An interesting debate that has taken up in recent weeks concerning the prophet in John 1: 19-21 has been heavily stirred up by a certain Muslim named Yahya Snow. Yahya much like most of his muslim buddies would attempt to argue that this particular prophet is no one else but prophet Muhammad.
In this post I will not address the actual details of the debate; my brothers, Sam Shamoun, David Wood and Semper Paratus have already effectively refuted Yahya Snow and smashed his arguments to pieces:
However, I want to address another particular problem with Yahya Snow's methodology, which is typical of muslim apologetics as a whole, and which I have already posted on www.answering-muslim.com:
The problem with the Muslim approach here, is that in Muslim apologetics, the Gospels reveal a progress in corruption: Mark being the earliest Gospel, being the least corrupted and hence the most islamic Gospel. Followed by Matthew and Luke, which are slightly more corrupted and embellished (such as the inclusion of the virgin birth, which unfortunately for the muslim is found in the Qur'an) and finally joined by John's Gospel which is the ultimate corruption (according to Muslims and other critics) and which according to Muslims has included a number of trinitarian details, teachings contradictory of the Qur'an, narratives and ideas; but unfortunately also references that according to muslims may support the Qur'anic position, such as the reference to the three: Christ, Elijah and the prophet, including the 'paraclete' in John 14: 16-17, which muslims mistake for Muhammad the prophet of Islam.
The question I always ask is, why is the Paraclete not found in Mark's Gospel? And why is the reference to the prophet in John 1: 17-21 not found in Mark's Gospel.
Muslims cannot simply state that parts of John's Gospel are parts of the Injeel along with parts of Mark's Gospel! Firstly because many of these passages such as John 1 related to the prophet is narrative, in that case the original Injeel was not a book from heaven but a human narrative.
Furthermore, based upon the progressive-corruption argument held by muslims, muslims can only appeal to Mark's Gospel, and therefore prove themselves inconsistent if they move even onto Matthew or Luke.
Either they cannot hold to the view of progressive corruption, and the Muslim can then pull verses out of context whereever he desires from the four Gospels (which in itself is embarrasing) and which they do, but which then implies that he (the muslim if he is consistent) needs to consider the Christological and Trinitarian sayings of Jesus in John's Gospel also.
Or the Muslim can hold to progressive-corruption, but then the prophet in John 1: 17-21 is completely futile for their argument, and then the Qur'an refers to a corrupted passage when claiming that Muhammad was predicted in the Gospel, which implies that the Paraclete in John 14 is not an argument the muslim can appeal to provide proof for a prediction of Muhammad in the Gospel.
So, go ahead muslim, which view do you hold to? Be consistent. However, it is obvious that whatever view the Muslim adheres he will yet again shoot himself in the foot.