Ghamidi Sahab Tafsir 61:6
Even if we take the Gospels to be preserved, we should look take the more detailed description as the core. Don’t you think? The problem, in my opinion, are English translations. You can speak Urdu, so, you may notice how these languages: Urdu and Arabic, are more literary. And Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages to Arabic. So, they are probably literary too. While English has become rigid due to it becoming the language of science. That is what causes these problems, I think. That and the fact that all these are translations of translations and remember, translations already carry the impressions if the translator.
Yes- so Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم didn’t come in Jesus’ name. He came in/with Allah’s name
Fair enough- when you say it this way it makes sense
Peace! Ok, so while I was searching, I came across a number of opinions: 1) The Quran doesn’t say that the name Ahmad is mentioned in the Gospel. While this is true, you are right to point out that one may inquire about the Christain lack of knowledge about this name. 2) Professor Edip Yuksel, in his tafseer, writes that what was mentioned by Jesus was not a name but an attribute and brings some good points to the debate like why didn’t the Christians name their sons Ahmad. I couldn’t understand how the ayah could mean Ahmad as an attribute but it could mean something along the lines of: Even his name is praised so much Like we say, “danger is my middle name.” 3) Others, like Muhammad Asad hold that Paracletus (comforter) is a tampered version of Periclytos (admired one) which is quite similar to Ahmad ————————————————————————————————————————- However, with regards to the questions raised by Professor Yuksel and the ones raised by you, I faintly remember Ghamidi Sahab saying that the Jews or the Christains did use to do that, they used to name their children Ahmad. To confirm, I will start a new thread ان شاء الله. In the meantime, let me know what you think.