Is Peter going to Hell?  bible says yes

-----------

It's nothing new for Christians to brag about St Peter also known as The Rock, the disciple of Jesus who is probably mentioned more times then any other disciples.  Not to forget Peter was the first to visit the empty tomb making him a Hero Witness to Christians. We also have to alleged letters written by Peter the fisherman 

Now as much as Peter is praised there is also a darker  side to Peter. One has to Question his Credibility and where he stands is he a friend or foe? Let's read a few passages from the New Testament and find out what's really in offer for Peter.

-----------------------------

We read from the NT after Jesus was telling his disciples what was going to having to him. Peter disputed or actual words REBUKED Jesus? Something very unusual since none of the other disciples dared to. 

Peter took Him aside and began to rebukeHim. “Far be it from You, Lord! he said. “Thisshall never happen to You!” But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men. (Matthew 16:22-23)

Notice from the Above passage that not only did Peter REBUKE Jesus he was also CALLED SATAN !! Once again no other disciple was called Satan like Peter was.

-----------------------------

Another dilemma Christians have to deal with is why did Peter Deny Jesus three times? If Peter was truly a follower and believer in Jesus why did he Deny him? 

And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came, and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed. And the servant girl saw him and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” But again he denied it. And after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept. (Mark 14:66-72)

It kind of adds up when you read how Peter REBUKED Jesus and didn't believe him one can easily accept why he Denied Jesus his apparent saviour.

-------------------------------

Now this is a very embarrassing passage for Peter and the other disciples but whilst in context Peter seems to be the main man of Dispute. We read from the latters of Paul to Corinthians that Peter was a Hypocrite !!! 

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ( why did people such as the Apostle James still believe that the law regarding food should still be applied? If Jesus came to replace the law, then why are they still following the law?) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (so, Peter, James and Barnabas are wrong

(Galatians 2:11-13)

According to Paul Peter is a Hypocrite imagine that need I say more!

----------------------------

Peter the rock the will be disowned by Jesus according to his own words this is a serious matter which Christians are not aware of. One of the points made on this paper was Peter denying Jesus well this is how Peter will be denied.

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times." (Mark 14:30)

 

Immediately a rooster crowed. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: "Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly. (Matthew 26:75)

                           --------------------------Peter Disowned -------------------------------------

But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. (Matthew 10:33)

 

 

But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. 

(Luke 12:9)

The question is if one of the close follower (disciple) of Jesus is not saved what makes you Christians say your are. Seems like Christians are in a serious dilemma !!!! SHAME

According to the book of Jude Jesus was responsible for destroying disbelievers of the OLD (he's not a prince of peace after all)

Below I have made a list of a Few versions from the book of Jude explicitly telling us Jesus was responsible for killing disbelievers of the Old, I'll also give scholarly commentators writing to prove my point

---------------------------

So I want to remind you, though you already know these things, that Jesus first rescued the nation of Israel from Egypt, but later he destroyed those who did not remain faithful. (Jude 1:5 NLT)

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

(Jude 1:5 ESV)

Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 1:5 NET Bible)

I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not: 

(Jude 1:5 Douay-Rheims Bible)

----------------------------------------------------------

From the above passages we read Jesus was responsible for saving people out of the land of Egypt and destroying the disbelievers?? 

The ESV, NTL, NET, DRB are very brave here. Nevertheless, I here quote Realms of Faith, an inerrantist website:

The difficult issue here is that there is impressive manuscript support for reading Jesus instead of Lord - and great reasons for a scribe to change it. The resulting text has Jesus saving the people from Egypt and then destroying those who rebelled. To date, the NET, ESV, and NLT2 are the only translations to read this way.

How about the commentators what do they have to say? Let's read :

_________________________________

Gills Exposition of the entire Bible 

the Alexandrian copy, and some others, the Vulgate Latin, and Ethiopic versions, instead of "the Lord", read "Jesus": and yet, though they were a special people, and notwithstanding this wonderful deliverance, and great salvation, he afterward destroyed them that believed not; their carcasses fell in the wilderness by one judgment or another upon them; so that of all that came out of Egypt, but two entered into the land of Canaan

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

the Lord—The oldest manuscripts and versions read, "Jesus." So "Christ" is said to have accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness; so perfectly is Jesus one with the God of the Israelite theocracy.

IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH!   NEXT TIME CHRISTIANS SAY JESUS WAS A MAN OF PEACE THROW THIS ON THERE FACE!!!!!!! UNLESS THEY REJECT THE BIBLE PASSAGES THEN THIS WOULD MEAN THE BIBLE IS NOT INSPIRED ANYMORE.s not a prince of peace after all)

YES THIS IS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD!

But all the INFANT GIRLS (Taph) who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves to Devour (Lachem). (Numbers 31:18)

---------------

The above is no exaggeration in fact it's a More pure and better translation then any versions you have read.. The Hebrew words really speak louder then the translation. The word TAPH in Hebrew literally means INFANT CHILDREN'S and the word LACHEM literally means DEVOUR..

Can you imagine God Commanding Moses to tell his people to KILL Every Infant Boys  and Men's and All Women's who Slept with Man, But Keep All the INFANT GIRLS SO YOU CAN DEVOUR THEM (i.e Have Sexual relationship with them , Raps them as you Please do as you Please Devour them.

This can also be Confirmed by the Talmudic interpretation of this specific  verse let's read what Biblical Scholars of the Old Testament have to say :

Talmudic commentary 

In the following, the Talmud Sages reason that, since Phinehas was among the Hebrews who were permitted a child concubine and Phinehas was a priest, Numbers 31:17-18 is Divine sanction for the marriage of priests with girls under the age of three — babies. The rabbis describe the babies as proselytes. The American Heritage Dictionary defines proselyte as "a Gentile converted to Judaism." In the following passage, a bondman is a male slave, and a bondwoman a female slave.

GEMARA. … It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, (2) for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, (3) and Phinehas (4) surely was with them. And the Rabbis? (5) — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. (6) If so, (7)  a proselyte whose age is three years and one day (8) should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, (9) but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, (3) but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently (10) it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit (11) for cohabitation. (12)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b Soncino 1961 Edition, page 402

The doctrine that Jewish men may have sexual intercourse with non-Jewish children ("proselytes") under the age of three is expanded in the following passage; "Rabbi" is Judah the Prince.

GEMARA. … R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai. (13) Said R. Zera to R. Jacob b. Idi: Did you hear this (13) explicitly or did you learn it by a deduction? What [could be the] deduction? — As R. Joshua b. Levi related: There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, (14) and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest. (15) — Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b

Soncino 1961 Edition, page 403

The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with footnotes

Which Torah is correct and which is wrong? 

How long did Amram live depends what Torah you read? Also notice how the Septuagint tells us Amram married his fathers brothers daughter, contradicting the Masoretic and Samaritan where he married his fathers sister which means he married his Aunty?

----------------

And Ambram took to wife Jochabed the daughter of his father’s brother, and she bore to him both Aaron and Moses, and Mariam their sister: and the years of the life of Ambram were a hundred and thirty-two years. (Exodus 6:20 Septuagint Torah)

And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses and Miriam their sister: and the years of the life of Amram [were] an hundred and thirty and six years. (Exodus 6:20 Samaritan Torah)

Amram married his father's sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years. (Exodus 6:20 Masoretic Torah) 

----------------

Note the Latin vulgate Torah specifically tells us Amram married his Aunty:

And Amram took to wife Jochabed his aunt by the father's side: and she bore him Aaron and Moses. And the years of Amram's life, were a hundred and thirty-seven. 

(Exodus 6:20 Latin vulgate Torah)

In short did Amram live 132 years 136 years or 137 years did he marry his Aunty or his uncles daughter? 

IF THIS IS NOT CORRUPTION OF TEXT THEN WHAT IS IT !!! Wake up

------------

According to the Bible, Abraham married his sister and niece?

And besides, she is in truth my sister, my father’s daughter though not my mother’s; and she became my wife. (Genesis 20:12)

Here we read Abraham telling Abimelech, Sarah is his sister. However, if we go back a few chapters we read Sarah was his niece?

Abram and Nahor took to themselves wives, the name of Abram’s wife being Sarai and that of Nahor’s wife Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and Iscah. (Genesis 11:29)

the above verse tells us something interesting. Notice how alongside Milcah has the name “Iscah” is used. The question is who is Iscah? Lets find out from Rashi a renowned Jewish Scholar and commentator

יסכה JISCAH — This was Sarah; she was also named Jiscah (from a root meaning “”to see”, “to look”) because she could see the future by holy inspiration, and because everybody looked (gazed) at her beauty (Megillah 14a). The name Jiscah also has reference to princely dignity (נסיכות) just as the name Sarah (שרה) has an allusion to “ruling’’(שררה).

Just for the record, the Haran was Abrahams brother

“And these are the generations of Terah; Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran” (Genesis 11:27).

The Talmud also makes mention that Sarah was also known as Iscah

The Gemara rejects this proof: But how can you understand that Sarah wasAbraham’s sister? She was his brother’s daughter. By tradition, it is known that Sarah was Haran’s daughter Iscah.  (Sanhedrin 58b)

There you have it according to the Bible, Abraham married both his sister and niece? 

-----------

The Testament of Amram found in the Qumran caves (4Q543-9) The dating of the script varies between the second half of the second century BCE (4Q543, 544, 547)

Amram gets his brother to marry Mariam his daughter?

4Q543, fr. 1 (4Q545, 546)

 I Copy of the book of the words of the vision of Amram, son of Kehat, son of Levi, al[1 that] he explained to his sons and enjoined on them on the day of [his] death, in his one-hundred-and-thirty-seventh year, which was the year of his death, [in] the one-hundred-and-fifty-second year of Israel’s exile in Egypt ... to call Uzziel, his youngest brother, and he ma[rried] to him Miriam, [his] daughter, and said (to her), ‘You are thirty years old.’ And he gave a banquet lasting seven days. And he ate and drank and made merry during the banquet. Then, when the days of the banquet were completed, he sent to call Aaron, his son, and he was about twenty years old and said to him, ‘Call, my son, the messengers, your brothers from the house of …

4Q545 (4Q543a, 546d) Fr. ia i I Cop[y of the writing of the words of visio]n of Amram, son of Qahat, son of Levi, al[1] that [he has explained to his] sons ... on the day of [his] death in the year one hundred and thirty-six - this is the year of his death - in the year one hundred and fifty-two of the exile of [I]srael in Egypt. Also it came to him ... and call Uzziel, his younger brother, [and gav]e him Mir[i]am, his thirty-year-old daughter for wife. He made her wedding feast last seven [day]s and he ate and drank at her wedding feast and rejoiced. Then, when the [d]ays of the wedding feast came to an end, he sent out to call Aaron, his about t[wenty]-year-old son, [and said] to him, ‘My son, call to me the messengers, your brothers, from the house of ...’

If jesus said it why trust paul?

But I must be on my way today, tomorrow, and the next day, because it's not possible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.' 

(Luke 13:33)

-----------------------

Note from the above passage jesus of the bible is saying a prophet cannot be killed outside of Jerusalem? Firstly we know jesus was a prophet :

The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee"

(Matthew 21:11)

Secondly the place jesus was allegedly hanged was outside Jerusalem :

And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. ( Hebrews 13:12)

Also note  Paul States jesus was KILLED BY JEWS! :

14 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,15 who KILLED both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind

(1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)

------------------------------

So now we have a serious problem to deal with!! According to the words of jesus a prophet could not be killed outside Jerusalem, yet people who never met or saw jesus I.e Paul claimed that he was KILLED OUTSIDE JERUSALEM BY JEWS? Bear in mind jesus prayed not to get killed on the cross and his prayer are always accepted 

But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” (John 11;22)

 

Sent from my iPad

Question for our Christians regarding a statement made by your Jesus 

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
(Matthew 5:43)


where in the OT does it say love your neighbour and hate your enemy?
Please show us the reference if you can.... Unless your Jesus was quoting from a completely different Torah? 



He quoted from the talmud


John Gill's reference was quite applicable:

Hate your enemy from talmud 

"However, if someone disgraced or shamed a Talmid Hakham publicly, he is not allowed to forgive [the violation of] his honor and, if he did forgive, he is punished, as this is a disgrace of the Torah. Rather, he should seek vengeance and enmity like a snake until [the shamer] requests his forgiveness - then he should forgive him." 
(Maimonides, Hilchos Talmud Torah c.7 sect. 13)



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Love your Neighbour from talmud 


On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.12  When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour:13  that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.'
(Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 31a)

The golden Rule; cf. Lev. XIX, 18: but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.- V. Hertz, Leviticus, pp. 22 o

------------------------------



NT commentary confirms the later part is rabbinical inference 
And we find it in the talmud (oral law)



Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
(c) Love or Charity, 43–48.

43. Thou shalt love thy neighbour] Leviticus 19:18, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” The second clause does not occur in Levit., but was a Rabbinical inference. Enemies, all who are outside the chosen race, the etymological force of the Greek word. Heathen writers bear testimony to this unsocial characteristic of the Jews. Juvenal says it was their rule—

“Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti,

Quaesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos.”—Sat. xiv. 104.



Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Ye have heard that it hath been said,.... By, or to them of old time. This law has been delivered to them,thou shalt love thy neighbour, with this appendage to it, or false gloss upon it,

and hate thine enemy; for the first of these only is the law of Moses, Leviticus 19:18, the other is the addition, or wrong interpretation of the Scribes and Pharisees: wherefore the Jew (o) has no reason to charge Christ, or the Evangelist, with a false testimony, as he does, because the latter is no where written in the law, nor in the prophets: nor does Christ say it is; he only observes, that it had been traditionally handed down to them from the ancients, by the masters of the traditions of the elders, that the law of loving the neighbour was so to be understood as to allow, and even enjoin, hatred of enemies: in proof of which, take the following instances (p).

Above we read Jesus was aware of the oral law and made a change to it...

Thus Jesus abrogated the oral law

Dilemma for Christians

THIS IS CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The bible tells us that Jacob is the servant of God.

Isaiah 48:20 (servant is Jacob)

Isaiah 43:10 (servant is Jacob)

Isaiah 45:4 (servant is Jacob)

Isaiah 44:1-5 (servant is Jacob)

Isaiah 41:8-16 (servant is Jacob) etc..

---------

Imagine this, Christians claim Jesus is God and he is the descendent of Jacob, (Matthew 1:2)

Here's the Snag, if Jacob is supposed to be the servant of God then was Jacob aware that his Master that is God will be born from his future descendant? Jacob was carrying the seed of God which he past on throughout generations until God was born in a stable?

So now the servant is the cause for the masters birth

Beat that!

Scribes tampering failed!!!

He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

(Genesis 16:12)

What a statement made about Ishmael that he will be a wild donkey of a man? But what does is mean in biblical language let's find out  

______________________________________________

Rashis commentary 

A wild donkey of a man: who loves the wilderness to hunt beasts, as it is written (below 21:20f):“And he was an archer; and he dwelt in the desert of Paran.”

and everyone’s hand upon him: Everyone will hate him and attack him.

and before all his brothers he will dwell: for his seed will be numerous.

 

-----------------------------------------------

The Hebrew word used is Pereh (peh'-reh) Adam which doesn't mean donkey literally athon (aw-thone')in Hebrew  means donkey ! (Numbers 22:23)

Pereh Adam meaning a wilderness man agriculterist from the desert 

Hands on hands meaning protecting each other from robbers and beduins from dessert 

NOW WE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!!!!!!

When we read the SAMARITAN TORAH we don't find a wild donkey of a man rather it's states A FRUITFUL MAN ( Pre Adam )

He will be a FRUITFUL MAN; his hand will be with everyone and everyone's hand will be with him, and he will live among all his brothers."

(Genesis 16:12 Samaritan text) 

See how the scribes try to tamper with the text but the SAMARITAN TORAH still has it written as FRUITFUL MAN..  Not Pere Adam but Pre Adam just letter changed the whole meaning....

--------------------------------------------

No wonder we read in the same Book

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. (Genesis 17:20)

By their fruits you shall know them!!

Finders Keepers?

Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it (John 12:14)

Ok, now it makes sense. Jesus came to fulfill what the prophets of the old did.

All who have come before me are thieves and robbers (John 10:8)

The story in Mark, Matthew and Luke are so embarrassing, john didn't think it was worth mentioning. Jesus orders his disciples "to go find a donkey in the village" when his disciples responded what if "someone" asks why we are taking someone else's donkey, Jesus replied tell them the lord needs it and will send it back soon after. as a side note there is a discrepancy between Mark and Luke, one says the crowd ask the disciples why are they untying the donkey and another says the owner asked the disciples where are they untying his donkey? The question is, was the donkey sent back ? the answer is no. in other words Jesus made his disciples lie and deceived the owner into thinking his property will be returned back to him. Jesus followed the Talmud law

it A Jew can deceived (Talmud Bava Kamma 113b)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them (Matthew 5:17)

Jesus made no distinction between the written and oral law. Thus, taking someone else's property was a biblical trend which Jesus of the Christian came to fulfil. was the donkey returned back to its owner?

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Christians love boasting  The above statement, some base their entire salvation on this... But with a little study we find this statement is only mentioned in the gospel of john? I mean if this was such a God given message wouldn't all the gospels mention of it? Why didn't mark Matthew or Luke record Jesus uttering such Statement? What happened did the Holy Ghost forget or was it not aware of such an utterance?. What makes this statement dubious is that a few chapters earlier in the same book of john we read Jesus himself testifying:  

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true."

  (John 5:31)

Wait a sec Jesus is testifying that if he speaks of himself then his testimony is not true? If Jesus himself is saying he's words don't hold any value then how can you accept him saying he is the truth? Another addition  to the statement of Jesus which is rather contradictory and Christians fall into a dilemma is when Jesus praises the Spirit of truth

"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth"

(John 16:12-13)

If Jesus is suppose to be the truth then why did he say when the spirit of truth comes he will GUIDE YOU TO ALL TRUTH!!! Note Jesus said he will guide to "All TRUTH" this tells us Jesus was not the ultimate truth?

Now I would like to shift the lane and get into some other external scriptures, also I want to address the fact that the gospels and epistles found in the New Testament are not part of the Old Testament sacred scriptures like the Jews believe for instant the Old Testament is broken down in 3 categories these are known as :

THE TORAH ( The Pentateuch  5 Books of Moses )

THE NEVI'IM ( The Prophets )

THE K'TUVIM ( The Scriptures )

Now with theses books also comes the Oral Law which Jews take for Holy Scriptures known as the Mishna/Talmud a collection of books, rules and laws and a deep explanation of the Torah according to Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in Judaism on Trial, quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph: "Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible...God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own...anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

---------------

Interestingly we read from the Jewish oral holy scriptures ( Talmud) that Moses was the Truth and so was the Torah which Moses had... Both Moses and the Torah are the Truth and that's wasn't said by Moses it was said by Yahweh (inspired words ).... So now we have Moses and his Torah as the truth.. Did Jesus say the gospels are the truth?

He said unto me: 'Come, I will show you the men of Korah that were swallowed up.17  I saw two cracks that emitted smoke. I took a piece of clipped wool, dipped it in water, attached it to the point of a spear and let it in there. And when I took it out it was singed. [Thereupon] he said unto me: 'Listen attentively [to] what you [are about to] hear.' And I heard them say: 'Moses and his Torah are truth and we18  are liars.' He said unto me: 'Every thirty days Gehenna19  causes them to turn back here as [one turns] flesh in a pot,20  and they say thus: "Moses and his law are truth and we18  are liars".' (Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra Folio 74a)

The above passage is sufficient to call Moses the Truth According to Jewish written inspired texts, how about Moses making his way to Yahweh... Yawheh invited seventy elders to go with Moses and worship him from a distance but Moses is exclusively asked to to see Yahweh Alone

Then He said to Moses, "Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel, and you shall worship at a distance. "Moses alone, however, shall come near to the LORD, but they shall not come near, nor shall the people come up with him." ( Exodus 24:1-3)

also the Torah tells us Yahweh made Moses a god to pharaoh

And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Exodus 7:1)

----------------

Christians like isang have no idea how they humiliate themselves when they start assuming that the biblical Jesus was the ONLY way and truth...

Carry on reading to verse 32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true. (John 5:32)

"For he who finds me finds life And obtains favor from the LORD. (Proverbs 8:35)

---------

Solomon is talking about himself if you find him you find life, so what happened to I am the way the truth the life? 

SATAN MORE TRUTHFUL THE YAHWEH !!!!!!

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”(Genesis 2:16-17)

Notice from the above passage Yahweh is telling man he is fee to eat what he likes, however if he eats from the tree of knowledge then he will surely die. How true was that statement? Before we find out lets read what Satan said:

---------------------

but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. (Genesis 3:3-4)

This time we read from the above passage that Satan is telling Eve that she won't die if she eats the fruit. The golden question is did they really die? And the answer is no!

....Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?

( Genesis 3:11)

This tells us that they were still alive after eating the fruit, which means SATAN WAS CORRECT AND YAHWEH WASN'T!  

----------------------

Now many people may object and say Yahweh didn't mean it in literal sense, he meant it in a metaphorical or spiritual way, that wouldn't make sense when the Hebrew verb (muth) means die in a literal sense not metaphorical. Take for Example in the same book of Genesis it says, “Isaac desires tasty food before he died”. The same Hebrew word is used, would you honestly conclude the verse was speaking in a metaphorical way?

Prepare me the kind of tasty food I like and bring it to me to eat, so that I may give you my blessing before I die." (Genesis 27:4)

There are many more verse found in the Bible which uses the same word in a literal sense not metaphorical or spiritual. 

Genesis 45:28

Deuteronomy 18:16

Judges 15:18

Ruth 1:17

1 Samuels 14:43

1 Samuel 20:40 and the list goes on......

The Hebrew word is sufficient to prove it was a literal statement not metaphorical like Christians claim. By all means Christians have to accept that “SATAN WAS CORRECT IN HIS SAYING AND THEY LIVED UNLIKE WHAT YAHWEH SAID”

THIS MAKES SATAN MORE TRUFUL THE YAHWEH!

Ahmed found in the book of Isaiah

Ahmed found in the Book of Isaiah 

------------------

Prophet Muhammad's prophetic Name, "Ahmed", was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it was mentioned precisely in the Glorious Quran for the Prophet to be foretold by this very Name, Ahmed:
"And when Jesus the Son of Mary said, O children of Israel, verily I am the Apostle of God sent unto you, confirming the law which was delivered before me, and bringing good tidings of an Apostle who shall come after me, and whose name shall be Ahmed. And when he produced unto them evident miracles, they said, this is manifest sorcery.  (The Noble Quran, 61:6)"

Ahmed found in book of Isaiah 

The question that most of us ask now, arose before during the time of Muhammad s.a.w; preaching the words of God onto Arabia. Was Muhammad mentioned? This was the question by inhabitants of Arabia towards Jews that embraced Islam. And if we refer to the claim by past Jewish converts, they had quote verses from Isaiah 42.

Lets look at the passages in Isaiah. God address His chosen servants with their names, and in the prophesied verse we see God mention clearly the prophet's name. Some examples of God mentioning His servant by name.
(My Servant Isaiah, My Servant Eliakim, David My Servant, Jacob My Servant, My Servant Israel, and so in Isaiah 42:1 , God specifically mention My Servant Ahmad)

In Isaiah 42:1, it is deemed not a coincidence upon seeing the writing of both אתמך (Atmc) אחמד (Ahmd). And the word before אתמך (Atmc), is עבדי (Abdi~My Servant). For indeed, it is indicating Ahmad; Abdullah (Ahmad; Servant of God).

Not to mention אתמך (Atmc) happen to be a special term foretelling the coming of a righteous man and is used only ONCE throughout the entire Book. [could this be a copying error or an intended error?]

~~
The prophecy tells about Ahmad; 'Servant of God' whom will war to correct the wrongs and bringing judgement based on the law of God. He will liberate act of worshiping molten images and thus Arabia (wilderness desert, villages and cities) will glorify God since then. As can be seen today, Arabia are worshiping,praising God and singing words of God daily. Inhabitants from all around the world gather there and voice out loud their praise to God.

And we continue reading Isaiah 42:18 – 25; God remind the 'blind and deaf' about the wrath of God towards Children of Israel, whom neglect the message brought by past Servant of God.

And not to repeat; the same mistake upon the coming of the new Servant of God

The original reading should read

Behold my servant, (Ahmd אחמד ) Ahmed, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.
(Isaiah 42:1)

--------------------

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in Isaiah 29:12:- Greek text of Isaiah 29:12 from Sinaiticus:-The Book will be delivered in Hira to an illiterate man...",

"And the Book (or this/that Book) will be delivered in Hira [to] an illiterate man, and one shall say to him: 'Read this, and he shall say: 'I’m not learned.'"

[exactly what happened with Prophet Muhammad in cave of Hira on receiving first revelation]

Isaiah 29:12 with LXX (Septuagint) version preserved in Codex Sinaiticus:- check link http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=14&chapter=29&lid=en&side=r&verse=12&zoomSlider=0

In Codex Sinaiticus, the original writer – scribe B, section Isa 29:9-30:8, folio 53 - obviously wrote word first χιρα (chira-in Arabic Hira), but later, the corrector (fabricators) identified by scholars as Cb3, inserted a small epsilon (ε) and sigma (ς) in order to change its meaning from indeclinable feminine proper noun, "Hira" (χιρα), to a plural feminine noun in accusative case, "hands" (χειραϲ).

If you put in Google’s translator the English phrase "In the cave of Hira" and choose translation to Greek, it will give you the following result: Στο σπήλαιο της Χίρας (Sto spílaio tis Chíras). As you can see, it uses exactly the same letters for the word Hira. Again, if you put the Greek phrase το ειϲ Χιραϲ ανθρωπου from Sinaiticus, it will translate it as "the man in Hira". And once again, if you put the Greek phrase ον τουτο ειϲ χιραϲ you will find "being these in Hira" etc. The most striking, however, is when you type χιρα or χιραϲ alone, and you select translation to Arabic, the alternative rendering will be  غار حراء (ghar Hira = the cave of Hira!!!):

----------------------------

Conclusion: Old Greek text of Isaiah 29:12 according to Codex Sinaiticus gives an invaluable testimony that the sealed book shown to an illiterate man, took place in χιρα (Hira), and Google Translator even clearly pinpoints that it is in Arabic غار حراء (ghar Hira), i.e. the cave Hira, which is a famous holy place located in the Meccan desert where Prophet Mohammed (SAAW) received his first Quranic revelation, in 610 AD. 

let’s confirm once again from another angle the way how Isaiah 29:12 is alluding to Prophet Mohammed (SAAW) as an unthought man to whom will be given the book. We will quote the Targum-Jonathan to Isaiah 29:12, an early Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible (however it was revised in the seventh century AD… again, obviously because of Mohammed’s SAAW appearance as an Arab!)

The Aramaic Text of Isaiah 29:12 (Sperber’s Critical Edition)

וְיִתיְהֵיב סִפרָא לִדלָא יָדַע סִפרָא לְמֵימַר קְרֵי כְעַן דֵין וְיֵימַר לֵית אְנָא יָדַע סִפרָא

English Translation by Bruce D. Chilton (1987)

“And all prophecy has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who knows the book, saying, “Read this,” he will say, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” And the book will be given to one who does not know the book, saying, “Read this,” and he will say, “I do not know the book.”

The above phrase from Chilton’s literal translation “one who does not know the book” (לִדלָא יָדַע סִפרָא) is interesting since it perfectly corresponds with Prophet Mohammed’s (SAAW) case when Allah has revealed to him مَا كُنتَ تَدرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ (ar. ma kunta tadri ma l-kitabu), i.e. “You did not know what is the Book”. Let’s read the entire verse of Sura 42:52 where these words appears:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِّنْ أَمْرِنَا ۚ مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلَا الْإِيمَانُ وَلَٰكِن جَعَلْنَاهُ نُورًا نَّهْدِي بِهِ مَن نَّشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا ۚ وَإِنَّكَ لَتَهْدِي إِلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ

Sahih International

“And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration (ar. ruhan, i.e. Gabriel AS) of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed, [O Muhammad], you guide to a straight path”

 Sura 29:48 which very clearly states by emphasizing that Prophet Mohammed (SAAW) didn’t know how to read and write before the Quran came down to him:

وَمَا كُنْتَ تَتْلُو مِنْ قَبْلِهِ مِنْ كِتَابٍ وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ بِيَمِينِكَ ۖ إِذًا لَارْتَابَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ

Yusuf Ali Translation

“And thou was not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came, i.e. the Quran), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted.”

Christian apologetic argumentation actually does not disprove in any way that when the first Quranic revelation in Hira took place Prophet Mohammed (SAAW) was unlearned. In other words, it does not affect the claim that Isaiah foreshadows Mohammed (SAAW) as an illiterate prophet and Muslim’s interpretation is still 100 % valid in this matter, since Allah clearly says he couldn’t read nor write before the Quran was given to him (ar. ma kunta tatlumin qablihi), i.e. until the age of forty he was not learned yet (what happened later is another question.