Muslim article attacking the Isaiah 9:6 prophecy?


Are these criticisms valid? I’m interested because the prophecies of Isaiah really impressed me. There is lot of umph and majesty to them. So this article is a bit disheartening.


Why would you listen to Muslims propaganda that attempts to discredit the trinity


We can get all bent out of shape and concerned about everything on the internet, or we can place our faith like a house on a rock, where these waves won’t knock it down.

And there are some chatters here with OCD who do just that. Think of the person first, Rather then the answer to the question,


Here’s what happened , Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead.

Isaiah 53 and psalm 22 were looked at with fresh eyes after this. When the Apostles were making sense of this. Here Jesus as the suffering servant is described.

We must also make the distinction that Isaiah is written by 2 different people and 2 centuries apart

So any scholarship of Isaiah must include these important points.


I probably shouldn’t but I was raised Muslim so I have a natural interest in it. Muslims tend to poof text quotes from the bible. Since they view the bible like the Quran which doesn’t really have a clear narrative style in the of the bible. It doesn’t necessarily proceed in an chronological order per se but really shifts topic to topic. It really lacks much context compared to the bible. It’s very ad-hoc. I’m not saying this inherently disproves the Quran. Just a different style from the biblical narrative.

Thanks to everyone for the answers.


The Bible has quite a few different genres,
narrative, poetic, legal, prose, parable, genealogy


They won’t understand the difference between the human Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, and the Divine Jesus.

In the New Testament one of the oldest references to the Divine Jesus is in the Marana that prayer, Come Lord Come, in Aramaic.

Paul wrote the Letters first, about 20 or 30 years after the death of Jesus and his letters focussed on the Divinity of Jesus.
Of course, Johns Gospel has many names for the Divine Jesus


Jesus was a divine person just a prophet could be!


Jesus had two natures in one person, a fully human nature and a fully Divine nature. Jesus was fully human, just like us in all things besides sin


Divine Nature does not settle in matter. Divine Nature surround the all matter.

God is always God. Some part of God do not trnasform into matter. Or God do not incarnate into human. Well God do not incarnate. God is simple and infinite so if God is eternal but God is always eternal. Human nature cannot be eternal.

We know Jesus as a human and the beyond… conjectures just could be relied on mysteries.


Are you expecting the Muslims to concur this text proves the divinity of Christ or something? :roll_eyes:


You are speaking from Muslim doctrine. I am speaking from Catholic Doctrine.
We are in Sacred Scripture.

Catholic Sacred Scripture. Where Jesus is true God and true Man


Take into consideration that Islam was formed 500 years after Christianity.

If you look at the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in terms of Life Insurance the Old Covenant would have been a Term Life insurance policy that reached its term and then was fulfilled and renewed with a Whole Life policy.

Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant and renewed it grafting the Gentiles onto the vine of salvation.

Why would God then give a whole new separate and contradictory covenant to Muhammad 500 years after a fulfilling the Old Covenant of the Jews and renewing it into the New Covenant of all people?

Islam is basically a chimera of religions that existed at the time of Muhammad’s life.

Muhammed isn’t much different than Joseph Smith who founded Mormonism if you really think about it.

Both religious figures and religions seem to focus heavily around sex and both men were known to have multiple wives that were underage.

I can no more take Islam and the Quaran as seriously as I can take the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Book of Mormon seriously.

Both religious figures wrote or compiled supposedly from divine sources religious texts where as the Jewish and Christian Bible of the Old Testament and the New Testament organically developed and was compiled into the Roman canon that most Bibles perfectly or imperfectly follow depending on whether they are Catholic or Protestant.


Yes! He is 100% human and 100% divine! What a beautiful mystery!

What greater love than to become one of us and suffer so much in His Passion.

Alleluia! He is Risen and still with us!


Sacred Scripture and the Roman canon what we the call the Bible which is a library of books were based off the tradition of the Apostles.

The Quaran is a man-made document like the Book of Mormon or any other false gospel.

The foundation of Islam rest on the corpses of those that she slaughtered where as Christianity lies on the foundation of Christ crucified and risen from the dead.

The Quaran is about as reliable as the Book of Mormon a book which was supposedly read out of a hat…

The Quaran also clearly ripped off the Gospel of Judas which is a Gnostic text.

The reason that there’s so many similarities between Islam and the Church of Latter-Day Saints is because they are both Christian heresies.

I’m just glad you guys don’t go door to door.

Islam came to be 500 years after Christianity from one guy who was supposedly inspired to write a holy book because apparently the Jews and Christians “couldn’ get it right” I’m sorry but I’m not buying it…


I think we can argue that for Gospels but Qur’an is direct words of God.


You look at Islam and Qur’an from very far away. By saying Islam and Qur’an or prophet Muhammad are false cannot change the fact that Islam and Qur’an is the unique pure revelation.


Okay… :roll_eyes:

The Quaran is more like a alternate reality fanfiction of the Bible.

I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree.


No. Qur’an is direct revelation. Bible is sourced from revelation so Bible is some like Qur’an. Muhammad could not read or write. When people heard revelation they were used to say that “we have not heard such thing”. Muhammad were not taught by any one. Well. You will say that Muhammad had met some monks. But Muhammad was very young and that meeting were very short. If Muhammad had taken something from Christians or Jews so it would be very easy to refute His prophethood but nobody could do that. Pagans were clever so they would realise such thing.

You said Muhammad propagated Islam by sword. That is not true. Muhammad saved Islam by sword. Muhammad preached with a very less power for a decade. People and Pagans became and converted to Islam by will. The first thousands got into Islam without sword. I do not mean later people came to Islam by sword but Islam got hearts of people and Muslims could sacrifice their life for Islam.

Christianity did not invaded by power of a state. So first followers of Jesus were persecuted very much. When Rome support Christianity so it became easy to invade. Islam in the beginning established a state to save faith. Sometimes that state made wars. But if you do not take hearts so you cannot take people for centuries.

Christianity is from God and that is certain. But that do not disregard that people added many things in religion after Jesus. For instance there is doctrines in Bible and Jesus and apostles never preached such thoughts.


Most people couldn’t read or write that doesn’t mean they weren’t familiar with other religious beliefs.

The Bible again didn’t fall out of the sky because the Bible is a closed collection of writings a library compiled in it’s present order from 300 - 400 AD.

The Jews didn’t follow Sola Scripture like Protestants they had both the Midrash and Talmud as a form of apologetics and law.

Catholics have scripture, history, tradition and magisterium.

Muslims have their own version of this since Muslims don’t just follow the Quaran they also have the Sunnah.

If you accept the Bible and Christianity as coming from God then you must accept the Catholic Churchs authority since they compiled and authoritatively discerned what is considered to be Scripture.

Scripture is our most holy texts that are to be read during our liturgy, prayer, and meditation.

The Bible is however not The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy nor is it a dictionary it does not contain the order of Christian liturgy, catechism, canon law, or a calendar of feast days.

If one were relying solely on the Bible they would not really know what Christianity looked like in the first couple centuries.

This is the fundamental error of Evangelical Protestantism.

There were many writings that could have been placed in the Bible such as the Didache, the protoevangelium of James, writings from St Clement and St Ignatius of Antioch or even the martyrdom of St Polycarp.

These books are a part of our history and tradition which help to explain the events of the New Testament.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit