Basically the only words that are pertinent are "yet ye know him;for he dwelleth with you,and shall be in you"
Response: Again I ask, what verses are you quoting?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Basically the only words that are pertinent are "yet ye know him;for he dwelleth with you,and shall be in you"
John 14:16-17
"yet ye know him;(self explanatory)for he dwelleth with you,and shall be in you" the Spirit is going to be in them
So, it would be correct to say that your supposition appeals to the intellectually challenged?It seems you've missed mine. What you find not surprising or informative might be so to others.
Response: In other words, you don't have an answer as to why you're quoting the verse. Kind of odd to do something and not know why you've done it. Thanks anyway.
So, it would be correct to say that your supposition appeals to the intellectually challenged?
Quote Fatihah
Response: Muhammad(pbuh) is referred to several times in the bible. The verses in question are several. For starters, in John 16:7, we read:
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart, I will send him unto you".
Here, the coming of the comforter is conditional. That condition being that Jesus must go away. That being said, it can not be the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost was already there and was even there when Jesus was born.
Its pretty straight forward Fatihah,you say Muhammed is mentioned several times in the Bible when its clear he is not mentioned at all.
Fatihah,"you know him",is it likely they would know Muhammed 600 years later?"he dwells with you" again,unless Muhammed could travel back in time its unlikely he dwelt with them,"and he will dwell in you" this is the nail in the Coffin,it is quite clear this is a spirit or holy ghost and not a person.
Response: Who is "they" and why are you speaking about Muhammad (pbuh) dwelling in "them" in the first place?
I'm not,thats the whole point,i am saying that Muhammed isn't in John or Deutronomy and isn't mentioned in the books of the Bible full stop.
Response: You also said:
"Fatihah,"you know him",is it likely they would know Muhammed 600 years later?"he dwells with you" again,unless Muhammed could travel back in time its unlikely he dwelt with them,"and he will dwell in you" this is the nail in the Coffin,it is quite clear this is a spirit or holy ghost and not a person".
So you were in fact speaking about Muhammad(pbuh) dwelling in "them." And yes, Muhammad is referred to in the Bible. Since you've yet to make an attempt to refute my argument with any logical rebuttle, this clearly shows that your claim that he's not is just an act of desperation.
[QUOTE England my lionheart]Please show where Muhammed is mentioned in the Bible,can Muhammed be the comforter or the Holy Ghost,no,lets look into it a little more as i think like the song of Soloman you are trying to put Muhammed where he just does'nt fit but you are not the first and i doubt the last either.
Most Muslims who make this claim base it around one word Paracletos a Greek word for advocate or helper whereas some Muslims try to interpret this as periclytos which is praised one,Ahmad.
This is incorrect and a desperate attempt to include Muhammed in the Books of the Bible and it does'nt stand up,much like Muhammed in the song of Soloman,but i still cannot understand why some Muslims reference the Bible if its so corrupted.
But their scriptures say that the "Comfortor" is the Holy Spirit. You haven't shown anyone that the Bible teaches about Islam, you've merely asserted that the Bible is wrong.
I'm not sure you got my point. It's just as valid to say that when the Bible is interpreted consistently with the Book of Mormon, the Bible is consistent with the Book of Mormon... or that when the Bible is interpreted consistently with Zoroastrian scriptures, the Bible is constistent with Zoroastrian scriptures... or even that when the Bible is interpreted consistently with Moby Dick, the Bible is consistent with Moby Dick.
In mathematical terms, if "A given B" is true, then B is true. There's nothing surprising or informative in this.