BTW.. I have not forgotten the rest of your post to reply to. Just you make your posts so long... It takes awhile to cover everything. So .... To be continued.

Peace.

First : Your answer is clearly a clame without proof just repeated shouting , you did nit answer about the Edomites nor about the great nation of Ishmael nor about the revelation in Arabia in Isaiah . Clearly you do not know what hadeeths are they are the word of the prophet peace be upon him. I think we are both in agreement that when a prophet says something it is true and from god so if Abraham says something then we both have to agree it is from god , for us muslims if the prophet says something then it is from god ( I am not about to debate this , read more about Islam and the meaning of hadeeths)

Second:

What do you mean by the physical? (Migration to Medina) what has that to do with anything? There is no spiritual salvation in Islam... That's in my opinion.

Exactly your opinion , there are hundreds of verses in the quran about the salvation of who accepts Islam. As for the migration to Medina , this was a response to your first so called similarity , this is what you said in the response before:

I answered by saying that there is both physical and spiritual in Islam


You said:


Wrong in two ways: 1. All prophets in the bible are what called covenant enforcers meaning they enforce (those after Moses) , the covenant god made with them , what you are accusing me I never said however you are confusing this kind of covenant with the covenant that each and everyone of them made personally with god was a promise to spread the word of god and preach to him this is what the verse I stated before 2. My statement was in regards to this :

You never brought up the subject about covenant here , you were talking about a mediator who speaks to god , however your same statement is contradicting , you say it is never changed but can be replaced!!!!!!! Well replacement = change so this is your attempt to make the christian doctrine appealing with the context of the OT yet it is a contradicting statement.
Covenants are made as long they are kept by the people if not then as Jesus said in Matthew

Matthew (21:43) “Therefore say I unto you,

the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof


Also :

Yet another contradicting statement you say Jesus came to fullfill the law and yet you say the law does not bring salvation. Jesus never said that the law was over or not applicable to belivers:
17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17-20



Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?"
John 7:19

yet contrary to what you are claiming and to what jesus taught above paul taught to abolish

the law !!!!:

“He (Jesus) brought the hostility to an end, by abolishing the Law of commandments with its regulations”. (Ephesians 2:14


As for the law the prophet mohammed came with was the Islamic law


You said :


I already answered this pandora in a recent post , I showed you the name of the prophet Mohammed in hebrew two times in the OT , igoring and skipping over recent posts is your problem not mine
As for the gentiles well that is a problem for you because now the covenant now includes non israelites contradicting what you said ealier !!! plus as I also stated before it cannot be the gentiles since jesus was only sent to israel :

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Matthew 15: 24


Also you said :

Jesus uses parables as a teaching method to point to a future reality... the Kingdom of God which is to come. The parables are signs along the way to help us find our way to the Kingdom and to recognize our destination. Yes, Jesus was sent for the Jews, as it was firstly the Jews who had hardened their hearts against God in their zeal to follow the law or their interpretation of it. However, the Bible also teaches that Jesus brought a message of salvation to all mankind that included the Gentiles then and the muslims now. It applies to all... The Kingdom is truly God’s and heavenly and not just the product of human aspiration, intelligence or creativity.

It is the fulfilment of all God’s promises and the wiping away of every tear, sorrow, sighing, and suffering. It is the totality of God’s glory and the end to all that is sinful, evil and wrong. This is what Jesus brought.. Yes God is One.. The God. Jesus revealed in His person is greater than anything you can comprehend. You may repeat parrot fashion your mantra of one G do and no associates and believing in Mohammed as a prophet. I believe you sell yourself short in not opening your heart to all possibility of what God wishes us to know. You are so busy refuting His Word.. You could be missing out.

All of what you said above mostly does not relate to our topic and is just (excuse me for this) sweet talk to divert from the actual topic , Jesus said himself that he was sent to the lost sheep of israel. You usually do this when you are faced with such questions which you cannot answer. Anyways what really matters to me here is what you said here :

And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

No where in this passage or the rest of the parrable of the wicked tenants does it show that it is talkin about the gentiles rather followers here are the 12 deciples of jesus which are as you know israelites


So what if the voice said this is my beloved son did he talk directly to his son as Moses did? No because the passage does not describe this so no actual talking with god unless you want to say that the deciples also talked to god !!! And the voice well it said it was a voice so it did not say it was god. We both know that the message of god and his words can be transmitted by angels by the command of god so do not misinterpirate what I am saying. Still this response shows no answer!!!!

By the way according to christianity Jacob talked to god when he wresslled him !!!!


Show me your doubts !!!


Wrong , I already answered this claim by you and showed you your mistake

He was raised by his mother in as much she nursed him. Unknown to the pharaohs daughter the true nature of the "wet nurse" was actually the mother of Moses. Mohammed was nursed by a wet nurse... With no family connection. Unless you know otherwise.. But that was my belief.

wrong Moses was nursed for a little while by his mother (we all know the story) but returned back to the pharohs and raised their most of his childhood and life , prophet Mohammed was raised for a while till the age of 6


In other words you do not have an answer .


only two examples of the 7 I mentioned contained wars , 1 of the two talked about specific details within this future battle it was not about winning so read carefully and do not skim through . These are just few examples of multiple

You said:


I say:
It is clear that you do not know the difference between a covenant personal to a prophet and a covenant agreement with a nation clearly this confusement and the fact that you skim threw my response and ignore most of it while applying certain biblical , christian or jewish concepts on Islam shows the magnitude of weakness in your argument and your knowledge about your own bible before Islam . It is my opinion that you need to familiarize yourself with your own bible before Islam and stop mistinterpirating my responses and skimmimg threw them instead of actually reading them which explains why you made multiple errors and accusation based on misinterpritation of my words. I mean this with all do respect to your opinion.

peace

I have answered the first point in my last comment (about the nation which will take the fruits)

The second point you said:

Well the text never mentioned your only child of promise rather your only son :

your only one

Your explanation contradicts the text it is an interriptation that does not serve the actual meaning of the text .
Why would they??? well so that their father Isaac peace be upon him would be the one who was to be sacrificed !!!!

Third I am asking you the verse about the great nation as a muslim . Again I am doing this because it is your resource and this is a debate . We as muslims do not believe in the passage that described Ishmael peace be upon himin Genesis 16: 12 nor do we believe in the lack of faith of sara peace be upon her. So again how do you interpirate the great nation.

fourth : The actual king james bible does not say from your fellow israelite rather :

14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.
15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17 And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

The actual translation of 15 has been manipulated in some additions by saying from among you rather the right translation is from among your brothers :

15: The Lord your God will raise up for you (the Israelites) a prophet like me from among your (the Israelites) own "brothers". You (the Israelites) must listen to him.

This translation is in the King James and the english standard version and in Holman christian standard bible , also in the international standard version it says : from among your relatives. So you see it is actually a manipulation by writers of the new international version:
https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/18-15.htm

Fifth :
you still did not answer ,

And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith

thy brother Israel

, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:

Numbers 20: 14

Also God cannot be a prophet. A prophet is sent by god , a prophet cannot be god or else who would not be a prophet .Also your answer shows yet another contradiction. Since a prophet is human by nature so now we do not have trinity rather we have four : father , holy spirit, son and the prophet (human) so this itself is a huge contradiction in your belief

Peace

He was the word of God before being made human. Therefore, he was a spirit who always existed with God from the beginning made flesh. This is what seems to elude you.

Peace

That is also another contradiction because if he was made flesh (human) then he would not be god or say stopped being god , yet if he was god and not flesh or human then he would not be a prophet . Yo cannot agree between god and prophet because a prophet is sent by god thats why he is called prophet

peace

in continuation... I was slightly incredulous that you even raised this. I thought Muslims had long ago given up on the "Song of Solomon" as referring to prophet Mohammed. It rather seems a case of desperation to find Mohammed mentioned in the scriptures.. Because the Quran implies this to be so, though neglects to say exactly where! Leaving you clutching at all kinds of unsuitable straws. This being one of them. Understand the nature of the work.... The "Song of Solomon" is an early Jewish work of erotic poetry, celebrating the love between a man and his wife. It's a matter of debate weather it refers to Solomon and his wife or someone else. Besides the point.... Why would you expect to find the prophet of Islam named in such a work? I know you like to change the biblical texts.. I find this again quite odd, seeing as you censure highly Jews and Christians for allegedly corrupting the scriptures.. And here you are doing just that.

And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.

Haggai 2:7

However the actual translation is :

And I will shake all nations, and the Muhammed of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.

according to you... And how you wish to interpret it. Given the context it could easily appear to refer to objects of wealth and not a person.. Some interpretations have out forward the belief it refers to the person of Christ. Only muslims will see it refers to prophet Mohammed.. I think we can take that as read! However, your belief and wish that this is so is not proof that it actually is. If it does refer to a person as opposed to treasures then for sure it would more likely be the Messiah rather than Mohammed. Please see article below for further info.

As opposed to the blessing, which is grace, the Law is a curse upon all mankind, none of whom can possibly fulfil its requirements. While the Law itself is perfect and holy, those who try to justify themselves before its holy Author bring not His blessing, but His curse upon themselves. The Bible itself tells us what the curse of the Law is. “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’ Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, ‘the righteous will live by faith.’ The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, ‘The man who does these things will live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree’” (Galatians 3:10–13).


What we must understand from this passage is that the curse is not the Law. The curse is the penalty levied for not keeping the Law. The “Book of the Law” refers to the covenant laws that God made with His people during the time of Moses. The Law can point out where we fail and fall short of God’s will, but it cannot pronounce us righteous; that was not its purpose.


In Galatians 3 the apostle Paul is telling us that everyone who does not keep the Law perfectly is cursed by it (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10). The reason is that no one can obey the Law perfectly. In fact, there were over 600 laws the Jews had to keep to be right in the eyes of God. The breaking of even one commandment put a person under condemnation. Trying to achieve salvation through obedience to the Law is futile. For example, we all regularly break the first and greatest commandment by failing to love God first with all our hearts, minds and strength (Matthew 22:37–38). As a result, everyone has broken the commandments, and everyone is cursed.


The Law demands perfection—an impossibility because we’re all sinful (Romans 3:10, 23). As a result, all who try to live by the Old Law were under a divine curse. But the good news is that Jesus Christ “redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice on the cross when He bore God’s curse. Paul explains how in his letter to the Romans: “God presented [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in His blood. He did this to demonstrate His justice, because in His forbearance He had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—He did it to demonstrate His justice at the present time, so as to be just and the One who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25–26). The curse of the Law fell on Christ on our behalf so that the righteousness of God could fall on us, though we did not deserve it (2 Corinthians 5:21).


Read more: https://www.gotquestions.org/curse-of...#ixzz3A7lOwuwn

peace unto you.

Do Muslims keep the laws and regulations of Islam perfectly? If they don't, then how will Allah deal with them on it. If we had to follow the law to be saved, none of us would be saved; therefore, the law would be a curse for us. Muslims cannot be sure they will enter paradise, because they contend to two things keeping the five pillars as perfectly as possible and they must be right that the 5 pillars are what God is demanding of them. We don't believe in these five pillars being God's mandate for us. There is nothing like it in the Bible either.

First I would like to ask you that you would write your comments outside a quote and please summarize your comments . You do not need to go on and on about a certain point so please just specify your points without the need to talk about it in a way that just fill the pages with unusefull details

Second : The songs of solomon is not all erotic , and still your answer does not give an explanaition to why the prophets name is in there . More importantly as I specified before there is a difference between corruption and replacement corruption means alteration from its original form and the bible does have certain commonalities with the Quran such as the story of exodus as a simple example . What christians do not understand is corruption is not the same as replacement rather alteration by ommissions , additions or something of some sort. Still no answer about the name of the prophet ????



Third: You interpritation of my response about Haggai is OMMITTED you ommitted my response . Muhammed simply means the praised one or the wanted or desired Muhammed in arabic محمد comes from the adjective محمود which is the praised , desired , wanted . This interpritation was in the same response you quoted but you chose not to quote it . You also said this:


So I say the better and actual translation is the desire as in the king james :

And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.

Other translations such as these:

Shows no meaning with the context because the glory of the house of lord does not refer to in Haggai 2:8 to the gold nor to silver :

And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts
The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.

The house of the lord was and is still filled by glory , the mosque which was built by the second caliph of prophet Mohammed , Umar, who was one of the deciples of prophet Muhammed and it indeed filled with glory . The desire of all nation if we keep it that way does not mean gold and silver nor does the text describe that rather it is the glory of the house of god . This is what the context suggests

Fourth: Godfrey Higgins was an archeologist and also knew hebrew language so such a response by you needs some validity

Fifth: What you said about spirit , you also again OMMITTED my response , the spirit can refer to a prophet :

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world," (1 John 4:1-3)
Sixth : you went on and on the holy spirit and what he does , and you said that he existed in many occasion yet no answer not a single answer about the fact that the holy spirit was already with them and never departed :

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying," (Luke 1:67)
"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him." (Luke 2:25)
"And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost (Simeon), that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ." (Luke 2:26)


Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost."(John 20:21-22)


I am getting no answers from you !!!! you are turning away from the passages and giving me your personal interpritations about things that are not our topic . Try for once to focus

Seventh: Prophet Mohammed did testify for jesus he called him a prophet as did your bible :

And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.


Matthew 21:11


And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people


Luke 24:19

Yet christians call him god , son of god and still try to advocate that he was the prophet mentioned in Deutronomy!!!!! Double standard contradiction

My god why can't you stop contradicting Jesus???

Eighth: I was describing the meaning of the word in Hebrew and not in Aramiac , it is silly for me to say that the NT was written in hebrew I never said that I was just translating. The NT was written in greek as a translation of what jesus said in Aramiac and sometimes hebrew. Howver Mnahma is really close to mohammed, محمد مناحما and close to Ahmadاحمد .
However the most important part is that in Aramaic the word Mnahma does not just mean comforter rather it also means truthful , helpful and the praised one which in arabic means Muhammed. This is also commen sense sinse the semitic laguages are all closely related

Ninth : As for the testimony of john the baptist you again ommitted my response . Anyway what you are saying can also be questioned to you , they knew he wasn't Elijah yet they asked him !!!! why if they knew he wasn't????
The idea here is like someone asking another retorically : Are you god ??? that doesn't mean he denies the existence of god rather he is sarcastic.
The passage shows three clear distinct figures

Tenth:You have not explained your faith in a chritian view in many occasions you have contradicted Paul's direct teachings. You also show clear lack of knowledge of translations and understanding of what I am saying. You also have AVOIDED some of my responses and ommitted others , this in itself is clear and shows either running away from facts or just complete disregard of my responses. This comes as no surprise to me since most of your writtings are based on your own personal interpritation of the text.

Eleventh:sinless being the one exception jesus yet he is described as a prophet as I have noted above. It is against the wisdom of god to choose sinners as role models. Here we have two views the Quranic and the biblical , both say we cannot judge what god says and both says god has the most knowledge and wisdom yet the bible portrays him choosing prophets as role models who are sinners and sometimes they commit the worst sins !!!!

Twelfth :God is one , if gos was in trinity he would have at least said it in the OT or the NT . What you are saying is that this is your understanding of god and I agree your understanding but it is incorrect because trinity in itsself cannot be monotheism since it distincts god into three different entities which is exactly what the hindus and other pagans belived multiple in one . While we see God as one , one you has not begotton or begot , one that has nobody like him , one which is not contained or can be aged , he is perfect creator of everything all knowing and all powerfull, he does not regret or forget or be manipulated he is one our lord and our only god of everything.


Thirteenth: The corruption of the gospel has been proven many times and already have given you an example with the ending in Mark which you have ignored many times , there are other multiple examples of manipulations

Fourteenth:trinity and monotheism is with all do respect a contradiction to every human with comprehension capability

Fifteenth: Without the going into the many personal interpritations away from the subject, you claimed that the law was not cursed rather for not keeping the law which is a clear contradiction to the text

Also you Paul claimed that jesus was cursed to remove the sin from us which paul did actually say , this itself shows a degredation to jesus and to god , for if someone was to be cursed if hung of a tree then this would contradict what jesus said about fullfilling the law since anybody hung is cursed and how would that be fullfilling the same law which stated that hanging up on a tree is a curse!!!!

Also you ommitted what I said between the contradiction of what paul said and what jesus said:

He (Jesus) brought the hostility to an end, by abolishing the Law of commandments with its regulations”. (Ephesians 2:14)


contradicting Jesus :


hink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)

This raises many questions especially that paul in one other passage did actually preach for the law , this can be explained by his own confession about it :

Although I am free from everyone, I have enslaved myself to all of them in order to win a larger number. To the Jews I behave as a Jew; to those under the Law as one who is under the Law, although I am not under the Law, to gain those who are under the Law. To those who are without law I am without law, although not lawless toward God but committed to Christ’s Law, in order to win those who are without law” (1 Corinthians 9:19)



Peace

look friend... I don't think you appreciate that it is not easy for me to post lengthy posts with quotes with the device I use. Seeing as you think nothing of raising as many as a dozen different points in a post... Not always connected.. And expect every word of yours to be answered to your satisfaction!!!! Whilst blissfully disregarding anything I have to say. Not being afforded the same rights as muslims members, that is being able to edit my posts for errors. Which I see were made with my quotes. There is not much I can do about it after the event. I'm not sure why after over 650 posts I'm not afforded the same privileges as muslim members. I guess that may be a reflection on how we as non muslims are viewed by yourselves .. As Second class citizens!!! I do so hope that is not the case... But for sure it does appear so. You obviously have issue with my style of dialogue and I sense it annoys you, well I am how I am, as The Lord God made me.... Your arrogance is a slight annoyance to myself but I am trying very hard to rise above that and do my best to answer your queries. May hap .. We have reached a parting of the ways here. I will answer this one point you make.

what bit pray tell do you feel is not erotic? By erotic I mean to do with love, love in a physical nature as well as spiritual. It's a widely accepted opinion that "The Song of Solomon" is exactly that.. Erotic prose which deals with the human emotion of love. It's not the fact that your prophets name is in there... Which it is NOT.. You just believe it is... Based on some imaginative word play. It the reason why you would expect to find the name of your prophet in such a work? You say a better translation.. According to your wordplay, which I really can't be bothered to go into. Is....

***His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is Muhammed . This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.***

So explain please.. Whose beloved is Mohammed here? Whose friend? And what has he to do with the daughters of Jerusalem in question? May I suggest you read the Song of Solomon for yourself ... I have only included the section pertinent to your claim.. It is too long to post in its entirety besides by its nature may offend some sensibilities. This section where you claim the name of Mohammed is found is the Bride.. Speaking of her beloved..it is the Bride speaking to the daughters of Jerusalem. If Mohammed was indeed the object of her desires then how so..? She would have a very long time to wait for her bride groom.. Seeing as Mohammed was not on the scene for a thousand years hence give or take a few.

The Bride Praises Her Beloved


10 My beloved is radiant and ruddy,
distinguished among ten thousand.
11 His head is the finest gold;
his locks are wavy,
black as a raven.
12 His eyes are like doves
beside streams of water,
bathed in milk,
sitting beside a full pool.
13 His cheeks are like beds of spices,
mounds of sweet-smelling herbs.
His lips are lilies,
dripping liquid myrrh.
14 His arms are rods of gold,
set with jewels.
His body is polished ivory,
bedecked with sapphires.
15 His legs are alabaster columns,
set on bases of gold.
His appearance is like Lebanon,
choice as the cedars.
16 His mouth is most sweet,
and he is altogether desirable.
This is my beloved and this is my friend,
O daughters of Jerusalem.

I hope you can see why I cannot take as serious consideration that the name of Mohammed is to be found in the "Song of Solomon". As for your mutterings regarding corruption of the texts.. You have shown nothing that changes the core message of the Bible. You can offer NO proof of such corruption taking place. Your misreading, tearing out of context and deliberate misrepresentation of Bible scripture cannot be considered proof of what you so desperately wish to be true.. That the Bible is corrupt... Because if the Bible is truth, where does that leave the Quran? You have a vested interest in proving the Bible false... Whereas I have nothing to loose by not accepting what the Quran claims for itself. The Bible does not need the Quran it stands as it is ... As Gods inspired revelation and testimony to His glory and Truth through His word... Jesus.

I continue to wish you well, and pray God guides you to His truth.

Peace unto you.

First the concerns about the blog privelages is not within my hands nor with my power. I advise you to talk to the blog mediators and managers so that they would tend to your concerns and demands.

Second : My criticisism to your responses is based on three facts: 1. the fact that you quote some of my responses and ommit the rest 2. The mistinterpritation of my responses based on not reading my responses well 3. The fact that you are drifting away from the subject and writting things that have nothing to do with our discussion. You also have ignored certain subjects that we have already discussed and which you could not answer and brought it up again here claiming that I have proven nothing!!!!!!!!



Third : Now to your claim about the passage in the songs:

1. The word Erotic has a different meaning than love in a way . I do not think that I need to explain the meaning of the word Erotic so that will be all concerning the meaning of erotic.
As for the other passages that is not erotic they are MOSTLY kind of love poems , since there are some passages which do not contain within them love such as :
7 Behold, it is the litter[a] of Solomon!
Around it are sixty mighty men,
some of the mighty men of Israel,
8 all of them wearing swords
and expert in war,
each with his sword at his thigh,
against terror by night.
9 King Solomon made himself a carriage[b]
from the wood of Lebanon.

Song of solomon 3:7-9

BUT it is important to indicate that these are within the context of a love

poem


2. The reference of the prophet is being DESCRIBED by the bride not that the word muhammed takes the place of the bride!!!! read my previous post :

His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

Song of solomon 5: 16


The actual hebrew text :(in hebrew ):


"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."



this would make the actual text as :

His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is Muhammed . This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.



So all together lovely replaced Mohammed . So Mohammed means all together lovely


As for the context well there is something important :

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."


This is the context in hebrew , what is important is im which in hebrew is a masculine plural that comes after a noun like elohim . This type of hebrew grammer here and in other examples such as in elohim are used as the excellentiae or what is referred to as the royal we , which is a phrase used in semetic languages to indicate plurality to a single person as a tool of glorifying that person. So this means that the word muhammed is actually a noun


As for the corruption of the bible I gave you already multiple examples such as the ending of Mark about the ressurection. As for my interest remember that it was you and burnlight who brought this in a previous subject

peace

We have brought up our concerns about this several times, and it hasn't been addressed. This should concern you. If you were on a Christian forum, and you couldn't post directly after a 100 posts, I would get on the administrators about it on your behalf. We can only see this as a reflection of your belief system and theirs.
I have read her comments and she appears to address your concerns. You cannot blame her for you're not accepting them. Moreover, you should be specific about what is not being addressed.
It is not really about her claims of song of Solomon; it is your claims that are of concern. We Christians and even the Jews know this is not about your prophet. You are trying to mix Hebrew and Arabic, you would have to apply the term muhammadim (which is not used as a noun in context) to be referring to your prophet everywhere it is used, then you'll have to plug in your prophet's name everywhere that term appears. If you do that, you will see the ridiculous of that claim.

How can you expect Islam to make more sense than Christianity? How can you tell us that the Bible is corrupted when Allah told Muhammad he sent it to him the toran and Injil as revelation, guidance and light? We still have the same Scripture your messenger Muhammad had access to in the 7th cnetury. How can you expect us to believe that he is a prophet for us when he doubted his own revelation was from God. His older wife assured he it was from Allah. Islam appears to be woman inspired. Muhammad wanted to commit suicide, because he believed he was possessed by jinn.
How can you expect us to trust our souls to such a messenger? If anyone attempts to corrupt the Bible, it has been Islam's message. The Bible says Jesus is the truth, life and way. It doesn't say He shows us the way, life and truth. He is it! All things were made by Him for Him and through Him. At least be honest and admit that you can see how we can come to the conclusions we do, but you cannot even do that; so you turn your head pretending you don't see and that we are not answering your questions

Peace

The accusations about the prophet wanted to commit suicide is a lie it is based on weak narration not authentic or Daeef ضعيف . These narrations have a weak chain of oral transmission

The idea about the prophet going to Khadija is a lie , khadija only assured him that it was ok and she asked her cousin who told her it was gabriel , the prophet described to khadija what he saw and the revelations and she went to ask her cousin, Moses was also afraid when he first heard god in mount Sania

BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

First I no sentence in your response shows an actual answer rather , we know better so we are better that is your logic (although there are many christians and jews who accepted islam in the time of the prophet , there were rabbis such as Abdullah ibn Salam and mukarieeq who accepted islam, solomon the persian , tamim ibn aws, the patriarch of najran, the king of ethiopia accepted islam so such an argument is weak

Second: I wondered why at first you weren't given such privelages in the blog but after seeing such responses , it seems that the mediators and the managers of the blog have a right . You have broken many rules in such a response. You are NOT allowed to draw up new topics in a simple response as a way to divert away from the main topic. You are NOT allowed to draw accusation which is also away from the main topic without proof. You are NOT allowed to igore the responses of others. You are not allowed to fill your response the blog page with things that has nothing to do with the topic and any kind of debate subject like these statements:
Then you have the nerve to say this :


Where in the world in this pathetic (with all do respect) response did you actually answer?
How many times did you ommit my quotes???
How many times have you ignored my questions???
When will you answer about the ending in Mark???

More importantly you are NOT allowed to mix up between topics that are in different subjects


peace

I believe the hadiths about your prophet's experience on the mountain were what happened, but I can understand you were able to find sources to tell you what you want to believe. As for Moses, he drew near to see why the bush was burning yet was not consumed by the fire. God called out to Moses from the burning bush, and gave him a commission to lead the Israelites, God's people, out of Egypt. He was not afraid as you have us believe. Additionally, if it is not the point of this thread, then you have changed the subject and yet you are able to post directly, but I am not allowed to make such mistakes. Look, this is an injustice and the last time I'll mention about not being able to post directly to you. It seems any excuse will do to keep both Pandora and I from having the same posting advantage you have. Maybe you need the handicap. We are the only Christians that appear to be on this forum. You have two true Biblical Christians here. So you have an opportunity to know what Christians think and see as opposed to nominal Christians that don't know Jesus and only know about Him. These type of nominal Christians convert to either JWs, Mormons or Islam. Once a Christian is born again and sees Jesus, it is impossible for him or her to convert or revert as you'd say to Islam. The best we can hope to do for each other here is dispel misconceptions we have about one another's faith. As for the Book of Mark can you repeat what troubled you about it, but also mention how you see that interferes with the central gospel message.

Peace

I really could care less of what you belief . Your belief in daeef hadeeths equils someone who beliefs in the heritic gospels in chritianity, you could care less about it. The hadeeth was rejected for a problem in the oral chain of transmission .

I have not changed the subject you changed it to the begining of the revelation of the prophet and your argument is that I belive that these nonauthentic narrations are true !!!!!!

You still have not answered about the passage in songs you do not have the right to keep changing the topic like this you are breaking the rules by ignoring the other's responses this kind and way is not how a debate is conducted you are using emotional words to fill up your responses plus cherry picking from the bible and ignoring my responses while trying to divert from the main topic that is not how a debate works my friend . And you still wonder why you are not given certain privelages ???

peace

I am not changing the topic. It is all about what makes more sense Christianity or Islam which is the topic of this thread, and it doesn't go against rules to bring up sub topics that support the thread title. Iit sounds to me like you are trying to make trouble for me that is not necessary. If you think I shouldn't be able to post directly and need this disadvantage, that is fine and your opinion. I don't want to hear about it any more from you, and I told you this already so you are bent on changing the topic of this thread and sticking to it after I told I will discuss it no further with you. You bait me to be off topic and then judge me when I do it, but it is all par for the course. I know you don't care what I think, but the sources I gave about your prophet's reaction on Mt. Hira is from Muslim sources. From Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah" from Guillaume's translation, "The Life of Muhammad", [3], page 106. Words in [ ] type brackets are mine. Words in ( ) brackets are the author's.

"So I [Muhammad] read it, and he [Gabriel] departed from me. And I awoke from my sleep, and it was though these words were written on my heart. (Tabari: Now none of God's creatures was more hateful to me than an (ecstatic) poet or a man possessed: I could not even look at them. I thought, Woe is me poet or possessed - Never shall Quraysh say this of me! I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest. So I went forth to do so and then) when I was midway on the mountain, I heard a voice from heaven saying "O Muhammad! thou are the apostle of God and I am Gabriel."

Can you proof this is not authentic? it is from Muslims sources is it not? Are you going to say all the things you don't like are weak oral traditions?

The "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", (Book of the Major Classes), by Ibn Sa'd, translated by S. Moinal Haq, [4], page 225 has Muhammad saying:

"O Khadija, I see light and hear sounds and I fear I am mad".

The visitations from the spirit continued. Then they stopped for a time believed to have been from 6 months to 3 years. When this happened, Tabari, [5], volume 6 page 76, records:

"The inspiration ceased to come to the messenger of God for a while, and he was deeply grieved. He began to go to the tops of mountain crags, in order to fling himself from them; but every time he reached the summit of a mountain, Gabriel appeared to him and said to him, "You are the Prophet of God." Thereupon his anxiety would subside and he would come back to himself."



Also, from Tabari Vol. 9, page 167, note 1151 says:



"The pre-Islamic Arabs believed in the demon of poetry, and they thought that a great poet was directly inspired by demons...."

This explains why Muhammad thought he was demon possessed, or influenced by demons; the Quran in many places reads like typical Arabic poetry.

In "Muhammad at Mecca", by W. M. Watt, [6], pages 40, 41, there are also references that detail Muhammad's suicidal thoughts. Watt quotes from az-Zuhri's material.

"He (Muhammad) said, I had been meditating throwing myself from a mountain crag, but while I was so meditating, he appeared to me and said, "O Muhammad, I am Gabriel, and thou are the Messenger of God."....

Az-Zuhri said: "There was a gap for a time in the revelation to the Messenger of God and he was very sorrowful. He started going early to the tops of the mountains to throw himself down from them. But whenever he reached the summit of a mountain, Gabriel would appear to him and say, "Thou are the Prophet of God."

So before you say this is off topic know that I am using to proof to me that Christianity makes more sense. When Paul was confronted by Jesus He did fear for his life and neither did Moses at the burning bush. Paul had reason to fear, because he was bent on killing Christians that Jesus considered to be His people. Demons throw fear into people and not heavenly beings. This is an argument to show that Christianity makes more sense. Now if these stories are not true about Islam's prophet prove it to me, because they are Islamic sources. Some Muslims deny this and others accept it is true so how I am supposed to know. You haven't proven yourself dependable in your comments about Islam so who I am to believe about Islam?