Prophet Muhammad (sawa) is Prophesied in The Bible

Julia said "Because those who re-wrote and changed this book wanted Christians to think that the Promised Prophet is Jesus and not Muhammad (sawa). And it is a clear evidence that the authors of the Bible and those who interpret it falsely "concealed the truth while they knew it." (the Quran 2:146)"My response: I said it once, and I am going to say it again, if you are going to accuse Christians of "hiding" the truth, then provide your evidence, simply quoting the Qur'an to prove your baseless assertion is circular logic, show me what we are hiding, anyone can make a claim, but any claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, it's that simple.Julia said "My opponent, without giving any proofs, clamied that the Jews were wrong in assuming that the Christ and the prophet are two distinct persons."My response: Without giving any proofs? Maybe you should actually read my response to John 1:19-21, my proof for them being wrong, is the very same chapter, Phillip says Jesus is the one whom Moses wrote about in the Law (John 1:45). Jesus himself said "If you believe Moses you would believe me, for he wrote about me." (John 5:46)So not only Phillip says Jesus is that Prophet, Jesus himself says he is that prophet.Moreover, in Acts 3:22-23, Peter quotes Deuteronomy 18:18 and applies it to Jesus.Therefore, Jesus, Peter, and Phillip not only refute your interpretation of John 1:19-21, but also of Deuteronomy 18.Julia said "Well, if we want to suppose that the Jews were wrong, what can prevent us from thinking that they were wrong in assuming that the Prophet must be an Israelite? They may have forgotten that Moses said the Prophet would come from Paran (Mecca). That's why Jesus came to remind people that a prophet would come from the east. Or maybe they didn't know where the Prophet come from, that's why they asked John."My response: Julia, I already responded to this, and by the way, if the Jews were wrong in thinking that the prophet was an Israelite, then the text would've pointed that out later on, but instead we have not only the Jews, we have Peter, Phillip, and Jesus all agreeing that the prophet was an Israelite, and Jesus was that prophet, so the text refutes your assumption that "maybe they were wrong in thinking the prophet was not an Arab".Julia said "Later, my opponent claimed that Philipe recognized Jesus and found out that he was the prophet. He only expressed his idea. But how can we make sure that Philipe was right? If Jews could be wrong, so Philipe could mistake Jesus for the Prophet. He said, "Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.""My response: Again for the third time, I already responded to this, the text make is very clear the prophet was an Israelite, if that was wrong, the text would've later at least corrected the misconception of Phillip, but Jesus himself agrees, so what more do you need?Julia said "But what about the Prophet? Where would he come from? Can he be a foreigner?"My response: Julia....how many times do I have to say this....the prophet is an Israelite, Deuteronomy 17:15 makes that clear, Jesus makes that clear, the Jews make it clear, Phillip makes it clear, Peter makes it clear, the New Testament makes it clear. And here you expect me to throw out all this evidence and instead believe you.Julia said ""Therefore in the east give glory to the LORD; exalt the name of the LORD, the God of Israel, in the islands of the sea." (Isaiah 24:15). The term "East" in the Bible is defined as Arabia, and the lands of Kedar and Teman (Saudi Arabia)"My reseponse: First off, I just want to correct a mistranslation of Isaiah 24:15, in Hebrew, the word translated as "East" really means "in the realm of light", not the East. So even is the East means Arabia (which it doesn't, Julia just made that up), Islam is not is still not in view here. One more thing...the lands of Kedar and Teman are mentioned in Isaiah 60:7, but you have taken the passage completely out of context, Isaiah 60:7 has nothing to do with a prophet from Arabia, if you even bothered to read Isaiah 60 as a whole, you would see that this chapter is talking about the glory of Israel, not Arabia, not a prophet from Arabia, so trying to show that a prophet is being predicted in Isaiah 60 is to ignore what Isaiah is saying.Julia said "4. "See, I have told you ahead of time. "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the wilderness,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (Matthew 24:25-27) Jesus said that he would return as an Arab man. But as we can see he was still a Jew after resurrection! So he says a prophet would come from the east."My response: Julia, this is another perfect example of you missing what Jesus is saying completely. Did you even read the verse you quoted? Jesus is making an analogy of his second coming: "Just as lightning comes from the east and visible in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man". Jesus is simply making an analogy about how his second coming will be like, he's not talking about a prophet from "the East", just simply isn't the case.Julia said "1. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. God fulfilled his covenant with both. "I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring." (Genesis 21:13) "And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers... and I will make him into a great nation." (Genesis 17:20)"My response: You have no idea how badly I just facepalmed at what I just read...Julia quotes Genesis 17:20 and suggests that Ishmael will be "a great nation" therefore, he is part of the covenant. Well guess what...Babylon is said to be a great nation as well, here is the proof:"Behold, a people cometh from the north, and a great nation, and many kings shall be roused from the uttermost parts of the earth." (Jeremiah 50:41). Read the whole chapter, and you will see Jeremiah 50 is talking about Babylon. Just because Ishmael is said to be a great nation does NOT mean that he is in the covenant, if we use that same logic, Babylon is part of the covenant. And secondly, you quoted Genesis 17:20, but you failed to read the very next verse which refutes your position:"As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.” (Genesis 17:20-21)How long will this covenant with Issac alone (not Ishmael) last? The answer is given earlier in the chapter:""I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. (Genesis 17:7).So not only does the text you quote refute you, God himself says this covenant will last forever with Isaac, Ishmael is not part of the covenant, you can feel free to believe that he is part of the covenant, but trying to do so based on Genesis isn't going to work.Julia said "And God promised Abraham to make Ishmael's descendants into a great nation. And here is it! God fulfilled His promise through Muhammad. This Great Nation are called, "MUSLIMS"." My response: To be a great nation simply means to be prosperous, it has nothing to with the covenant God made, like I said before, Babylon is said to be a great nation, and we know what that means, it means to be prosperous, it does NOT mean to be part of God's covenant.Here is the proof from Genesis 25, which is the fulfillment of the great nation promise to Ishmael:" And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the first-born of Ishmael, Nebaioth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, and Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa; Hadad, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedem; these are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their villages, and by their encampments; twelve princes according to their nations. (Genesis 25:12-16).There ou have it, this is the fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham to make Ishmael a great nation. This has nothing to do with an event that happens nearly 4000 years later, God is simply saying Ishmael will have a prosperous nation, but his covenant is with Isaac (Genesis 17:21).Julia also pointed to the fact that the Hadiths have stories of Muhammad doing all these supposed miracles. My response: To be the prophet like Moses, you can't just meet only one of the requirements, you must meet ALL 3, even if he didn't fulfill one of the requirements, then he is not that prophet, plain and simple. I already said it many times now, but i'll say it again, "brethren" means Israelite, NOT and Ishmaelite, Deuteronomy 17:15 makes that very clear. And once again, if you're going to quote a text, allow the text to define its own terms. You can say "brethren" means Ishmaelite all you want, but trying to do so based on Deuteronomy isn't going to work.