the guy doesnt even know what he is talking about, with all due respect i understand how shocking it is to see something when u have been taught otherwise your whole life but maybe you should research more and keep an open mind
And who is more unjust than the one who invents a lie against Allah, even though he is called to Islam? And Allah does not guide the unrighteous. 61.8 They want to put out the light of Allah from their mouths, so that Allah will perfect His light despite the aversion of the disbelievers.
And when Jesus son of Mary said: “O Children of Israel, I am truly the Messenger of Allah [sent] to you, confirming what, in the Torah, is before me, and announcing a Messenger to come after me, whose name will be "Ahmad". Then when he came to them with clear proofs, they said: "This is manifest magic."
Yep, and the point is that there is no evidence that Jesus Christ has said that a prophet will come after Him. Let alone an 'ahmed'. Moreover, it is impossible that Jesus Christ could ever say such a statement. Because Jesus Christ said that He Himself is the Truth, the Life and the only way to the Father. John 14:6. So after Him no prophets are needed anymore.
@sodeeqtunde3998 Just read John 14-16 in context. Then you will know who it is definitely not. And in John 14:26 you will find the answer plain and clear.
before the name Muhammad even use as a name it does'nt mean it was'nt talk about prophet Muhammad?? thats why it calls prophecy... like the day of judgement and the hours (the end of this world) its not happen yet. The Bible talking about the hours is gonna come and its not happen yet, it does'nt mean that time not gonna come and not talking about that day..
Also was Deedat wrong about his claim that spirits and prophets are the same. The text in 1 John 4 says: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”. But the verse is clear e.g. in the word ‘because’. In Greek “ὅτι’ = ‘hoti” which means ’that’ or ‘since’ or ‘because’. Clearly this verse only states that spirits are the result of the presence of false prophets in the world. So 1 John 4:1 clearly states that false prophets are the course and spirits are the result. That makes clear that prophets and spirits are NOT the same, they are two different types of entities.
Deedat was no scholar in classic languages. Moreover, Deedat was not even officially educated at all. And never did Deedat refer to a scholar in classic languages. Sure every noun in the Koine Greek has a gender. But the gender of nouns, not pronouns but nouns, in which they refer can differ indeed. Like in John 1:4: "In him (M) was life (F), and that life (F) was the light (M) of all mankind." So a female noun wich refers to a neuter noun. So in the same way as in John 4:24 "God (M) is Spirit (N)..." is in John 14 the Paracletos (M) is Spirit (N). And yes, the Paracletos is a person but not a human. Not a human because it is a Spirit (John 14:17), the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), which the world cannot see (John 14:17) and is in people (John 14:17). So Deedat’s 'argument' fails. And so no prophet in John 14-16, let alone Muhammad.
In the referred video mr. Deedat quotes John 16:12, 3 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. “. But consciously he omits the following verses John 16: 14 and 15: “He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” Clearly it says that what the Spirit of truth will tell it is from Jesus. Did Muhammad become his ‘revelation’ from Jesus? Certainly not. So the Spirit of truth is NOT Muhammad. But the previous verses John 16 7-11 say “But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.” Clearly the Spirit of truth is the ‘Paraclete’(in Greek) translated as ‘Advocate’. And John 14:26 states clearly who is the Advocate (Paraclete) and why he has to come: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” So clearly the Advocate is the Holy Spirit, so no Muhammad. And the Holy Spirit came to teach and remember the disciples what Jesus has said. So no new message and no other prophet after Jesus Clearly mr. Deedat twisted the Bible and Jesus words out of context and therefore he was deceiving the audience! Of course it was easy in that time, internet was uncommon so people could not check.
@Bambi Tv. Please, please stop now bringing in this fallacy. There is no 'muhammadin' in the classic Hebrew language. This video is sooo many times refuted. Again, is Muhammad predicted in Songs of Solomon 5:16? חִכֹּו֙ מַֽמְתַקִּ֔ים וְכֻלֹּ֖ו מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים זֶ֤ה דֹודִי֙ וְזֶ֣ה רֵעִ֔י בְּנֹ֖ות יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם׃ ḥikwō maməṯaqqîm wəḵullwō maḥămadîm zeh ḏwōḏî wəzeh rē‘î bənwōṯ yərûšālāim: “His mouth is most sweet; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” The first mistake by Deedat is that he pronounced מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים as ‘muhamaddim’. But he is wrong, it is ‘ma-kha-madim’. So there is no pronunciation of Muhammad. Just check every high valuated Hebrew dictionary or lexicon. The other mistake made by Deedat is that he said that ‘מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים' is a name. Again he is very wrong because מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים is a masculine plural noun, so it is not a name. Again, just check every high valuated Hebrew dictionary or lexicon. And because it is not a name it is impossible that it refers to the name of ‘Muhammad’. Also the claim that the plural 'im' (or 'eem') in ma-kha-madim in the Hebrew language was ‘added for respect’ is in this case false. First of all, nowhere in Songs of Solomon 5 it speaks about אֱלהִים, elohim, the masculine noun for a godhead. But Song of Solomon 5 speaks about ממתקים, mamtaqim and מחמדים, ma-kha-madim. So you can't compare apples with oranges. Biblical poetry is typically built on pairs of metaphors, for example "they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions". In Song of Songs 5:16 it's "His mouth is most sweet, ממתקים, he is altogether lovely, מחמדים. So מחמדים, ma-kha-madim is equivalent to ממתקים, mamtaqim. So the addition ‘-im’ is just a superlative of ‘desire', so it means 'most desire'. Exactly in line with the other words in vers 16: ‘mamtaqim’ = most sweet and other places ‘partamim' = most noble. Forms of the same Hebrew word are also used elsewhere in the Old Testament, yet Islamic ‘scholars' do not claim that those passages refer to Muhammad. Rightly so, since those verses cannot be forced to fit the notion that Muhammad is under consideration. For example, Isaiah 64:11 mourns the destruction of Jerusalem: “Our holy and beautiful temple, where our fathers praised You, is burned up with fire; and all our pleasant things are laid waste.” “Pleasant things” is a form of the same word in Song of Solomon 5:16. Would Deedat contend that Muhammad was “laid waste” in Jerusalem? Additional occurrences of the same word are seen in 1 Kings 20:6; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Lamentations 1:10,11; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25; Hosea 9:9,16; Joel 3:5. Is in this cases also Muhammad mentioned? If yes, why? If not, why not? So in Songs of Solomon no Muhammad.
the guy doesnt even know what he is talking about, with all due respect i understand how shocking it is to see something when u have been taught otherwise your whole life but maybe you should research more and keep an open mind
سبحان الله وبحمده
سبحان الله العظيم
سبحان الله وبحمده سبحان الله العظيم
The truth is clear stop beating around, he was the first man to be given the name Muhammad in his time on the entire Arabia
history
DOAKAN saja semoga bambi tv mendapat hidayah bro.
Bline heart
And who is more unjust than the one who invents a lie against Allah, even though he is called to Islam? And Allah does not guide the unrighteous. 61.8 They want to put out the light of Allah from their mouths, so that Allah will perfect His light despite the aversion of the disbelievers.
And when Jesus son of Mary said: “O Children of Israel, I am truly the Messenger of Allah [sent] to you, confirming what, in the Torah, is before me, and announcing a Messenger to come after me, whose name will be "Ahmad". Then when he came to them with clear proofs, they said: "This is manifest magic."
Yep, and the point is that there is no evidence that Jesus Christ has said that a prophet will come after Him. Let alone an 'ahmed'. Moreover, it is impossible that Jesus Christ could ever say such a statement. Because Jesus Christ said that He Himself is the Truth, the Life and the only way to the Father. John 14:6. So after Him no prophets are needed anymore.
@@reneandjohnso the comforter that he said will come after him is what?
@sodeeqtunde3998 Just read John 14-16 in context. Then you will know who it is definitely not.
And in John 14:26 you will find the answer plain and clear.
@@reneandjohn hhhhh bot with deadbrain
before the name Muhammad even use as a name it does'nt mean it was'nt talk about prophet Muhammad?? thats why it calls prophecy... like the day of judgement and the hours (the end of this world) its not happen yet. The Bible talking about the hours is gonna come and its not happen yet, it does'nt mean that time not gonna come and not talking about that day..
Also was Deedat wrong about his claim that spirits and prophets are the same. The text in 1 John 4 says: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”. But the verse is clear e.g. in the word ‘because’. In Greek “ὅτι’ = ‘hoti” which means ’that’ or ‘since’ or ‘because’. Clearly this verse only states that spirits are the result of the presence of false prophets in the world. So 1 John 4:1 clearly states that false prophets are the course and spirits are the result. That makes clear that prophets and spirits are NOT the same, they are two different types of entities.
Deedat was no scholar in classic languages. Moreover, Deedat was not even officially educated at all. And never did Deedat refer to a scholar in classic languages. Sure every noun in the Koine Greek has a gender. But the gender of nouns, not pronouns but nouns, in which they refer can differ indeed. Like in John 1:4: "In him (M) was life (F), and that life (F) was the light (M) of all mankind." So a female noun wich refers to a neuter noun. So in the same way as in John 4:24 "God (M) is Spirit (N)..." is in John 14 the Paracletos (M) is Spirit (N).
And yes, the Paracletos is a person but not a human. Not a human because it is a Spirit (John 14:17), the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), which the world cannot see (John 14:17) and is in people (John 14:17). So Deedat’s 'argument' fails. And so no prophet in John 14-16, let alone Muhammad.
In the referred video mr. Deedat quotes John 16:12, 3 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. “.
But consciously he omits the following verses John 16: 14 and 15: “He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”
Clearly it says that what the Spirit of truth will tell it is from Jesus. Did Muhammad become his ‘revelation’ from Jesus? Certainly not. So the Spirit of truth is NOT Muhammad.
But the previous verses John 16 7-11 say “But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.”
Clearly the Spirit of truth is the ‘Paraclete’(in Greek) translated as ‘Advocate’.
And John 14:26 states clearly who is the Advocate (Paraclete) and why he has to come: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
So clearly the Advocate is the Holy Spirit, so no Muhammad.
And the Holy Spirit came to teach and remember the disciples what Jesus has said. So no new message and no other prophet after Jesus
Clearly mr. Deedat twisted the Bible and Jesus words out of context and therefore he was deceiving the audience!
Of course it was easy in that time, internet was uncommon so people could not check.
@Bambi Tv. Please, please stop now bringing in this fallacy. There is no 'muhammadin' in the classic Hebrew language. This video is sooo many times refuted. Again, is Muhammad predicted in Songs of Solomon 5:16?
חִכֹּו֙ מַֽמְתַקִּ֔ים וְכֻלֹּ֖ו מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים זֶ֤ה דֹודִי֙ וְזֶ֣ה רֵעִ֔י בְּנֹ֖ות יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם׃
ḥikwō maməṯaqqîm wəḵullwō maḥămadîm zeh ḏwōḏî wəzeh rē‘î bənwōṯ yərûšālāim:
“His mouth is most sweet; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”
The first mistake by Deedat is that he pronounced מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים as ‘muhamaddim’. But he is wrong, it is ‘ma-kha-madim’. So there is no pronunciation of Muhammad. Just check every high valuated Hebrew dictionary or lexicon.
The other mistake made by Deedat is that he said that ‘מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים' is a name. Again he is very wrong because מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים is a masculine plural noun, so it is not a name. Again, just check every high valuated Hebrew dictionary or lexicon. And because it is not a name it is impossible that it refers to the name of ‘Muhammad’.
Also the claim that the plural 'im' (or 'eem') in ma-kha-madim in the Hebrew language was ‘added for respect’ is in this case false. First of all, nowhere in Songs of Solomon 5 it speaks about אֱלהִים, elohim, the masculine noun for a godhead. But Song of Solomon 5 speaks about ממתקים, mamtaqim and מחמדים, ma-kha-madim. So you can't compare apples with oranges. Biblical poetry is typically built on pairs of metaphors, for example "they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions". In Song of Songs 5:16 it's "His mouth is most sweet, ממתקים, he is altogether lovely, מחמדים. So מחמדים, ma-kha-madim is equivalent to ממתקים, mamtaqim. So the addition ‘-im’ is just a superlative of ‘desire', so it means 'most desire'. Exactly in line with the other words in vers 16: ‘mamtaqim’ = most sweet and other places ‘partamim' = most noble.
Forms of the same Hebrew word are also used elsewhere in the Old Testament, yet Islamic ‘scholars' do not claim that those passages refer to Muhammad. Rightly so, since those verses cannot be forced to fit the notion that Muhammad is under consideration. For example, Isaiah 64:11 mourns the destruction of Jerusalem: “Our holy and beautiful temple, where our fathers praised You, is burned up with fire; and all our pleasant things are laid waste.” “Pleasant things” is a form of the same word in Song of Solomon 5:16. Would Deedat contend that Muhammad was “laid waste” in Jerusalem?
Additional occurrences of the same word are seen in 1 Kings 20:6; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Lamentations 1:10,11; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25; Hosea 9:9,16; Joel 3:5. Is in this cases also Muhammad mentioned? If yes, why? If not, why not?
So in Songs of Solomon no Muhammad.