Well Mohammed is actually basing his claims on part on the OT and the NT.

So you have to examine the claims and the source of the claims is in the text.

When you study the texts you pick out the Messiah chain.

In Leviticus it took 2 to be witnesses under Judaic Law. We have 4 Gospels.

2 of them were from actual disciples: Matthew and John. They are actual

Hebrew witnesses to the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus. They were under the

Torah and they checked Jesus against the scriptures.

We believe on Jesus.

So if you think Mohammed has a claim then you'll have to study both of

them and compare their circumstances.

Psalm 34 (New International Version)

Psalm 34
Of David. When he pretended to be insane before Abimelech, who drove him away, and he left.
1 [a] I will extol the LORD at all times;
his praise will always be on my lips.
2 My soul will boast in the LORD;
let the afflicted hear and rejoice.

3 Glorify the LORD with me;
let us exalt his name together.

4 I sought the LORD, and he answered me;
he delivered me from all my fears.

5 Those who look to him are radiant;
their faces are never covered with shame.

6 This poor man called, and the LORD heard him;
he saved him out of all his troubles.

7 The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him,
and he delivers them.

8 Taste and see that the LORD is good;
blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.

9 Fear the LORD, you his saints,
for those who fear him lack nothing.

10 The lions may grow weak and hungry,
but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.

11 Come, my children, listen to me;
I will teach you the fear of the LORD.

12 Whoever of you loves life
and desires to see many good days,

13 keep your tongue from evil
and your lips from speaking lies.

14 Turn from evil and do good;
seek peace and pursue it.

15 The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous
and his ears are attentive to their cry;

16 the face of the LORD is against those who do evil,
to cut off the memory of them from the earth.

17 The righteous cry out, and the LORD hears them;
he delivers them from all their troubles.

18 The LORD is close to the *******earted
and saves those who are crushed in spirit.

19 A righteous man may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;

20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.

21 Evil will slay the wicked;
the foes of the righteous will be condemned.

22 The LORD redeems his servants;
no one will be condemned who takes refuge in him.

(Pepsi Challenge sounds like communion in disguise. May God bless you and keep you!)

I didn't hear your comments on this part Subfallen:

Gabriel’s messages
Gabriel (Jibrael) is believed, by Muslims, to have been the angelic messenger from Allah that brought the message of the Qur’an to their great prophet, Muhammad (al-Baqarah: 97). I question the claim that it was Gabriel who visited Muhammad, because much of the Qur’an is inconsistent with the accounts of information given by Gabriel in his visitations to others.

As recorded in the Bible, the angel Gabriel is seen to have paid two visits to the prophet Daniel (Daniel 8:15,16, 9:21). He also appeared to Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist (Luke 1:18,19), as well as to the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus (1:26,27).

There are common denominators among all of these appointed visits by Gabriel to Daniel, Zechariah, and Mary:

Each time, the message was brief.
Each message contained unique information that was not repeated anywhere else in the message.
In each case, the person inquired of Gabriel, who never asked a question of the person.
Within each message was information pertaining to the end of the age (Daniel 8:16,17b, 9:21,24,27c), or else the notification of the coming of a specific person: either John the Baptist, who was Jesus’ cousin (Luke 1:13b,19), or Jesus (1:26,31).
Included in each message was some referral to Jesus Christ, whether as the Prince of princes (Daniel 8:25b), the Anointed One (9:26a), the Lord (Luke 1:17), or the Son of the Most High (1:32a) or Son of God (1:35b).
In speaking to Mary, Gabriel relayed the vitally important Gospel messages that her son Jesus would be called “‘Immanuel’—which means ‘God with us’” (Matthew 1:23) and also that Jesus would be called “the Son of God” (Luke 1:35b).
However, messages in the Qur’an—allegedly given by Allah to Jibrael (Gabriel) to Muhammad—are incompatible, in numerous aspects, with the above prophecies recorded in the Bible. As such, some straightforward questions come to mind:
The Qur’an was a very lengthy, not a brief, communication.
My question: What sets Muhammad apart from other “humble servants of God” that he alone should have received an angelic communication that is far, far more extensive than any other?
The Qur’an contains many themes that are repeated over and over and over again—such as, for example, that the “people of the Scripture” (Jews and Christians) must give their allegiance to Allah or else be punished (âl-`Imrân: 64, at-Taubah: 29-31, al-Muddaththir: 31).
My question: Why would an angel spend his time stating basically the same information repeatedly, to one person, ad infinitum and ad nauseam?
Muhammad does not inquire of the angel; whereas, the angel poses many, many questions to Muhammad (at-Taubah: 7,8; az-Zukhruf: 79,80; al-Balad: 7-10,12).
My question: Why would an extremely knowledgeable and powerful being, such as an archangel, ask a human anything, especially since he asked Daniel, Zechariah, and Mary nothing?
While almost a third of the Bible is prophetic in nature, the Qur’an has virtually no prophetic passages—other than that the heavenly rewards for Muslim men will be reclining on thrones in Paradise and marrying fair maidens with lovely eyes (houris—at-Tûr: 20), whereas the Fire of Hell awaits those, including Jews, who do not believe either in Allah or in monotheistic Islam, on the Day of Resurrection (al-Baqarah: 24, 80; al-Mâ´idah: 72; Maryam: 37).
My question: What about Jesus’ declaration, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30a)? Why will no rewards await Muslim women? If the Qur’an is God’s “final revelation” to mankind, as Muslims believe, why would not God use it to tell us specifics about future events on earth, as the Bible does? Could it be that Allah does not know the future?
The Qur’an never acknowledges Jesus by any title that Gabriel uses in his other prophecies, as recorded in the Bible. Furthermore, the Qur’an adamantly denies that God has a son (an-Nisâ´: 171; Maryam: 35; al-Furqân: 2).
My question: Why would Gabriel tell Muhammad that Allah has no son, when he clearly had told Mary that her son, Jesus, would be the Son of God? Could it be that the angel Gabriel never appeared to Muhammad at all (although, most likely, some other angelic being did)? Could it be that Allah and God are not one and the same?
In the Bible, Paul—a staunch advocate of Jesus Christ who taught that Jesus was the Son of God—clearly stated there was no Gospel message other than the one that he and other believers like him taught. In fact, Paul went so far as to state, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8).
My question: If Gabriel, an angel from heaven, made very clear, to Mary, the eternal Gospel message that Jesus not only is considered to be “God with us” but also “the Son of God,” then wouldn’t Gabriel be eternally condemned by insisting, in the Qur’an, that there is no other God along with Allah and that God does not have a son (al-Mu´minûn: 91)? Does it make any sense that Gabriel—one of God’s archangels and a primary messenger from God—would choose to be eternally condemned?


What are your thoughts on the Qur'an?

The lack of knowledge about Islam in this thread is beyond ridiculous...
That said, there is no need for a Pepsi challenge here: Muslims regard the earlier prophets and revelations as divine in origin. Muhammad never claimed to bring an entirely new revelation. He is regarded as "Khatem-i Anbiya", that is the "seal of the prophets": A final ring in a long chain of prophecy going ultimately back to Abraham (and beyond that to Adam, in some interpretations), completing and perfecting the earlier revelations.
The Arabic text of the Qur'an is seen as the word of God by Muslims, not the translations. The style and content of the book form an indivisible whole and the sheer power of the book may not be apparent in its translations (which are not regarded as the Qur'an anyway, but mere translations). In order to have a conception of the harmony and power of the Qur'an it may be a good idea to listen it when a master reciter reads it (reading the Qur'an is considered an art form in Muslim countries just like writing it in elaborate calligraphy). Even if you do not know Arabic you may enjoy listening to the following example. Sura'tul Taqwir recited by a true master reciter, Sheikh Abdussamed (sheer enthusiasm of the listeners is a bit funny though)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gYim...eature=related

Cheers

So sick that if Islam is the true religion then God is making us learn Arabic just to be a part of it. Lazy Europeans/Americans are almost destined to never hear the word of God. Religions are so ridiculous.

It is you who is being ridiculous. The revelations to the prophets were done in their native languages (Hebrew for Abraham and Moses, Arabic for Muhammad etc. and in many other languages since the Muslims believe that revelations are not exclusive to the Hebrews, Arabs or any other nation. In some traditions attributed to Muhammad he mentions hundreds of thousands of prophets, and in some others he mentions that there is no people or nation on earth which did not receive a prophet from God at some point in their history).
However, if you want to truly understand and evaluate a particular revelation, then there is no other way than learning the language in which that particular revelation was made. Hence, you need to lift your sorry ass and learn Hebrew to truly appreciate the Torah and Arabic for Qur'an etc.

Yeah, religions are so ridiculous. I know zero German and I understand all of Heisenberg works that were written in German. Science is not ridiculous.

Btw OP if you really want to get down and examine religious claims like your OP post is hinting at you might want to take a look at this Shi'ite religious belief. I've never heard of any belief like this in any other religion.

Its called taqqiyah.

my classical greek is pretty flakey and yet a i had no trouble reading Plato either. whatever your opinions are on philosophy, it is now less ridiculous than dogmatism.

Wrong...You may understand Plato on a somewhat superficial level without knowing Classical Greek, just as you may understand Shakespeare superficially in various translations without knowing English. In order to truly appreciate the intricacies of Greek philosophy there is no other way than learning Greek just as there is no other way of truly appreciating Shakespeare than learning English. In science the situation is different because there is a commonly accepted language among scientists: It is called mathematics.
To the guy who is referring to the "taqiyya", I am not a Shi'ite. I am not even remotely religious for God's sake. I am just knowledgeable about Islam and the sheer level of ignorance about Islam displayed in this thread prompted my replies.
Cheers

Explain in detail the sheer ignorance otherwise its just a claim without substance.

I provided a biblical exegesis comparing the NT and OT angel accounts with Mohammed's account.

Also the Hebrews had a standard for prophets.

You want to explain how the Hebrews can claim the birthright went to Jacob but the Muslims can reattribute it to someone else?

How can the Muslims contradict the Old Testament? Are they claiming that the OT is errant? Because then they are drawing on a fallible source and rewriting both the OT and Christ's purpose.

The intricacies of Shakespeare are fundamentally linguistic. The intricacies of philosophy, not so much.

wrong. i studied it at a top university under a woman who is fluent in classical greek and a top plato scholar. also, a good translation will have translators notes which explain the subtleties a translation cannot catch. plus i know a good 5 words of greek (all of which relate to philosophy :P).

This is just nonsense.

Madnak you are a reasonable person, so I will continue: Many prominent philosophers, including Plato in the ancient world and Wittgenstein and Nietzsche in the modern times argued exactly that the intricacies of philosophy are fundamentally linguistic. It may take some time to check my sources but if I am not mistaken Nietzsche argued in this manner in "Human All too Human" and Wittgenstein in his "Philosophical Investigations". In any case Plato did not write his dialogues as philosophical "treatises": They are "dialogues" meaning that they have a "play-like" feel to them and you really need to pay attention to the presentation of the ideas (hence my insistence on language) in addition to the ideas themselves to understand what is really going on in a Platonic dialogue. They seriously resemble Shakespeare's plays in that regard (remember Plato personally knew Aristophanes). I humbly suggest you to read Leo Strauss' "City and Man" to appreciate this point about the philosophy of Plato in particular and ancient Greek philosophy in general.
Cheers

There is nothing like ignorance for which you have to pay money. Good luck in life.

Splendour, I am not sure about your level of knowledge regarding Islamic theology. However, I will give you the benefit of doubt and try to explain my point:
Although Muslims believe that the original revelations to Moses and other Hebrew prophets (including Jesus according to the Islamic tradition) were authentic and divine, they also believe that those original revelations were tempered and changed by the following Jewish and Christian leaders of those communities. That, according to the Muslims, is the reason for the apparent contradictions between the earlier revelations and the Qur'an.
Cheers

You seem to be saying (at most) that a bad translation will not offer an understanding of the original. Um...of course?

But you have presented NO EVIDENCE that good translations are impossible in principle. Or unavailable, in practice.

It's particularly bizarre that you suggest Wittgenstein can only be understood in German, since he above all knew that language is accessory to meaning---not constitutive!

It's certainly an idea that has been considered, but I don't accept it. I think it's akin to saying that art can't be appreciated by those who didn't grow up in the relevant culture at the relevant time.

I think most philosophy is less ridiculous than dogmatism

I don't think "less than completely certain" is very useful in this context. I don't think there's a single thing I'm "completely certain" about. There are few things I'm more certain about than that the Qu'ran was written without divine assistance though.

Unlike madnak, I'm so certain that I would probably not be convinced by Gabriel appearing before me. I'd just assume I was hallucinating. If he gave me a specific and accurate prophecy about the near future, that would work.