 AD) all public revelation ceased. God had completed all he had to say to Mankind. There could be no new spiritual doctrines or no new messiahs or anything like that.

And that’s why the matter stops there. Very well said.

 

[Methos]

I’m unsure as to which forum this should go in, so mods, please move if needed!

Anyways, a major argument I’ve heard for islam is that the prediction of the ‘Paraclytos’ by Jesus mirrors the same prediction made in the Qur’an by the Muslim 'Isa for the coming of Muhammed.

Anyone care to clarify why this argument is faulty? I’ve heard various issues to do with ‘paracletos/paraclytos’ in manuscripts, but I don’t know.

This is a Protestant site, but it does deal with the supposed prophecies well.

 

[_L]

Do you have proof that it’s a lie?

I’m sure that the Muslim apologists promoting that view are sincere that the NT forecasted Muhammed’s coming. They have little reason to lie.

Whether or not it’s a true claim is a different story.

Do I need to prove that the Holy Spirit is not Muhammad? I certainly hope not lol.

It’s a lie in the sense that I believe such a horrible idea comes only from the father of lies himself who would have us believe that a veiled reference to God concerns is really a reference to a false prophet. Now I don’t believe Muslims are intentionally lying, that is not what I mean, error might better apply to them than lie.

You would do well to be careful with that argument. Christianity did the same thing to the Hebrew Scriptures.

It’s not forcing Christian theology to fit the Hebrew Scriptures if Christian theology is true, Jesus uses the OT to show Himself to be the messiah, was He forcing His views on scripture? Of course not, He is God and author of Truth and His Church follows suit in knowing that the paraclete is certainly not a reference dot Muhammad while at the same time accurately extrapolating OT scriptures to reveal the mysteries of the NT truthfully.

It suffices to say “The argument is invalid because we don’t believe in Islam.” The end.

It does not suffice when it concerns Muslims; who need to hear that who we believe the Paraclete to be rather than just tell them we do not believe in their religion and end the discussion. If they assume we have no answer then naturally they feel free to assume the Paraclete is a reference to Muhammad, but if we tell them that is wrong and why it is wrong that goes a long way.