The Instigator
Loubna
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
HardRockHallelujah
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Is Mohammed prophesied in the Bible ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
HardRockHallelujah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 78584
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Loubna

Pro

I hope this debate would be as interesting and friendly as the previous debates with my opponent and thrse are the rules of the rounds:
1-First round is for acceptance
2- Second round for opening arguments
3-First rebuttals
4-Second rebuttals and further arguents
5-Conclusion of arguments
Let the best debator wins :)
HardRockHallelujah

Con

Well, good luck to you Loubna.
Debate Round No. 1
Loubna

Pro

First of all, I would like to cast light on the most obvious verses which talk about a Prophet from Kedar (Descendants of Ishmael) which are the ancestors of Our Prophet Mohammed and here is the most crystal clear from:
1-If we look at Isaiah 41 God says "Who has stirred up servant for the East calling him in righteousness to his service.He hands nations over him and subdues kings before him.He turns them to dust with his sword" Why did God say from the east and no from Israel if God says from East ? My opponent would refer to verses "You Israel is my servant" but I see that God talks about 2 different servants because God talks about his servant arguing against idols as "Tell us, you idols,
what is going to happen." this is the same words Prophet Mohammed used to argue against the idols Arabs worshiped and if He is from Israel why God says in 41 verses 27 it says God stirs servants who would trend enemies like pot is\t says "I was first to tell Zion "Look here they are" if they were from Israel why would Zion say here THEY are ?? and lets take a look at Isaiah 42 it says"He will not falter or discourage till he establishes justice on Earth. In his teaching the Islands WILL out their hope" so who died after establishing justice and who made a literal kingdom on Earth Jesus who died with few followers crucified by Romans or Mohammed who succeeded in defending his oppressors and enemies ? Isaiah 42:6 says "
: 6 "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, " So God talks about a prophet who is a light for the gentiles who is he ? Jesus doesnt fit when he clearly says "I came for the lost sheep pf Israel" and if we look more we would find "Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, you islands, and all who live in them. 11 Let the desert and its towns raise their voices; let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice. Let the people of Sela sing for joy; let them shout from the mountaintops. 12 Let them give glory to the LORD and proclaim his praise in the islands. 13 The LORD will march out like a mighty man, like a warrior he will stir up his zeal; with a shout he will raise the battle cry and will triumph over his enemies. 14 "For a long time I have kept silent, I have been quiet and held myself back. But now, like a woman in childbirth, I cry out, I gasp and pant. 15 I will lay waste the mountains and hills and dry up all their vegetation; I will turn rivers into islands and dry up the pools. 16 I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth. These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them. 17 But those who trust in idols, who say to images, 'You are our gods,' will be turned back in utter shame." so the verses says settlers of Kedar and deserts proclaim God's Praise and sing a NEW song so wasnt this a prophecy of Mohammed who made people of Kedar proclaim God's Praise in a new song and did Jesus do that ? And the Lord will march with glory as a WARRIOR and will triumph the enemies and He specifies that the enemies he fought are Idol Worshippors as He says and those who trust in idols and say "You are Gods" will be turned back in utter shame and so God says a servant would be alight for Gentiles and make the people of Kedar sing a new song to the Lord and would lead wars against idol worshippors so these are blindly refering to Mohammed. Also we find Deut 33:2 "nd he said, the Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; and shined forth from Mount Paran and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. (Deuteronomy 33:2)" so it says God has went forth to Paran with 10000 saints there do was it really God who went to Paran with 10000 saints ? Or does it mean a prophet ? And where is Paran ? The place where Arabs lived so the Bible says God has a prophet going to Paran with 10000 saints which is the exact number of soldiers who freed Mecca under the leadership of Mohammed and if it wasnt a prophet then did Yahweh march to Arab lands with 10000 soldiers ? Or even any Biblical prophet did that ? and what about Habakuk 3 when it says "od comes from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise" So who came from Teman and Mount Paran which are the places where Arabs lived and have the "Earth filled with his Praise" so was Yahweh an Arabic who came from Teman and Paran ? Or was it God's Messanger Mohammed who came there and Muslims all over the globe praise his name? and lets see this of Isaiah "nd then: For unto us a Child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this." (Isaiah 9:6- 7) so this a proechy of the zeal of the Lord who would make a government and kingdom with justice and it isnt a prophecy of Jesus the Messiah since he didnt make a "government" as the verse states so it is of course Mohammed ! Thast enough for this round.
HardRockHallelujah

Con

Alright, well thank you Loubna for that.
I'll get started right away...

This debate is in the form of a yes or no question...Is Muhammad prophesied in the Bible? That means it will be up to Loubna to demonstrate that Muhammad is indeed in the Bible, which he tried to meet in his opening, my only job as Con will be to show that he has failed to meet that burden.

Now let's start off with why this question is essential to Muhammad's prophet-hood, Muhammad didn't just claim to be a prophet, he claimed that his coming as a prophet was predicted in the previous scriptures, namely the Torah and the Gospel, there are 2 places in the Qur'an were Muhammad makes this claim:

"Now, special mercy is assigned to those who follow the Rasool, the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad) - whom they shall find described in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)." (7:157, Malik translation)

"And remember when Isa (Jesus) the son of Maryam said: "O children of Israel! I am the Rasool of Allah towards you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and to give you good news of a Rasool that will come after me whose name shall be Ahmed (another name of Muhammad, meaning 'The praised one')." (61:6, Malik translation)

Now remember, to be a true prophet, it wasn't necessarily required to have your coming foretold in the Bible, most prophets didn't have their coming foretold, but Muhammad makes this claim, so his prophet-hood must be demonstrated from the Bible.

I just want to make it clear that this has to be met, this challenge has to be met, Loubna has to show that Muhammad is indeed predicted in my scriptures. If Muhammad was wrong about this, then he just disproved his claims to be a prophet (claiming something that's not true, that's a clear mark of a false prophet).

Remember, Muhammad made two claims, namely his coming was predicted not just in the Torah but also the Gospel, so Loubna still needs to provide something from the Gospel to substantiate his prophet's claim.

Loubna provided some verses from the Old Testament, but i'll respond to his claims in my rebuttal.

With that said, I will deal with the 2 most common verses Muslims put forth as evidence that Muhammad is in the Bible, Deuteronomy 18:18 and John 14:16 (c.f 15:26, 16:7-13)

These verses are so common amongst Muslims that they're even included in the Hilali Khan version of the Qur'an, literally, right in the paranthesis of Surah 7:157, it is included.

If these are the two primary ones, and Muhammad fails (and he fails miserabely), then you can expect all the other claims are going to be fall a lot more easily.

Deuteronomy 18:15-18
" “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’“And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him."

This is what the verse says, but now I will explain to you how Muslims try to argue Muhammad from this verse:
The verse says the prophet will be an Ishmaelite because the prophet will come from the brethren of the Israelite, and that Abraham had two sons: Isaac and Ishmael, Jews are the descendants of Isaac, Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael, so therefore the prophet is an Ishmaelite.

This explanation simply won't work, because what it means to be "brethren" of an Israelite is defined in the same book of Deuteronomy:
"you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother." (Deuteronomy 17:5)
So quite clearly, brethren in the context means someone from one of the 12 tribes of Israel, not someone from Arabia, even the vers itself says don't put a foreigner over you (like an Arab).

Secondly, Muslims also try to present similarities between Moses and Muhammad, and show that Moses and Muhammad are very similar.
The problem with this is that what it means to be like Moses is defined in the scriptures for us:
"But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, before Pharaoh, before all his servants, and in all his land, and by all that mighty power and all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel." (Deuteronomy 34:10-12)

The criteria for what like Moses means is:
1) Must be an Israelite
2) Must speak with God face to face
3) Must perform miracles

Muhammad did not meet even one of these criteria, he was not an Israelite, he didn't speak to God face to face, and he didn't perform any miracles.
That he wasn't an Israelite is obvious, that he didn't speak with God face to face is clear from the fact that he claimed to receive his revelation from an Angel named Gabriel, that he didn't perform miracles is written all over the Qur'an.
Therefore, Muhammad is not the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18

John 14:16
"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever."

The Muslim argument goes like this: in the Greek, the word "paraclete" (which means helper, counsellor, or an advocate who speaks to others on behalf of someone else) was originally "periklytos" (which means "praised one", which in turn is what Muhammad means)

The problem with this claim is that there is absolutely no manuscript evidence of the Gospel of John that provides the Muslim reading of the verse. Out of all the 5000+ manuscrips we have for the Gospel of John, all of them contain "paraclete" not "periklytos".

The second part of their argument goes like this:
In John 16:7, Jesus says that he must go away for the Helper to come. Their argument is since the Holy Spirit was already present, this can't be the Holy Spirit, because why would Jesus say he won't come unless he goes, if the Holy Spirit is already there with them? Fair objection, but here is the answer:

If we continue reading what Jesus says in the John 14:17, he gives us the answer:
"the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you."
There is the answer, Jesus is not saying the Helper is not there with them, what he meant was that the Helper was already present with them, but when Jesus goes away, the Helper (who is identified as the Holy Spirit in John 14:26) will now be inside the disciples.

And this finds its fulfillment in the Book of Acts:
"When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:1-4)

Therefore, Muhammad can't be the paraclete.

I'll deal with everything Loubna brought up in my rebuttal.

Debate Round No. 2
Loubna

Pro

Loubna forfeited this round.
HardRockHallelujah

Con

Well, I didn't get a response to anything I said, but no big deal, this is my rebuttal, so hopefully Pro will have a response to what I am about to respond to.

Pro said: "First of all, I would like to cast light on the most obvious verses which talk about a Prophet from Kedar (Descendants of Ishmael) which are the ancestors of Our Prophet Mohammed and here is the most crystal clear from:
1-If we look at Isaiah 41 God says "Who has stirred up servant for the East calling him in righteousness to his service.He hands nations over him and subdues kings before him.He turns them to dust with his sword" Why did God say from the east and no from Israel if God says from East ? My opponent would refer to verses "You Israel is my servant" but I see that God talks about 2 different servants because God talks about his servant arguing against idols as "Tell us, you idols,
what is going to happen." this is the same words Prophet Mohammed used to argue against the idols Arabs worshiped and if He is from Israel why God says in 41 verses 27 it says God stirs servants who would trend enemies like pot is\t says "I was first to tell Zion "Look here they are" if they were from Israel why would Zion say here THEY are ??"

My response: I am just baffled at the amount of misreading Pro just did with Isaiah 41, he said, "well, there are two servants because the text says "tell us, you idols", therefore this applies to Muhammad also, because he shunned the idols". This is pure eisegesis of the text, pretty much everything he said is incorrect, the point Isaiah is making in mentioning "idols" is God is making an argument, he is asking all the false Gods, to predict what will happen in the future and tell us why things in the past happened. The reason why the true God is distinguished from all other false gods, is because he predicts the future accurately, while false gods (like idols) can't. So this has nothing to do with Muhammad, you're just reading things into the text. The passage is very clear, the servant is Israel, trying to argue anything else then what the text explicitly says isn't going to work.


Pro said "Also we find Deut 33:2 "nd he said, the Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; and shined forth from Mount Paran and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. (Deuteronomy 33:2)" so it says God has went forth to Paran with 10000 saints there do was it really God who went to Paran with 10000 saints ? Or does it mean a prophet ? And where is Paran ? The place where Arabs lived so the Bible says God has a prophet going to Paran with 10000 saints which is the exact number of soldiers who freed Mecca under the leadership of Mohammed and if it wasnt a prophet then did Yahweh march to Arab lands with 10000 soldiers ? Or even any Biblical prophet did that ?"

My response: I don't know why Loubna is appealing to this text yet again after our last debate, I made it very clear that this is not talking about a prophet, nor a human being, the text is talking about the LORD coming to Mt. Sinai and giving the revelation of the Torah to the nation, it has nothing to do with Muhammad, it's simply stating what the LORD did, taking this passage and applying it to Muhammad makes you guilty of shirk, so you better repent if you are a faithful Muslims.


Pro said " Habakuk 3 when it says "od comes from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise" So who came from Teman and Mount Paran which are the places where Arabs lived and have the "Earth filled with his Praise" so was Yahweh an Arabic who came from Teman and Paran ? Or was it God's Messanger Mohammed who came there and Muslims all over the globe praise his name?"

My response: First off, it must be plainly stated that Mount Paran is nowhere near Mecca if that is what you are trying to argue, Mount Paran is in northwestern Sinai, which is nowhere near Mecca. Secondly, again you are distorting what Habakkuk 3:3 is saying it is talking about GOD (not Muhammad). So for the life of me, I don't know why you as a Muslim are applying passages from the Old Testament that talk about God to Muhammad.


Pro said "this of Isaiah "nd then: For unto us a Child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this." (Isaiah 9:6- 7) so this a proechy of the zeal of the Lord who would make a government and kingdom with justice and it isnt a prophecy of Jesus the Messiah since he didnt make a "government" as the verse states so it is of course Mohammed !"

My response: My goodness, out of any passage of the Old Testament that could be about Muhammad, Isaiah 9:6 is the last verse you should be quoting, do you know why?....Look at what the passage is saying: "His name is called: Wonderful(hebrew: Pele), Counsellor(hebrew: Yoetz), Mighty God(hebrew: El-Gibbor), Father of Eternity(hebrew: Avi-Ad), Prince of Peace (hebrew: Sar-Shalom). There are a few things to take note of, firstly, in the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew word "pele" which means Wonderful is used nowhere except for God, in English that's not the case, but in the Hebrew Bible, this word is reserved solely as a name of God. Secondly, the name "Mighty God" is used of God the Father in Isaiah 10:21, the same exact term in hebrew "El-Gibbor" is said of the Father, which is also said of this child who is to be born. Thirdly, the name "Father of Eternity" can mean "possesor of eternity" or "the eternal creator". Quite clearly this passage is talking about the incarnation of the divine Son of God, Jesus Christ. No mere man could ever be called "Wonderful", "Mighty God", or "Father of Eternity".
That this is talking about the Messiah is very clear from the following Jewish sources:

"The prophet saith to the house of David, A child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it, and his name has been called from of old, Wonderful counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed One (or Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us." (The Targum of Isaiah, Isaiah 9:6)

"Another explanation: He said to him: ‘I have yet to raise up the Messiah’ of whom it is written, For a child is born to us (Isa. IX, 5). (Midrash Rabbah Deuteronomy, Rabbi H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, Editors; Rev. Dr. J. Rabbinowitz, Translator [London: Soncino Press], I.20, p. 20)

Rabbi Ibn Ezra says: "There are some interpreters who say that ‘wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father’ are the names of God, and that only ‘prince of peace’ is the name of the child. But according to my view, the right interpretation is that they are all the names of the child. (Walter Riggans, Yeshua Ben David [Wowborough, East Sussex; MARC, 1995], p. 370)

I could go on and on, but it is clear that Isaiah 9:6 is talking about the Messiah. And again, the names given to the Messiah in this passage demonstrate he is God. How this could be about Muhammad is beyond me.


So in summary, Pro hasn't gave anything (yet) from the Gospel, so we still need something from the Gospel to substantiate his prophet's claims. Remember, he made the dual claims, that he could be found in both the Torah and the Gospel.
Debate Round No. 3
Loubna

Pro

Loubna forfeited this round.
HardRockHallelujah

Con

The fact that this is the 2nd time in a row now that Loubna has forfeited, tells me one of two things:

1) Either Loubna has no response to my refutation to what he said.
2) Loubna doesn't feel the need to defend the credibility of his prophet.

I pretty much already refuted everything he tried arguing from the Old Testament. HE still needs to give us something from the Torah AND the Gospel, Muhammad made the claim, so if he usn't found in BOTH books, then he is a false prophet.
Debate Round No. 4
Loubna

Pro

Loubna forfeited this round.
HardRockHallelujah

Con

1...2...3 strikes you're out Loubna.

Let me just summarize what I have established, first of all, I first examined the two most common verses that are brought forth by Muslims: Deuteronomy 18 and John 14, and showed that Muhammad could not be the prophet of Deuteronomy 18, because he wasn't an Israelite, which was required of the prophet, nor did he speak with God face to face, nor did he do miracles, all of which is what "like Moses" means in context. I also went through each of Loubna's claims and one by one showed how the verses when understood properly, that they have absolutely nothing to do with Muhammad.

So what that does leave us with? Loubna has failed to show where Muhammad is prophesied in the Torah in the Gospel. So the answer to the question of "Is Muhammad prophesied in the Bible?" must be answered in the negative.

There may be passages in the Bible that talk about Muhammad, one most striking to me is 1 John 2.

In 1 John 2, were are explicitly told what to think about Muhammad.

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22).

Muhammad denied the Father (Surah 5:18) and the Son (Surah 9:30), therefore, Muhammad proves himself to be, not a true prophet, not a prophet predicted in the Bible, but someone who falls under the most serious condemnation of the Bible, to be Antichrist is to be against Christ and everything that he taught. Muhammad is one step removed from being Satan.

Therefore, Muhammad is a not only a false prophet, but he is an Antichrist, and a child of Satan according to the standards of the books he appealed to in order to prove he was a true prophet.

It's too late for Muhammad, but the good news for Loubna is that God promises forgiveness to those who come his Son, Jesus Christ.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by LutherWest 2 years ago
LutherWest
It's kind of a shame to be honest.

When I saw the title of the debate and someone actually willing to debate the topic, I got excited, brought the popcorn and turned off my heavy metal music. Only to find....no debate...

@HardRockHallelujah you presented your arguments very well out there, good job, I just wish you had one to debate with. And also, you keep referring to Loubna as "he" mind you, Loubna is a girl's name but by all means, I'm not claiming it still can't be a "he" behind that name. It's just less likely.
Posted by HardRockHallelujah 2 years ago
HardRockHallelujah
This debate was very one-sided in my opinion, I was looking forward to Loubna responding to my refutations of his claims and/or providing additional evidence, but I guess he just didn't feel the need to participate.
Posted by HardRockHallelujah 2 years ago
HardRockHallelujah
**Correction to my 1st rebuttal:

I cited Deuteronomy 17:5, but I meant to cite Deuteronomy 17:15 instead, so my apologies.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
LoubnaHardRockHallelujahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Sarra 2 years ago
Sarra
LoubnaHardRockHallelujahTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Forfeit