Prophet Muhammad prophesised in Bible.

[goraya15]

The fifth name in the prophecy is Prince of Peace. Can Jesus be truly called such? He did not become a sovereign in his life. He did not ever gain power to administer forgiveness to his enemies, and therefore, there was not much occasion for him to perform what he preached. On the other hand, the very religion of Muhammad is called Islam, meaning peace. As for the performance of peace and forgiveness in Muhammad's life we have ample evidence.
Through thirteen long and weary years the prophet of Islam and his little band of devoted followers bore with calm dignity and patience the bitterest persecution at the hands of the Meccans. Starvation, flogging, scoffings, humiliations, degradations and outrages of every description were the order of the day. When the Prophet took refuge in Medina, even there he was not left in peace. Over a period of seven years of sustained and brutal persecution the Prophet of Islam appeared suddenly on the heights of Paran, at the head of ten thousand saints, with no battle fought and not a drop of blood shed, when any penalty inflicted upon these Meccans would have been light in comparison to their long record of misdeeds, the Prophet announced, gently and mercifully:

There shall be no retribution exacted from you, you shall all go free. (The Holy Quran 12:93)

Is it the same way that the Christians treated their enemies when they came to power? Who should then be called a true Prince of Peace, Jesus or Muhammad? Jesus could not afford peace to others. His followers were able to afford it, but they did not give it. The prophet of Islam had the power to punish his enemies but he chose to forgive. Muhammad, therefore, was the Prince of Peace of Isaiah's prophecy. It was he again who also attained government and thus could fulfill the last part of this prophecy saying, "Of the increase of his government and peace, there shall be no end."

Conclusion

These are just a few of the many prophecies found in the Bible about the advent of that great prophet who was going to lead the world into all truth.
Muhammad was going to be, in the words of Solomon, "altogether lovely" which in Hebrew is expressed as Mahmaddim. (Song of Solomon 5: 10-16) He was the fulfillment of the "stone" of Daniel's dream. (Daniel 2:34-35) He was the coming of the lord of the vineyard himself as foretold by Jesus.
True, there are some prophecies about Jesus as well in the Old Testament but it is also a fact that there are many which cannot rightly be applied to him. These could be fulfilled in the person of the one who was coming with a Law and whose mission was to be not just to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" but to the whole world, one who was spoken of by Jesus as the Comforter and Spirit of Truth. The predictions about Muhammad in the Bible are clear and precise.
The door to the Kingdom of Heaven has been opened by the fulfillment of these prophecies. Blessed are those who accept the call of the Lord of Heaven and Earth to enter His Kingdom and receive His communion.
And our last observation is that all praise is due to God, the Sustainer of the Universe.



whoo..that's a long one...once again...much easier to read the whole thing off of the original site at http://www.alislam.org/books/in-bible/index.html , if any of you are so inclined.

 

[Crowley]

The fifth name in the prophecy is Prince of Peace. Can Jesus be truly called such?
The prophet Isaiah called Jesus' name that in Isaiah 9 where he is also called Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Right now according to prohecy we are living during the time of the iron and clay mentioned in Daniel 2. So, it is time for the stone (Christ) cut out of the mountain (God) to strike the image on its feet and fill the earth with his kingdom of peace. Remember that Muhammed lived 2500 years after Moses had already recieved the Law. Jesus had already died and rose some 700 years before Muhammed was born. There is no way Isaiah called Muhammed the mighty God in this passage. Or the other names.

John the apostle saw the glorified Jesus Christ on Patmos about 90 AD. God gave to him the Revelation of Jesus Christ. In Revelation chapter 2 verse 8 Jesus called himself the ALMIGHTY. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Moses, the Torah, the Hebrew prophets, the Psalms, the Proverbs, the etc. and the Gospel of Jesus Christ had already been lived and recorded, as I stated above.
Christ died for the sins of the world. He gave his life to save ours, an exchange was made; the guiltless for the guilty. Jesus not only preached peace, to love our enemies and do good to them, he healed the sick, raised the dead, and performed many miracles by his own power.


Islam cannot improve on the 613 commandments God gave to Moses at Sinai 2500 years before Muhammed was even born.. It simply cannot be done. Moses covered everything pertaining to life and death and how to treat our fellow man.

.
I have studied Islam. Medina was originally founded by three Jewish tribes. Muhammed killed them all, took their money and used it to raise an army of over 10,000 which army plundered, and murdered making Muslims by the edge of the sword, but what Jesus Christ preached was LOVE for even our enemies. and to be peacemakers. Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God." Matthew 5.9 Never did Christ murder nor did his folowers. The early Christians were killed by the Caesars. Whent he Crusades began ii was under papal authority, it had nothing to do with the humble follwoers of Yeshua.
Your history report doesn't agree with the history of the world by the historians who are nothing short of brilliant, such as HG WELLs who gives the life of Muhammed in his great book The Outline of The History of the World.


Jesus went into the synagogue that Sabbath and read fromt he book of Isaiah and said,
" The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised," Luke 4.18
Jesus sets us free when we come to him, so your sura is not new in any sense.

Isaiah 9.6 "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." Isaiah said this about Jesus Christ 1500 years before Muhammed was born. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which prove these words and when they were written.

Jesus could not afford peace to others

Jesus said,"My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth." John 14:27 he spoke of the peace deep down int he soul a peace the world cannot give and the world cannot take away. It is this peace that enabled the early Christians to be murdered by the Caesars.

His followers were able to afford it, but they did not give it.
Read the epistles of Paul and of Peter, John and read Acts of the Apostles.


The prophet of Islam had the power to punish his enemies but he chose to forgive. Muhammad, therefore, was the Prince of Peace of Isaiah's prophecy.
Isaiah was an Israeli a descendent of Isaac,
and believe me he wrote for the Jews, only about the Jews and he looked for Messiah as did they all. Isaiah didn't call Muhammed the "Mighty God" the Everlasing Father" and the "Counsellor" and he certainly wouldn't call anyone Wonderful except for Yahweh. It says the governement shall be upon his (Messiah Prince) shoulder.
Why would you think the ancient Hebrews would write about Muhammed when their entire Hewbrew Scriptures is only for them, about their history, kings, prophets, judges, etc., and of their Yahweh and his Messiah?
Read Genesis 3.15, the first messianic prophecy, it is stated there that the one coming would crush the serpent's head.


Luke 1; "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of ...."Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." Isaiah 9 and Gabriel in Luke 1 are in agreement

These are just a few of the many prophecies found in the Bible about the advent of that great prophet who was going to lead the world into all truth.

The Bible tells of no one else but Jesus Christ. It starts with Israel, theh narrows it down to Isaac, then Jacob, then Judah to Perez, to all the kings then to Jospeh husband of Mary of whom w as born Jesus Christ, the heir to David's throne as prophesied in Psalm 132.11-12 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto DAVID; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon THY (DAVID'S) THRONE. If thy children will keep My covenant and My testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon THY THRONE for evermore"
Muhammad was going to be, in the words of Solomon, "altogether lovely" which in Hebrew is expressed as Mahmaddim. (Song of Solomon 5: 10-16)
There is no reason to believe that Solomon would write about someone who had nothing to do with Isaac's descendents.
He was the fulfillment of the "stone" of Daniel's dream. (Daniel 2:34-35) He was the coming of the lord of the vineyard himself as foretold by Jesus.
Muhammed is not going to fill the whole earth. The kingdom of God is. Daniel wrote this while he was in captivity in Babylon and he saw the Ancient of days (Messiah Prince) and he interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, not Daniel's The great image is well understood by scholars and Christians. It has nothing to dow ith Muhammed, the Bible is all a bout Jesus Christ. There is no reason to believe the Jews would write of Muhammed or anyone. Jesus Christ was actually the culmination of the Hebrew Prophets that they themselves prophseied about. They never looked for anhyone but a descendent of Isaac.
True, there are some prophecies about Jesus as well in the Old Testament but it is also a fact that there are many which cannot rightly be applied to him.
Every Hebrew prophecy is only about Messiah Prince. His genealogy is recorded in Matthew and Luke so the world could know WHO HE IS, where he came from, how he got here and why. Sixty-four generations of sons beginning with Isaac born in an unbroken line to Jesus Christ. The Bible is only about Jesus and him only. If you knew the Bible from beginning to end, you would find nothing there but CHRIST.

Jesus is Yahweh himself.

Why would you think the Jews would write about an Arabian?
The whole Bible is about one nation (ISRAEL) one family (ISAAC"S) and two thoughts (REDEMPTION through Christ or JUDGEMENT); take your pick.

Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but through me. John 14.5-6 and this is clear and precise. Jesus said that HE is the way meaning the WAY per se, in toto.


"Suddenly, while he was traveling to Damascus and just before he reached the city, there came a light from heaven all around him. He fell to the ground, and then he heard a voice saying, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" "Who are you, Lord?" he asked, and the voice answered, "I am Jesus" Acts 9

Here from heaven, not a grave where Muhammed is Jesus tells Paul he is LORD.

 

[Crowley]

"His followers were able to afford it, but they did not give it."

Why would you believe this? History teaches the apostles were all martyred, except for John who was banished to Patmos?
Read their epistles, they were men of love and peace, tender-hearted followers of Jesus.
They were killed rather than kill.
Why would you say this?

 

[longshanks]

If i was to search the bible long enough there may well be some line or reference that i could use as a prophecy that predicted me.
And to back this up i am going to.
I only hope that on the basis of this thread you wont deny that i am the new messiah or prophet.

 

[gnostic]

A person who start a war on the Syrian borders in AD 630 cannot be called a Prince of Peace. A person who instigate and led raids on caravans cannot be called a prince of peace. A man who is forced to convert or else pay tax, is not a prince of peace. A person who order executions of Jewish men in Medina as Muhammad did and sold women and children into slavery, can not be considered to be a man of peace. There were no mercy there, unless you considered slavery to be mercy. He also most likely ordered assassinations of those who had satirised him.

It was never certain if the Qurayzah betrayed Muhammad; there are no account whatsoever of what the Jews did in Medina. No evidence of treachery were provided, except Muhammad's accusation of Jewish treachery. The Jews controls the market at that time in Medina. Perhaps the Jews couldn't accept him as prophet, so as revenge he had expelled the Jews from markets. If this is so, then why should any Jew from this clan Qurayzah be loyal to Muhammad. It was he broke with the Jews not the other way around. I think the real motive for the attacks on Jews is that they could never accept non-Jewish prophet, so this was more out of revenge instead of treachery on the Jew's behalf. The Qurayzah couldn't defend any accusation since they were given no defence and definitely no trials for those accused.

Raid, or razzia, can never be considered as defensive actions. Raid involved in attacking the enemies, and at that time, pillage or looting. Muhammad raided rich caravans from Mecca, sounds more like he was after loot, not spreading message of peace.

Jesus didn't lead any war or insurrection. He did nothing but to teach his way of life. He forced no one to accept him in his life time with the swords or with tax. If I remember correctly he told people who tried to entrap him that people must pay tax to the Romans, because the coins were minted with the emperor's head, and gives what belonged to god, to god.

 

[Crowley]

"A person who start a war on the Syrian borders in AD 630 cannot be called a Prince of Peace. A person who instigate and led raids on caravans cannot be called a prince of peace. A man who is forced to convert or else pay tax, is not a prince of peace. A person who order executions of Jewish men in Medina as Muhammad did and sold women and children into slavery, can not be considered to be a man of peace. There were no mercy there, unless you considered slavery to be mercy. He also most likely ordered assassinations of those who had satirised him."

Thanks. Now that you brought this out, I remember reading this when I was researching Muhammed's life. He took about 10,000 men with him on his raid on Syria and was financed by the money from the Jews of Medina. Didn't he kill three Jewish tribes in Medina and order the murder of a 100 year old man because the man wouldn't accept him as a prophet?
Muslims used to pray facing Jerusalem but Muhammed was angry when the Jews wouldn't accept him, so he had them face Mecca.
I have not read anywhere where Muhammed was a man of peace.

 

[Crowley]

"The fifth name in the prophecy is Prince of Peace. Can Jesus be truly called such? He did not become a sovereign in his life. He did not ever gain power to administer forgiveness to his enemies, and therefore, there was not much occasion for him to perform what he preached."

If you read it carefully, Isaiah spoke of one. There are not five names for five people or two or three, but it is what ONE NAME shall be called. Whose name? The Messiah's.
His namemeaning Jesus name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting father, the Prince of Peace.

Not that these names are names, but that one's name would be called these.
The name of Jesus is called Wonderful. The name of Jesus is called the Mighty God. The name of Jesus is called the Everlasting Father. His name is called the Prince of Peace.
Jesus is the Soverign God and said so in Revelation 1.8.
Titus called him the great God and Saviour.
Jesus called himself I AM.
He had all power.
In Matthew 28.19 after he rose from the dead, he told his disciples, "All power is given unto me."
On the cross he forgave his enemies.
He sent his disciples to perform what he preached, the kiongdom of God, and they turned the world upside down.

 

[Crowley]

"The fifth name in the prophecy is Prince of Peace. Can Jesus be truly called such? He did not become a sovereign in his life. He did not ever gain power to administer forgiveness to his enemies, and therefore, there was not much occasion for him to perform what he preached."

If you read it carefully, Isaiah spoke of one. There are not five names for five people or two or three, but it is what ONE NAME shall be called. Whose name? The Messiah's."For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9.6
Isaiah said the child would be born to THEM, the Jews, to Israel, not to Arabia.
His name; not five names for five differetn people, but Jesus name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting father, the Prince of Peace.

Not that these names are names, but that one's name would be called these.
The name of :yes: Jesus is called Wonderful. The name of Jesus is called the Mighty God. The name of Jesus is called the Everlasting Father. His name is called the Prince of Peace.
Jesus is the Soverign God and said so in Revelation 1.8.
Titus called him the great God and Saviour.
Jesus called himself I AM.
He had all power.
In Matthew 28.19 after he rose from the dead, he told his disciples, "All power is given unto me."
On the cross he forgave his enemies.
He sent his disciples to perform what he preached, the kingdom of God, and they turned the world upside down.

 

[gnostic]

The tribes that were living on Syrian borders were considered Christians, belonging to Byzantine church. These tribes were actually considered friends of Muhammad, but apparently such friendship didn't mean much since he sent 30000 men in 630. He initiate this campaign, so it can't be considered to be defensive.

 

[Crowley]

"We find that his (Muhammed)coming was foretold in clear and precise terms not only by Jesus himself but by Moses and other Biblical prophets as well."

There is absolutely no holy Scripture to support your claim.
None.
Why would you think Israel would prophecy anything about an Arabian prophet who has nothing to do with Israel or redemption? Their book is about Isaac's descendents.
The Israelis were looking for their Messiah who would descend from the tribe of Judah, seed of Abraham, heir to David's throne. The Star out of Jacob, the Branch out of Jesse the son of Obed.
Nowhere in Scripture is there even a jot about Muhammed.
Muslims clip out scriptures and passages, but the Bible doesn't read that way.
It is a book telling of one nation; Israel and why they were formed and raised up; to bring Christ into the world.
Christ isn't just "another prophet"
He is the mighty God himself, Yahwehin flesh, the King of kings and the Lord and Creator of all things,
To believe your claims one must dismiss all the Bible, and we can't do that.
In studying Islam, I found that Islam rewrote history and calls most of the Bible lies.
How can you think one part tells of Muhammed and the parts that don't is are lies, or distorted or mistranslated or Paul lied or Jesus didn't didn't die?
It is mass confusion to think that.
The story of the Bible is simple and true, about one Man, the nation that brought him into the world. Anything else mentioned in the Bible is only in its conenction to Israel.

 

[Crowley]

"We find that his (Muhammed)coming was foretold in clear and precise terms not only by Jesus himself but by Moses and other Biblical prophets as well."

There is absolutely no Scripture to support your claim.
None.
Why would you think the Hebrew prophets would prophecy anything about someone who has nothing to do with Israel or redemption? Their book is about Isaac's descendents.
The Israelis were looking for their Messiah who would descend from the tribe of Judah, seed of Abraham, heir to David's throne. The Star out of Jacob, the Branch out of Jesse the son of Obed. First prophesied in Genesis 3.15 as he who would crush the serpent's head.
Nowhere in Scripture is there even a jot about Muhammed.
Muslims clip out scriptures and passages, but the Bible doesn't read that way.
It is a book telling of one nation; Israel and why they were formed and raised up; to bring Christ into the world.
Christ isn't just "another prophet"
He is the mighty God himself, Yahweh in flesh, the King of kings and the Lord and Creator of all things,
To believe your claims one must dismiss all the Bible, and we can't do that.
In studying Islam, I found that Islam rewrote history and calls most of the Bible lies.
How can you think one part tells of Muhammed and the parts that don't are lies, or distorted, or mistranslated, or Paul lied, or Jesus didn't die?
It is mass confusion to think that.
The story of the Bible is simple and true, about one Man, CHRIST and the nation ISRAELthat brought him into the world. Anything else mentioned in the Bible is only in its connection to Israel.
Why would you think Israel would write about anyone not from the twelve tribes?

 

[gnostic]

Muhammad is a king except in name. He had army, and though you may not agree with the Qur'an or Islamic religious law, he did rule with laws, as well with taxation. Though, I don't think any prophet should be king. He had acted as judge and executioner. And I just don't he is a man of peace.

Of the two, Jesus certainly was a man of peace. However, I don't see Jesus as a king or even that of a prince. The incidence in the temple, he only turn over the stalls/tables of the money-changers, and the whip was only used to drive off the animals they were selling, not on people. No one was reported being injured and certainly no one die from this incidence. No matter you try to push it, this incidence cannot be any way be described as a "raid" or "battle".

 

[Crowley]

I have read of Muhammed's life in depth and he is not a king. He was actually an orpahn after his parents died. He never was rich, He has no genealogy on record that historians found.
He died young, in his fifties, but there is no royalty about him from all I have read.
I have read everything on Muhammed and the Islamic beliefs.
Jesus is a King, the King of kings, in fact he is God.

 

[gnostic]

I have read of Muhammed's life in depth and he is not a king. He was actually an orpahn after his parents died. He never was rich,

He wasn't poor too. He was in a trade with his uncle. And he married a fairly rich woman....his 1st wife I think.

And Muhammad became rich as the result of his followers, and his captures of Medina and Mecca.

As I said, Muhammad was a king all but in name.

I have read everything on Muhammed and the Islamic beliefs.
Jesus is a King, the King of kings, in fact he is God.

Jesus did nothing that was shown to be kingly. No tax, no legislated law, he didn't act as judge. He certainly ruled no land.

He has no genealogy on record that historians found.

Genealogy mean very little in regarding to monarchy. David wasn't born a king, and the only other king was Saul before him. Neither of them were princes, and both were elected by the judge-prophet Samuel. The genealogy of Jesus is on Joseph's side which linked him to David. If you seriously believe Jesus was God's son, then Joseph can't be Jesus' biological father.

I don't recall if Mary was a direct descendant of David. Was she?

 

[goraya15]

I have read of Muhammed's life in depth and he is not a king. He was actually an orpahn after his parents died. He never was rich, He has no genealogy on record that historians found.
He died young, in his fifties, but there is no royalty about him from all I have read.
I have read everything on Muhammed and the Islamic beliefs.
Jesus is a King, the King of kings, in fact he is God.

I would first like to know what books you have read about Muhammad (saw). You are obviously lacking in knowledge of Muhammad, especially if you have read everything about him and Islamic beliefs. First of all, What nation was Jesus king of? He had a few followers at the time of his "supposed" resurrection, definitely not enough to warrant him a King of any sorts. Muhammad on the other hand, was practically the king of all Arabia at the end of his life. He controlled both Mecca and Medina, and almost all other surrounding tribes were his allies. He also prescribed the most humane laws during battle (compare them to what's going on these days), was the most supportive person of the poor of his people and gave his people the most complete law of any nation, The Holy Qur'an. If this is not the sign of a king, then please enlighten me:sarcastic.

 

[love]

I would first like to know what books you have read about Muhammad (saw). You are obviously lacking in knowledge of Muhammad, especially if you have read everything about him and Islamic beliefs. First of all, What nation was Jesus king of? He had a few followers at the time of his "supposed" resurrection, definitely not enough to warrant him a King of any sorts. Muhammad on the other hand, was practically the king of all Arabia at the end of his life. He controlled both Mecca and Medina, and almost all other surrounding tribes were his allies. He also prescribed the most humane laws during battle (compare them to what's going on these days), was the most supportive person of the poor of his people and gave his people the most complete law of any nation, The Holy Qur'an. If this is not the sign of a king, then please enlighten me:sarcastic.

I quoted this so you could go back and read it.
As far as earthly kings go Muhammad is way down on the list. Why did God choose Muhammad if He needed an earthly king? I think that is a reasonable question.
The Kingdom of God is not of this world. Worldly wealth,worldly power, sex, and sin are of this world and not of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Crowley]

He wasn't poor too. He was in a trade with his uncle. And he married a fairly rich woman....his 1st wife I think.

Yes, but I mean he wasn't born rich, he married an older woman who had a business of some type. He alone had nothing to speak of.

And Muhammad became rich as the result of his followers, and his captures of Medina and Mecca.

He didn't "capture" Medina but killed the Jewish tribes that had founded the city and took their wealth to produce an army then raided Syria.

As I said, Muhammad was a king all but in name.

All I have read from reliable sources; he was not a king. He was an orphan then raised by an uncle and grandfather, later married the older woman, later married a six year-old, and had a harem. He was a man who committed many acts of violence and murder.

Jesus did nothing that was shown to be kingly. No tax, no legislated law, he didn't act as judge. He certainly ruled no land.

Jesus came into the world a humble baby born in a stable. Kings came from the east to bring him gifts gold, frankincence and myrrh. Herod tried to destroy him because hs saw his little kingdom threatened. But Herod's petty kingdom was not an issue, Jesus was here for a greater purrpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
He was a direct descendent of kings. His kingdom is in hearts. His mission was to save the lost from the fall in Eden. You're looking at the world, Jesus came to save our souls from Hell.

Genealogy mean very little in regarding to monarchy.

Genealogy means everything. Jesus physically descended from David the king, and David descended from Isaac, the man who had the covenant with God. David was anointed king by one of Israel's greatest prophets; Samuel at the instruction of God himself. Jesus' genealogy is all important, it tells exactly who Jesus is.
In the Bible God always spoke to the one who was in direct line with Isaac.
It is Isaac's descendents who the Bible is about. Jesus descended from sixy-four generations of sons born in an unbroken line from Adam. This information is in the Bible.

David wasn't born a king,

He was anointed king at God's direction by Samuel.

and the only other king was Saul before him.

Saul was anointed king by Samuel also at God's direction. Notice in the Bible what God does, this is important what God does and says.

Neither of them were princes, and both were elected by the judge-prophet Samuel.

It is what God says that stands. God made David king, you can't get anymore kingly than that! Samuel was one of Israel's greatest prophets.

The genealogy of Jesus is on Joseph's side which linked him to David.

Jesus inherited the throne of David because he was Joseph's legal son. Herod was not the rightful king then, Joseph was because he was descended from David. When the Lord spoke to Joseph in a dream, he called him "thou son of David" Jesus was physically the heir to David's throne because he was natural son of Mary. Mary was descended from Nathan, David's son.

If you seriously believe Jesus was God's son, then Joseph can't be Jesus' biological father.

Jesus was concieved of the Holy Ghost as stated in the Bible. God was his Father. Joseph was not Jesus' natural father, but was his legal father since he was married to Jesus' mother Mary. But it was Joseph who was really king by inheritance not Herod. And God knew this!It is all recorded word for word in the Bible if one would take the time to study it.

I don't recall if Mary was a direct descendant of David. Was she?

Mary descended from David' son Nathan and Joseph descended from Solomon.They were very royal blood.
Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world."
His kingdom is in our hearts if we recieve him.

 

[Crowley]

I would first like to know what books you have read about Muhammad (saw).

There are numerous books available. The libraries are generous with books on Muhammed's life. Historians wrote of him also.

You are obviously lacking in knowledge of Muhammad, especially if you have read everything about him and Islamic beliefs.

I own a copy of the Koran also. I read the Hadiths. As one who studies the Bible I study other beliefs also, Islam is just one of them. I researched Ibn Sa'id (845 AD) Ibn Ishaq (768 AD) A mr ibn Sharhabil (Caliph) (717-720 AD) Abu Dawad (Sunnah) (832? AD) Tabari (929 AD)Alfred Guillame (scholar on Islam) ibn Hishan and others. I find Islam (and Catholicism) very interesting so have studied Islam for about five years. Catholicism for about twenty. I have studied the Bible since I was a child and never stopped researching it. Islam is one of my interests and find it in direct contradiction to all the Bible teaches. The Bible predates the Koran by millenniums.

First of all, What nation was Jesus king of

? Israel, hearts of believers and king of the universe. Jesus is God.

He had a few followers at the time of his "supposed" resurrection, definitely not enough to warrant him a King of any sorts.

His kingdom is in hearts, but according to Daniel the seer he is the stone cut out of the mountaint hat will soon destroy all kingdoms and set up his own on earth. We're all invited to go and be a part of it.

Muhammad on the other hand, was practically the king of all Arabia at the end of his life.

Muhammed is dead! Jesus is alive and living in the hearts of believers.

He controlled both Mecca and Medina, and almost all other surrounding tribes were his allies.

You fail to say how he got Medina and Mecca.

He also prescribed the most humane laws during battle (compare them to what's going on these days), was the most supportive person of the poor of his people and gave his people the most complete law of any nation, The Holy Qur'an. If this is not the sign of a king, then please enlighten me:sarcastic.

The Koran has no chronology. And worse, it calls the Bible distorted and untrue. Give me an example of a humane law Muhammed prescribed so I can compare it with what the Bible says, ok? Many people support the poor, which doesn't qualify them to be kings. Others have also prescribed laws for their people, The Code of Hammurabi was given yet is part of the problem of the world. Buddha gave his thoughts and they are not original either. The Vedas, yet none of them can save us from Hell, only Christ can and he does it by his blood sacrifice of himself to God.

" gave his people the most complete law of any nation"

The Torah was given to Moses 2500 years before Muhammed was even born and it is complete and the Koran in no way can compare with it.
Show me how the Koran is complete and I will show you why the Torah is all the world needs.

 

[Crowley]

" If this is not the sign of a king, then please enlighten me"

Muhammed was and is not a sovereign.
Sovereign; One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.

We could go into this word for word to show that Muhammed is not a king. Muhammed keeps getting promoted. First he was an orphan, then a rich man, now a king? I know for a fact he was and is not a king.
His life was not exactly the life of a nice guy. He had no credentials or genealogy to be a king.

 

[Popeyesays]

While Muhammad lived there was no need for a 'king". When Muhammad passed on there was no clear succession. The Caliphate was not instituted by Muhammad. All Muhammad instituted was the Imamate.

The Caliphate was created by Umar and Abu Bakr.

The Hebrew throne NEVER passed through a woman, so Mary's claim to descent from David is moot and irrelevant. The whole charge that Jesus said he was King of the Jews was trumped up by the Sanhedrin to convince the Romans that Jesus was a political threat to control of Palestine; that was the only thing that would trigger Pilate to act.

The "Kingship" of the Prophets has nothing to do with thrones and dynasties, it is a symbolic thing based upon the might confered by being the instrument of the Word of God.

To stretch and distort it to make it a thing of physical crowns and thrones is a severe distortion of religion--an idle fancy and vain imagining.

Regards,
Scott