Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, I found it. Look under Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 7. That was according to your founder Russell. Though after his death the Trinity was looked on as more satanic though. So it would seem that there was a differing of opinion among the leaders of the Watch Tower after he died.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom

Wikipedia says this:

"Russell believed in the divinity of Christ, but differed from orthodoxy by teaching Jesus had received that divinity as a gift from the Father, after dying on the cross. He also taught that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but the manifestation of God's power."

If you check out the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell

You will see that Russell attended a number of different churches and even considered other religions in his search for the truth. Finally he returned to the Bible and began an intense study of it. It would not surprise me to read that, in early times, Russell still held on to some traditional church doctrines that were later abandoned by JWs as false. But the description of his "trinity" belief given above seems hardly different from what JWs today believe. We believe that Jesus is a divine being but not Almighty God himself. And we believe that the holy spirit is not a person.

[Hiroshi]

Yep.

8letters

Doesn't make a huge amount of difference surely?

[Hiroshi]

What do you guys mean by variance? It's discussing anger.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

Some ancient manuscripts insert the words: "without cause" at Matthew 5:22 and some do not. So there is a variant reading.

[IAmZamzam]

Of course it makes a difference. Telling people not to get angry with others and telling them merely not to needlessly get angry with others are two different commands altogether, and thus the textual variance amounts to a difference in doctrine.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Hiroshi]

Of course it makes a difference. Telling people not to get angry with others and telling them merely not to needlessly get angry with others are two different commands altogether, and thus the textual variance amounts to a difference in doctrine.

My aplogies for the delay in replying (illness over last two days).

You make a good point here and it might seem that there is a doctrinal difference in the wording to anyone unfamiliar with the NT Greek. But the verb used in the sentence is in the aorist tense which denotes continuous action. Not all translations show this.

For example, the NIV reads: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother ... etc."

But the Amplified Bible reads: "But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother ..."

And the New World Translation reads: " However, I say to YOU that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother ..."

The command here is not to never be angry but rather to not continue in a wrathful state, grudgingly refusing to forgive a fellow disciple. There should be no cause to behave in such an unmerciful manner. So the additional words in the variant reading "without cause" do not contradict or change the meaning of the command.

[IAmZamzam]

They do contradict it because the other version does not contain the same word. Adding "without cause" still changes the meaning, as "causeless" or "needless" is a different concept from "continuous". And even if the addition were totally redundant (in which case there would have been no reason for it in the first place), it still would be an addition and therefore a corruption.

[Hiroshi]

They do contradict it because the other version does not contain the same word.

What word?

Adding "without cause" still changes the meaning, as "causeless" or "needless" is a different concept from "continuous".

Properly translated, the verse is obviously referring to needless anger. The Bible contains instructions of how to resolve disputes between disciples so that these can be quickly ended (Matthew 18:15-17). But it may be that one or the other continues wrathful even after the matter is settled. In such a case he would be in the wrong because it would mean that he was needlessly harbouring a grudge against the other. This is the kind of anger that is referred to in Matthew 5:22.

And even if the addition were totally redundant (in which case there would have been no reason for it in the first place), it still would be an addition and therefore a corruption.

Yes, I admit that. But it doesn't cause a problem.

[IAmZamzam]

No, it is a problem. Continuous anger doesn't have to be needless anger, nor is needless anger always continuous. The verse says what it says. The best that can be assumed is a lack of clarity and unambiguity. Not to mention that it also says that anyone who calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire even though Jesus (P) does angrily call people fools later on in the very same Gospel (chapter 23, verse 17).

[Hiroshi]

No, it is a problem. Continuous anger doesn't have to be needless anger, nor is needless anger always continuous. The verse says what it says. The best that can be assumed is a lack of clarity and unambiguity. Not to mention that it also says that anyone who calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire even though Jesus (P) does angrily call people fools later on in the very same Gospel (chapter 23, verse 17).

Obviously, indignation and wrath can be justified in some circumstances and unjustified in others. Also, it may be right sometimes to accuse someone of being a fool, a thief or a murderer if the person’s actions show that they are such. But it would be wrong to do so simply out of anger and without evidence.

Matthew 5:22 is concerned with a scenario where these things are unjustified whereas Matthew 23:17 is an occasion where they are.

In his speech in chapter 5 of Matthew Jesus quotes a number of commands from the Mosaic Law concerning when a sin is committed. He then goes on to instruct his listeners to avoid even the thinking and conduct that could lead to the committing of that sin.

For example, Matthew 5:27-28 says: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

And Matthew 5:33-34 says “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all:”


Now with this in view we could take another look at Matthew 5:22 and include also verse 21: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

Following the same procedure as in the other verses, Jesus is here telling his listeners that they must not commit murder, but also even beyond that, they must not act and think in a manner that could lead to the committing of a murder. Examples of such conduct would be a hatred of someone arising from continuing anger and evident in stinging outbursts of abusive speech. In the context of Matthew 5:22, this is obviously exactly what Jesus is describing. But now turning to Matthew 23:17 we observe that Jesus is here exposing the hypocrisy and foolishness of the Pharisees by logical reasoning and explanation. He does not hate the men themselves but he hates what they are doing and rightfully calls them to account for it.

[IAmZamzam]

What he was clearly doing was listing a hierarchy of offenses. Murder is worst of all, anger less than that yet still sort of in the same ballpark, and calling people things like "fool" at the bottom of the list. The connecting thread being hostility. But the "fool" part is still on the list, and he broke his own rule in that very same Gospel. I doubt very much you would have restricted the "anger" part to "anger that could lead to the committing of a murder" if you had not heard of this contradiction. Biblical apologetics is all about retroactive reinterpretation.

[Hiroshi]

What he was clearly doing was listing a hierarchy of offenses. Murder is worst of all, anger less than that yet still sort of in the same ballpark, and calling people things like "fool" at the bottom of the list. The connecting thread being hostility.

The connecting thread is murder and what can lead up to it.

But the "fool" part is still on the list, and he broke his own rule in that very same Gospel.

The admonition there is not to throw abusive insults. But accusations can be justified or unjustified. It is ridiculous to suppose that Jesus was saying that you should never point out when a person's actions are foolish. It could be for their own benefit.

I doubt very much you would have restricted the "anger" part to "anger that could lead to the committing of a murder" if you had not heard of this contradiction. Biblical apologetics is all about retroactive reinterpretation.

I am not making this up. Please read for yourself what Bible commentators say about Matthew 5:21-22:

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/...eVerseID/23257

[IAmZamzam]

Since when is bellowing, "You blind fools!" not an abusive insult? Since when does calling someone a fool lead up to murder? Will you please be honest with yourself?? Pretty please?

[Grace Seeker]

Not joining the entire debate. But will add these points for clarification and correction of some misinformation that I think has been unhelpful in changing the focus of the debate .

1) The idea of continuous action is NOT carried by the aorist tense in Greek, but the Perfect tense. Aorist tense merely conveys that it is a past event.

2) The particular verb in question here eipa is an aorist subjunctive. The following is what my Greek grammar says about it:

In the subjunctive mood there is absolutely no distinction of time between the tenses; the aorist tense does not refer to past time and the present subjunctive does not refer to present time. The distinction between the present and the aorist concerns merely the manner in which the action is regarded. The aorist subjunctive refers to the action without saying anything about its continuance or repetition, while the present subjunctive refers to it as continuing or being repeated. Thus iva luso means simple "in order that I may loose", while iva luo means "in order that I may be loosing", or the like. But ordinarily it is quite impossible to bring out the difrerence in an English translation. the present and the aorist subjective will usually have to be translated exactly alike.

3. Given that the orginal autographs have been lost to the dusts of time, one has to recognize that what we make our translations from today are themselves copies and sometimes these copies differ from one another. Matthew 5:22 is a case where there is a difference in the textual tradition. In some of the manuscripts the phrase "without clause" is added in others it is omitted. As to which is the more likely original, those who deal in science of textual criticism today generally come down with the view that "although the reading ["without cause"] was widespread from the second century onwards, it is much more likely that the word was added by copyists in order to soften the rigor of the precept than omitted as unnecessary" (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger -- a similar comment is made by D.A. Carson in The Expositor's Bible Commentary).

For my personal point of view. I think that Jesus is trying to make a strong statement that anger and hate are the ultimate cause behind actions like murder. Similarly he makes the point that lust is the ultimate cause behind actions like adultery. From this perspective these feelings are just as harmful to the individual in leading them away from God's will as the acts which are specifically prohibited. Therefore, Jesus in in effect announcing that he holds people accountable not just for their actions, but their emotions as well. One should not get so immersed in the details of Matthew record as to miss the big picture of the ethic Jesus is teaching.

[Hiroshi]

Not joining the entire debate. But will add these points for clarification and correction of some misinformation that I think has been unhelpful in changing the focus of the debate .

1) The idea of continuous action is NOT carried by the aorist tense in Greek, but the Perfect tense. Aorist tense merely conveys that it is a past event.

2) The particular verb in question here eipa is an aorist subjunctive. The following is what my Greek grammar says about it:

In the subjunctive mood there is absolutely no distinction of time between the tenses; the aorist tense does not refer to past time and the present subjunctive does not refer to present time. The distinction between the present and the aorist concerns merely the manner in which the action is regarded. The aorist subjunctive refers to the action without saying anything about its continuance or repetition, while the present subjunctive refers to it as continuing or being repeated. Thus iva luso means simple "in order that I may loose", while iva luo means "in order that I may be loosing", or the like. But ordinarily it is quite impossible to bring out the difrerence in an English translation. the present and the aorist subjective will usually have to be translated exactly alike.

I believe that you are right and that my explanation that the verb in question was in the aorist tense was incorrect. Continuous action is not expressed using the aorist tense, rather the aorist tense expresses momentary action. So I apologize for that.

But I would also say at this time that the verb in question is not "eipa" [ειπη] but "orgizomenos" [οργιζομενος] which the Amplified Bible renders as "continues to be angry". Also the NWT reads: "continues wrathful", The Revised English Bible: "nurses anger", the Emphatic Diaglott: "BEING ANGRY" and the 21st Century New Testament: "continues angry".

Without getting myself into any more trouble with technicalities, I would point out that all of these independent translators must have had reason to render the verb in this way.

[Hiroshi]

Since when is bellowing, "You blind fools!" not an abusive insult?

In the parallel account in Luke 11:37-53 one of Jesus' listeners does indeed say: “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.” (verse 45). So, yes they certainly felt insulted. But Jesus needed to give them some straight talking.

Since when does calling someone a fool lead up to murder? Will you please be honest with yourself?? Pretty please?

Well, it did lead to Jesus' murder didn't it? Or perhaps someone else in his place according to the Qur'an. Proverbs 15:1 says that a sharp word causes anger. After Jesus' speech, the reaction of the Pharisees was murderous (Luke 11:53-54). The word "fool" as used in the Bible doesn't just denote someone lacking mental ability. It generally means a person who spurns reason and follows a morally insensitive course going against God's righteous standards. So it is a stronger term that we might imagine from ordinary English usage.

[Al-manar]

In previous post we began visiting the Jewish expectations (which were varied) before and during the mission of Jesus ,the Jews expected the literal return of Elijah , the special prophet foretold by Moses ,or other type of prophets . they were open to the possibility that one old prophet from the past could come back to the scene ...
we found Jesus is calling himself prophet and called by others the same..... some believed him as the special prophet foretold by Moses ...and others believed in him as mere a prophet ........

but what was the other Jewish expectations?

The Messiah:

the term needs to be visited through The Jewish sources, then later the christian and the Muslim .....

as the concept appeared before Christianity and Islam ,and the Jewish texts(skipping the christian and muslim text for the moment) have to be discussed ..in order to understand the term as originally was thought to be .......

also visiting the term in its original Jewish context would enable us to understand the basic problem between Jews and Christians aka ( "From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology) ......

What exactly the term messiah means? some of the following lines quoted from the great and most valuable work on the topic of messiah (THE MESSIAH Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity by James H. Charlesworth, )

The non-technical use of the term is simply to designate "one anointed” [with oil and/or the Holy Spirit], but especially one who had been set apart by God and enabled for a special task. For example, (1) Priests "the anointed priest" (Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15), to refer either to the Aaronid priests in general, all of whom were anointed (Ex 28:41; 30:30;40:15; Num 3:3) "the anointed of Yahweh" (ISam 24:7, 11; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2Sam 1:14, 16;'l9:22; Lam 4:20) "the anointed of the God of Jacob" (2Sam 23:1);"his my, your anointed one" (ISam 2:10, 35; 12:3, 5; 16:6;2Sam 22:51; Isa 45:1; Hab 3:13; Pss 2:2; 18:51; 20:7; 28:8; 84:10; 89:39, 52;132:10,17; 2Chr 6:42
With one exception all these occurrences refer to the contemporary (2)Israelite king, and the use of the term seems intended to underscore the very close relationship between Yahweh and the king whom he has chosen and installed.

(3)foreign rulers - Cyrus, the Persian king: "Thus says Yahweh to his anointed
one, to Cyrus . . ." Cyrus, is assigned a role as an agent of salvation for God's people. This is quite compatible with Israelite expectations for their own native kings, and Isaiah's oracle concerning Cyrus could be seen as modeled on Israelite coronation oracles.

"Do not touch my anointed ones, and do not harm my prophets" (Ps 105:15; IChr16:22).
The context makes it clear that the anointed ones here are the(4) Israelite patriarchs seen as prophets (cf Gen 20:7). Whether Israelite prophets,like Israelite priests and kings, were normally anointed at their Installation,as IKgs 19:16 might suggest, is disputed, but an early cultic practice of such anointing would help to explain the later metaphorical language that characterizes the prophet as anointed with the spirit of God (Isa 61:1; Joel 3:1).

The technical use of the term ?

No doubt ,before and during the Davidic kingdom the Jews were in their Glorious Days ....
God rewarded them,after the destruction of their oppressors , for their patience ...

Holy Quran [7:137] We let the oppressed people inherit the land, east and west, and we blessed it. The blessed commands of your Lord were thus fulfilled for the Children of Israel, to reward them for their steadfastness, and we annihilated the works of Pharaoh and his people and everything they harvested.

Holy Quran [5:20] Recall that Moses said to his people (the Jews), “O my people, remember GOD’s blessings upon you: He appointed prophets from among you, made you kings, and granted you what He never granted any other people.

Holy Quran 2:251 So they defeated them by permission of Allah , and David killed Goliath, and Allah gave him the kingship and prophethood and taught him from that which He willed. And if it were not for Allah checking [some] people by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted, but Allah is full of bounty to the worlds.


Holy Quran [34:10] We endowed David with blessings from us: "O mountains, submit with him, and you too, O birds." We softened the iron for him.[34:11] "You may make shields that fit perfectly, and work righteousness. Whatever you do, I am Seer thereof."[34:12] To Solomon we committed the wind at his disposal, traveling one month coming and one month going. And we caused a spring of oil to gush out for him. Also, the jinns worked for him, by his Lord's leave. Any one of them who disregarded our commands, we subjected him to a severe retribution.[34:13] They made for him anything he wanted - niches, statues, deep pools, and heavy cooking pots. O family of David, work (righteousness) to show your appreciation. Only a few of My servants are appreciative.



Holy Quran 27:15 we gave (in the past) knowledge to David and Solomon: And they both said: "Praise be to Allah, Who has favoured us above many of his servants who believe!" 27:16 And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)"



but the fact

Holy Quran 3:26Say: O Allah, Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest.

The monarchy falls apart and Israel falls to the Assyrians in 721; Judah falls to the Babylonians in 597.
logically there has been (and still) a Jewish longing for the golden days of the Davidic empire ........
Israelite royal theology, at least as transmitted in Judah, regarded the Davidic dynasty
as eternally guaranteed by God, in times of severe crisis the tradition of Yahweh's
eternal covenant with David could serve as basis for the hope that God would soon restore the monarchy to its former glory by raising up a new scion of the Davidic line.

the political disasters of the late eighth century, including the destruction of the northern kingdom and the deportation of a significant portion of the population of the Southern kingdom, produced widespread longing for the unity,strength, and justice of the idealized united monarchy of the past. Isaiah reflects that longing in a number of oracles dating from the period of the Syro-Ephraimite war,' it is clearly expressed in Isa 1:21-26.


such wish seduced the writers of the Bible to produce encouraging ,hopeful texts for the masses ....a future Earthly king who will turn the Earth into Paradise ....

He will?

1- descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:8-10, 2 Chronicles 7:18).
2-get the "spirit of the Lord" upon him, and he will have a "fear of God" (Isaiah 11:2)
3- include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10)
4- leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4)


During his Era ?

1- All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)
2- Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5)
3- The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23)
4- The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:11-17)
5- Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8) There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8) All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)..
6- He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7) ,
7- The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11)
8- The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55)
9- Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)
10 - He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9)


till next post

peace

[IAmZamzam]

Not joining the entire debate. But will add these points for clarification and correction of some misinformation that I think has been unhelpful in changing the focus of the debate .

1) The idea of continuous action is NOT carried by the aorist tense in Greek, but the Perfect tense. Aorist tense merely conveys that it is a past event.

2) The particular verb in question here eipa is an aorist subjunctive. The following is what my Greek grammar says about it:

3. Given that the orginal autographs have been lost to the dusts of time, one has to recognize that what we make our translations from today are themselves copies and sometimes these copies differ from one another. Matthew 5:22 is a case where there is a difference in the textual tradition. In some of the manuscripts the phrase "without clause" is added in others it is omitted. As to which is the more likely original, those who deal in science of textual criticism today generally come down with the view that "although the reading ["without cause"] was widespread from the second century onwards, it is much more likely that the word was added by copyists in order to soften the rigor of the precept than omitted as unnecessary" (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger -- a similar comment is made by D.A. Carson in The Expositor's Bible Commentary).

For my personal point of view. I think that Jesus is trying to make a strong statement that anger and hate are the ultimate cause behind actions like murder. Similarly he makes the point that lust is the ultimate cause behind actions like adultery. From this perspective these feelings are just as harmful to the individual in leading them away from God's will as the acts which are specifically prohibited. Therefore, Jesus in in effect announcing that he holds people accountable not just for their actions, but their emotions as well. One should not get so immersed in the details of Matthew record as to miss the big picture of the ethic Jesus is teaching.

Thank you for not only admitting to, but also detailing somewhat, the way the Bible has been corrupted. No thank you for your inevitable retraction, reinterpretation, or redefinition you will inevitably hastily rush into when you read this post, refusing to see that what I just told you about is PRECISELY what you have just done.

[IAmZamzam]

In the parallel account in Luke 11:37-53 one of Jesus' listeners does indeed say: “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.” (verse 45). So, yes they certainly felt insulted. But Jesus needed to give them some straight talking.

So I'm right except that I'm not? Or it was an insulting way of talking except that it wasn't? Or it was one except that it's okay for Jesus (P), who no doubt is the only person ever to need to give people innocent straight talking, to do it, and not for anyone else in the world?

Funny how the more and more I back someone else into a corner, the less and less victorious I always feel. The only true victory would be to get people to accept that they're wrong about things that matter to them--beliefs they have a lot staked in--and it is disheartening and infuriating how seldom I succeed.

[Hiroshi]

So I'm right except that I'm not? Or it was an insulting way of talking except that it wasn't? Or it was one except that it's okay for Jesus (P), who no doubt is the only person ever to need to give people innocent straight talking, to do it, and not for anyone else in the world?

It is one thing to level a justified accusation (however insulting it may be taken as) against trouble makers (in this case the Pharisees). But it is quite another to accuse fellow disciples, our own spiritual brothers and sisters, when there is no justification. In his same sermon that he gave, Jesus went on to say in Matthew 7:1 "Stop judging that you may not be judged" concerning a brother.

[IAmZamzam]

It is one thing to level a justified accusation (however insulting it may be taken as) against trouble makers (in this case the Pharisees). But it is quite another to accuse fellow disciples, our own spiritual brothers and sisters, when there is no justification. In his same sermon that he gave, Jesus went on to say in Matthew 7:1 "Stop judging that you may not be judged" concerning a brother.

Nothing in the verse says anything about it having to be "troublemakers" alone you are not allowed to insult, nor even anything about justification. It says that whoever gets angry with his brother is subject to judgment and whoever says, "You fool!" is in danger of hellfire. That's all it says. The only reason you read these oddly specific extra meanings into the text is that you make yourself see them and probably wouldn't have ever thought of them if you were a non-Christian or on your very first reading. It says what it says, and "stop judging that you may not be judged" worsens the situation, as the last time I checked "You blind fools!" is judging someone. You are adding conditions to the text that are not even remotely hinted at in the text itself and not even resolving anything by doing so. First it's, "Anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of hellfire," then it's, "You blind fools!" There is no getting around this. Although I fully expect you to keep trying. Do it with someone else. I give up.

[Grace Seeker]

The Messiah: the term needs to be visited through The Jewish sources, then later the christian and the Muslim ..... as the concept appeared before Christianity and Islam ,and the Jewish texts(skipping the christian and muslim text for the moment) has to be discussed ..in order to understand the term as originally was thought to be ....... also visiting the term in its original Jewish context would enable us to understand the basic problem between Jews and Christians aka ( "From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology) ......

I expect that you would enjoy reading the book Did The First Christians Worship Jesus? by James Dunn. In fact, I suspect, despite Dunn being a noted Christian theologian, you will find more you agree with in his book than I do. But I don't mind sharing it with you as I know you will read it in search of the truth, not propaganda.

[Al-manar]

I expect that you would enjoy reading the book Did The First Christians Worship Jesus? by James Dunn. In fact, I suspect, despite Dunn being a noted Christian theologian, you will find more you agree with in his book than I do. But I don't mind sharing it with you as I know you will read it in search of the truth, not propaganda.

welcome back Grace-seeker , glad that you got over the circumstances sooner than I imagined .... and thank your for the book you recommended .... actually I read it and more than once...besides the similar work ( The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context by James F. McGrath) and other similar works .....
thanx for such works for helping me understand the Quranic verse 5:72 better than before .... fortunately I have many of such books in pdf format ...... and won't hesistate to share their best,most convincing content right here in the thread .....

[Al-manar]

It is time to have the Issue of the messiah in the Old Testament, more detailed

It is not the topic to be compressed in few lines ....
The following are Quotations from the huge,most valuable work,The Messiah Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity by James H. Charlesworth.

Not possible in the thread to Quote all what he wrote ,so I tried to share the main ideas as much as possible:


1- Besides the Old Testament, We have numerous early Jewish sources that portray the Messiah, variously,as one who will serve as the eschatological high priest (the Dead SeaScrolls, the T12P), or as the consummate benevolent and all-powerful king(PssSol 17). Numerous functions are sometimes attributed to the Messiah:He will judge the wicked (PssSol 17, 4Ezra 12, 2Bar 40), destroy them(PssSol 17, 18; 4Ezra 12, 2Bar 72; c f Isa 11), deliver God's people (PssSol17, 4Ezra 12; c f Zech 9), and/or reign in a blessed kingdom (PssSol 17, 18;2Bar 40; c f Ps 2).


2-The Messiah is not portrayed in Early Judaism as a miracle worker (even though he does perform wonders in 4Ezra 13).

3- No evidence that Jews during the time of Jesus considered that God's Messiah would come and suffer(lots to be added to elaborate that point later ,adds Al-Manar).

4- The reference to the death of the Messiah in 4 Ezra 7:29 is not a Christian interpolation into this Jewish apocalypse.But the death of the Messiah here is not efficacious and is clearly distinct from the Christian affirmation about Jesus. According to 4 Ezra 7, the Messiah'sdeath serves to mark the end of a set period of time and history.


5- The rabbinic references to two Messiahs, one of whom will die, postdate the second Century C . E . , and, therefore, are too late to be used to portray the
messianology of the early Jews.


6- Nowhere in the Old Testament has the term (messiah) O'tra acquired its later technical sense as an eschatological title.


7- Old Testament expectations of a new David are probably to be understood in terms of a continuing Davidic line. There is little indication that any of these prophets envisioned a final Davidic ruler who would actually rule for all time to come,thus obviating the need for the continuation of the dynastic line. The language of some of the prophecies is open to that interpretation, and such a reading was eventually given to them, but such passages as Jer 33:14-26 and Ezekiel 4 0 - 4 8 indicate that the dynastic understanding was the dominant interpretation of such promises as late as the exihc period, and the repeated references to the T I T IT'?, "the house of David," in Third Zechariah (Zech12:7-12; 13:1) suggest that this interpretation remained dominant well into the postexilic period.

8- The new Jerusalem is far more prominent in prophetic visions of the future than the Davidic king, but such eschatological hopes are not specifically messianic.

9- There are number of passages as not really envisioning a future king in their original contexts, Once the expectation of a new Davidic king became an important hope in large circles of the Israelite people, these passages would be subject to eschatological reinterpretation, to new readings that were genuinely prophetic.

10- The later expectations of a priestly Messiah can be traced back to the promises of the restoration of the priesthood found in Jeremiah 33 and in Zechariah's oracles concerning the high priest Joshua.

11- analysing the Enthronement Texts ,we find out The mythological language of the royal protocol,influenced as it was by Egyptian conceptions of the royal office, provided a textual base for the development of later, far more mythological conceptions of the awaited Messiah. Though strong mythological component, the language was understood in the enthronement ceremony, Ps 2:7 speaks of God giving birth to the king; Ps 110:3, though textually difficult, also appears to refer to the divine birth of the king; and Isa 9:5-6, after referring to the king's birth, assigns divine qualities to the king in the series of names that are given to him. These names in Isa 9 : 5 -6 are best explained as royal names given to the new king in the coronation ceremony on the analogy of the five royal names given the new Pharaoh in the Egyptian enthronement ceremony,' and this suggests a strong Egyptian influence on the Judean coronation ritual. This influence may go back to the formative period of the Israelite State when Egyptian influence was quite strong. As is well known, Solomon married a daughter of the Pharaoh (IKgs 3:1; 7:8; 9:16), and even earher David appears to have adopted Egyptian models for many of the high offices in his empire.« In any case, the Egyptian influence on the Israelite royal ceremony brought with it the strongly mythological language of the Egyptian royal protocol. This language was probably not taken literally in the Israelite court—the language of divine sonship, for instance, was presumably understood in Israel as adoptive sonship—but once this mythological language had been deposited and preserved in texts whose original roots in particular court ceremonies were forgotten, the possibility for new, literalistic readings of this mythological language arose. Much of the mythological dimension in the later messianic expectations can be traced back to the remythologization of this borrowed mythological language of the royal protocol.


12- Under the chapter, MESSIAHS AND MESSIANIC FIGURES IN PROTO-APOCALYPTICISM

The period extending from the Exile to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah was one of transition within the religious and political structures of the Jewish people. This was certainly true of programs and visions of cultic and national restoration, for the clash between traditional forms and contemporary realities placed a great strain upon attempts to formulate plans for the future.
Haggai could promise that once the Temple had been restored,God would secure all aspects of sälöm, from fertility of the land (Hag 2:18-19) to safety from enemy hostihties (Hag 2:20-22).

analysing (Ezek 37:24-28; 43:18-27).(Zech 4:14).Zech 6:9 etc.....

after detailed analysis to such texts he concludes :
those traditions stemming from the Exile and the early Second Temple Period which later were drawn into various types of messianic speculation originally arose within a Situation rife with tension and change. All of the groups involved sought to explain the contradiction between a corporate identity understood in terms of a people living under God's rule and the experience of living under the sovereignty of a pagan emperor Given the co-existence of rival claims to leadership informed by different backgrounds and party affiliations, it is not surprising that the eschatological traditions arising from the period are characterized by wide diversity.Though the subsequent interpretation and reapplication of these traditions developed quite independently of their original meaning and setting,an awareness of origins is the proper starting point for the study of the history of interpretation of all traditions. The traditions developing the messianic themes discussed throughout this volume are no exception.


13- concluding the chapter MESSIANOLOGY IN EARLY JUDAISM
AND EARLY RABBINICS :

In this authoritative compilation of Jewish laws that determine the individual's and the community's way of life,the Messiah as a supernatural or eschatological figure does not make an appearance.'^The figure of mäsiah remains rooted in sociopolitical realities—viz. in the realities of post-70 Judaism."' There is hardly a trace of a utopian superstructure. Viewed against the backdrop of later configurations of the messianic idea in Judaism, and the more so in Christianity, we may indeed define that phenomenon with W D. Davies' "a paradoxical messianism."'*It may be surmised that this inherent realism caused those Jewish sources not to ofifer a particularized description of the messianic age. Due to its predominant restorative thrust the future eon is in essence conceived as a vastly improved replica of a Status experienced in the past which is imprinted in the collective memory. Therefore it does not stand in need of being spelied out in detail. The messianic era is not characterized by a total revamping of man's nature and societal structures, nor of the Constitution of the universe. Rather it is seen as a sublime reenactment of the favorable conditions which obtained in the idealized period of the united monarchy under David and Solomon. Then Israel had been saved by David's exploits from any immediate danger of wars and vassaldom to other nations, and had achieved in the days of his son an unmatched State of peace and well-being: The people of Judah and Israel were countless as the sands of the sea(shores);they ate and they drank and enjoyed life. Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms

from the river Euphrates to Phüistia as far as the frontier of Egypt; they paid tribute and were subject to him all his life . . . For he was paramount over all the land vvest of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, ruling all the kings west of the river; and he enjoyed peace on all sides. All through his reign Judah and Israel lived securely, every man under his vine and his fig-tree, from Dan to Beersheba (lKgs4:20-5:l;'5:4-5; c f Gen 15:18-21).

The memory of those days inspired later biblical writers, and upon it they modelled their vision of the future. In doing so they drew explicidy on past experience:Was it not this that YHWH proclaimed through the prophets of old, while Jerusalem was populous and peaceful, as were the cities around her, and the Negeb and the Shephelah?
. . . These are the words of YHWH Sebaoth; See,1 will rescue my people from the countries of the east and the west, and bring them back to live in Jerusalem . . . [unlike] before that time . . . [when] no one could go about his affairs in peace because of enemies . . . but now . . .there shall be sowing in peace, the vine shall yield its fruit and the seil its produce . . . with all these things I will endow the survivors of this people.You, house of Judah and house of Israel, . . . I will save you, and you shall become the symbol of a blessing. Courage! Do not be afraid. (Zech 7:7-8:13,cf. Gen 12:2-3)

These words of the postexilic prophet Zechariah evince an expectation that the sublime vision will be realized in an attainable future which will carry upon itself the stamp of the Solomonic era: "On that day, says YHWH Sebaoth, you shall invite one another to come and sit (each) under (his) vine and (his) fig tree" (Zech 3:10). It should be noticed that this vision is unintermittently followed by an oracle which conspicuously displays "anointing" imagery and pertains to the Davidide Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua
(Zech. 4:1-3, 11-14).-«
In other prophetic oracles which cannot be securely dated, the hoped-for realization is transported into an uncharted future, and the ränge of the vision is expanded to embrace all peoples on the inhabited earth who will be blessed with eternal peace. Thus in Isaiah: They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning knives; nation shall not lift sword against nation, nor will they ever train again for war (Isa 2:4)
In the book of the contemporaneous prophet Micah, that same oracle is adduced with a text expansion which appears to attenuate the utopisticromantic overtones of the Isaiah version: Each man shall live under his vine and his fig tree and no one shall make them afraid. (Micah 4:4)
In these passages no "anointed" is explicitly mentioned. But their dependence on the wording and the imagery of the 1 Kings pericope which depicts the rule of Solomon—the third biblical mäsiah—leaves little doubt that the prophetic oracles speak ofa "messianic" future. The quest for a peaceful national existence under a mäsiah, an anointed king, to which the above texts give expression is echoed in rabbinic literature. A saying of the Sages, recorded in the Babylonian Talmud, states that, in contrast to the Situation which obtains in their historical world, the distinguishing mark of the "Age to Come" will be "the delivery of Israel from the yoke of other nations" (b.Berakhot 34b et al.). While this saying and others like it cannot be construed to reveal the Sages' one and only view concerning the future world, it certainly reveals widespread sentiments which found acceptance in Rabbinic Judaism. The fundamental realism of biblical mäsiah-dom never ceased to inspire Jewish messianism also in the post-70 era.*" One hoped for and foresaw a restoration of the splendor of old, realized in the ingathering of the dispersed in the Land of Israel so as to reconstitute the monocentricity of the monarchic age, and the restoration of national sovereignty under a Davidic Anointed. The spiritual dimension of Jewish messianism continued to manifest itself in historical realism and societal factuality.


Till next post

peace

[Al-manar]

In our last post we visited the most important item of the Jewish expectations before,during and after the time of Jesus .....

Though they had several expectations .... eg; prophetic figures ,A prophet like Moses,a prophet, old prophet came life, A prophet alive in haeven to come back etc.... ,yet their most important figure,was the hoped-for Davidic or royal messiah who is so designated explicitly in several Old testament texts .... there was also A Messiah used of a hoped-for priest figure.....


our next stage:

FROM MESSIANOLOGY TO CHRISTOLOGY,THE PROBLEM:

What a problem indeed, and what a benefit the readers will get,after getting clues of its nature..........

the following analysis of that problem will enable the readers to:

1- Understanding the reasons why the Jews from the time of the New Testament till now,reject Jesus (as depicted in the New Testament) .

2- That is the most solid arena of examining the trustworthy of the writings of the new testament ,the problem of contradictions would become silly,compared to the problem of accomodation ,which casts a serious doubt on the concept of NT methodoligies as truly inspired by God.

3- Through exposing such problem, I would invite muslims to the best tool to test the trinity , I will invite the readers to test the trinity in another laboratory ,it is the laboratory of the Messiah !?

In other words ,If Jesus is believed by the writers of the new testament as the long awaited Davidic messiah king (will be proved to be false) ,and is believed by them to be God as well..... Isn't proving the first to be false strongly requires the second to be false too? If Jesus is not the so called Davidic messiah,that logically leads to him not being the so called incarnated God ,as well.....

IF you do want to know why Jesus can't be God ,then I invite you to come with me to the messianic laboratory and test the so called divine Jesus there,if he failed as the davidic messiah he would fail as God as well....
dear readers you are invited to the safest ,most solid way to test the claim of Jesus divinity ....

Have you realized the tremendous importance of the issue?

.................................................. .......


After we introduced the problem by examining honestly,and in broad sense ,using the whole Jewish sources before Jesus ,the term of the Messiah as thought to be ,as an Earthly king who would get the Davidic monarchy back and getting back the Jews ,turning the world into paradise etc.......

now our duty to see what the writers of the New Testament said about Jesus with regard to such king messiah.....

Though the writers of the gospel included the traditions of calling Jesus a prophet ,yet they felt it wasn't sufficient weight to embody the significance of Jesus.


Matthew 1:1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David

Matthew 2:4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.

Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Mark 27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” 28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” 29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.



By comparing what Jesus said ,did (according to the new testament depictions) and what believed by the Jews as the Qualifications of the king messiah ,such qualifications that based on the text of the Old Testament ,one find out easily that the picture of Jesus in the New testament is radically different from that hoped-for Davidic,royal messiah !........

none of the events prophecised about the so called king messiah occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards)..



Jesus lived while the Second Temple was standing, and not while the Jews were exiled. He never reigned as King, and there was no subsequent era of peace or great knowledge. Jesus departed without completing or even accomplishing part of any of the messianic tasks. Rather than being redeemed, the Jews were subsequently exiled from Israel.

Maimonides states, "But if he did not succeed in all this or was killed, he is definitely not the Messiah promised in the Torah."

and

"Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel. So that it was said, “And the members of the outlaws of your nation would be carried to make a (prophetic) vision stand. And they stumbled” (Daniel 11.14). Because, is there a greater stumbling-block than this one? So that all of the prophets spoke that the Messiah redeems Israel, and saves them, and gathers their banished ones, and strengthens their commandments. And this one caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God."


...............

The way the writers of the New Testament redefined the term king messiah , is where we get a golden chance to test the trustworthy of the writers (whoever were) ,and there, the true colors of the writers of the New Testament come through in all their radiant splendor.

The following examples of the flawed exegesis of the writers of the New testament ,would get us directly to their intentions and hence the origin of the new testament theologies that is the cornerstone of christianity.....


Dear readers ,Christianity will be tested ,safely ,directly and objectively ..in next posts

[Hiroshi]

none of the events prophecised about the so called king messiah occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards)..

According to Islam, Jesus has never died up until now. The lifetime of Jesus would then still be continuing. Islam holds also that Jesus is a prophet. So what did Jesus himself prophesy about the kingdom?

He spoke of a time of wars, earthquakes, diseases and famine (Luke 21:10-11) among other great tribulations (Matthew 24:21) that would mark a time when the kingdom of God would be near (Luke 21:31). We are seeing these signs in the very time in which we live today.

[Al-manar]

According to Islam, Jesus has never died up until now. The lifetime of Jesus would then still be continuing. Islam holds also that Jesus is a prophet. So what did Jesus himself prophesy about the kingdom? .

That is a good Question ...and will be answered through the third stage on the messiah (after the jewish,christian stages)...
the answer in brief , the role of Jesus in Islam (whether in Quran or sunna) is hardly based on the prophecies in the Old testament (details later).....

If the Quran gives a role for Jesus different from what the old testament said about the Davidic ,royal messiah ,and at the same time ,never once claimed that such Quranic role is based on the Old testament (as what the new testament writers did with jesus)...we can infer:

1- Jesus as the Royal ,Davidic king messiah ,and the Old testament concept of a Davidic king messiah itself is a concept alien to Islam.

2- The Old testament messianic prophecies are to be included under the term (biblical corruption) ... they were mere Jewish hopes and desires resulted from the disasterous political situation and the humilation and agony they had after the fall of the Davidic monrachy.....

in sum ...as there is ,in Islam, no concept of Jesus the God ,no concept of Jesus the Davidic,royal messiah ,as well......

yet he was Almasih, Alnabi aka The messiah prophet ..... who is neither Royal ,Davidic king nor God .....

In christianity the original Jewish concept, has been redefined ,while in Islam the concept (whether original or redefined) is rejected totally ...

more details later,in the right time .....

peace

[Hiroshi]

2- The Old testament messianic prophecies are to be included under the term (biblical corruption) ... they were mere Jewish hopes and desires resulted from the disasterous political situation and the humilation and agony they had after the fall of the Davidic monrachy.....

This is outrageous and unfounded speculation. Can you cite any example where a Messianic prophecy concerning the re-establishment of the Davidic monarchy has been changed in the manuscript text of the Hebrew scriptures?

[Al-manar]

This is outrageous and unfounded speculation. Can you cite any example where a Messianic prophecy concerning the re-establishment of the Davidic monarchy has been changed in the manuscript text of the Hebrew scriptures?

First : I think I have shown in several occasions what the Quran means by corruption, it is not merely modification in an already existed text, but to write un-inspired text ( chapter ,book) and add it to a corpus of scripture eg; the song of solomon ,do we believe it as textualy been modified? not at all..... we believe it ( following the Quranic definition of Torah)as fully un-inspired ,and been added to the corpus of the true Torah etc... etc....

I hope that is the last time ,I reset the point for you ......

Second : let's,for the sake of argument, compress the meaning of corruption in merely textual modification ....

and answer your question directly....

Can you cite any example where a Messianic prophecy concerning the re-establishment of the Davidic monarchy has been changed in the manuscript text of the Hebrew scriptures?

Yes , I can

The sections missing from the Septuagint and Qumran versions of Jeremiah clearly testify to what Fitzmyer called "a Palestinian reworking of the book." Let's consider, for example, the following omission:

Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will perform that good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and concerning the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause a Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby she shall be called: Yahweh our righteousness. For thus saith Yahweh: David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to burn meal-offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of Yahweh came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith yahweh: If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, so that there shall not be day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he shall not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. And the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah, saying, Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which Yahweh did choose, he hath cast them off? thus do they despise my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith Yahweh: If my covenant of day and night stand not, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David my servant, so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and will have mercy on them, (33:14-26, ASV with Yahweh substituted for Jehovah).

......

Obviously intended as a repetition of Yahweh's promise to establish an eternal, perpetual throne of David over the house of Israel, which promise was first proclaimed in II Samuel 7:12-17, this passage, and ones like it, have proved embarrassing to God's people ever since the vagaries of history reduced the Yahwistic promises of an everlasting Israelite kingdom to mere ethnocentric wishes that didn't materialize. To protect the inerrancy doctrine, Bible fundamentalists have been forced to read figurative meaning into these statements, so rather than a literal promise to establish David's throne forever, they see this passage, and others like it, as a Messianic prophecy that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Either way, the passage concerns a central biblical theme and must therefore be considered important, yet it was in neither the Septuagint version nor the Jeremiah scroll found at Qumran. These omissions have grave implications for the inerrancy doctrine, because they suggest that significant editing occurred in at least one Old Testament book after completion of the original manuscript. So what exactly are we to conclude from this? After verbally inspiring Jeremiah to write his manuscript, did Yahweh decide he could improve on the original and then direct someone to reorganize the material and insert the passages that weren't available to the Septuagint translators or to the scribe who made the Qumran copy? If so, what does this say about the omniscience of Yahweh that we hear so much about? Or if the changes didn't happen under Yahweh's direction, did some scribe or committee of scribes just take it upon themselves to do the editing? Either way again, the proponents of Bible inerrancy have a serious problem on their hands. They preach a doctrine that simply cannot be squared with known facts.

The false pen of the scribes can add whatever they like ,isn't it?!

more examples of biblical textual modifications will be in the right time......

[Hiroshi]

First : I think I have shown in several occasions what the Quran means by corruption, it is not merely modification in an already existed text, but to write un-inspired text ( chapter ,book) and add it to a corpus of scripture eg; the song of solomon ,do we believe it as textualy been modified? not at all..... we believe it ( following the Quranic definition of Torah)as fully un-inspired ,and been added to the corpus of the true Torah etc... etc....

I am surprised that you tell me here that the Song of Solomon is uninspired. Many Muslims have told me that Muhammad is foretold and is mentioned by name in Song of Solomon 5:16 where the Hebrew reads: "Mahamaddim". You must regard that claim as completely untrue.

[Al-manar]

I am surprised that you tell me here that the Song of Solomon is uninspired. Many Muslims have told me that Muhammad is foretold and is mentioned by name in Song of Solomon 5:16 where the Hebrew reads: "Mahamaddim". You must regard that claim as completely untrue.

1- Yes I regard that claim (and all imaginary prophecies,from that kind) to be completely untrue ......

2- your post would make me interrupt the messianic prophecies discussion for a minute, and post the term (Torah) immediately......


Torah?


1- A scripture was revealed only to Moses :

the Quran - 2:5 And when We gave unto Moses the Scripture and the criterion (of right and wrong), that ye might be led aright.


the Quran - 6:91 And they do not assign to Allah the attributes due to Him when they say: Allah has not revealed anything to a mortal. Say: Who revealed the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to men.

the Quran - 17:2 And We gave Musa the Book and made it a guidance to the children of Israel, saying: Do not take a protector besides Me.

the Quran - 11:110 We have given Moses the Scripture, yet they disputed in it.

the Quran - 28:43 And We verily gave the Scripture unto Moses after We had destroyed the generations of old: clear testimonies for mankind, and a guidance and a mercy, that haply they might reflect.


for what?


the Quran - 32:23 And certainly We gave the Book to Musa, so be not in doubt concerning the receiving of it, and We made it a guide for the children of Israel.


It remained a guide for the children of Israel ,after the departure of Moses:

the Quran - 40:53 and We verily gave Moses the guidance, and We caused the Children of Israel to inherit the Scripture

the Quran - 42:14 And they did not become divided until after knowledge had come to them out of envy among themselves; and had not a word gone forth from your Lord till an appointed term, certainly judgment would have been given between them; and those who were made to inherit the Book after them are most surely in disquieting doubt concerning it.



Even the prophets after Moses,the Rabbis, and the Priests would judge with it ...they weren't supposed to add new scripture to the corpus of the Torah...

the Quran - 5:44 We have sent down the Torah, in it is guidance and a light; the prophets who have surrendered judged with it for those who are Jews, as well as the Rabbis, and the Priests, for what they were entrusted of God's Scripture, and they were witness over. So do not fear the people but fear Me; and do not purchase with My revelations a cheap price. And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the rejecters.


The Quran gets 2 cases of a scripture after Moses ?

1- Zabur (some of the psalms):

The holy Quran 17:55 We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms.

the Quran - 21:105 Before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth."

that verse is really there in the psalms ; Psalms 37:29 "The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever,"

To note ,the psalm was revealed as words of wisdom ,not a law as the Torah.......


2- Injeel (the saying parts of the 4 gospels):

the Quran - 3:48 And He teaches him(jesus) the Scripture and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Injeel.

Again ,the gospel was intended as words of wisdom and ,again, not a law as the Torah ,yet would modify some hard laws.


In a word ,what is the word (scripture) in the Quran could refer to,while refering to an existing written work?

It is some of the contents of :

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ,Deuteronomy,Psalms,gospel

and fully to the content of :

The Quran ...

what about the other books eg; Judges ,jonah Ruth ,Micah,First Samuel ,Ecclesiastes ,Nahum ,Song of Solomon,Isaiah , Jeremiah and Ezekiel ec....etc.....

well ,They could have true traditions (beside false ones) ,but they would never be called scripture .......

messianic prophecies to be resumed

peace ...

[Grace Seeker]

According to Islam, Jesus has never died up until now. The lifetime of Jesus would then still be continuing. Islam holds also that Jesus is a prophet. So what did Jesus himself prophesy about the kingdom?

He spoke of a time of wars, earthquakes, diseases and famine (Luke 21:10-11) among other great tribulations (Matthew 24:21) that would mark a time when the kingdom of God would be near (Luke 21:31). We are seeing these signs in the very time in which we live today.

Every generation has had their wars, natural disasters and other dire terrors to deal with. And each suggests that the time period is worse than any other which preceeded them. I'm not sure that such perception actually fits with reality. The only thing I am sure of is that we are closer to the day of Christ's return today than yesterday. And, given that we have no guarantee of anything beyond this present moment, we should all live ready.

If we could learn do that, to live in the now of Christ's presence, then we would not have to worry about when he was going to return.

[جوري]

The only thing I am sure of is that we are closer to the day of Christ's return today than yesterday. And, given that we have no guarantee of anything beyond this present moment, we should all live ready.

Yup.. ready yourself to have your pagan crosses broken by Jesus (p) and your pigs killed by him and to have him be a witness against you for falsehood if you don't change your pagan ways!

all the best

[Hiroshi]

The false pen of the scribes can add whatever they like ,isn't it?!

more examples of biblical textual modifications will be in the right time......

Due credit to you. I asked for a variant reading of a Messianic prophecy concerning David’s throne and you gave me one. Jeremiah is one of the longest books in the Hebrew scriptures. The writings of Jeremiah were made over a period of about 45 years but the book is arranged according to subject matter rather than chronologically. Hence, in compiling the book, new additions would not be simply added to the end but would often be included somewhere in the middle. This would entail rewriting, editing and rearranging the book’s contents a number of times. It seems from what you have shown me that some of these early incomplete versions of Jeremiah began to be translated into the Greek Septuagint and that the Qumran Hebrew manuscript is one such incomplete version. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: a comparison of the Masoretic text with the Septuagint throws some light on the last phase in the history of the origin of the Book of Jeremiah, inasmuch as the translation into Greek was already under way before the work on the Hebrew book had come to an end... The two texts differ above all in that the Septuagint is much shorter... Even if the text of the Septuagint is proved to be the older, it does not necessarily follow that all these variations first arose after the Greek translation had been made, because two different editions of the same text might have been in process of development side by side... I would point out that there are many Messianic prophecies that speak of the Messiah’s death (Isaiah 53:12; Daniel 9:26) before ruling as king over the whole earth forever (Daniel 7:14). If these Messianic prophecies are mere inventions of the Jews why would they include such details?

[Hiroshi]

Every generation has had their wars, natural disasters and other dire terrors to deal with.

The scale and frequency of these disasters in modern times is out of all proportion to those of the past. I can quote some staggering statistics. Never since 1914 have we had world wars. Only this morning there was a major earthquake (6.3 on the Richter scale) in Christchurch, New Zealand.

[Al-manar]

The writings of Jeremiah were made over a period of about 45 years but the book is arranged according to subject matter rather than chronologically. Hence, in compiling the book, new additions would not be simply added to the end but would often be included somewhere in the middle. This would entail rewriting, editing and rearranging the book’s contents a number of times. It seems from what you have shown me that some of these early incomplete versions of Jeremiah began to be translated into the Greek Septuagint and that the Qumran Hebrew manuscript is one such incomplete version.

Hiroshi ,It seems you didn't read the article well ...

the passage concerns a central biblical theme (messianic prophecy) and must therefore be considered important, yet it was in neither the Septuagint version nor the Jeremiah scroll found at Qumran. These omissions have grave implications for the inerrancy doctrine, because they suggest that significant editing occurred in at least one Old Testament book after completion of the original manuscript. So what exactly are we to conclude from this? After verbally inspiring Jeremiah to write his manuscript, did Yahweh decide he could improve on the original and then direct someone to reorganize the material and insert the passages that weren't available to the Septuagint translators or to the scribe who made the Qumran copy? If so, what does this say about the omniscience of Yahweh that we hear so much about? Or if the changes didn't happen under Yahweh's direction, did some scribe or committee of scribes just take it upon themselves to do the editing? Either way again, the proponents of Bible inerrancy have a serious problem on their hands. They preach a doctrine that simply cannot be squared with known facts.

and

To explain the problem posed by these variations in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah, proponents of the inerrancy doctrine once attributed the deviations from the Masoretic text to poor translation, but after the discoveries in Cave Four, this "explanation" became hard, if not impossible, to defend. Work on the Septuagint version began in Alexandria around 285 B.C., and the Jeremiah manuscript found at Qumran, like the Isaiah scroll, was dated in the early second century B. C. Since the Qumran text of Jeremiah was parallel in content and organization to the Septuagint version, here was tangible evidence that at one time, for at least two centuries, a shorter, differently arranged version of the book existed. Hence, variations from the Masoretic text in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah resulted not from careless translation but from a radically different Hebrew text that the translators had before them

2-

Passage on Sabbath Not Genuine(in the book of Jeremiah).

The one non-authentic passage incorporated in group 2 is that concerning the Sabbath, xvii. 19-27. The reason why the prophet can not be credited with the authorship of this passage, though in form and content it is not unlike Jeremiah, is the high value put upon the observance of holy days, which is wholly foreign to the prophet. The author of the passage not only recommends the keeping of the Sabbath day holy as a day of rest ordained by God, but he even goes so far as to make the possibility of future salvation, and even directly the destruction of Jerusalem, depend upon the observance or non-observance of this day.

for more Ungenuine Passages in Later Sections. look up www. jewishencyclopedia.com



3- There is a consensus of scholars, has gathered around a thesis of multiple sources for the book of Jeremiah(wikipedia).


4- Quote from ( Reading the book of Jeremiah: a search for coherence,
By Martin Kessler )

In their search for an -authentic Jeremiah- kernel in the Oracles against the Nations ( Jeremiah 46-51). ninewenth-century scholars were keenly concerned with the ip.sissinta veiha cii the prophet. Another one of their vital concerns was the representation of God. since it was thought to have occupied a crucial place in the prophets thought world. The question was asked whether the representation of VI twit in the Oracles against the Nations agreed with the representation in texts that were considered to have been written I>v the "historical" Jeremiah. As is amply evident front research, Jeremiah viewed NIFIWIf as the God of Israel. He is highly exalted above the heathen gods and merciful and gracious toward his people. Because of the proud and In tgrateful at-titude of Ott' people, Wiwi' threatened them through his prophet with destruction of the land and deportation of the inhabitants if they per-sisted in their refusal to listen to the prophetic proclamation and did Ilia repent. If thev. On the other hand, would listen to YIINVI I'S voice, would permit them to cominue to live in the land. In the prophetic or-acles addressed to Israel and Judah, Vi twit is represented as a God who is willing to forgive and who is inclined to revoke his ihrIller threats. In the oracles addressed to the nations, however, Vinyl I appears as an ir-reconcilable God of vengeance who announces rnin to the nations. These oracles contain threats of destruction exclusively, while the preaching of repentance is completely lacking. Since these representa-tions of N't twit were fouricl to diverge so radically., scholars concluded that the Oracles against the Nations cannot be ascribed to Jeremiah.



5- In accordance with the current trend of Bible scholarship ,most of the critics deny the authorship of Jeremiah . (How to Understand the Book of Jeremiah By Duane S. Crowther.)




6- The process of the book's composi-tion has certainly taken place in successive stages (cf. W.MelCane's hypothesis of a "rolling corpus") and it would ap-pear that the location of these prophecies in the Septuagint represents an earlier literary situation than does their position 246 in the Hebrew Masorelic text. Later proto-apocalyptic interests of Jewish interpreters and scribes has led to the foreign nations prophecies being transposed to form the end of the Jeremiah literary collection .To regard Jeremiah as the author of the entire collection is almost certainly mistaken. (Jeremiah
By Ronald Ernest Clements)


I have dozens of internal proofs for my point but I think those are enough for now.....

and don't ever forget ,the question of textual modification to the book of Jeremiah is by no mean crucial to the problem.....

I have stated before (using the Quran) that Jeremiah besides others are not included the corpus of what the Quran calls (the true scriptures revealed by God) .......

call it textually been preserved or otherwise ...It just doesn't matter ..... if it doesn't belong the Quranic corpus of the scripture,who will ever care for its textaul preservation statue?!


To sum up:

The claim that the writings of the book of Jeremiah are based on the inspired words ,the prophet Jeremiah received from God,is certainly mistaken , the work was written by multiple hands and been modified for hundred of years after the death of Jeremiah .....

to add, Even if God inspired Jeremiah (assuming him to be a prophet) something to say, we have a Quranic clue that the Torah is nothing but the work of Moses ,and the only time the Quran talks of non-Mosaic work would be (Alzabur) revealed to David.......



anyway the positive part in your post was :

I would point out that there are many Messianic prophecies that speak of the Messiah’s death (Isaiah 53:12; Daniel 9:26) before ruling as king over the whole earth forever (Daniel 7:14). If these Messianic prophecies are mere inventions of the Jews why would they include such details?

That is exactly where we should go ,

I would like you ,to better than asking yourself Was that text transmitted correctly?, to ask yourself ,instead, Is that text telling the truth ?
I hope you wouldn't waste our time in the thread with your narrow difinition of corruption (aka textual modification) and go to the broader sense and ask the crucial Question ,are those passages applied to Jesus?

the (No) answers ,will be elaborated in the immediate following posts....



peace

[Al-manar]

Origin of Christianity, Messianic prophecies (1)

The following objective expositions on the way the writers of the new testament used the old testament ,would enable us to understand where the Jesus of the new testament ,came from .......

all The writers of the New testament used to Quote the Old testament ,and apply what they quote on some of the traditions they had regarding Jesus .... but when ever one examine the quotations and their application on the tradictions ,one would be surprise to find out easily ,that they are nothing but misquotations,misapplications ....

so what? some people would suggest that the writers weren't Jews ,but pagan converts who misunderstood the old testament .......... some others would suggest that they were intentionally deceiving the readers for some kind of benefits......

- I don't believe the writers to be neither pagan converts ,nor conspirators ..................

- I believe that they were not merely Jews but religious and good readers of the old testament .....

- I believe that they were totally convinced that their application of such passages on the traditions they had regarding Jesus ,is very meaningfull .......... and such reflections they had on the old testament ,should be reached to every Jew living ......

- I believe that the writers of the gospels never thought of their writing as directly inspired by God ,neither they imagined that their work will be one day a scripture ... all what they had in mind to write a biography of the man using the material they received and beside the biography some of their reflection on how such material has echoed some of the old testament passages.....

- I believe that both the concepts of the king messiah and the concept of God were applied to him after his mission was terminated.

The following are our exposition to the exegesis of the writers of the new testament, such flawed exegesis would produce later all the methodolgies of christianity !....


Details:


where to begin ? which old testament passage ?

I think we should begin with what is called (the prophecy of the virgin birth),as it is the first one in the first page of gospel of Matthew .....

The problem of the virgin birth prophecy aka when now becames later :


after the writer of the gospel traced what he calls the The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah ,he goes on telling us the circumstances around the birth ,ignoring (or being ignorant) of the reaction of the people of such good un-married woman who became pregnant !....

Matthew 1: 18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”


afterwards the writers surprises us with a piece of exegesis never been preceded by any Jew ...

Matthew 1: 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “(The young woman-virgin) will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).


that is to say,after the man read and reflected on Isaiah 7, he first got convinced that such wonderous pregnancy,birth was a fulfilment of the word of God that been revealed hundreds of years ago...

the man included such included such personal reflection on his work in hope we share him the idea....

well , let's check the passage he Quoted in its original context :

Isaiah 7
The Sign of Immanuel
*1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
*2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[a] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
*3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub,[b] to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘It will not take place, it will not happen, 8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. 9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, *and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.’”
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.” 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”


The reader who read that for the first time should have idea about the historical context of that passage ,Thomas Paine explained the context in the clearest of terms :

On the death of Solomon the Jewish nation split into two monarchies: one called the kingdom of Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem: the other the kingdom of Israel, the capital of which was Samaria. The kingdom of Judah followed the line of David, and the kingdom of Israel that of Saul; and these two rival monarchies frequently carried on fierce wars against each other.
At the time Ahaz was king of Judah, which was in the time of Isaiah, Pekah was king of Israel; and Pekah joined himself to Rezin, king of Syria, to make war against Ahaz, king of Judah; and these two kings marched a confederated and powerful army against Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed at their danger, and "their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." Isaiah vii. 3.
In this perilous situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord, (the cant phrase of all the prophets,) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to assure him that this should be the case, tells Ahaz to ask a sign of the Lord. This Ahaz declined doing, giving as a reason, that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who pretends to be sent from God, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son -- Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and chose the good -- For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and chose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" -- meaning the king of Israel and the king of Syria who were marching against him.
Here then is the sign, which was to be the birth of a child, and that child a son; and here also is the time limited for the accomplishment of the sign, namely, before the child should know to refuse the evil and chose the good.
The thing, therefore, to be a sign of success to Ahaz, must be something that would take place before the event of the battle then pending between him and the two kings could be known. A thing to be a sign must precede the thing signified. The sign of rain must be before the rain.
It would have been mockery and insulting nonsense for Isaiah to have assured Ahaz as a sign that these two kings should not prevail against him, that a child should be born seven hundred years after he was dead, and that before the child so born should know to refuse the evil and choose the good, he, Ahaz, should be delivered from the danger he was then immediately threatened with.

Problems of applying that passage to Jesus:

1- It is crystal clear from the original context that the prophecy is not a supernatural prediction centuries in advance. In no way is it indicated by the text that it concerns the Messiah, nor is it indicated that it would occur hundreds of years later.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin [almah] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. (Isaiah 7:14-16, NASB)


2- There is a futile argument common while dealing with problem ,it is the linguestic one.....
in one hand the critics argue if Isaiah wanted to say (virgin) he would have used the hebrew word (Bethula) as it is the only word in Hebrew that denotes directly the meaning of virginity, instead of the already used word (Almah) that means a youthful spouse recently married ,the notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys .
On the other hand the christian counter argument , is that the word (Almah) never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste .....

we have 2 Notes on the previous controversy:

The first Note:

both of those opinions (whether the critics or the christian defense) mere exaggeration...

first :the critics claim that (Bethula) never used to denote sexual lose of virginity,is challenged by the the use of the word in Joel 1:8 Lament like a virgin(Bethula) girded with sackcloth for the husband (Ba'al) of her youth.
The word ba'al seems to be never used in the Jewish Scriptures of the betrothed state, but only of a married man.

second: The christian claim that the word (Almah) never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste ,is strongly challenged by the use of the word in proverb 30:18

Proverbs 30 :18 “There are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand: 19 the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with (Almah) a young woman. 20 “This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.’


Kenneth E. Nahigian "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy)
"the way of a man with an 'almah" would certainly jeopardize a state of sexual purity, but more damaging than this rather obvious fact is the comparison that the writer went on to state: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (v:20, NAB). It seems odd that the author would use 'almah to denote sexual purity and then compare it to the ongoing affairs of an adulterous woman. More likely the author's point was that all these things have one element in common: they do not leave much of a trace."

The HarperCollins Bible Commentary ( Proverbs 30:19)
"The saying about the mysterious ‘ways’ (Prov. 30:18-19) may refer to lack of visible means of propulsion or movement that leaves no trace, with ‘the way of a man with a fertile woman’ as a reference to either procreation or sexual attraction generally."

to sum up the use of both (Bethula) and (Almah) is controversal , and both of the words could be rendered (virgin and young woman ,not neccesarily virgin) ,the claim that Almah MUST BE translated as virgin is mere a dellusion.....

The second Note:

The previous linguestic controversy is proved nonsensical ,waste of time basically because even if in the verse there is a word that means exclusively, every time, in every context (A virgin) ,the problem remains?

"The word almah is capable of being used of a woman up until the time she bears her first child. All the text need mean in Isaiah is that a young woman of marriageable age will soon conceive and bear a son. The woman may indeed be a virgin at the moment the prophecy is uttered. But that is not the point of the text, nor is there the slightest idea that she will remain a virgin when she conceives and bears the child. "John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking The Historical Jesus, Vol. 1, pg. 243

Every virgin will one day in the future (unless she decided not) conceive and bear a child ..... no miracle in that ....



till next (so called) prophecy ..

peace

[Hiroshi]

The first Note:

both of those opinions (whether the critics or the christian defense) mere exaggeration...

first :the critics claim that (Bethula) never used to denote sexual lose of virginity,is challenged by the the use of the word in Joel 1:8 Lament like a virgin(Bethula) girded with sackcloth for the husband (Ba'al) of her youth.
The word ba'al seems to be never used in the Jewish Scriptures of the betrothed state, but only of a married man.

second: The christian claim that the word (Almah) never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste ,is strongly challenged by the use of the word in proverb 30:18

Proverbs 30 :18 “There are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand: 19 the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with (Almah) a young woman. 20 “This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.’


Kenneth E. Nahigian "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy)
"the way of a man with an 'almah" would certainly jeopardize a state of sexual purity, but more damaging than this rather obvious fact is the comparison that the writer went on to state: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (v:20, NAB). It seems odd that the author would use 'almah to denote sexual purity and then compare it to the ongoing affairs of an adulterous woman. More likely the author's point was that all these things have one element in common: they do not leave much of a trace."

The HarperCollins Bible Commentary ( Proverbs 30:19)
"The saying about the mysterious ‘ways’ (Prov. 30:18-19) may refer to lack of visible means of propulsion or movement that leaves no trace, with ‘the way of a man with a fertile woman’ as a reference to either procreation or sexual attraction generally."

to sum up the use of both (Bethula) and (Almah) is controversal , and both of the words could be rendered (virgin and young woman ,not neccesarily virgin) ,the claim that Almah MUST BE translated as virgin is mere a dellusion.....

Presumably Muslims accept that Jesus was born from a virgin. You just reject the notion that this was foretold in Bible prophecy.

Isaiah 7:14 uses the word "almah" meaning "maiden". "Maiden" is commonly used in English to mean either (1) a young woman or (2) a virgin and the same is true of the Hebrew word. "Almah" is applied to Rebekah before her marriage when she was also called "a virgin" (bethula) in Genesis 24:16, 43.

So then, which meaning was meant at Isaiah 7:14? Was "almah" intended to mean "a young woman" or was it intended to mean "a virgin"? The translators of the Greek Septuagint settle the matter because they used the Greek word "parthenos" which can only mean "virgin". (The Parthenon was the chief temple of the virgin goddess Athena built on the acropolis. And the name Parthenon comes from the Greek "parthenos": virgin). So centuries before Jesus' birth there was a clear and unambiguous statement in the Greek Septuagint, translated from the divinely inspired Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, that a virgin would give birth.

[Al-manar]

So then, which meaning was meant at Isaiah 7:14? Was "almah" intended to mean "a young woman" or was it intended to mean "a virgin"?

If you read my post well, you will find out that it doesn't really matter if it means virgin , if it is taken with certainity that Isaiah intended virgin, it would imply only that the girl is virgin at the time of the prophecy.not she will conceive as a virgin , "a woman who is now a virgin will (by natural means, once she is united to her husband) conceive the child Emmanuel ...... there isn't the slightest idea that she will remain a virgin when she conceives and bears the child ......

The translators of the Greek Septuagint settle the matter because they used the Greek word "parthenos" which can only mean "virgin". .

That is not true ......

1- The Greek word parthenos carries a basic meaning of 'girl', hence it denotes 'virgin' only by implication. And in fact this word could also be used to refer to non-virgin women who weren't married. Homer so uses it, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek would know of this word's versatile and indefinite meaning. The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy (Richard Carrier)


The fact that the LXX22 (followed by Matthew) translates 'almah with the Greek word itapetevog (paethenos) is not con-clusive evidence that 'almalt means "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 , the Greek word parthenos does not always mean virgin. Isaiah, Volume 1
By Terry R. Briley





2- In the Septuagint, Genesis 34:3 has the word "parthenos" used twice in reference to Jacob's daughter, Dinah, after she was raped. A woman who has been raped is no longer a virgin.


3- That the author was referencing the Septuagint is completely irrelevant. It's what Isaiah wrote in the Hebrew Scriptures that is relevant.

The translators of the Greek Septuagint settle the matter .

If that settles the linguestic matter (which I affirmed to be irrelevant to the criticism),for you ,It won't settle the real problem with the passage (the out of context application)...

I have said before ,If you would insist to use it as (virgin ),then ok ..

there is no problem with that ,and indeed Isaiah might thought of the young woman refering to as a Virgin the moment he uttered the promise ....... but that won't resolve the real problem ,which I explained before.....


you know from now and on ,for your convinience, I will accept the meaning as (virgin) ,so don't go there again to the linguestic argument (which as I said before to be completely irrelevant to the problem) ... go this time to the contextual problem (the only real problem with the passage)....



peace

[Hiroshi]

That is not true ......

1- The Greek word parthenos carries a basic meaning of 'girl', hence it denotes 'virgin' only by implication. And in fact this word could also be used to refer to non-virgin women who weren't married. Homer so uses it, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek would know of this word's versatile and indefinite meaning. The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy (Richard Carrier)


The fact that the LXX22 (followed by Matthew) translates 'almah with the Greek word itapetevog (paethenos) is not con-clusive evidence that 'almalt means "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 , the Greek word parthenos does not always mean virgin.

If you want to leave aside the linguistic issues then that is fine by me. But your whole argument seems to be that Matthew is misapplying Isaiah 7:14 and taking liberties by translating "almah" as "parthenos". I think that I have made a reasonable point here in showing that the Septuagint used exactly the same rendering at this verse.

[Grace Seeker]

If you want to leave aside the linguistic issues then that is fine by me. But your whole argument seems to be that Matthew is misapplying Isaiah 7:14 and taking liberties by translating "almah" as "parthenos". I think that I have made a reasonable point here in showing that the Septuagint used exactly the same rendering at this verse.

I understand Al-Manar's argument to be that Matthew interprets Isaiah 7:14 and many other OT passages to his own end, i.e. to show that Jesus is the Messiah, but that he does so by using texts that where not always read and interpreted that way by others before him. Thus, the argument is not so much that Matthew is right or wrong, but that he (for that time period) is unique in his interpretation. The gist of the argument seems to be that the interpretation that Matthew provides comes more out of his own desired conclusion, reading the OT from an already formulated Chriso-centric vantage point, than out of pure exegesis of the passage independent of the Christian framework that he is trying to communicate.

[Hiroshi]

I understand Al-Manar's argument to be that Matthew interprets Isaiah 7:14 and many other OT passages to his own end, i.e. to show that Jesus is the Messiah, but that he does so by using texts that where not always read and interpreted that way by others before him. Thus, the argument is not so much that Matthew is right or wrong, but that he (for that time period) is unique in his interpretation. The gist of the argument seems to be that the interpretation that Matthew provides comes more out of his own desired conclusion, reading the OT from an already formulated Chriso-centric vantage point, than out of pure exegesis of the passage independent of the Christian framework that he is trying to communicate.

Many prophecies might not become clear until they were actually fulfilled. Hosea 11:1 says "out of Egypt I called my son" referring to the young nation of Israel being brought out of slavery and bondage to Egypt. But (as is often the case) the words have a double meaning and also apply to Jesus as Matthew 2:15 shows. Surely no one would have readily taken the verse as a Messianic prophecy until it was known that Jesus' family had to flee to Egypt and return to escape king Herod. But I take this to be a bona fide prophecy nevertheless, since I believe that both Hosea and Matthew were inspired by God. Perhaps you disagree?

[Grace Seeker]

I don't disagree with Matthew's understanding that Jesus' life fulfills what Hosea spoke of. But I do think it is an example of what Al-manar speaks of as Matthew reading back into the text after the events of Jesus' life, rather than that understanding naturally arising out of the text with regard to the Messiah prior to Jesus' coming.

[Sol Invictus]

I don't disagree with Matthew's understanding that Jesus' life fulfills what Hosea spoke of. But I do think it is an example of what Al-manar speaks of as Matthew reading back into the text after the events of Jesus' life, rather than that understanding naturally arising out of the text with regard to the Messiah prior to Jesus' coming.

which of course there is no problem with given that according to christianity, the fullest revelation of all god's promises and decrees is to be found in the advent of christ. to argue that jews did not understand the prophecies in the like manner that christians do largely has no bearing on the truth of the bible. it is a little like saying that islam could not be true given the fact that neither jews, nor christians recognize mecca as the house of god. having browsed through this thread i can't help but notice that largely the same points the other has brought up can be used against islam to the same effect.

[Hiroshi]

I don't disagree with Matthew's understanding that Jesus' life fulfills what Hosea spoke of. But I do think it is an example of what Al-manar speaks of as Matthew reading back into the text after the events of Jesus' life, rather than that understanding naturally arising out of the text with regard to the Messiah prior to Jesus' coming.

Presumably though, you would accept that Micah 5:2 (foretelling that the Messiah would come out of Bethlehem) is a miraculous prophecy documented by Matthew since others apart from him shared this view (Matthew 2:5-6). But do you not trust anything in Matthew's gospel unless you can find support elsewhere for it?

[Al-manar]

If you want to leave aside the linguistic issues then that is fine by me..

leaving the the linguistic issue ,is my advice for anyone would care to get the ONLY REAL problem with the passage ......

But your whole argument seems to be that Matthew is misapplying Isaiah 7:14 and taking liberties by translating "almah" as "parthenos"

The problem of Matthew not that he understood the word as meaning virgin ,neither when Isaiah refered to the virgin (if that was the meaning he intended when he uttered the prophecy) ,it is when Matthew believed such virgin-young lady contemporary of Isaiah ,to be a reference to a virgin came hundred of years later.....

The gist of the argument seems to be that the interpretation that Matthew provides comes more out of his own desired conclusion, reading the OT from an already formulated Chriso-centric vantage point, than out of pure exegesis of the passage independent of the Christian framework that he is trying to communicate. .

To add .....

I believe that sometimes a text could be understood in more than one way .... I have no problem with that .....
and I believe that sometimes a text seems to be vague would be later due to the accumulation of knowledge to be understood in better terms....

but that is not the case with Matthew ..the passage is neither vague nor open to double meaning ..it is in the clearest literal language , and the context leaves not the slightest chance to apply it to the far future ....

so the argument is not that he had no right to reflect on the passage ,or even explain it in better terms that he thought to be proper,It is that his Exegesiscal application has passed all the limits of sensical meaning.....

why he did that? the fact he wasn't unique ..... later I will give examples of a pesher type exegesis(and similar other types) that been (and still) by even non-christians .....

such exposition would give use a lesson that whenever there is religious zeal ,there is such kind of faulty exegesis .....

the consequences of finding out that such exegesis to be faulty is so serious ,as it turns all the basic chirsitian biblical methodologies to be faulty as well .....

the words have a double meaning and also apply to Jesus as Matthew 2:15 shows .

Though ,

1- Dual fulfillment is a concept completely alien to scripture.
Double Fulfillment Double fulfillment means that a specific passage will be fulfilled on two or more occasions. This is not a correct ap-proach to biblical interpretation because prophecy can only be fulfilled once. If a certain prophecy could have multiple fulfillments then it wouldn't be specific. Sometimes Isaiah 7:14 is given as an example of double fulfillment. It is said that there was a near fulfillment in refer-ence to a child born in Ahaz's day, but whoever that child was, it was certainly not a virgin-born baby. This is especially problematic in light of the clear statement in Matthew 1:22,23, which says specifically that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. Fast Facts on Bible Prophecy from A to Z
By Thomas Ice, Timothy J. Demy


but let's, for the sake of argument , assume such concept to be right (the concept of dual Fulfillment been criticised by numerous christian scholars) .....


let's first,put istead of the word virgin (Mary) and instead of Immanuel (jesus)

Isaiah 7:14

Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin Mary will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Jesus. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when Jesus knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before Jesus knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread (the kingdoms of Israel and Judah)will be laid waste.


If it is a double fulfillment ,just When were the two kingdoms ( the kingdoms of Judah and Israel) were abandoned before Jesus (supposing him the Emmanuel in the passage) knew enough to reject the wrong and choose the right ?

That is the question that has to be ,reasonably answered ,before any talk about a so called dual fulfillment....

[Sol Invictus]

al-manar, i must congratulate you on thinking critically on the matter of judeo-christian scripture. the best one can do is examine a religion and if they truly believe that it is false then it is right and good to disbelieve it. while i certainly do not wish to be drawn into another discussion while my particular interests are still within another thread (at this time at least), i do think that i should at least make one post to help the christian position (not that god needs any help but hey, what can i do, i'm a team player). i hope you'll forgive the fact that i'm only focusing on your last post (though given that the current discussion seems geared towards it then i don't expect this to be a problem).

The problem of Matthew not that he understood the word as meaning virgin ,neither when Isaiah refered to the virgin (if that was the meaning he intended when he uttered the prophecy) ,it is when Matthew believed such virgin-young lady contemporary of Isaiah ,to be a reference to a virgin came hundred of years later.....

correct me if i have understood you incorrectly but it would seem that what is argued against here is the concept of double-fulfillment, right? to this end you write that dual-fulfillment is completely alien to scripture and then quote from a christian scholar (i believe) to prove your point. that said, given that the question is on the matter of dual-fulfillment, let us seek to answer this first.

Though ,

1- Dual fulfillment is a concept completely alien to scripture.
( a ) Double Fulfillment Double fulfillment means that a specific passage will be fulfilled on two or more occasions. This is not a correct ap-proach to biblical interpretation because prophecy can only be fulfilled once. If a certain prophecy could have multiple fulfillments then it wouldn't be specific. Sometimes Isaiah 7:14 is given as an example of double fulfillment. It is said that there was a near fulfillment in refer-ence to a child born in Ahaz's day, but whoever that child was, it was certainly not a virgin-born baby. This is especially problematic in light of the clear statement in Matthew 1:22,23, which says specifically that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. Fast Facts on Bible Prophecy from A to Z
By Thomas Ice, Timothy J. Demy

( a ) now this may be due to the fact that we have not been provided with only the partial quote above and not his evidence for the matter but i must first note that the author does nothing to actually prove the fact that prophecy could only be fulfilled once. it seems rather capricious and self-serving of him to state this as a fact (particularly since we have been given no evidence). as it concerns my rebuttal, how then would he understand the following:

… And it shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you shall be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it. Moreover, the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone, which you or your fathers have not known. … Deuteronomy 28:63-64 NASB

the above prophecy by moses is fulfilled multiple times. the history of the jews within israel is one of exile and return and this prophecy applies to all these instances and so merely from a cursory reading of scripture we can understand that your above cited claim is incorrect. so no, the concept of multiple fulfillment to prophecy is clearly taught in scripture.

( b ) If it is a double fulfillment ,just When were the two kingdoms ( the kingdoms of Judah and Israel) were abandoned before Jesus (supposing him the Emmanuel in the passage) knew enough to reject the wrong and choose the right ?

That is the question that has to be ,reasonably answered ,before any talk about a so called dual fulfillment....

"Interpretation 5 above seems the most promising. An unmarried young woman within the royal house would shortly marry and conceive. Her son would be called Immanuel ("God is with us"), probably in ignorance of the prophecy (which may have been given in the presence only of Ahaz) and possibly even as a presumptuous gesture to give the support of a complacent piety to the king's pro-Assyrian policy. Before the child is old enough to eat the characteristic food of the Land of Promise in its solid form (and so, if this is meant, well before the age of moral discretion), the Assyrians would lay waste the lands of Aram and Israel, which they did in 733-732 B.C., only a year or two after the prophecy was given.

"The "sign" of the child, therefore, constitutes an indication that the all-sovereign and all-knowing God has the situation completely in hand, and it rebukes the king's lack of faith in him. It is true that the instrument of this devastation was to be Assyria, the very power Ahaz was courting instead of relying wholly on God. But in fact the events of 733-732 not only heralded the downfall in 722 of Samaria--the capital city of the northern kingdom that was a large part of the domain of the house of David in its earlier days--but within a generation led to the devastation of Judah itself (cf. 1:7).

"The prophecy was given to the house of David and not simply to Ahaz ("you" in v. 14 is plural). In the fullness of time, the messianic Child would be born of that house. He was to be a symbol of God's salvation of his people, not simply from physical foes like Rezin and Pekah, but ultimately from sin (cf. Matt 1:21). He represents the final purpose of God in his person as well as his work. For he is, in fullness of meaning, God with us; and his mother was a virgin at the time of her conception and not simply, as in the case of the earlier royal mother, at the time of the prophecy. Matthew's concept of fulfillment is very wide-ranging and flexible and embraces many different kinds of correspondence between an OT passage and a NT event (cf. G.W. Grogan, "The New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament," Tyndale Bulletin 18 [1967]:54-59).

i didn't exactly know where best to stick the above so i just placed it here.

( b ) the prophecy states that before the child knows right from wrong these two kingdoms will have been destroyed. that is, that the child would experience the destruction of the davidic monarchy before coming of age. this is exactly what happened both in the case of the case of child born shortly after and in the case of christ. in fact all israel still experiences the destruction of the davidic monarchy to this day.

in light of the above, all your questions have been met and answered, and more importantly, i hope that therefore the discussion can move on. while i am engaged in my own thread i do tend to browse through here from time to time to see what point this debate has reached.

[Al-manar]

I read your post , but sorry to tell you nowhere my question was answered !!


When were the two kingdoms (Israel and Judah)were abandoned during the time ,after the birth of Jesus up till before he knew enough to reject the wrong and choose the right ?

[Grace Seeker]

such exposition would give use a lesson that whenever there is religious zeal ,there is such kind of faulty exegesis .....

Careful. There may be opportunity to point out that there is a goose and gander thing going on here.

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) Though I read the rest of your post , sorry to tell you nowhere my question was answered !!

( b ) When were the two kingdoms (Israel and Judah)were abandoned during the time ,after the birth of Jesus up till before he knew enough to reject the wrong and choose the right ?[/QUOTE]
( a ) now, now, al-manar,, simply stating the above without proof does not constitute an answer. i showed you that the concept of multiple fulfillment is present within scripture and in opposition you have done nothing to disprove this point except to say that i have not answered your question. you have not even touched my argument and in light of this fact, i will have to disagree with you. one can not just assert facts without any evidence.

( b ) where do you get abandoned from? we know from history that these kingdoms were brought to waste (i've even given the dates in my previous post) and that more importantly, that the davidic monarchy was brought to an end. i've answered the above in my previous post and once again you have done nothing to show how i could be incorrect. all you are doing reasserting your own opinion without even dealing with what i have brought up. that is not how a debate functions nor does it prove your point, in fact it hints at the opposite. so no, al-manar, my points still stand. please deal with the evidence before you make such sweeping claims.

[Al-manar]

don't worry about the other points in your post to be addressed later but now my focus.....

I have asked

When during the time from the Birth of Jesus till before he knew enough to reject the wrong and choose the right ?

we know from history that these kingdoms were brought to waste

and you provided incredible date to be applied to Jesus ...

i've even given the dates in my previous post 733-732 B.C.

from the passage in Isaiah we know that the two kingdoms are standing and powerful but before (Immanuel aka Jesus) knew enough to reject the wrong and choose the right ,they were layed waste.....

If they were already waste before the birth of Jesus then ..nothing been twice fulfilled ,as it is suggested.....

[Sol Invictus]

I have asked

When during the time from the Birth of Jesus till before he knew enough to reject the wrong and choose the right ?

and you provided incredible date

i'm glad that the reliability of this prophecy amazes al-manar--it's only to be expected given that these are the words of god. i gave you the date when these events occurred. the fact that they happened during those dates does not change the fact that their effects carried on until the time of christ and even to our present time. the northern kingdom was no more during his time and neither was the davidic monarchy, once again your questions have been met, and your points have been refuted.

[Sol Invictus]

i made a grammatical mistake which skews the intention of my post. the first sentence should read:

i'm glad that the reliability of this prophecy amazes you, al-manar--it's only to be expected given that these are the words of god. i gave you the date when these events occurred.

i do not want to come off as sarcastic and as such i thought it better to correct myself now instead of being wrongly perceived as trying to make fun of you al-manar.

[Al-manar]

i'm glad that the reliability of this prophecy amazes al-manar--it's only to be expected given that these are the words of god. i gave you the date when these events occurred. the fact that they happened during those dates does not change the fact that their effects carried on until the time of christ and even to our present time. the northern kingdom was no more during his time and neither was the davidic monarchy.

The fact that it is you who refuted yourself by yourself ..... the fact that there wasn't northern kingdom during the time of Jesus neither was the davidic monarchy ...

If the kingdoms were already waste before Jesus, then nothing the birth of Jesus would fulfill ... according to Isaiah,the destruction of the land comes AFTER not before the birth of the child , and no sense to apply the passage to Jesus .....

what amazes Almanar is not that up till the time of christ there weren't those 2 kingdoms ,but the claim of Matthew that the birth of Jesus
fullfilled a passage talking about a birth of child in the middle of a huge crisis with the threat of 2 contemporary standing kingdoms , the birth of the child is a sign of good news that before he reaches the age of knowin the good and evil those contemporary kingdoms will be laid waste .....

that is what really amazes Al-manar ...

[Al-manar]

Careful. There may be opportunity to point out that there is a goose and gander thing going on here.

Thank you for that expression (a goose and gander thing) ,It is new to me ........ may be it means ( hot argument)? if so I don't know how that could be related to the words you quoted?

I meant by the line you quoted ..that not only christians but also Jews ,few Muslims etc .. who would approach the text with dishonest ,exaggerated way....

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) The fact that it is you who refuted yourself by yourself ..... the fact that there wasn't northern kingdom during the time of Jesus neither was the davidic monarchy ...

( b ) If the kingdoms were already waste before Jesus, then nothing the birth of Jesus would fulfill ... according to Isaiah,the destruction of the land comes AFTER not before the birth of the child , and no sense to apply the passage to Jesus .....

( c ) what amazes Almanar is not that up till the time of christ there weren't those 2 kingdoms ,but the claim of Matthew that the birth of Jesus fullfilled a passage talking about a birth of child in the middle of a huge crisis with the threat of 2 contemporary standing kingdoms , ( d ) the birth of the child is a sign of good news that before he reaches the age of knowin the good and evil those contemporary kingdoms will be laid waste .....

that is what really amazes Al-manar ...

( a ) the prophecy says that before the child will have knowledge of right or wrong these kingdoms will be no more. this is true of the child born shortly thereafter and true of christ. neither the samarian kingdom nor the davidic monarchy existed when thse two individuals came of age (or could choose good instead of evil).

( b ) please read the text. according to isaiah the kingdoms are destroyed before the child knows right from wrong, this is true for both the child that is born shortly after the prophecy is announced and is also true of christ. you seem to misunderstand the prophecy. the sign is not that these two kingdoms will be destroyed, rather the sign is of the birth of the child who when he has come of age, will not live in a time when these kingdoms are still in place. once more this is true in the light of double-fulfillment. once again, the prophecy does not say that the kingdoms will be destroyed after he has been born but rather that they will be destroyed before he knows right from wrong, that is, before he has come of age.

( c ) please read the text, the child is not in the middle of this conflict. before the child comes of age the two kingdoms will be no more, and the child is to remind the people of israel that god is with them and that even in this tragedy he has not forsaken them. hence why the child is called emmanuel. that is the sign and that is what the prophecy is dealing with. in this regard, this is equally true of christ and the child who was born shortly after the prophecy.

( d ) huh, clearly you have not understood the passage. the destruction of those two kingdoms is not a good sign at all! this was a judgement on israel! the birth of the child is just to show that god has not given up on his people yet the destruction of the davidic monarchy is only one of the greatest tragedies to have ever occurred to israel. to call it good simply shows that you have not understood the passage at all. the passage is first and foremost a judgement on israel and as such no one would call it 'good'. the child is there to show that even though god has judged israel and subdued her, he has not forsaken her. clearly you are dealing with things that you possess no adequate knowledge to pontificate upon. i believe that this last point especially shows that you did not understand the prophecy at all and when taken in concert with all my replies is a perfectly clear refutation of all your points. once again al-manar, your questions have been answered and your arguments have been refuted.

now given that i have cleared up your misconceptions about double-fulfillment, perhaps you will now be able to carry on your diatribe against the judeo-christian scriptures and not be stuck on this point.

[Hiroshi]

The fact that it is you who refuted yourself by yourself ..... the fact that there wasn't northern kingdom during the time of Jesus neither was the davidic monarchy ...

The last king of David's line to rule was Zedekiah who was conquered by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews were taken into exile for a period of 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11). They returned in the year 537 BCE. So the beginning of the period of exile (and the removal of the last Davidic king) must have taken place in the year 607 BCE.

The kingship of David's line is represented in Daniel chapter 4 by a great tree that is chopped down. The root of the tree is then banded with iron and copper (to prevent further growth) until 7 "times" have passed (Daniel 4:16, 23). Now a comparison of Revelation 12:6 with Revelation 12:14 tells us that three and a half "times" is 1,260 days. So 7 "times" would be double that length of duration, that is, 2,520 days. And applying a rule of "a day for a year" (Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6) gives us 2,520 years.

The point of this is that the Davidic kingship would be restored by the rulership of Jesus 2,520 years (7 times) after the "tree" was chopped down (in 607 BCE). Counting forward 2,520 years after 607 BCE brings us to the year 1914 CE. This then would be when Jesus would begin ruling in God's kingdom. His first action following that would be the casting out of Satan and the demons from heaven (Revelation 12:9). This would result in "woe" for the earth with Satan causing great trouble and distress in his anger, knowing that his time is short (Revelation 12:12). We have seen evidence of this from 1914 onwards with world wars, pestilence (including the Spanish flu outbreak), earthquakes and massive famine and food shortage exactly as Jesus forewarned would be the signs of the nearness of the kingdom of God (Luke 21:10-11 31). Everything has happened right on time.

[Al-manar]

[QUOTE=Al-manar;1414639]Deuteronomy 28:15-46 is a passage of rebuke & warning, in Hebrew (tocheiHAH), the consequences of not obeying God's Torah, and it follows Deuteronomy 28:1-14 that contains the blessings that will be the reward for following God's Torah. There's another such pair, though less detailed, found in Leviticus 26:14:39 & 3:13, respectively.

To be sure, these promises and the warnings have been borne out by Jewish history. Yet, does this necessarily qualify as "multiple fulfillments" of prophecies? Clearly it does not in the ordinary prophetic sense. Otherwise, parents who lay down rules for the behavior of their children, along with the rewards and punishments for abiding and disobeying the rules, would be prophets; and when they repeatedly deliver on these rewards and punishments, their prophecies will have "multiple fulfillments".


again, even if Deut 28:15 a multiple prophecy ,won't make Isaiah 7:14 the same case .....

please read the text

.

It is me who ask you ,plz,read the text....

honest reader of the text won't ever say :

the child is not in the middle of this conflict..

The child IS in the middle of the conflict


here is the text :


Isaiah 7

The Sign of Immanuel


1 (Time? )When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it. 2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[a] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind. 3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub,[b] to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—(The crisis?) because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘It will not take place, it will not happen,8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.’” 10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.” 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to(The child in the middle of the conflict as a sign to the approach of the end of the trouble) a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.



The two kingdoms were standing still before the birth of Immanuel, and only lost power and laid waste between the time after his birth and the time he knew the right from wrong .....

[Hiroshi]

1- Dual fulfillment is a concept completely alien to scripture.
Double Fulfillment Double fulfillment means that a specific passage will be fulfilled on two or more occasions. This is not a correct ap-proach to biblical interpretation because prophecy can only be fulfilled once. If a certain prophecy could have multiple fulfillments then it wouldn't be specific.

The prophetic promise of a new heaven and a new earth (Isaiah 66:22) had its fulfillment when the Jews were restored to their homeland after the 70 years in exile. They had new responsible rulers and government (new heavens) and new obedient people (new earth) as subjects of that government.

But the prophecy has a major fulfillment yet to come according to 2 Peter 3:13.

Hence the prophecy has two fulfillments.


Another example is the downfall of Babylon by the Medes and Persians foretold in Isaiah 44:27-28 (the passage describes Cyrus the Persian king drying up the waters of the Euphrates river in order to invade the city through the river bed). This had its first fulfillment when Cyrus conquered Babylon and allowed the Jews to return from exile. But also Revelation 16:12 and Revelation 18:1-5 describe the downfall of a "city" called "Babylon the Great" in a most similar manner as a second fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.

[Sol Invictus]

as it relates to multiple fulfillment:

alright, let's try this again. you claim that as regards to the deuteronomy passages, they are not prophecies but rather blessings and curses. i do not disagree with the fact that they are indeed blessings and curses but it is completely incorrect to say that they are not also prophecies. to this point, you ought to read until the section where moses finishes his oration of the blessings and the curses. what does the text say then?

15 Then the LORD appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the tent. 16 And the LORD said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them. 17 And in that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and calamities will come on them, and in that day they will ask, ‘Have not these disasters come on us because our God is not with us?’ 18 And I will certainly hide my face in that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods. --- Deuteronomy 31:15-18

moses then follows this with:

24 After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, 25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD: 26 “Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. 27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the LORD while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die! 28 Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call the heavens and the earth to testify against them. 29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall on you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and arouse his anger by what your hands have made.” --- Deuteronomy 31:24-29

both moses and god are clear that the children of israel will forsake the lord and more than these curses spoken by moses being merely threats, they are actually prophecies of what will come to pass and what in fact did come to pass, multiple times in fact (in 721 BC, 586 BC, 70 AD, 135 AD). so once more, it is in fact the case that multiple fulfillment does find it's authority in scripture.

as it relates to the isaiah passage:

1 (Time? )When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it. 2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[a] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind. 3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub,[b] to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—(The crisis?) because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘It will not take place, it will not happen,8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.’” 10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.” 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to( ( a) The child in the middle of the conflict as a sign to the approach of the end of the trouble) a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

The two kingdoms were standing still before the birth of Immanuel, and only lost power and laid waste between the time after his birth and the time he knew the right from wrong .....

i fail to see the problem with this. if we go with your understanding, then before the child knew right from wrong these kingdoms were destroyed and before christ new right from wrong, these kingdoms were destroyed. it is akin to saying that before the child who was born on may 7th, 1945 would know right from wrong, the nazis will have surrendered and before the child who would be born on june 19, 1991 knows right from wrong the nazis would have surrendered. the statement that the nazis will have surrendered before either of these knows right from is still equally true for both of them.

( a ) once again you misunderstand the prophecy, the child is not a sign of the end of trouble. the child was to point towards the fact that even though calamity would soon befall israel, god was still with them. this is why the child is called "emmanuel meaning "god is with us". the child was meant to symbolize this fact and how much truer is this of christ who is the very god of israel himself? now, if you were to quote the entire prophecy you would in fact see that god was about to destroy the king who was to receive this prophecy. this very prophecy was one of disaster for israel and not of peace. but let's talk more about this prophecy:

verse 1-9 is god's reassurance to the king that only if (and only if!) he stands firm in his faith his kingdom will endure.
in verse 10 the king is addressed again but by this time he has tested god's patience (v.13) yet god tries to make him a deal saying that as a in order to strengthen his faith he can of god any manner of sign and god shall perform it but instead the king disobeys and refuses and therefore god himself gives him an unasked for sign---a sign of judgement on his own house, the house of david (v.17-25). so once again, you have shown an inability to understand the prophecy properly and all of your points have been answered and refuted.

[Al-manar]

your position continues to deteriorate apace. you try hopelessly to muddle the text of Isaiah !

you assumed that I got not your point and provided me with an analogy .....

it is akin to saying that before the child who was born on may 7th, 1945 would know right from wrong, the nazis will have surrendered and before the child who would be born on june 19, 1991 .

ok let us check such analogy , IF you seek a meaningful analogy,then the birth of the child in 1945 was a sign that before he would know right from wrong ,the nazis will have surrendered then the birth of the child was in the middle of the time between The Besiege of the nazis and their surrender ....

now If some future fan of prophecies fullfilment insisted that the same prophecy that been fulfilled once would be fulfilled another time ....

claimed that the birth of a child in 1991 ,is a fulfilment of the old prophecy been fulfilled once in 1945 ......I think the first thing to be checked is what the old prophecy says?

it is crystal clear that without the siege there would not has been a logic behind the birth of the child to be a sign of the approach of the surrender...

so such zealous ,whether he likes it or not ,he has to put into his consideration the context ,that the child in 1945 came after a nazi besiege that remained till before he knew to choose right from wrong ......

what was that nazi besiege in 1991,that necessitated the sign, to begin with ? the sign was not something automatic !! it was required by the situation .....


If there was not a nazi besiege (crisis) then (a sign )then a (surrender) ,we can fairly assume the man who applied the 1991 fulfillment to be talking pure nonsense.....

if the applicator ignores the context and fails to provide a similarirty of the old situation (a crisis preceded the birth then a surrender) ,then he played the whole game with (the birth) ,and that is true of the case of Matthew , the context where he quoted the passage (out of context) was the talk about Mary giving birth as a virgin without a man.....

If that is the whole issue ,then there is nothing in Isaiah not only suggests the virgin woman (assuming her to be certainly virgin the time of the prophecy) would give birth in a supernatural way , but also the linguestic argument as a whole proved to be completely irrelevant ..... as the context would dash in pieces any hope for a future application...


unless you confess such problem, you are entangled in a hopeless quest for a phantasy.
as your last 2 posts nothing but reseting your argument .... hence ,the Virgin birth so called prophecy discussion is over (at least on my part) ....

still one point to be addressed in next post...

[Sol Invictus]

alright, at least we're getting somewhere now. from the above we can tell that you acknowledge your claim of multiple fulfillment not finding its basis in scripture to have been completely wrong. furthermore, you seem to have now understood that the prophecy is not one of peace nor victory for israel, so yes, we have in fact made headway. your above paragraph is well and good except you confuse the historical context with the purpose for the prophecy. the purpose of the prophecy is to show that god is still with israel even though he would soon punish her hence why the child would be named emmanuel. the problem with your above analysis is to assume that the sign is that the nazis will surrender no, the sign would be that god is still with israel even though they would suffer a calamity. this birth of this child was to point towards this fact which would find its utlimate fulfillment in christ.

[Al-manar]

you ought to read until the section where moses finishes his oration of the blessings and the curses. what does the text say then?.

15 Then the LORD appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the tent. 16 And the LORD said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them. 17 And in that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and calamities will come on them, and in that day they will ask, ‘Have not these disasters come on us because our God is not with us?’ 18 And I will certainly hide my face in that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods. --- Deuteronomy 31:15-18

and there,unlike what you quoted before, we truly go to a prophecy

God predicted that the Jews will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. , violating the rules, and hence they had later the Assyrian exile, which took place 721 B.C

now they are at it again violating the convenant ,and hence receiving another prophecy of exile and return ..

Jeremiah 25:11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 “But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt,” declares the LORD, “and will make it desolate forever.


then again a new exile and the prophecy of Jesus “And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. But he answered and said unto them, ‘You see all of these things, do you not? Truly I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down’” (Matthew 24:1-2).

we don't have a multiple filfillment of the specific prophecy of Moses,but multiple specific prophecies in each exile , each time they violate the rules ....
.
and no sense at all to say that when God said in Deuteronomy 31:15 ( these people with Moses will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land) was refering for eg; to the first century Jews (who were monotheists,according to what the bible means by monotheism,yet sinful) before the destruction of the temple etc....

though they had something in common (violating the rules) ,each had their own specific prophecy ....

[Al-manar]

Dear visitors to the thread , I'm travelling to my country of origin soon .. and don't think during my time of stay there I will be online ... May God bless you all .... and looking forward to get back to our discussion InshaAllah....

peace for all

[Sol Invictus]

@al-manar: your argument rests on "soon" meaning the first instance. you forget that the bible teaches that a day is like a thousand years to god, and that a thousand years is like a day and so his conception of time is vastly different to ours. soon does not have to mean the first instance but rather all the instances. now while this argument is robust, i can still see you disagreeing and as such maybe it would be best for us to look at what moses says:

24 After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, 25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD: 26 “Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. 27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the LORD while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die! 28 Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call the heavens and the earth to testify against them. 29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall on you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and arouse his anger by what your hands have made.” --- Deuteronomy 31:24-29

notice that moses merely says that after he has died the jews will incur open the selves the curses which he had orated before israel. this happened more than once and as such, multiple fulfillment does find its authority in scripture. this is a prophecy that encompasses multiple instances and is not at all hurt by the fact that whenever god was about to exile the jews out of their land, he would once again send them a prophet to make this known to them (let us also not forget that he promised to bring them back eventually). so yet once again, your points have been met and refuted.

that said, have a good trip al-manar.

[Grace Seeker]

Dear visitors to the thread , I'm travelling to my country of origin soon .. and don't think during my time of stay there I will be online ... May God bless you all .... and looking forward to get back to our discussion InshaAllah....

peace for all

We will await your return and, inshallah, your future posting as able. Perhaps the best way to respect the hard work you have done in this thread is to not post in it till you get back and can pick it up again. So, I'll bid this thread a temporary adeiu until you return. Have a good trip.

[3rddec]

When Mohammed talks of the Torah and the Gospels does he consider them to be the word of God revealed or not.

[Al-manar]

Perhaps the best way to respect the hard work you have done in this thread is to not post in it till you get back and can pick it up again.

Thanks Gene, it was kind of you ...... and that would be my words too in any of your threads ,if you ever be busy and away for something urgent.....

May God keep the spirit of tolerance and Justice between all the peaceful muslims and christians....

Though the pause I had was not long as I thought to be , I missed all the dear members

the wise men, Woodrow ,Gene ,Eric ......

the wonderful descent members :glo ,Danah ,Insaanah ,aadil77,PouringRain,Airforce,Zafran,Rabi Mansur...

the wonderful open-minded bro : naidamar

the wonderful advanced readers :Yahya Sulaiman ,MustafaMc ,YusufNoor

the new member .sol invictus


sorry if I missed other members whom I consider dear...


I won't immediately resume the discussion for two reasons:

1- the change of weather gets me into the mood of relaxation ,and laziness ....so I prefer if I have any activity online to be the least intelectual effort .... I have the idea of PM'ing some dear members to get to know them better to strengthen the spirit of brotherhood ....

2- once a dear member ,gave me a wise note of how far the visitors of the thread would be benefited from the posts?
lots of times I get to academic arenas (at least the biblical) that surely seems difficult to the beginners to get.....

I know that few members would get all what I post but what about the rest?!
now the Question becomes harder the fact that I intended the last Item (The messiah) to be thoroughly beyond imagination !

that is the problem , I would like to find a solution for ,soon ,otherwise I would feel discouraged to continue the thread....
I would love to get any comments or suggestions regarding the note I just explained, by the dear readers ..

till then , I would greet some dear members by PM...


peace

[Al-manar]

peace


wish I have time to paticipate om the forum you refered to, just busy and from tomorrow and on wil be very busy changing the flat I live in ...

anyway that link will be a helpful introduction to the nonarab readers to the issue of textual preservation of the Quran (which is not intended to be part of this thread)......

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

and promise you of a PM with more helpful information and brotherly advices .....


peace

[Al-manar]

Peace for all

hope by now ,giving constant time to the board .............

I hope my next input would benefit the advanced readers and the beginners as well... my purpose of the thread is giving a humble effort ,revising ,updating the current muslim approach towards the bible and christianity ,understanding what others believe in and then giving the Islamic view on such believes .....
A suggestion for the new readers to the thread, plz read the previous posts in order to get the context , to get clear meaning of the next posts. ....

brief reminder

I tried to get the reader to know how significant understanding the item messiah to understand christianity with all of its problems...
we visited the term in the Quran in details supporting,elaborating every Quranic line with the scholary works ,also visiting the Jewish religious,historical context before and during the ministry of Jesus and how the terrible conflicting situation therin enhanced the hope for the paradise on Earth and the super hero who would turn the world into one religion ,bringing the ultimate neverending Joy and peace to the Jews and the rest of the world ,putting an end to illness,hunger suffering etc......we then passed by The Jewish reaction to the message of Jesus which was varied ,there were three attitudes ,those Jews who rejected his message, ascribed falsely to him illegitimate birth,Magic,Shameful death ,those who believed in his message as a prophet and reformer ,those who imposed on him a role he wasn't supposed to do , ..... then we passed by the term true and false christians according to the Quran ,then we visted the term (true Injeel).......
passing by the term (origin of christianity) which is strongly related with the term (Messiah) ,showing that the messianic hopes are the cornerstone of the work of the writers of the new testament...we first defined the term messiah as understood by the Jews before and during the 1st century.. and how the writers of the new testament redefined the term leading to the problem of (FROM MESSIANOLOGY TO CHRISTOLOGY).....


The way the writers of the New Testament redefined the concept of the messiah is the biggest sin they commited ,they distorted a huge number of Old testament passages claiming them as prophecies of Jesus while they weren't,proving themselves propagators of falsehoods .
we began putting such passages under scrutiny ,beginning with the passage of Isaiah 7 which been quoted by the writer(s) of Matthew , we provided enough clues that the linguestic issue of the passage (whether the word means virgin or young women not neccesarily virgin) is not the right way to understand the problem of the passage .....
then I showed the contextual problem of the passage and how it is concerned with a past historical situation , the christian reaction to my argument was to argue for a so called (double fulfillment) theory .......while I said and will always say, multiple fulfillment is nothing but arbitary theory .


Fulfillment or Typology ?

If a writer said nothing in the context of his original prophecy denotes it to be fulfilled more than once ,we are not going to multiple fulfilment but to the work of typology ....... there's a big difference between an event fulfilling a specific historical prediction and an event occurring in accordance with or with similarities to a figure or type.

as C. Briggs rightly said:
a "typical correspondence" is not a direct prediction, for if it can have a "multiple fulfillment" then it was never really a prediction as Matthew obviously regarded it. Messianic Prophecy (New York: Sons, 1892), p. 197.

let's get clearly the difference by reading the following fulfilled Quranic prophecy:

the holy Quran 30:1-4 The Roman Empire has been defeated In the nearer land (or lowest land), and they, after their defeat will be victorious.

we have a specific historical prediction that been fulfilled in exactly the manner stated,The Romans soon Within a few years be victorious .
what if after the time of the fulfilment stated ,the Roman again been defeated and then in few years victorious?
IS that a double fulfilment ,or just a history repeated itself? it is certainly the second unless one provides a textual support from the orignial prophecy that its producer intended it to be a double sense.

If an event occurred in accordance with or with similarities to a past figure or type ,doesn't mean , that it is a fulfilment of a prediction but a simple cheap work of typology ,one can play with whatever text he may like ......

one can provide hundreds of cases of present events that similar in some manners to old ones .... but does that prove them to be predicted?! absolutely not.... only those with species of mental and religious delusion would think so.


some christian scholars criticised such random theory:

"If one read only the New Testament it would be safe to say that he would never suspect the possibility of dual-fulfillment because the New Testament indicates that the predictions refer directly to Christ.
"one of the most persistent hermeneuticalsins" is attempting to place two interpretations on one passage of Scripture, thereby breaking the force of the literal meaning and obscuring the picture intended.
if prophecies have many meanings, then "hermeneutics would be indeterinate."
Barton Payne of Wheaton College and Bernard Ramm of California Baptist Theological Seminary.


"For these and such-like reasons, the scheme of attaching a double sense to the Scriptures is inadmissible. It sets afloat all the fundamental principles of interpretation by which we arrive at established conviction and certainty and casts us on the boundless ocean of imagination and conjecture without rudder or compass." (Moses Stuart on the Hebrews, Excurs. xx.)


now back to the so called virgin birth prophecy:


Either the writer of Mathew upheld the direct messianic applecation of Isaiah as the Christian church used to :

the Christian church had, from the time of the Church Fathers, upheld the direct messianic explanation of Isaiah 7:14. it was not until the mid-eighteenth century that writers began to turn from this view.Hengstenberg, A Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on Messianic Predictions, Vol. III (Grand Rapids: Kregal, 1956; reprint of 1829 ed.), p. 48.


or he practiced Typology,he believed that the birth of Jesus has similarity with the other child Emmanule of the past ,



if so it was typology at its worst we first ask what similarity the events of Isaiah 7 and the events in Matthew 1


1- is it the act of a virgin birth?


if so then no similarity there at all ,just who was the virgin of that generation who gave birth to a son? That is a legitimate question, because if Isaiah meant virgin in the strictest sense with reference to a woman who would give birth 700 years later, then he had to mean virgin in the strictest sense for the woman of his time who would bear a son. ? typology (similarity )here needs a type, pattern (a virgin of the old times) and antitype (Mary) if so the type is missed right here.


2- Is it the physical situation surrounding Israel or Jesus?


there is hardly any similarity between the physical situation in the past and the present as, unlike the child Immanuel there was no besiege or any kind of military danger to the house of David immediately before the birth of Jesus etc....


3- Is it a so called spiritual prophecy?


or in other words according to the christian argument in the thread, is to show that God is still with israel even though he would soon punish her ,and this very prophecy was one of disaster for israel and not of peace ......


I have a better description to such prophecy than a spiritual one :

It was just one example of biblical failed prophecies

PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED by Farrel till
CONTEMPORARY FAILURE
On the subject of strange things, what could be stranger than this? Isaiah made the prophecy to assure King Ahaz that the Syrian-Israelite alliance would not prevail against him, yet the Bible record shows that the alliance not only succeeded but did so overwhelmingly. Second Chronicles 28 reports that Ahaz's idolatrous practices caused "Yahweh his God" to deliver him "into the hand of the king of Syria" (v:5). (This king was the Rezin of Isaiah 7:1.) The Syrians "carried away of his a great multitude of captives" and took them to Damascus (v:5). Simultaneously, the Israelites attacked Judah under the leadership of Pekah (the same Pekah of Isaiah 7:1), and in one day 120,000 "valiant men" in Judah were killed and 200,000 "women, sons, and daughters" were "carried away captive" (vv:6-8). The battle casualties included Maaseiah, Ahaz's son; Azrikam, the governor of the house; and Elkanah, who was "next to the king" (v:7). If these results were Isaiah's idea of Syrian and Samarian failure, one wonders what kind of drubbing the alliance would have inflicted had Isaiah prophesied its success.

Furthermore, Isaiah's assurance that Assyria would be Yahweh's instrument in defeating the alliance (Isaiah 8:4-8) failed to materialize too. When the Edomites (Samarians) struck Judah a second time and "carried away captives," Ahaz sent "to the kings of Assyria to help him" (2 Chron. 28:16-17). In response, Tilgath-Pilneser, king of Assyria, "came to him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not" (v:20). As a prophet, then, Isaiah seems to have struck out all the way around. In fairness to him, however, it should be noted that Assyria's role in the conflict was reported with different results in 2 Kings 16, where Ahaz also fared a little better than reported in 2 Chronicles 28. Nevertheless, these discrepancies in the two accounts are more of an embarrassment to bibliolaters than a benefit, because such variations in the Bible record place on inerrancy believers the added burden of trying to explain why "inspired writers" would give contradictory reports of the same events.

There is yet a final absurdity to notice in this wonderful Messianic prophecy. With the Syrian-Israelite alliance posing a threat to Judah, Isaiah was sent to Ahaz to prophesy that the alliance would fail. After doing so, he said in his very next breath that Yahweh would bring the king of Assyria against Judah and that he would desolate the land (7:17-25). Imagine, if you can, the absolute absurdity of this. The prophet came, in effect, to say, "Don't worry; Syria and Samaria will not defeat you. Assyria will." What kind of consolation was that supposed to be? It was as if in our day the people of our country, fearing an attack from Russia, should be told by a prophet, "Fear not; Russia will not defeat you. China will." Yet, despite this flaw and the many others noted, millions of people consider this "prophecy" a remarkable example of divine foresight. In reality, the only remarkable thing about it is that so many intelligent people could have been duped into believing that it was remarkable.

.............................................

let's for the sake of argument consider it to be spiritual prophecy, and believe in it as a prophecy of disaster for israel and not of peace ......If that is true then ,that is certainly not a messianic prophecy ,the promised king messiah is not the one coming to show Israeli that God with them spiritually and then say goodbye without putting the words (God is with us) into actions, neither the one that after his coming would be a disaster for israel but exactly the opposite...


to be continued

[Grace Seeker]

Al-manar, you know that I have privately been one of your biggest supporters in terms of continuing this thread. I haven't always agreed with your conclusions, but I have appreciated your methodology. And really, for people of different faiths, if one can respect the process and the people, then that is all that it is reasonable to expect. We are not going to get perfect agreement, or we wouldn't be of differing faiths.



That said, I want to make special note of one of our points of disagreement:

The way the writers of the New Testament redefined the concept of the messiah is the biggest sin they commited ,

It is true that the NT writers redefined the concept of the messaiah. However, I hardly consider it a problem, let alone a sin. The definition used by the NT writers parrallels the common usage in the first centuries BC and AD. The term had come to be identified with not just any anointed figure, but with a special figure who would be God's agent of change in the world inaugurating God's kingdom on earth. Jesus himself then reinterpreted the understanding of that kingdom's arrival as something that was already present in and through his own ministry, and yet not to be fully culminated until his own future return bringing about an end of the age. So, it wasn't the NT writers who invented this re-defined understanding of the Messiah, but Jesus himself.

[Al-manar]

Al-manar, you know that I have privately been one of your biggest supporters in terms of continuing this thread.

I have been and will always be a supporter of the wise non-muslims who would give the impression that they indeed taking the input of others who disagree with seriously , and when they post, they consider not the amount but the quality....

We are not going to get perfect agreement, or we wouldn't be of differing faiths.

If we are going to perfect agreement we not only wouldn't be of differing faiths but no longer human beings , The occurrence of the difference between human beings is something like the the sunrise from the East , and that is one of the fruits of the free will ......

It is true that the NT writers redefined the concept of the messaiah. However, I hardly consider it a problem, let alone a sin. The definition used by the NT writers parrallels the common usage in the first centuries BC and AD. The term had come to be identified with not just any anointed figure, but with a special figure who would be God's agent of change in the world inaugurating God's kingdom on earth.
.

If the definition used by the NT writers to the nature and role of the messiah parrallels the common usage in the first centuries BC and AD to the term ,then there has never been, not only a Jewish rejection to such definition but also the continuous rejection by other non-christians (including me)who disagree completely with the christian modification to the term...

Jesus himself then reinterpreted the understanding of that kingdom's arrival as something that was already present in and through his own ministry, and yet not to be fully culminated until his own future return bringing about an end of the age.

I disagree with that reinterpretation ,it is simply ,not supported textually...

I'm not a Jew ,but honest ,objective reading to the old testament led me to disagree with such argument and agree with the Jews who refuse the New testament argument that Jesus is the very king messiah,son of David that was promised ....

it wasn't the NT writers who invented this re-defined understanding of the Messiah, but Jesus himself.

I understand your attitude as a christian towards the writings of the New testament ,and I say I both agree and disagree...

1- If we take it with absolute certainity that the writers of the gospels reflect the true words uttered by Jesus,without adding their personal reflections ,then I agree that the redefinition of the Messiah began with him (Jesus)..

eg;in Luke 24:46 He(Jesus) said to them, "This is how it is written: the Messiah was to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.

there the writer(s) of Luke said that Jesus said that he is the messiah and that IT IS WRITTEN that he was to suffer and RISE FROM THE DEAD on THE THIRD DAY.

trusting the new testament as wholly inspired puts not only its writers in trouble but Jesus as well.....
I don't believe that it was writtern in the old testament that the Messiah was to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day(I visited that point before ,and will be vistied soon again)...


what saved Jesus (pbuh) from the accusation of deception (a man who distorted the old testament claiming falsely to be the messiah)?

it is the Quran , unless I'm a muslim and believe in the Quran as the word of God..... I wouldn't ever exclude Jesus from those group of writers who used such exegesis to conclude that Jesus is the king messiah that was promised in the old testament......

with all courage and honesty ,if one day I find ultimate proof that it was Jesus who uttered such previous claims about the messiah , I would immediately leave Islam becoming an atheist !, as who would care for a religion praises a propagator of falsehoods ranking him ,as one of the greatest messengers , ever sent by God ?!
...

so I agree with you,if the gospels are the inerrant inspired word of God, or even a work that honestly and accurately reflecting the true words of Jesus ,without adding their personal exegesis ,then I agree that it was him who pioneered them with such exegetical work and then they added more to his theory ....

[Grace Seeker]

I don't believe that it was writtern in the old testament that the Messiah was to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day(I visited that point before ,and will be vistied soon again)...

Even Josephus and the members of the Qumran community give evidence that there did exist within Israel at the time of the millenium this understanding of some coming Messiah who as a representative of Israel would suffer for her. I don't mean to imply they had in mind something like a crucifixion as atonement theology, that is decidely Christian. But they and many others did see this idea of a suffering servant in Isaiah and of the messianic "Son of Man" in Daniel. That was Jewish thinking that would be incorporated by Christianity, not invented by it.

[Al-manar]

Even Josephus and the members of the Qumran community give evidence that there did exist within Israel at the time of the millenium this understanding of some coming Messiah who as a representative of Israel would suffer for her. .

before I provide my opinion ,would you plz elaborate that,would you quote both the scrolls and Josephus ?

where is in the scrolls ,some coming Messiah who as a representative of Israel would suffer for her?
the same question as to Josephus...

hope (if you have time) to share me with your thoughts ......
.............................................


Origin of Christianity

(from the Messiah to the Christ,the problem ?)

After misquoting Isaiah 7 ,the zealous writer of Matthew would visit another similar passage to Isaiah 7


Matthew 2 1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: 6 ‘ But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”

Matthew quotes an old testament passage Micah 5:2:

the context of the passage:

Micah 4:11 But now many nations are gathered against you.They say, “Let her be defiled, let our eyes gloat over Zion!”12 But they do not know the thoughts of the LORD;they do not understand his plan, that he has gathered them like sheaves to the threshing floor.13 “Rise and thresh, Daughter Zion, for I will give you horns of iron;I will give you hooves of bronze, and you will break to pieces many nations.”You will devote their ill-gotten gains to the LORD, their wealth to the Lord of all the earth. 1 Marshal your troops now, city of troops, for a siege is laid against us.They will strike Israel’s ruler on the cheek with a rod. 2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,whose origins are from of old,from ancient times.” 3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor bears a son,and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. 4 He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth. 5 And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land and march through our fortresses.We will raise against them seven shepherds, even eight commanders,6 who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.He will deliver us from the Assyrians when they invade our land and march across our borders.


First: In the context of the passage in which Micah made this statement, he was speaking of "many nations [that] have gathered against you [Israel]" (4:11). In particular, there seemed to be concern about "the Assyrian com[ing] into our land" (5:5), so it makes good sense to assume that Micah, rather than predicting the coming in the distant future, was talking about a "ruler" who would arise to help Israel during the present threat to its national security,someone arising to lead Israel through its present crisis.

Second: Even if we assume that Micah did intend this to be a prophecy of a distant future ,the fact that the predicted figure will not be one ordinary Bethlehemian but must be a "ruler in Israel" who would protect Israel from military threats,according to the text.... something Jesus never fulfilled....


till next post

[Al-manar]

3- The christian response to that is to argue for a second coming fulfillment:
eg;

This will occur at the Second Coming and in the Millennium.This same Ruler will destroy Israel's military armament and fortifications so they are not dependent on them and also cut off all false worship (5: I0-14). He will also rule the nations and pour out His vengeance on them as He rules with an iron scepter This will occur during the millennial

Dictionary of Premillennial Theology
By Mal Couch


before we show the trouble with such argument ,let's read the next point...

4- you remember the linguestic argument of Almah vs Bethula in the previous passage of Isaiah 7? here again another similar linguestic argument ?

some christians (not all) would use linguestic argument from the passage to support the concept of Messiah'e pre-existence ,deity .....

It is verse 5:2-3

most translations translated it correctly
eg:


(New International version)
out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,whose origins are from of old,from ancient times.

Common English Bible
His origin is from remote times, from ancient days.


(Contemporary English Version)
But the LORD will choose one of your people to rule the nation--someone whose family
goes back to ancient times


(English Standard Version)
from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.


(GOD’S WORD Translation)
from you Israel’s future ruler will come for me. His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago.


(Good News Translation)
out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times.


(The Message)
From you will come the leader who will shepherd-rule Israel.He'll be no upstart, no pretender. His family tree is ancient and distinguished.



(New Century Version)
will come one who will rule Israel for me.He comes from very old times,from days long ago."


(Young's Literal Translation)
And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth -- to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth [are] of old, From the days of antiquity.



some translations would translate (ancient times,days of old) as everlasting

eg;

whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. KJV

whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. ASV


those biased translations try to suppose the origin of the messiah as from everlasting


The Hebrew phrase יְמֵי עוֹלָם (yeMEI oLAM), ancient days, is used at Micah 5:1 with the preposition מִ (mi-), from, as מִימֵי עוֹלָם . All six instances of the expression יְמֵי עוֹלָם in the Hebrew Bible, including its combinations with prepositions:
eg: the same phrase (yeMEI oLAM), is used in Isaiah 63:9,11 ...Amos 9:11;Micah 7:14;Malachi 3:4 Micah 5:1[2]

Professor Uri Yosef (Ph.D. and M.B.A.) notes:

The KJV correctly translates this expression in five out of the six cases as “days
of old”, which is synonymous with “ancient days”, but at Micah 5:2 the KJV
renders it as “from everlasting”.
What could have motivated the KJV translators to change the translation at
Micah 5:2, which speaks of the Messiah? A likely answer is that, by substituting
“from everlasting” for “from ancient days”, the KJV translators attempted to bring this
"Old Testament" prophecy into “harmony” with the accounts in the New
Testament and with Christian theology. Could this be another example of "pious
fraud" committed by some Christian authors?


5- Just as the( Almah,bethula controversy) , the( days of old ,everlasting) controversy is not useful as well !

As even if we accept the (everlasting) rendering, even if we understand Micah description of the messiah as divine,pre-existent remains the problem :
If we accept the idea of Micah's reference to a divinity of the messiah,we then have three elements:

A- the messiah will be born through the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah..

B- the messiah will protect Israel from military threats and rules as a king.

C- he is of divine origin.

we have 2 physical aspect and 1 metaphysical ...

If the second one is not fulfilled yet ,then we are left with the first and the third ...
we have hundreds of thousands who were born through Bethlehem Ephrathah ,so nothing exclusive here for Jesus (assuming his birth was so,which is against what the quran says regarding his birth place,details later)......

what would be proper to be called exclusive, is the second element ,which is absent yet...

which will lead us to the conclusion:

believe in Jesus as the messiah king cause he was born in Bethlehem ...
believe in Jesus as God cause he was born in Bethlehem ......

and that leads us back to the Question :How could you buy a Metaphysical concept if not supported by the physical ...

how could you buy the God Jesus ,before you buy the Messiah Jesus ...


If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified(whether Jesus was the promised king messiah or not), then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested (the claim of divinity).

such passage (and all the messianic passages alike) needs unconditional faith to be accepted ...

[Grace Seeker]

such passage (and all the messianic passages alike) needs unconditional faith to be accepted ...

I totally agree that there is an element of faith first in apply these passages to Jesus and second in seeing them as substantiating any other claims with regard to Jesus.

On the other hand, if one sees that Jesus could be seen as the fulfillment of not just one, but multiple messianic prophecies, then the likelihood that he is THE Messiah become much more likely.

However, I don't know why you think that any of this speaks to Jesus' divinity one way or the other. Orthodox Christian belief would hold that Jesus is divine completely appart from and in addition to his identity as the Messiah.

[Al-manar]

On the other hand, if one sees that Jesus could be seen as the fulfillment of not just one, but multiple messianic prophecies, then the likelihood that he is THE Messiah become much more likely.

Allow me to disagree.....

fulfillment requires a prediction ,isn't it?

what if someone claims fulfillments of some passages that weren't intended by its writer to be predictions?

with the exception of the two passages of Isaiah 7 (which isn't messianic) and Micah 5 , the rest of the New testament quotes of the old testament are NOT messianic predictions in any sense ..

Farrell till said it rightly :

Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.

eg; Jeremiah (31:15) ,Hosea 11:1,Isaiah 40:3,Psalms 41:9,Zechariah 11:12-13,. Psalms 22:16 etc.....

all those passages weren't intended to be predictions at all .....
so before we talk about a fulfillment we need to ask where is the prophecy, to begin with?

However, I don't know why you think that any of this speaks to Jesus' divinity one way or the other. .

I don't think that any of this speaks to Jesus' divinity nor his humanity and message .....
let's at least agree that such passage speaks not to Jesus' (divinity ).....

do you think there are other Old testament passages speaks of the promised messiah as divine?

peace

[Grace Seeker]

do you think there are other Old testament passages speaks of the promised messiah as divine?

peace

Like you have ably said already, the NT reads things back into the OT that the OT writers themselves probably were not thinking of. Remember, I stipulated that at the very beginning of this discussion. Now we are going to have to agree to disagree as to whether that is appropriate.

(As an aside, it is interesting that I'm arguing for this process with regard to what Christians call Messianic prophecies and you against, while Christians and Muslims then reverse those same positions when it comes to whether or not Muhammad pbuh is to be found prophesied in the Bible.)

But with the advantage of hindsight, I do think that there are some passages that speak to a divine nature for the Messiah. An idea that would not be formed and take root until after Jesus' resurrection.

[Al-manar]

As an aside, it is interesting that I'm arguing for this process with regard to what Christians call Messianic prophecies and you against, while Christians and Muslims then reverse those same positions when it comes to whether or not Muhammad pbuh is to be found prophesied in the Bible..

I find a difference between whether or not Muhammad pbuh is to be found prophesied in the Bible and what Christians call Messianic prophecies

1- what New testament writers call Messianic prophecies are mostly quoted directly and included in the new testament which considered by Christians to be fully the word of God ,while the exegesis of the passages that quoted by Muslims are neither considered divine nor above questioning....

2- unlike the new testament The Quran never claims of several prophecies of Mohamed pbuh, but it merely says he is mentioned there ,if we check the torah as defined by the Qur'an and the injeel as defined by the Qur'an we will find only 1 reference in each ..


3- The Quranic only one reference to a prophecy in the bible ,and its repeated word of challenge to humanity to produce one like it ,its repeated urge for reflection to find out the clues for its divine source shows that the question of validity comes through its internal content rather than the issue of prophecies...

4- when it comes to what Christians call Messianic prophecies ,our objection is not whether Jesus fulfilled them or not but if they were prophecies, to begin with?

for example we can have a mutual discussion about the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18 ,which refers to a future prophet like Moses ...I will argue that Mohamed pbuh fits ,and you may not agree ....
but what is sure that we would agree that it is A REAL PROPHECY ....

on the other hand if you gonna bring me references from old testament passages eg; Jeremiah (31:15) ,Hosea 11:1,Isaiah 40:3,Psalms 41:9,Zechariah 11:12-13,. Psalms 22:16 etc.....

that you think them to support the Messianic arguments in favor for Jesus...

I won't tell you Jesus doesn't fit ,but NO PROPHECY is there at all neither for Jesus nor anyone else...

and that is the most serious problem with what Christians call Messianic prophecies .....

[Al-manar]

Jesus ,his birth place ,according to the Qur'an ,and lessons from that?

Mary was brought up in Jerusalem ,was placed under the care of the prophet Zechariah, who used to live in Jerusalem ,She conceived and moved to a shelter on a lofty ground having meadows and springs, a place far away from Jerusalem to be away from her people in such embarrassing situation and gave birth to the child in the wilderness far away from Jerusalem ....

What does that mean?


1- Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem but in the wildrness far away from Jerusalem..

2- Joseph is simply a fictional character been inserted in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Which necessarily requires the following to be inventions as well:

3- the story of Mary and Joseph travel from Nazareth to Joseph's ancestral home in Bethlehem to register in the census of Quirinius and then Mary gives birth to Jesus there .

4- Herod's intent to kill Jesus , An angel tells Joseph to flee with his family to Egypt. Meanwhile, Herod orders that all male children of Bethlehem under the age of two be killed, in the so-called "Massacre of the Innocents" and the return of Jesus from Egypt .

such Quranic attitude agress with the New testament critics who believe that the origin of most of those narratives based on all manner of creative activity by using Old Testament prophecy .


Joseph?

Some interesting work has been done on Matthew's use of Scripture as the background to his infancy narrative. First, we may ask: is the shadowy figure of Joseph in the birth stories so named because this accords with history or for the sake of an Old Testament model (Genesis 37-50)? The name of the New Testament Joseph has often been seen as chosen for the guardian of the holy family after the model of the patriarchal joseph, who also went down to Egypt and looked after the members of his family. It is also relevant that Joseph of the New Testament was, like the Joseph of the Old Testament, a man of dreams." Andries van Aarde applies the figure of Joseph tather differently. ln a preliminary article in 2000, followed by a book in 2001, he suggests that the Joseph of the infancy stories is no more than an ethical paradigm: “To me it seems joseph was a legend.New Perspectives on the Nativity By Jeremy Corley


The birth in Bethlehem ?

That Jesus was son of David is a principal message of Matthew's first chapter, with its great drum-roll of Israelite history and its story of the divinely inspired adoption of Jesus into the House of David. In this case theology will have shaped quasi-history, or (to put the matter more clearly) the theological truth that jesns was the fulfillment of the promises to David and his lineage was expressed by the placing of_]esus' birth at Bethlehem. Each of the two evangelists will have used this location and decorated it in his own way, expressing in a picturesque narrative form some aspects of the theological truth about jesus that seemed to him important. New Perspectives on the Nativity
By Jeremy Corley


- “Bethlehem was not Jesus’ birthplace but was imported from Hebrew prophecies about the future Messiah; the Star had similar origins (Numbers 24:17). Matthew’s story is a construction from well-known messianic prophecies (Bethlehem; the Star), and the Wise Men (Magi) have been added as another legend.” “Where the truth had been lost, stories filled the gap, and the desire to know fabricated its own tradition."

-“After (the crucifixion )and the belief in the resurrection, people wondered all the more deeply about Jesus’ birthplace. Bethlehem, home of King David, was a natural choice for the new messiah. There was even a prophecy in support of the claim which the ‘little town’ has maintained so profitably to this day.” So, “a higher truth was served by an impossible fiction.” [The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible(Knopf, 1992), p. 31-32].

“Luke’s real source for the view that Jesus was born in Bethlehem was almost certainly the conviction that Jesus fulfilled a hope that someday a descendant of David would arise to save Israel,” because the Messiah was supposed to come from there (Micah 5:2). [E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (p. 87.)].
...

To note, the Quranic attitude is not that radical supposing that ALL the birth narratives to be fabricated ..... eg; according to the Quran, Zachariah is a real person ,besides John the baptist ,besides the issue of the virgin birth ....

that agrees with some new testament critics who suggest that some of the narratives perhaps go back to a historical core while supposing also that the rest of the narratives were invented by either Matt or Luke, or both.

To conclude :

If we ask Did the writers of the New testament make up fictional details about the birth of Jesus (and the rest of his mission) to make it appear that he had fulfilled passages that they thought to be prophecies or they tried all the way to find references in the old testament to the traditions they received regarding the life of Jesus ?


The answer from a Quranic point of view ,and lots of new testament critics ,is that they did BOTH ......

[Hiroshi]

Jesus ,his birth place ,according to the Qur'an ,and lessons from that?

Mary was brought up in Jerusalem ,was placed under the care of the prophet Zechariah, who used to live in Jerusalem ,She conceived and moved to a shelter on a lofty ground having meadows and springs, a place far away from Jerusalem to be away from her people in such embarrassing situation and gave birth to the child in the wilderness far away from Jerusalem ....

What does that mean?


1- Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem but in the wildrness far away from Jerusalem..

2- Joseph is simply a fictional character been inserted in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Which necessarily requires the following to be inventions as well:

3- the story of Mary and Joseph travel from Nazareth to Joseph's ancestral home in Bethlehem to register in the census of Quirinius and then Mary gives birth to Jesus there .

4- Herod's intent to kill Jesus , An angel tells Joseph to flee with his family to Egypt. Meanwhile, Herod orders that all male children of Bethlehem under the age of two be killed, in the so-called "Massacre of the Innocents" and the return of Jesus from Egypt .

Joseph fathered at least six children by Mary (Matthew 13:55-56), two of whom (James and Judas) wrote books in the Bible. But I am sure that Muslims would be happy to think that Joseph, his many chldren and indeed the Bible itself are all figments of the imagination.

[Al-manar]

welcome back to the thread Hiroshi ,

Joseph fathered at least six children by Mary (Matthew 13:55-56).

you have just gone to one of the most controversial issues within the Christendom ...
Christians of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox traditions, as well as most Anglicans and some followers of Lutheranism, reject the idea that Jesus had blood siblings, as their churches hold the doctrine of the Virgin Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

whether Mary married after the birth of Jesus or had other children ,wasn't my point....

the point is that the stories of that Joseph accompanied her to Bethlehem etc,,, are against what the Quran teaches...

two of whom (James and Judas) wrote books in the Bible

blood brothers to Jesus wrote books in the bible ?
I don't think so neither the huge number of Christians I already mentioned .
eg;Epistle of James
The Protestant reformer Martin Luther denied it was the work of an apostle and termed it an "epistle of straw"
Many scholars consider the epistle to be written in the late 1st or early 2nd centuries, after the death of James the Just

the authorship not only of James but the gospels as well, had been and still a matter of big controversies ...

I am sure that Muslims would be happy to think that Joseph, his many chldren and indeed the Bible itself are all figments of the imagination.

A muslim thinking that ALL the Bible , figments of the imagination ,will no longer be a Muslim .

peace

[Hiroshi]

welcome back to the thread Hiroshi ,

Thank you Al-manar.

A muslim thinking that ALL the Bible , figments of the imagination ,will no longer be a Muslim .

Perhaps I should have said "New Testament" rather than "Bible" then. If you question the authorship of the gospels and the authenticity of their contents such as the accounts that mention Joseph, and if you reject all the writings of Paul, James and Jude then there isn't much left of it.

[Hiroshi]

the point is that the stories of that Joseph accompanied her to Bethlehem etc,,, are against what the Quran teaches...

You stated that this means that Joseph was merely a fictional character. It is ironic then that Joseph is one of the few people ever to walk this earth whose ancestry we can trace all the way back to David, Abraham and even to Adam. If the genealogies of Matthew and Luke were invented and not in agreement with public records then enemies of Christianity would have immediately seized the opportunity to discredit Jesus' claim to be the Messiah once and for all.

[Hiroshi]

blood brothers to Jesus wrote books in the bible ?
I don't think so neither the huge number of Christians I already mentioned .
eg;Epistle of James
The Protestant reformer Martin Luther denied it was the work of an apostle and termed it an "epistle of straw"
Many scholars consider the epistle to be written in the late 1st or early 2nd centuries, after the death of James the Just

the authorship not only of James but the gospels as well, had been and still a matter of strong controversies ...

The letter of James is contained in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, as well as the Sinaitic and the Alexandrine Manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. The Syriac Pe****ta includes it, and it is found in at least ten ancient catalogs before the Council of Carthage in 397 C.E. Early religious writers quoted from it, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and others recognizing the letter as authentic scripture.

[Hiroshi]

you have just gone to one of the most controversial issues within the Christendom ...
Christians of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox traditions, as well as most Anglicans and some followers of Lutheranism, reject the idea that Jesus had blood siblings, as their churches hold the doctrine of the Virgin Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

The Bible just says that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary "until she gave birth to a son; and he came to be called Jesus" (Matthew 1:25). We do not read anywhere that Mary remained a virgin perpetually. Do Muslims believe that she was (Surah 66:12)?

The Awake magazine (published by Jehovah's Witnesses) of 8 November 1985 pages 7-9 had this to say about the origin of this doctrine:

Origins of the Belief

“In several ancient religions,” observes Jesuit priest Ignace de la Potterie, “virginity had a sacral value. Certain goddesses (Anath, Artemis, Athena) were called virgins.” Yet, what does that have to do with Mary? Catholic priest Andrew Greeley explains: “The Mary symbol links Christianity directly to the ancient religions of mother goddesses.”

Professor of church history Ernst W. Benz comments on this link with ancient pagan religions. “Veneration of the mother of God,” he wrote in The New Encyclopædia Britannica, “received its impetus when the Christian Church became the imperial church under Constantine and the pagan masses streamed into the church. . . . [The peoples’] piety and religious consciousness had been formed for millennia through the cult of the ‘great mother’ goddess and the ‘divine virgin,’ a development that led all the way from the old popular religions of Babylonia and Assyria . . . Despite the unfavourable presuppositions in the tradition of the Gospels, cultic veneration of the divine virgin and mother found within the Christian Church a new possibility of expression in the worship of Mary.”

But what moved the Roman Church to adapt and adopt the “great mother” goddess and “divine virgin” cult? For one thing, the “pagan masses” coming into the church wanted it; they felt at home in a church that venerated a ‘great virgin mother.’ “In Egypt,” Professor Benz notes, “Mary was, at an early point, already worshipped under the title of the bearer of God (Theotokos).” So the “divine virgin” cult was adopted to accommodate the “pagan masses” that were streaming into the church.

Impetus to the veneration of Mary was provided at the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. How so? Well, the Trinity doctrine was there made an official Catholic teaching, the Nicene Creed declaring Jesus to be God. This supposedly made Mary the “bearer of God,” or “mother of God.” And as Professor Benz said: “The Council of Ephesus (431) raised this designation to a dogmatic standard.” The next step was to make Mary a “perpetual virgin.” This occurred when the title “eternal Virgin” was given to Mary at the second Council of Constantinople in 553 C.E.

[Al-manar]

If you question the authorship of the gospels and the authenticity of their contents

There is a difference between the authorship of a work and how far the authenticity of its content ....
Paul could be the writer of the epistles , but were his writings influenced by inspiration and true tradition ? the is the Question ....
that could be answered if we examine the entire content of such epistles (future posts).....

The Bible just says that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary "until she gave birth to a son; and he came to be called Jesus" (Matthew 1:25). We do not read anywhere that Mary remained a virgin perpetually. Do Muslims believe that she was (Surah 66:12)? .

The verse you mentiond doesn't say that she remained virgin after giving birth to Jesus ,she of course lost virginity during birth .... and no mention that she married after that (might be possible) ,though the description of her suggests her as a saint woman that devoted her life to worship and isolated herself from mixing with the society in order to worship God without any distractions ....
her going to a remote place in the wildrness to hide her pregnancy from her people ,negates that she knew Joseph ,that she travelled to Bethelehem ,that she escaped to Egypt etc...... and that puts the issue of Joseph into trouble ....

It is ironic then that Joseph is one of the few people ever to walk this earth whose ancestry we can trace all the way back to David, Abraham and even to Adam. If the genealogies of Matthew and Luke were invented and not in agreement with public records then enemies of Christianity would have immediately seized the opportunity to discredit Jesus' claim to be the Messiah once and for all.

I won't now get into the well-known problems of the genealogies of Matthew and Luke ,neither will ask you what you mean by public record, but unlike what you said,I think opponents of the christianity that presented in the new testament, have seized the opportunity to discredit Jesus' claim to be the Messiah, as Jesus' (genealogy), as we have it in the Christian Scriptures, does not allow him to be the Messiah( details later).

but you know even if Joseph or Jesus could be traced back to David ,remains the biggest obstacle supporting Jesus’ messianic claim , it is that he didn't fulfill the prophecies that could obviously distinguish him from any other person on Earth ....
we have some Jews on Earth traced back to David ,inspite of that none of them could be automatically the messiah as none fulfilled the messianic prophecies, the same case was Jesus ....
and that is why the Jews still waiting someone will be qualified to get into their messianic office ...

[Hiroshi]

The verse you mentiond doesn't say that she remained virgin after giving birth to Jesus ,she of course lost virginity during birth .... and no mention that she married after that (might be possible) ,though the description of her suggests her as a saint woman that devoted her life to worship and isolated herself from mixing with the society in order to worship God without any distractions ....

I am glad that Muslims do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there is still a suggestion of the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception in Surah 3:35-36.

her going to a remote place in the wildrness to hide her pregnancy from her people ,negates that she knew Joseph ,that she travelled to Bethelehem ,that she escaped to Egypt etc...... and that puts the issue of Joseph into trouble ....

The Qur'an has almost no details of the background and ministry of Jesus. And most of the details that it does contain disagree greatly with the gospels.

but you know even if Joseph or Jesus could be traced back to David ,remains the biggest obstacle supporting Jesus’ messianic claim , it is that he didn't fulfill the prophecies that could obviously distinguish him from any other person on Earth ....
we have some Jews on Earth traced back to David ,inspite of that none of them could be automatically the messiah as none fulfilled the messianic prophecies, the same case was Jesus ....
and that is why the Jews still waiting someone will be qualified to get into their messianic office ...

The genealogies were destroyed by the Romans so no Jew today can really trace his ancestry back to David.

What Messianic prophecies did Jesus not fulfill then?

[Al-manar]

I am glad that Muslims do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I didn't say that....

But there is still a suggestion of the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception in Surah 3:35-36.

As I said, the description of her suggests her as a saint woman that devoted her life to worship and isolated herself from mixing with the society, and that verse is one of the clues for that...

Surah 3:35 When a woman of Imran said: My Lord! surely I vow to Thee what is in my womb, to be devoted (to Thy service); accept therefore from me, surely Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing.all things."

she remained all her life so devoted to the temple ?,or might had another life later ? unless we find another verse suggests the second ,then it is safe to assume she remained with totall devotion to worship all her life.....

your correct following note:

And most of the(Quranic) details that it does contain disagree greatly with the gospels..

would get us to one of the Quranic lessons reagarding the issue of the infancy of Jesus....

If we assume that the Quran is the word of Muhammad (peace be upon him) then ,he,while getting the infancy story, neccesarily had access to at least the gospel of luke ,if so that raises just one of the problems with the idea that the Quran validates the bible as fully inspired......

If Muhammad thought the gospels to be 100% inspired why he negates some of the details of the narratives and provides other details?!!
If he read about Zachariah he must have read about the issue of Bethelehm..Egypt etc as well,isn't it ?....

that is just one of the problems of the faulty theory of a Quran validates the bible fully ...

The Qur'an has almost no details of the background and ministry of Jesus.

I posted before explanation of the Quranic verses regarding the background ,the nature of him and his mission,the reaction to his mission and more will be posted regarding the end of his mission ...

The genealogies were destroyed by the Romans .

That is simply a myth

A Missionary Myth: Jewish Genealogy Records Were Destroyed in 70 C.E.
As part of justifying the two genealogies found in the New Testament, Christian apologists and missionaries often claim that the source of the information therein were the meticulously kept Jewish genealogical records, which were stored in the Temple in Jerusalem. They go on and claim that these records were destroyed when the Temple was ransacked and burned to the ground by the Romans in the year 70 C.E.. Therefore, Christians claim to have at least a semblance of the true genealogical link between Jesus and David, while the Jews, even when they eventually recognize someone as Messiah, will have no genealogical records to furnish as proof that he, indeed, is the Messiah.

The problem with this claim is that it is based on a fallacy. The assertion that all genealogical records of the Jewish people were destroyed with the destruction of the Second Temple around 70 C.E. is untrue and unfounded. No such event ever occurred in Jewish history, and there exists neither a credible historian nor any other reliable ancient source to support this claim. The genealogies of the twelve tribes of Israel were not stored in the Temple and, therefore, they could not have been destroyed with it. The majority of the Jewish people did not live in the Land of Israel during the first century C.E., and their genealogical records, if they were maintained and kept, would not have been affected by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple. Of the estimated six million Jews in the world in 50 C.E., approximately one third lived in the Land of Israel, another one third lived in Egypt (mostly in the populous area around Alexandria), and the rest lived throughout the Roman Empire (primarily in Europe).

Most Jews of modern times do not know their tribal affiliation. The likely reason for this is that today’s Jewish people are either descendants of the tribes which comprised the Kingdom of Judah (Judah, Levi, and part of Benjamin), or descendants of a major wave of proselytes during the period from around 100 B.C.E. to around 100 C.E. There were, of course, converts to Judaism throughout all of the history in the Common Era (and before), but those were relatively small in numbers. This matter may be turning into a non-issue with today's advances in genetics research, where genetic markers related to tribal affiliation have been discovered, and are in the process of being identified with specific tribes. A genetic marker for Aaron's descendants, the (kohanim), priests, has also been identified. An amazing fact about these scientific discoveries is that all the tribal genetic markers reside on the Y-chromosome, which is carried only by males. This could serve as scientific confirmation of the part of Jewish Law which states that blood-rights, such as tribal affiliation, priestly descent, and any other lineage-related attributes, are transmitted exclusively from (biological) father to his son(s).

Concerning the matter of known tribal affiliations among the Jewish people, it is worthwhile to comment about the descendants of the Tribe of Levi. There is no segment of the Jewish people whose members are more aware of their tribal affiliation and more mindful to properly transmit this distinctive ancestry than those from the Tribe of Levi. From Biblical times onward, it has always been of utmost importance for members of the Tribe of Levi to be aware of their unique place and status among the people of Israel. There are numerous distinct laws in the Torah which pertain only to this Tribe, such as a (kohen), a priest, may only marry certain women, a (kohen), a priest, is prohibited from coming into contact with a dead body, thus barred from attending any part of a funeral service (with some exceptions for immediate family). Also, only descendants from the Tribe of Levi may take part in the ritual Aaronic Priestly Benediction ceremony, where the (kohanim), priests, bless the congregation while chanting the passage Numbers 6:24-26, performed on every festival in many traditional synagogues throughout the world. The clans from the Tribe of Levi have been known among the Jewish people throughout history.

According to Jewish Law, lineage is passed along exclusively by the (biological) father (e.g., Num 1:18), while the identity as a Jew is either passed by the mother (Deut 7:3-4; Ezra 10:2-3) or acquired through proper ritual conversion to Judaism. In this fashion, the priestly lineage is identified (and has, thus, been preserved over history) on the eighth day following the birth of a son of a father who is a (kohen), a Priest, when, as part of the circumcision ritual, the child is also given a name to which is appended the Hebrew title (ha’kohen), The Priest. Similarly, when a son is born of a father who is a (levi), a Levite, the Hebrew name is appended with the Hebrew title (ha'levi), The Levite. A male descendant of the Tribe of Levi is identified in this manner on all legal Jewish documents, such as records of birth and death, marriage contracts, and divorce decrees. This custom has been carried on as part of the Jewish tradition since the days in the desert, in accordance with Exodus 40:15. It was well known and well documented among the Jewish people who these individuals were, and this information was carefully passed down from father to son, and often recorded in a family's record book of family genealogy. Nehemiah refers to such a record as (sefer ha'yahas; Neh 7:5), and in Modern Hebrew, this is known as (sefer yuhasin)..

What Messianic prophecies did Jesus not fulfill then? .

check my posts there

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-items-52.html

[Hiroshi]

I won't now get into the well-known problems of the genealogies of Matthew and Luke ,neither will ask you what you mean by public record, but unlike what you said,I think opponents of the christianity that presented in the new testament, have seized the opportunity to discredit Jesus' claim to be the Messiah, as Jesus' (genealogy), as we have it in the Christian Scriptures, does not allow him to be the Messiah( details later).

If you don't wish to discuss genealogies then let's leave that subject alone for now. But allow me to say this. The purpose of this thread is to compare the Bible with the Qur'an. You would be in a strong position to draw attention to problems in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke if the Qur'an had something better to show. But all it gives of Jesus' family tree is the following: (1) Adam (2) Noah (3) Abraham (4) Imran (father of Moses and Aaron) (5) Imran (father of Mary) (6) Mary (7) Jesus (according to Surah 3:33-36, 45). By comparison, Matthew and Luke provide a wealth of important information.

[Hiroshi]

check my posts there

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-items-52.html

Thanks for the link Al-manar but I still can't see which posts you refer to. Could you tell me what number posts these are?

[Hiroshi]

That is simply a myth

Thank you for this. I need to research it.

If we assume that the Quran is the word of Muhammad (peace be upon him) then ,he,while getting the infancy story, neccesarily had access to at least the gospel of luke ,if so that raises just one of the problems with the idea that the Quran validates the bible as fully inspired......

If Muhammad thought the gospels to be 100% inspired why he negates some of the details of the narratives and provides other details?!!
If he read about Zachariah he must have read about the issue of Bethelehm..Egypt etc as well,isn't it ?....

There were other (apocryphal) writings that contain narratives which agree very well with the Quranic stories of the infancy of Jesus, depicting him as speaking while a baby and turning lumps of clay into birds (although these stories contradict the gospels). In any case it seems more likely that any such narratives would have been carried by word of mouth rather than by any actual written document being made available.

[Al-manar]

There were other (apocryphal) writings that contain narratives which agree very well with the Quranic stories of the infancy of Jesus, depicting him as speaking while a baby and turning lumps of clay into birds (although these stories contradict the gospels).

and contradict the Quran as well... eg; The infancy gospel mention of Joseph ....

Thanks for the link Al-manar but I still can't see which posts you refer to. Could you tell
me what number posts these are?

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1406401

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1410348

..........................


we have three passages remained in the infacy narratives according to the gospels .........

the writer this time is not going to predictions (as the case of Micah5 and Isaiah7).....but old testament passages that the writer lifted them out of context and applied them to situations that the original writers were not referring to !........
To get a double trouble ,there is a complete absence of any reference to such events by aany secular historian contemporary to the times ......
if an event that is allegedly a prophecy fulfillment cannot be factually established, how can any rational person contend that it was a prophecy fulfillment?on the other hand , the gospel writers were obviously biased in their zealous attempts to sell Jesus as the Messiah

...
The passages as quouted by Matthew:

Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” Matthew 2 :14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

the original context of the passage:

Hosea 11: 1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.


Is that a prediction ,before we talk about fullfilment?


........
Matthew 2:16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18 “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning,Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”


Is that a prediction ,before we talk about fullfilment?

The original context of the passage :

check it here
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...31&version=NIV


If one reads this statement in its original context in Jeremiah 31 and the two preceding chapters, he will see that the passage was addressing the problem of Jewish dispersion caused by the Babylonian captivity. Time and time again, Jeremiah promised that the Jews would be recalled from captivity to reclaim their land. Finally, in the verse quoted by Matthew, he said, "Thus says Yahweh: `A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no more'" (31:15). That Jeremiah intended this statement to apply to the dispersion contemporary to his times is evident from the verses immediately following, where he promised a return of those who had been scattered: "Thus says Yahweh: `Refrain your voice from weeping, And your eyes from tears; For your work shall be rewarded, says Yahweh, And they [Rachel's children] shall come back from the land of the enemy. There is hope in your future, says Yahweh, that your children shall come back to their own border" (vv:16-17). (Farrell Till)



.......

Now with the third passage :


Matthew 2:19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.” 21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.


2 questions here:

1- where does the old testament predict the messiah to be a Nazarene?

if we find some kind of answer ,then we need to ask again

2- lots were called Nazarens all over history , is there a away to distinguish the Messiah from all others who were called Nazarens as him? and did Jesus qualified himself for that by his deeds ?

[Al-manar]

what is the christian answer to the claim of old testament reference ,calling the Messiah as Nazarene?

- Various speculations exist concerning a possible answer to this question. One suggestion is that the author was referring to the description of the Messiah as a (netser), an offshoot, used in Isaiah 11:1, a metaphorical allusion to a new, flourishing scion from King David's lineage. This idea is problematic since, even though the metaphor is utilized by Isaiah, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is it indicated or implied that (mashi'ah) will actually bear the name (netser). Moreover, the author of the Gospel of Matthew wrote "… which was spoken by the prophets …", i.e., he refers to a plurality and not to a single prophet who may have made such a prophetic statement. Since there exists no other messianic application of the Hebrew term (netser) in the Hebrew Bible, the attempt to force the connection with Isaiah 11:1 fails.

Another suggestion is that the author was using a "play on words" with the Hebrew root verb (natsar), [to] guard, [to] watch [over]. However, this idea, too, cannot be supported from within the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew name for Nazareth is (natsrat) or (natseret), which may have a possible connection with the verb (natsar), primarily due to the geography of the town, as it is situated on an elevated plateau. However, one who hails from Nazareth is called (notsri; pronounced noh-tsree), a term that has become the Hebrew word for a Christian. However, the common noun derived from the verb (natsar) is (notser), a guard, a watchman, and such a term is never used in the Hebrew Bible in connection with (mashi'ah).

Still another proposed idea is that the author is referring to Jesus as being a Nazirite, an English term that comes from the Hebrew noun (nazir), one who is consecrated through a vow (e.g., Num 6:2, Jdgs 13:5). However, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is it stated, alluded, or implied that (mashi'ah) will ever take the vow of a (nazir)[4]. Moreover, there is no linguistic relationship between the Hebrew word (nazir), Nazirite, which derives from the root verb (nazar), and the Hebrew word (notsri), Nazarene, which derives from the root verb (natsar).

The strongest evidence, the "smoking gun", may be found within the verse Matthew 2:23 itself, since it provides the reason for Jesus being called a Nazarene [NazwraioV (Nazoraios), of/from Nazareth in Greek]. Jesus is called a Nazarene because he resided in the town of Nazareth [Nazareq (Nazareth; in Greek)]. This has no relevance to the Hebrew words (netser), (natsar), or (nazir) and, therefore, any speculations about what the author of the Gospel of Matthew had in mind here, in terms of references to Hebrew words, are moot.
Consequently, whether or not the author of the Gospel of Matthew did this with intent, the outcome remains the same, Matthew 2:23 points to a nonexistent prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. by prof.Yori-yusef

[Al-manar]

Dear visitors to the thread

blessed Ramadan is at the door , and we gonna have the usual pause of Ramadan in that section ....

blessed Ramadan for you all ,may Allah strengthen you to prayer and protect you from the known devilish distractions during the month ....

......

Inshallah we will resume the discussion ...... the following items are ready to be posted after the month
as we long time posting biblical issue (the messiah) ,I think we should pause a while and go to a Quranic issues ..... I will visit the item, (Trinity in the Holy Quran ) with a thoroughly linguestic ,contextual analysis ....

then back again to the term messiah ,that will be concluded .......and from that conclusion ,we will visit the trinity again ,giving the proper answer to the question ,Is Jesus God?

If there is something else remained regarding the trinity, would be (Is trinity biblical)? but that issue as I said before should be not useful to a muslim .........Just why should a muslim care whether the trinity biblical or not?!

If we visit the issue ,it will be just out of curiosity .....


peace and bless

[Al-manar]

trinity in the Holy Quran

your ultimate refernce

peace .

I planned to post such study very early in the thread when I started posting the item (trinity), but I postponed it due to the lack of some sources weren't available yet on my PC...... when It became available ,that motivated me to post.....

I intend the following study ,to cover the matter of (trinity in the Holy Quran) in depth ..... providing comparative linguestic,contextual analysis , quoting the Quranic commentaries and the objective work of non-muslims ,talks about the matter... also refute the dogmatic ,radical non-muslims with all their points of criticism ......

dear readers to the thread , though I know most (if not all) of you did read something on the topic online ... yet I'm sure ,inshaAllah you are going to read new lines in that study .......

Though I think the study cover everything on the issue....I will appreaciate lots any non-muslim comment on my posts... adding whatever what they think to be missed,or countring my arguments.......

Chapter 1 :Allah and the spirit

A Muslim Christian dialogue

Christian: How do you think, the Quran views the christian believe in the trinity?

Muslim: the belief of the trinity is just one chapter of the book of shirk …The overwhelmingly powerful assertion in the Quran that God is absolutely one rules out any notion that another being could share his sovereignty or nature …..
The Quran’s view the Christian doctrine of the Trinity involves an association of creature with God the creator, an infidelity that participates in the pagan infidelity of polytheism....

Some items need to be understood, in order to evade confusion
...

(1) Shrik

What is Shirk ? it could be described in several ways:

(1) “Shirk-ul-Ilm is to ascribe Knowledge to others than God.”
(2) “Shirk-ut-Tassaruf is to ascribe power-to-act-independently, to anyone else than to God.”
(3) “Shirk-ul-Ebada is to ascribe a partner to God who can be worshipped, or worshipping the created instead of the Creator.”
(4) “Shirk-ul-‘Adat is to perform ceremonies or follow superstitions.” Among the above mentioned, is that Muslims believe that when Christians worship Christ or adore Mary, this is Shirk-ul-Abada; and when Christians say Christ intercedes by his power or merit, it is Shirk-ut-Tassaruf.

shirk is strongly condmned in numerous Quranic verses, such un-forgiven act of blasphemy:

Holy Quran 4:48 God does not forgive anyone for associating something with Him, while He does forgive whomever He wishes to for anything besides that. Anyone who gives God associates has invented such an awful offence!

etc ...etc.........

Allah

Some non-Arab readers (Christians and Muslims alike) confused the term God (as understood by Christians) and the term Allah (God) (as understood by Muslims)


What is God according to Christianity?

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons Father, Son,and Holy Spirit distinctly coexisting in unity as co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial , or of one being According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way. Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well. "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, and omniscient." (wiki)



What is God, according to Islam?

He is the entity that sent Jesus and appointed for him a mission...Christians would like to call such being by (the father) .... Well, though I think he is a father of no one... I won't prohibit you from calling him what you wish, but pay attention....Whenever I mention the word (Allah ) you should automatically understand that when we refer to the entity you call (the father) we believe in him as the full un-manifested deity. He doesn’t mean for us one of the three aspects of the deity. Allah (what Christians call the father) is not what you think the incomplete definition of the deity but he is the full un-personified deity.....
For you the (Allah) the father is one of the three aspects of the deity for me he is the full deity with no three aspects…
Though we disagree regarding the limit of the father with regard to the deity, we agree in two points ...that (1) such entity exists (2) and divine as well...


Christian: Do you think that your definition is right and mine is wrong?

Muslim: From objective point of view, mine could be right or could be wrong ...yours could be right or could be wrong ... we even both could be wrong and that Allah (father) doesn't exist at all....It is a matter of faith........
trinity is a belief, according to you, based on a scripture that you belief to be fully the word of God, and must be telling the truth in any Metaphysical concept therein.
On the other hand, the Quranic criticism on the trinity is again a belief for me based on a scripture that I belief to be fully the word of God and must tells the truth in any metaphysical concept therein. What we applied to the father we can apply on the other members of the trinity as well....
Jesus could be a physical manifestation of the deity, or a prophet, or a lunatic was born through illegal intercourse etc.....The validity of any of the previous rests on the validity of the scripture (whether Christian, Jewish Islamic).....

The Holy Spirit

According to Christians , the term refers to the third person of the trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and is Almighty God. The Holy Spirit is seen by mainstream Christians as one Person of the Triune God, who revealed His Holy Name YHWH to his people Israel, sent His Eternally Begotten Son Jesus to save them, and sent the Holy Spirit to Sanctify and give Life to his Church. He is the Creator Spirit, present before the creation of the universe and through his power everything was made in Jesus Christ..

According to Islam (Quran and Sunnah) ,The Holy Spirit is identified with The Angel Gabriel ....

Christian: What evidence is given to suggest that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel? Also the Qur'an mentions the Holy Spirit, but also refers to the Spirit of Allah or "My [Allah] Spirit (see S. 12:87, 38:72). What is the difference, if any, between the Holy Spirit and the Qur'an reference to the Spirit of Allah, or when Allah is referencing His Spirit?


Muslim:

We need to check all the varied usage of the word (Ruh) with relation to Allah in the Quran......
In pre- Islamic poetry the Arabic word (Ruh) refers to a blowing or breathing, In the Quran, The word appears twenty-one times and has several different usages in the Qur'an with a wide range of meanings.
The following meanings are those that accepted by the vast majority of Quranic commentaries:

1- spirit as Mercy:

Holy Quran 12:87 "O my sons! go ye and enquire about Joseph and his brother, and never give up hope of Allah's Mercy (Rauh): truly no one despairs of Allah's Soothing Mercy, except those who have no faith."

Such meaning for the (the spirit) is un-questioned by the Quran commentators, as any other meaning would be nonsensical to the context….

2- spirit as Revelation:

Holy Quran 42:52 We have thus revealed a Spirit to you [Prophet] by our command: you knew neither the Scripture nor the faith, but We made it a light, guiding with it whoever We will of Our servants. You are indeed guiding to the straight path.

Here spirit is an inspiration (wahy), brought to life in those whose hearts are dead through ignorance.

Christian: It seems that the spirit in the verse is an entity reveals the revelation….

Muslim: why not the revelation itself?

Christian: Holy Quran 16:2 Also 40:15 He sends down the Angels with the Spirit (Ruh) by His command upon whom He wishes of His servants: "That you shall warn that there is no god but I, so be aware of me."

The Quran is simply emphasizing the point that it is Allah that commands the Spirit to come down and reveal the inspiration.

Muslim: Can’t we say that he sends, by his command, the angels with the revelation upon whom He wishes of His servants? If not, why not?

Even if we suggest that the (spirit) mentioned after (commands) not to mean (a revelation), still we can argue that it means (Gabriel) ….. And the meaning would be:
He sends down the Angels with Gabriel by His command upon whom He wishes of His servants etc…. if not, why not?

3- The Spirit as Gabriel
:

Gabriel could be called the spirit, the trustworthy spirit, the holy spirit

Holy Quran 16:102 SAY: ´The Holy Spirit has brought it down as Truth from your Lord to brace those who believe and as guidance and good news for Muslims."

Holy Quran2:97
Say: "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel,then know that Hehas brought it down for your heart with God’s permission, to confirm what came before it and as guidance and good news for believers.


قل نزله روح القدس من ربك بالحق ليثبت الذين آمنوا وهدى وبشرى للمسلمين

قل من كان عدوا لجبريل فإنه نزله على قلبك بإذن الله مصدقا لما بين يديه وهدى وبشرى للمؤمنين


Quran 26:193
The Faithful Spirit has brought it down into your heart, so that you may be a Warner.

70:4
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years:
78:38 on the day when the angels and the Spirit stand arrayed, they speak not, saving him whom the Beneficent alloweth and who speaketh right.
97:4
The angels and the Spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees.

19:17
So she took a veil (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our spirit, and there appeared to her a well-made man.

Christian:
It is stated that Allah used more than one messenger to bring down the Quran:

Muslim: where?

Christian:

Holy Quran 77:5 By those who bring down the Reminder.

According to the Quran, the Reminder refers to the revelation given to the prophets and to Muhammad.

Holy Quran 16:2 Also 40:15 He sends down the Angels with the Spirit (Ruh) by His command upon whom He wishes of His servants

Muslim:

First:
Though the revelation given to Mohamed was called (reminder), Holy Quran 15:6 And they said: "O you upon whom the Reminder has been sent down, you are crazy."
not every reminder is synonymous with the reminder revealed to Mohamed (pbuh)…
The folk of Noah had their own reminder Holy Quran 7:63 Are you surprised that a Reminder should come to you from your Lord through one of your own men, so He may warn you and you will do your duty, and in order that you may receive mercy?"

The folk of Aad had their own reminder as well Holy Quran7:69 Are you surprised that a Reminder from your Lord should come to you through one of your own men, so that He may warn you?

The torah was a reminder too... Holy Quran 21:105 We have written in the Psalms following the Reminder; "My honourable servants shall inherit the earth."

Second: Holy Quran 16:2 also 40:15 He sends down the Angels with the Spirit (Ruh) by His command upon whom He wishes of His servants

1- The angels are sent down to selected servants, not servant ……..Nothing would force the meaning of the verse that a group of angels are sent to each single servant

2- Even if the meaning that a group of angels are sent to each single servant, we don’t have any clue that Mohamed peace be upon him had it this way …. Both the Quranic verses and the authentic sunnah affirmed that it was a specific Angel who revealed the Quran ……..
With the hundred of hadiths mention the revelation of the Quran, there is not one instance that mention any other entity whether An Angel or whatever, that taught Mohamed peace be upon him the revelation the only angel whose name is mentioned with regards to the revelation of the Qur’an is Gabriel…

Clearly the argument that Allah used more than one messenger to bring down the Quran, is an argument from silence ….
4- More important, let’s assume that several Angels revealed the Quran. What does that prove?
That will get us back to verse 16:102 SAY: ´The Holy Spirit has brought it down as Truth from your Lord to brace those who believe and as guidance and good news for Muslims."

You don’t like the title holy spirit to be applied to Gabriel ,well then, choose any other candidate for the title ,who has to be An Angel from the group of Angels that supposedly revealed the Quran to Mohamed …..
If you still assume that the holy spirit is neither Gabriel nor any other Angel then...We would like you to quote the occasions where the prophet was visited by any other entity than Gabriel to teach him the Quran ……

Your theory that the holy spirit (whom you imagine to be different from Gabriel) brought down some of the Quran is mere a conjecture till you tell us when and where such holy spirit, that is distinct from Gabriel, taught Mohamed even a verse from the Quran......
Till you do so,( I doubt you’ll able to) ,Verse 2:97 ,that says clearly ,that it is Gabriel who brought the Quran down for Mohamed’s heart ,Will remain a reference that Gabriel brought down all of the Qur'an ….till a qualifier , modifier be provided to render the meaning as Gabriel brought some of the Quran down for Mohamed’s heart...


By the way, questioning the Islamic belief in Gabriel as the holy spirit is just a new trend in the Christian circle ……

Let’s quote some Christian writers who disagree with you:

ruh al-qudus is the trustworthy spirit, which descends with the Qur’an (26:163), which is trusted by Allah in bringing the revelation upon Muhammad’s heart; the spirit is Gabriel, the angel of revelation. D.B. Macdonald, The development of the idea of spirit in Islam, in mw22 (1932), 25-42; T.
................................

Warren Larson, the Director of Zwemer Centre for the Study of Islam, (Nov. 22, 2004) in his class states that “Muhammad’s understanding of his revelations seems to evolve as time goes on.” Larson gives this example: “For example, in mid-Mecca, the Qur’an says he was visited by ‘spirit’ (26:193). Then, later in late-Mecca, he said it was the Holy Spirit who came to him (16:102). Finally, in Medina, he concluded that it was Gabriel, (2:97).
........................................

There are at least another sixteen places in the Qur_ān where the “spirit” (rū_) is mentioned without the qualification deriving from its association with the noun “holiness” (al-qudus), in the sense of Holy Spirit. From a consideration of these passages one acquires a fuller understanding of the Islamic conception of God’s spirit as a created agency by means of which God communicates with angels and men. In five instances the text speaks of the ‘spirit’ in conjunction with God’s “bidding” (amr), suggesting that the spirit comes at God’s bidding (cf. e.g. q 17:85) upon whomever he wills of his servant creatures to bring a warning (q.v.) to humankind (cf. e.g.q 40:15). The angels play a role in bringing down the spirit at God’s bidding (cf.q 16:2). The spirit and the angels are present together, always ready to do God’s bidding (q 70:4; 78:38), and they were there on the Night of Power (q.v.; q 97:4). A ‘spirit’ from God is parallel with “his word” (kalimatuhu)in Jesus, son of Mary (q 4:171). In the case of Muhammad, the Qur_ān says that it was “the faithful spirit” (al-rū_ al-amīn) that was bringing the revelation down onto his heart (q.v.) so that he would become one of those to bring a warning (q 26:192-4) from God to humankind. The characterization of the spirit as ‘faithful’ here highlights its creaturely status in the qur_ānic view. Finally, from this same perspective, when God sent his spirit to Mary, the Qur_ān says that it appeared to her in the form of a well formed man (q 19:17).
The Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, Sidney H. Griffith, S.T. (Ph.D., The Catholic University of America)
..........................................

The term Holy Spirit as found in the Quran, being always understood to refer to the Angel Gabriel see chap. ii. 253. A comprehensive commentary on the Qurán: comprising Sale's ..., Volume 2
By Elwood Morris Wherry, George Sale
....................................

And strengthened him with the holy spirit. “We must not imagine Muhammad here means the Holy Ghost in the Christian acceptation.The commentators say this spirit was the angel Gabriel, who sanctified Jesus and constantly attended on him." Sale, Jaldludain.
..........................................

Muhammad's career is guided by Gabriel, called 'the holy spirit' in 16. 104; 26. 193. Qumran studies Chaim Rabin
.................................................. .........

Greatest of all the angels is Gabriel (Jibrail), God's messenger, through whom Muhammad received many of his revelations. In the Quran he is called the holy spirit. Sydney Cave, D.D.
..................................

‘He is strengthened by the Holy Spirit,' for so Mohammed, in more Than one passage, calls the Angel Gabriel." 5. Bosworth Smith , Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 271, second edition.

.......................................

unfortunately for that argument ,even if the holy spirit not Gabriel ,it can't be more than a creature .... let's discuss that later on the study....

Christian: In verses 78:38 On the day when the angels and the Spirit stand arrayed, they speak not, saving him whom the Beneficent alloweth and who speaketh right. and 70:4 The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years:, and 97:4 The angels and the Spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees.
Also in Hadith"Narrated Aisha: The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to pronounce while bowing and prostrating himself: All Glorious, all Holy, Lord of the Angels and the Spirit." (Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 0987)

Make a distinction between the angels (of which Gabriel is obviously one) with the Spirit. This supports that Gabriel is not the Spirit. Had the Spirit been Gabriel there would be no need to distinguish him from the angels.

Muslim:
In Arabic language it is not unusual to specify part of a whole group to emphasize the significance of that part.
e.g.. in 55:68 God talks about fruits, dates and pomegranate to emphasize the last two kinds of fruits.
[55:68] In them are fruits, date palms, and pomegranate. In 2:238 God talks about Salat and the middle salat to emphasize its significance of the middle salat.

and

66:4 If the two of you repent to God, then your hearts have listened. But if you band together against him, then God is his ally, and so are Gabriel and the righteous believers. Also, the Angels are his helpers.

This verse mentions the Angel Gabriel separately from the other angels, but we know that he is An Angel himslef.

the same idea in another verse

2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and apostles, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith.

This verse mentions the Angel Gabriel and theAngel Michael separately from the other angels, but we know that they are angels themselves.

Christian: How do you know that Gabriel is an angel?

1-As far as the Quran is concerned, it is the Angels(assuming more than one Angel sends the revealation) who are the agents of conveying the revelation to the prophets, and Gabriel was defined as the one who revealed the Quran, and that is a Quranic hint that he is an Angel..

2- We have numerous super Authentic Hadiths, tell us, not only who Gabriel is (An Angel) but also lots of other things about him ….

Some proofs, in brief …

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet said to Gabriel, "What prevents you from visiting us more often than you visit us now?" So there was revealed:-- 'And we (angels) descend not but by the command of your Lord. To Him belongs what is before us and what is behind us...'(19.64) (Bukhari Book #60, Hadith #255)

Narrated Aisha: …………….
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) pitched a tent for him in the mosque and would inquire after him being in close proximity. When he returned from the Ditch and laid down his arms and took a bath, the angel Gabriel appeared to him…………………. (Muslim Book #019, Hadith #4370)

Narrated Ibn Abbas:................................Whenever Gabriel came to Allah's Apostle ' he would keep quiet (and listen), and when the angel left, the Prophet would recite that revelation as Allah promised him. (Bukhari Book #60, Hadith #451)

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Allah's Apostle was the most generous of all the people, and he used to reach the peak in generosity in the month of Ramadan when Gabriel met him. Gabriel used to meet him every night of Ramadan to teach him the Qur'an. Allah's Apostle was the most generous person, even more generous than the strong uncontrollable wind (in readiness and haste to do charitable deeds). (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number 5: ) etc …. etc…. etc…

Christian: Accepting the idea that the spirit is Gabriel (who is a creature), would contradict other Quranic verses that ascribe the following divine qualities to the Spirit:

1- A Life giver:
Qur'an 15:29 Also 32:6-9 , 38:72 So, when I have made him and have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him. These passages indicate that after fashioning man God gave him life by breathing his Spirit into him….. With the same linguistic structure, in verse 21:91 Mary received the breath of life (life giving spirit) and conceived Jesus: 21:91 "And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and we made her and her son a sign for all peoples." We are also told that God’s Spirit appeared to Mary in the form of a man: 19:17 she chose to be secluded from them. We sent her Our spirit, who presented himself to her as a full-grown human being. These passages indicate that the Spirit is not a force but a divine personality

Muslim: Only a dogmatic and close minded who would consider every mention in the Quran, of the word spirit (Ruh) ,has to be the holy spirit, or all the instances the word spirit mentioned, has to be typically in meaning ….

First:

In its role as conveyor of revelation, the spirit is identified as Gabriel (q.v.; Jibrīl, q 2:97). In Mary’s story, the spirit is the life-creating force of, or from, God. Qurānic commentary, however, has consistently differentiated between “our spirit sent to Mary in the form of a well proportioned man” (q 19:17) and “our spirit [of ] which we breathed into Mary” (q 21:91; 66:12), identifying the former with the angel Gabriel and the latter with the life substance with which God (directly) awakened Adam to life from clay, just as it (directly) awakened Jesus to life in Mary’s womb . The classical interpreters established that Gabriel was a mean, or instrument, of God’s creative power, whence they linked his agency with God’s breathing, or blowing, of his spirit into Mary by developing the theme of Gabriel’s blowing at Mary’s garment or person . Encyclopaedia of the Quran Barbara F Stowasser Professor of Arabic & Islamic Studies CENTER FOR CONTEMPORARY ARAB STUDIES

Second: Assuming the spirit to be some other entity than Gabriel, still it has to be a created entity ……The idea of the divine to be manifested in the flesh is clearly condemned in the Quran …
The idea of a created messenger from God that took the human form goes very well with the idea of Angels, especially Gabriel, taking the human form in earthly mission ….

Third: In Islam, Calling Allah a spirit is a gross error ....
Muslims assert, “The suggestion that God is a spirit implies He is a created being, like an angel.” Undeniably, Islam says that God is not a spirit; otherwise, one would imply he is part of the created realm, like the angels. On the Contrary, the Bible says that God is Spirit (Jn 4:24; Is 31:3). Ron Rhodes,president of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries

“the Qur’an uses the word ruh twenty times, but each time the word is understood to refer to a created being that has a subtle body.” Similarly, “Angels and jinn have such a subtle body capable of penetrating a coarse body.” The indications are therefore that “to say that God is a spirit is understood to mean that he is a created being.” Muslim & Christian at Table by McDowell & Zaka (1999:94)

Evidently, “The Muslim’s concept of God conflicts with the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit (1) the concept of the absolute unity of God precludes the possibility of the Holy Spirit being God. (2) The personality of the Holy Spirit, and indeed the possibility of knowing God in a personal way through the indwelling Holy Spirit, is incompatible with the Muslim’s concept of Allah's absolute transcendence.” “Since man is a servant (‘abd) of Allah, he does not look for a close communion with God through the Spirit of adoption. The very idea of the Spirit indwelling the believer is incompatible with Islamic ideology”. “Only the Sufis (mystics) aim at union with God, but for them this is achieved by man’s striving upward and not by the coming down of the Holy Spirit to dwell in their hearts.” THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE QUR’AN AN ASSESSMENT FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE By Judy Tao Shih-Ching


next post ,the first chapter (Allah and the spirit) will be the concluded (inshaAllah) going next to the second chapter (Jesus and Mary) .... Thank you for your patience in reading ... May Allah bless you all...

[Hiroshi]

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1406401

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1410348

Many of the Messianic prophecies are yet future and will be fulfilled on earth when Jesus and those who go to heaven to be with him rule over this earth in God's kingdom. The earth will then become a paradise for mankind to dwell in forever.

Even the Qur'an speaks of this where it makes reference to Psalms 37:29.

Psalms 37:29 "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it."

Surah 21:105 "We wrote in the Psalms after the Torah was revealed: "The righteous among My servants shall inherit the earth.""

Surah 39:73-74 "... Enter Paradise and dwell in it forever." They will say: "Praise be to God who has made good to us His promise and given us the earth to inherit that we may dwell in Paradise wherever we please."

we have three passages remained in the infacy narratives according to the gospels .........

the writer this time is not going to predictions (as the case of Micah5 and Isaiah7).....but old testament passages that the writer lifted them out of context and applied them to situations that the original writers were not referring to !........
To get a double trouble ,there is a complete absence of any reference to such events by aany secular historian contemporary to the times ......
if an event that is allegedly a prophecy fulfillment cannot be factually established, how can any rational person contend that it was a prophecy fulfillment?on the other hand , the gospel writers were obviously biased in their zealous attempts to sell Jesus as the Messiah

...
The passages as quouted by Matthew:

Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” Matthew 2 :14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

the original context of the passage:

Hosea 11: 1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.


Is that a prediction ,before we talk about fullfilment?


........
Matthew 2:16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18 “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning,Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”


Is that a prediction ,before we talk about fullfilment?

The original context of the passage :

check it here
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...31&version=NIV


If one reads this statement in its original context in Jeremiah 31 and the two preceding chapters, he will see that the passage was addressing the problem of Jewish dispersion caused by the Babylonian captivity. Time and time again, Jeremiah promised that the Jews would be recalled from captivity to reclaim their land. Finally, in the verse quoted by Matthew, he said, "Thus says Yahweh: `A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no more'" (31:15). That Jeremiah intended this statement to apply to the dispersion contemporary to his times is evident from the verses immediately following, where he promised a return of those who had been scattered: "Thus says Yahweh: `Refrain your voice from weeping, And your eyes from tears; For your work shall be rewarded, says Yahweh, And they [Rachel's children] shall come back from the land of the enemy. There is hope in your future, says Yahweh, that your children shall come back to their own border" (vv:16-17). (Farrell Till)



.......

Now with the third passage :


Matthew 2:19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.” 21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

Old Testament prophecies are often hidden cryptically in a phrase or sentence that, in its original context, had reference to something different. For example, in Psalms 16:10 David is apparently speaking about himself but "because he was a prophet" he "spoke concerning the resurrection of Christ" (Acts 2:30-31). Many prophecies even have more than one fulfillment (e.g. Habakkuk 1:5-6; Acts 13:40-41).

Muslims themselves argue for far more obscure connections between OT passages and Muhammad as with Song of Solomon 5:16.

2 questions here:

1- where does the old testament predict the messiah to be a Nazarene?

Isaiah 11:1

2- lots were called Nazarens all over history , is there a away to distinguish the Messiah from all others who were called Nazarens as him? and did Jesus qualified himself for that by his deeds ?

Jesus fulfilled not just this one but something like 200 other prophecies concerning the Messiah. When all of the evidence is considered he is indeed distinguishable from others that could be called Nazarenes.

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi ,It seems you didn't read the article well ...

Originally Posted by The Jeremiah Dilemma
by Farrell Till

the passage concerns a central biblical theme (messianic prophecy) and must therefore be considered important, yet it was in neither the Septuagint version nor the Jeremiah scroll found at Qumran. These omissions have grave implications for the inerrancy doctrine, because they suggest that significant editing occurred in at least one Old Testament book after completion of the original manuscript. So what exactly are we to conclude from this? After verbally inspiring Jeremiah to write his manuscript, did Yahweh decide he could improve on the original and then direct someone to reorganize the material and insert the passages that weren't available to the Septuagint translators or to the scribe who made the Qumran copy? If so, what does this say about the omniscience of Yahweh that we hear so much about? Or if the changes didn't happen under Yahweh's direction, did some scribe or committee of scribes just take it upon themselves to do the editing? Either way again, the proponents of Bible inerrancy have a serious problem on their hands. They preach a doctrine that simply cannot be squared with known facts.

Originally Posted by The Jeremiah Dilemma
by Farrell Till
To explain the problem posed by these variations in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah, proponents of the inerrancy doctrine once attributed the deviations from the Masoretic text to poor translation, but after the discoveries in Cave Four, this "explanation" became hard, if not impossible, to defend. Work on the Septuagint version began in Alexandria around 285 B.C., and the Jeremiah manuscript found at Qumran, like the Isaiah scroll, was dated in the early second century B. C. Since the Qumran text of Jeremiah was parallel in content and organization to the Septuagint version, here was tangible evidence that at one time, for at least two centuries, a shorter, differently arranged version of the book existed. Hence, variations from the Masoretic text in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah resulted not from careless translation but from a radically different Hebrew text that the translators had before them

Sorry, I have only just noticed your reply here which you gave ages ago.

My copy of N. J. Dawood’s translation of the Qur’an says this in the introduction on pages 2-3:

“The Koranic revelations followed each other at brief intervals and were at first committed to memory by professional remembrancers. During Muhammad’s lifetime verses were written on palm-leaves, stones, and any material that came to hand. There collection was completed during the caliphate of ‘Umar, the second Caliph, and an authorized version was established during the caliphate of ‘Uthman, his successor (644-56). To this day this version is regarded by believers as the authoritative Word of God. But owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority.

In preparing the contents of the Koran for book-form its editors followed no chronological sequence. Its chapters were arranged generally in order of length, the longest coming first and the shortest last. Attempts have been made by Noldeke, Grimme, Rodwell and Bell to arrange the chapters in chronological order, but scholars are agreed that a strictly chronological arrangement is impossible without dissecting some of the chapters into scattered verses, owing to the inclusion of revelations spoken in Medina in chapters begun several years earlier in Mecca.”


In Muhammad’s lifetime the contents of the Qur’an were in disarray and even when they were later collected together they were not compiled in any logical sequence but randomly arranged roughly according to the length of each surah. The result of this was that the surahs were arranged in almost reverse chronological order. In addition, revelations spoken in Mecca were muddled up with those spoken in Medina. Reportedly also, many of the verses were lost. And the number of variant readings is huge, at times completely changing the meaning of the verse in question.

If all of this is acceptable to Muslims (I see no reason why it shouldn’t be), why then should there be any objection to the compilation of the contents of the book of Jeremiah?

Originally Posted by jewishencyclopedia
Passage on Sabbath Not Genuine(in the book of Jeremiah).

The one non-authentic passage incorporated in group 2 is that concerning the Sabbath, xvii. 19-27. The reason why the prophet can not be credited with the authorship of this passage, though in form and content it is not unlike Jeremiah, is the high value put upon the observance of holy days, which is wholly foreign to the prophet. The author of the passage not only recommends the keeping of the Sabbath day holy as a day of rest ordained by God, but he even goes so far as to make the possibility of future salvation, and even directly the destruction of Jerusalem, depend upon the observance or non-observance of this day.

As far as I can see this objection is only an opinion of the Jewish Encyclopedia. I cannot see why the exhortation to follow the Law of Moses by observing the Sabbath should appear strange or “foreign” to the book of Jeremiah.

[Al-manar]

Christian: When Muhammad was asked concerning the Spirit he didn’t say he was Gabriel.And they ask you concerning the Ruh (the spirit). Say: "The Ruh (the spirit) is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord...

Muslim: 1-Most commentators suggest the (spirit) was asking about here ,is the (soul) that is based on clues eg; (And they ask you concerning the Ruh.) Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "This was when the Jews said to the Prophet , `Tell us about the Ruh and how the Ruh will be punished that is in the body - for the Ruh is something about which only Allah knows, and there was no revelation concerning it.' He did not answer them at all, then Jibril came to him and said: (Say:The Ruh (the spirit) is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord. And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little.'') So the Prophet told them about that, and they said, `Who told you this' He said, (Jibril brought it to me from Allah.) They said, `By Allah, no one has told you that except our enemy ﴿i.e., Jibril. Then Allah revealed (Say "Whoever is an enemy to Jibril (let him die in his fury), for indeed he has brought it (this Qur'an) down to your heart by Allah's permission, confirming what came before it.)'' ﴿2:97

2-Even if we ignore the narrations , the verse simply mentions the spirit(which has varied meanings) without revealing anything about its nature.So what are you looking for?
A Koranic divine spirit similar to your divine holy spirit?
Unfortunately you won’t find such spirit in the Qur'an, you will find it nothing more than a creation:

A-The spirit not only is said to have A God, but also in complete submission to him....Just like angels (or being an angel) it won’t dare to move without God’s permission "The Night of Power is better than a thousand months. The angels and the Spirit descend therein by the permission of their God, with all decrees. Peace until the rising of the Dawn." 97:3-5

B - The spirit can’t even speak without God’s permission: "Lord of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, the Beneficent; with Whom none can argue. On the Day when the angels and the Spirit stand arrayed, they speak not, saving him whom the Beneficent allows and who speaks right. That is the True Day. So whoso will should seek recourse unto his Lord?" 78:38

C. The spirit can take the human form: "Then We sent unto her (Mary) Our spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a well built man.

D-He is called a messenger from God, not God:
Holy Quran 19:18She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing. He said: I am only a Messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.

The incarnation for an earthly mission and be called a messenger fits perfectly with the angels.
Holy Qur'an 6:9 And (even] if We had appointed an angel as Our message-bearer, We would certainly have made him [appear as] a man .

E-In the Qur'an ,Jesus is described as a spirit from Allah ,yet we know that he is created, not divine by any sense ,according to the Qur'an


To conclude the first chapter

even though the Holy Spirit is referred to by name in the Qur'an, it is not a distinction in the Godhead but refers to the angel Gabriel.
Islamic view of the holy spirit as Gabriel requires:

1-one of the points of disagreement between the Qur'an and the old testament.
2-when it comes to Christianity, the conflict is much deeper …The holy spirit whom they call (the third person of the Christian trinity), is imaginary non-existed partner with God (even they argue to be aspect of the deity)
Unlike Allah and Jesus, whom according to the Qur'an, are ill defined by Christians the matter is more problematic with the holy spirit, ….Not only the entity is ill defined(to be God), but it (as Gabriel) is substituted by another non-existed entity …

Chapter:2 Jesus,Mary and saints

The Koranic Jesus?

Jesus is a human being that is a no different than any other except that he had a virgin birth. He is a prophet as there are other prophets, and that is all that He is.


He is a creature [q 3:059] In clarifying the nature of Jesus as fully human, the Qurān repeatedly likens Jesus to Adam because both are God’s creations ,He was merely a “servant” (q.v.) of God (q 4:172; 19:30;43:59) , a “prophet” (nabī,q 19:30) and was required to pray and to pay alms, giving; prayer. God could destroy him and his mother and the whole world if he wished(q 5:17). ..........

The Qurān emphatically denies any sense of divinity to Jesus ....

Qur'an Sura 4:171: “O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not “three” :desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.”


A passage concerned with the proper status of Jesus begins by warning Christians not to “exceed the bounds’ in their religion . This idea of “exceeding bounds in your religion’ is a good summary of what the Qur’an sees as wrong with Christian attitudes to Jesus. The respect proper to a messenger of God has lost its moorings and drifted into idolatrous worship. The Qur'anic rejection of the idea that Jesus could in any sense be divine obviously makes all trinitarian language about God out of the question, as we saw above: “do not say ‘Three"’ (4: 171). Islamic Interpretations of Christianity by Lloyd Ridgeon(the University of Glasgow)


Jesus as God's word?

When read as part of the whole verse, the reference here to “three” is most obviously connected with the rejection of the related claims that Jesus was more than a human messenger and that God had a son. So a straightforward interpretation would be that here as in q 5:73 the Qurʾān warns against both divinization of Christ and Trinitarian exaggerations because no other beings should be placed beside God in divinity. (There is a curious reminiscence of the classical Christian doctrine in the immediately preceding mention of Jesus as word and spirit of God, though also a clear denial of it on the grounds that the titles hypostasised into persons of the godhead by Christians are no more than qualities to be ascribed to the human Jesus.) Like the ¶ other two, this third qurʾānic reference to tripleness in deity is, then, really directed against associating creatures with God, though it must be taken as intended to refute the central Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and, as such, as a radical deconstruction of that doctrine in its essential formulation of three discrete beings who share in divinity[Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an]

Christian apologists often argue that they echo the teaching of John’s Gospel, which states that God’s divine Word (logos), which was with him in the beginning and through whom he created all things, became flesh in Jesus Christ ( John 1:1-18). We shall see, however, that although the Qur_ān calls Jesus “a word from God” it does not endorse the orthodox Christian view that he was the incarnation of a pre-existent divine hypostasis.
q 3:45,which recalls how the angels told Mary:“God announces to you good news of a word from him; his name will be the Messiah Jesus son of Mary….” Here kalima clearly refers to Jesus and, as the annunciation to Mary is the structural homologue of the earlier annunciation to Zechariah, it seems likely that kalima refers to Jesus there as well. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, whereas kalima is a feminine noun, the pronominal suffi x attached to “name” is masculine. Thus the name “the Messiah Jesus son of Mary” is attributed to the male person indicated by the word, rather than to the word itself. Elsewhere in the Qurān kalima usually denotes a divine decree, and this seems also to be the case here. The classical commentators argued convincingly that Jesus is called a “word” primarily because, as was also the case with Adam, God brought him into existence
merely by uttering the command “Be!” as is stated a few verses later in q 3:59 The People of the Book (q.v.) are ordered not to exaggerate in their religion and to speak nothing except the truth about God. The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was only God’s envoy and “his word which he cast unto Mary” and a spirit from him. Here, Jesus and the “word” are even more closely associated because the verb “cast” is followed by the redundant feminine object pronoun. Nevertheless, as there is no suggestion that Jesus was God’s sole envoy and, as “spirit” is indefinite, “his word” should probably be construed as “a word of his,” without any implication of uniqueness. In any case, the polemical context and the insistence that Jesus is only an envoy, word and spirit, should caution Christian apologists from interpreting kalima in the light of orthodox Christian logos theology.



Jesus as a spirit from God?

see our first chapter (Allah and the spirit)....


quran 5:72
They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
Certainly they disbelieve who say, "God is one of three" There is only One God. If they do not desist from so saying, a painful punishment is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.



Professor David Thomas ( University of Birmingham, UK.)wrote under “Trinity”. in the highly prestigious Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an :

It has been noted that, in fact, this is not a reference to the Trinity but to Jesus, who in Syriac literature was often called “the third of three” (Griffith, Christians and Christianity, 312-13). By this reading q 5:73 must be seen as constituting part of a sustained criticism of the belief in the divinity of Christ that occupies the whole of q 5:72-5, i.e. an emphatic repetition of the criticism in verse 72 that God and Christ are identical .But it is equally plausible to read this and the preceding verse, which is evidently intended as a pair with this since it begins with the same formula (laqad kafara lladhīna qālū inna…), as intentional simplifications of the two major Christian beliefs in the humanity and divinity of Christ and the Trinity, simplifications that expose the weaknesses they each contain when analyzed from the strictly monotheistic perspective of the Qurān. Thus, q 5:72 attacks what it portrays as the eternal God and the human born of Mary (q.v.) being identical, while q 5:73 attacks the notion that God could have partners in his divinity. The teaching in this verse is certainly that Christians place other beings alongside the true God.

Notes:

First:The verse, simply, attacking the notion that (God was manifested in the flesh of Jesus)
1 Tim.3:16 “God was manifested in the flesh”(according to kjv etc..)

Yes it is a partial definition of the trinity (God according to Christianity is manifested in father, Holy Spirit as well), but it seems that the Quranic stress on the criticism on notion of the deity of Jesus due to the suggestion that ,if there is something most wicked in the whole formula ,would be the deity of Jesus …………..
As we know that the first person of the trinity the father (Allah) is recognized as divine by both Muslims and Christians……and when it comes to the holy spirit though thought to be divine by Christians yet he is hardly worshiped ,venerated (we will get back to that point soon)

Second: The expression ( thalithuthalathatin) which some translators translated as (third of three) shouldn't trick you as non Arab , into the meaning ( the third in order ) which (by linguistic necessity) isn't the meaning intended

The expression (thalithu thalathatin) , simply means (one of three)Let’s visit both the Arabic grammatical references :The comprehensive reference of Arabic grammar (the book of Alkfaaf) كتاب الكفاف فى قواعد اللغة العربية

http://www.reefnet.gov.sy/education/...AdadMadoud.htm
under the term numerical rules in Arabic , he wrote

الذين قالوا إنّ الله ثالث ثلاثة[ (المائدة 5/73)

الترتيب والتسلسل والتتابع غير مرادة في الآية، وإنما المراد أنهم قالوا: إنّ الله تعالى واحد من ثلاثة. ولو كان الترتيب
مراداً لقالوا: إنه ثالث اثنين. وانظر إلى ما جاء في صحيح البخاري
تجد المسألة على أوضح الوضوح. فدونك النصّ الحرفي، كما ورد فيه: [عن... خرجت رابع أربعة من بني تميم أنا أحدهم، وسفيان بن مجاشع، ويزيد بن عمرو بن ربيعة، وأسامة بن مالك بن حبيب بن العنبر، نريد ابن جفنة الغسّانيّ بالشام فنَزلنا على غدير...]. ولو أراد الترتيب لقال: [خرجت رابع ثلاثة] أي: تَقَدَّمَه الثلاثةُ، ثم خرج هو بعدهم، فكان رابعاً

By grammatical necessity ,Order, sequence in any kind is not intended in such verse ,if it denotes order, then the expression (thalithu ethnaini) (ثالث اثنين) has to be used …

Similar example of that rule from the Quran :The expression (thaniathnaini) (ثالث اثنين) (one of two)
The Quran - 9:40 If you do not succour the Apostle, then [know that God will do so -just as] God succoured him at the time when those who were bent on denying the truth drove him away, and he was but] one of two: when these two were in the cave, [and] the Apostle said to his companion, "Grieve not: verily, God is with us.

it doesn’t denote order at all , it doesn’t denote that the companion of the prophet was expelled by the pagans and then the prophet later as his second ,but they been expelled together ..

another similar meaning in Sunna narration :http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/displ...477&pid=588439

Muhammad ben udai said : I was one of four رَابِعَ أَرْبَعَةٍ (rabea arbaaten) who travelled to Syria etc….. (narrated Altabarani)
If he wanted to get the reader a meaning of order, he would have used ( rabea thalathaten) رابع ثلاثة
........



Christian:But we don't believe God is one of three?

Muslim: Don't you believe that (the father) is one of three persons of the Godhead?

That is your theory but Do you remember my note of taking care of the term (the father) when dealing with the Qur'an?
Again Allah (the father) according to Islam is the term that represents the divine being fully, and not mere a manifestation of the deity…..


Christian: It seems that the Qur'an assumes and condemns Christians for believing in three gods?


You want to know what exactly the Qur'an accuses Christian with. It is not three gods, but one true God (whom they belief to be just one manifestation of God) accompanied by partner A (the creature Jesus whom they belief to be the physical manifestation of God) and partner B (the imaginary entity holy spirit whom they belief to be a manifestation of the deity)


Christian: I don't like someone define for me what I believe in?


Your belief is not above criticism … the first thing I did is providing what Christians define God with, now I'm criticizing such definition ……My criticism comes from The Qur'an and your definition according to you, comes from the bible ……..Have you proofs of the trinity beyond the bible? On the other hand have I proofs of the notions (the father as the creator, Jesus as a prophet etc…) beyond the Qur'an?

The answer for both is absolutely not…
As I said before: Trinity is a belief, according to you, based on a scripture that you belief to be fully the word of God, and must be telling the truth in any Metaphysical concept therein.On the other hand, the Quranic criticism on the trinity is again a belief for me based on a scripture that I belief to be fully the word of God and must tells the truth in any metaphysical concept therein. What we applied to the father we can apply on the other members of the trinity as well....Jesus could be a physical manifestation of the deity, or a prophet, or a lunatic was born through illegal intercourse etc.....The validity of any of the previous rests on the validity of the scripture (whether Jewish, Christian, and Islamic).....


Third: The Quranic saying (They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three) is applied to any formula that require Allah (the father) to be included…..It is applied to any form of trinity …whether
So called orthodox trinity Father, son, Holy Spirit Or another Father, son, Mary


Christian: what about the understanding that the trinity that the Quran is concerned about is the second one, father, son, marry?

Muslim: I took such suggestion seriously and checked the material provided to back up such claim, but finally felt not in favor for such suggestion……….

Before showing why I can't buy such understanding, let's read the argument,Let's quote the balanced work of Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an, again:

Sura 5, section 16, verse 119, reads: “And behold! God will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, “Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God”? He will say: “Glory to thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I have not known what is in thine. For thou knowest in full all that is hidden.”

The writer at first explains reasons for such flawed understanding:

Thus, q 5:72 attacks what it portrays as the eternal God and the human born of Mary (q.v.) being identical, while q 5:73 attacks the notion that God could have partners in his divinity. The teaching in this verse is certainly that Christians place other beings alongside the true God. If it is taken in its context, the implication can be drawn from q 5:72 and 75 that one of these is Jesus, while from the firm emphasis on his and his mother's human needs in q 5:75 (“Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger [q.v.]… and his mother was a woman of truth [q.v.]; they had both to eat food”; see food and drink; prophets and prophethood ), it is even possible to infer that the other was Mary
Whether or not this is the intention in q 5:73, the second reference in the Qurān to three deities makes such an accusation explicit. This is in q 5:116: “And behold! God will say: ‘O Jesus, the son of Mary! Did you say to people (al-nās), “Take me and my mother for two gods beside God?”’ He will say, ‘Glory to you (see glorification of god )! Never could I say what I had no right [to].’” In what is intended as an eschatological interrogation of Jesus, God brings up a claim evidently associated with him, that he encouraged people to regard himself and Mary as gods besides God (min dūni llāh). The implication is that Christians made him the source of the wrong belief they hold.

Now the writer goes on:

Strictly speaking, this verse need not be read as a reference to a version of the Trinity but rather as an example of shirk, claiming divinity for beings other than God (see idolatry and idolaters ). As such, it could be ¶ understood as a warning against excessive devotion to Jesus and extravagant veneration of Mary, a reminder linked to the central theme of the Qurān that there is only one God and he alone is to be worshiped.

The writer moves to the issue of Collyridians :

If this verse (mentions Mary)could be read in relation to the Trinity ,It has been argued that at this accusation, which is remote from orthodox Christianity, may be directed at a particular form of deviant belief, such as that associated with the Collyridians, a female sect who sacrificed cakes, kollyrídes, to Mary (Masson, Coran, 93; Parrinder, Jesus, 135). They are described by the fourth century heresiographer Epiphanius (d. 403 c.e.) as a sect that “came to Arabia from Thrace and northern Scythia” (Panarion LXXIX). This suggestion is helpful in linking the accusation with a historical referent but it raises the problem of why the Qurān should take this comparatively little-known belief as a representative formulation of the Trinity. To accept such a link may have some attraction on historical grounds (though firm proof is entirely lacking), but it entails acknowledging that the Qurān is not addressing mainstream Christian beliefs.
If, on the other hand, there is no sectarian version of Christian doctrine being addressed in this verse, it need not be read as a rejection of a deviant doctrine of the Trinity but as a denial that Jesus and Mary are equal with God, and a warning (q.v.) against making excessive claims about them. Thus, it can be understood as an instance of the warning against the divinization of Jesus that is given elsewhere in the Qurʾān and a warning against the virtual divinization of Mary in the declarations of the fifth-century church councils that she is ¶ theotókos, “God-bearer.” The vehement opposition of Nestorius (d. ca. 451) and his followers to this title as incompatible with the full humanity of Christ may be part of the historical context from which the polemics of this verse arise. It is not far-fetched to think that ecclesiastical extravagances as related by groups of Christians to whom they were distasteful, combined with the constant emphasis in the Qurān on the uniqueness of God, produced this dramatically conceived denial that other beings could be divine besides him.

………………………………..

Notes: I would elaborate more to support that there is no sectarian version of Christian doctrine being addressed in this verse:

First: I checked the linguistic formula of the verse with the other verses the same formula is used … as nothing better than understanding the Qur'an by the Qur'an........

The formula is To take, worship(ettakhath) someone, something as god………. Instead, other than(men doon) of God

The formula is used outside the context of worship....
Eg;
"You are taking (ettakhath) the men out of lust instead of (men doon) the women! No, you are an ignorant people!" an-Naml 27:55
Does the verse suggest those men as taking men for sexual pleasure besides women?Not at all ....
The meaning is though they know the normal object for sexual intercourse (women) they approached the abnormal object(men) instead

Another example:

al-Jumu`ah 62:6
Say, "O you who have Judaized, in case you assert that you are patronized(ettakhath) by Allah, apart(men doon) from mankind, then covet death, in case you are sincere."


The formula is used inside the context of worship in numerous instances ..and we will notice that those who take (object of worship) either they think of it as divine or not divine but is worshiped, venerated for the sake of intercession ....

the first kind could be found in:

an-Naml 27:24 I found her and her folk prostrating herself to the sun—instead of (men doon)God—and Satan made to appear pleasing to them their actions and barred them from the way so they are not truly guided.

The second kind could be found in numerous instances

az-Zumar 39:38 If you should ask them who created Heaven and Earth, they would say: "God." SAY: "Have you (all) ever seen what you appeal to(ettakhath) instead of (men doon) God [Alone]? If God wanted [to cause] me any trouble, would such females ever remove His trouble? Or if He wants some mercy for me, will such females hold back His mercy?" SAY: "God is [the Means] by Which I reckon; on Him do the reliant rely."


Yunus 10:18 They worship, instead of (men doon)Allah, what can neither harm them nor help them, saying, ´These are our intercessors with Allah.´ Say: ´Would you inform Allah of something about which He does not know either in the heavens or on the earth?´ May He be glorified and exalted above what they associate with Him!


Ya Sin 36:23 Should I adopt (ettakhath) other gods instead of (men doon) Him? If the Mercy-giving should want any harm [to happen] to me, their intercession would never help me out in any way nor would they rescue me:


az-Zumar 39:43 Or do they adopt(ettakhath) intercessors instead of(men doon) God? SAY: "Even though they do not control a thing and cannot even reason?"

al-A`raf 7:197 while those you appeal to(ettakhath) instead of (men doon)Him cannot lend you any support nor do they even support themselves.


The two types of objects of worship could even be included together in the same verse and that is the key point towards understanding verse 5:116 Examples:

at-Taubah 9:31 They have taken (ettakhath) their learned men and their monks for their lords instead of (men doon) God. So have they taken the Messiah, son of Mary, although they were commanded to worship only the One God. There is no deity but He. He is far above whatever they set up as His partners!

Have you seen,what the verse saying ?

1- when it comes to worship, it is not Intention but your actions that counts ,it is not what you think you are doing but what you REALLY do.
2- veneration, asking for intercession etc . is considered worship in Islam even if the object of veneration is not believed to be divine…. It is enough that you direct any form of worship that is due to God alone for anyone, anything to turn him, her ,it to be god ….

3- the verse is a strong refutation for those who suggest that verse 5:116 is formulating a trinity of God, Jesus and Mary …..



Holy Quran 5:116 And as Allah said, "O Isa son of Maryam, (Jesus son of Mary) did you say to mankind, "Take (ettakhath)me and my mother to your selves as two gods, apart from(men doon) Allah '?" He said, All Extolment be to You! In no way is it for me to say what I have no right to. In case I ever said it. then You already know it. You know whatever is within my self, and I do not know what is within Your Self; surely You, Ever You, are The Superb Knower of the Things Unseen.

The verse is just one example of, the thought to be divine(Jesus) and the thought to be not divine yet could be intercessor and be venerated (Mary),be taken as gods ..And that is the repeated message all over the Quran

al-Imran 3:64 SAY: "People of the Book, [let us] rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you, that we shall worship only God [Alone] a associate nothing else with Him, nor shall any of us take on others as lords instead of God." If they should turn away, then say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims."

Christian: what about the Quran mention of Jesus and Mary eating food?

That question was answered by the the writer of (Islamic view of trinity) in wikipedia…

I'm sorry but your arguments make a number of assumptions and liberal interpretations to reach your desired conclusions. First, you make the assumption that the argument the Koran is putting forward is that since Mary and Jesus eat food, neither is God. Therefore, the Koran believes Mary is part of the Trinity. However, the argument could be easily construed, since Mary and Jesus ate food, both are nothing but plain humans. This doesn't imply that Mary was part of the trinity Godhead in the Koranic view, but merely that in the Koranic view Christians viewed her as something aside from another plain human being. As is described in the article itself, some Christian sects truly worshiped her and the Church itself put her forth as Godbearer, which is more than just another human being. Indeed, Catholics continue to address prayers to her, an act that would be considered shirk in Islam (i.e., associating others with God). Hence, the Koranic argument need not be interpreted as anything more than that Jesus and Mary are both human beings.

The writer once again under the assumption that the word (men doon) in verse means ( in addition to) wrote:

The argument about the "triad" of which Mary is supposedly a part, is again to make a logical leap from the verses provided. The verse says: "Did you say to people: 'Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God'." The verse does not mention specifically that the Godhead that is being addressed is the trinity. You may think this is semantics, but it is not. If I say for example, that "People believe Magic Johnson and Larry Bird are 2 great basketball players beside Michael Jordan" this is not the same as saying: "People believe there are 3 great basketball players: MJ and Magic and Bird beside him." In the first statement, there could be 10 people that are considered great basketball players besides Jordan, I am only mentioning 2 others in this specific conversation to make whatever point I wish to make (i.e., I make no assertion re: the number of great players). However, in the latter statement I am actually and clearly addressing the belief/assertion that there are three great players, Jordan and the two others.

Once again let's repeat the reasonable conclusion of Professor David Thomas:

Strictly speaking, this verse need not be read as a reference to a version of the Trinity but rather as an example of shirk, claiming divinity for beings other than God. As such, it could be understood as a warning against excessive devotion to Jesus and extravagant veneration of Mary, a reminder linked to the central theme of the Qurān that there is only one God and he alone is to be worshiped. Professor David Thomas ,Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an(Trinity)



Christian: where is in the Qur'an the holy spirit isn’t God and how do you explain nowhere in the Quran the worship of the holy spirit is condemned?


By saying the holy spirit is Gabriel ,created is negating the divinity isn’t it?

you remember when I said that it seems that the Quran counts for ones actions in worship?
Though Mary(saints also) is not thought divine yet worshiped, On the other hand the holy spirit is thought to be divine yet hardly is worshiped....

How many images, idols are those of Mary and Jesus is bowed to, prayed to ,asked for help and mercy compared to those of the holy spirit….

listen to the common prayers in the christian world:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
Lord Jesus help me protect me save me etc......

or let's listen to the common prayers of the world's largest Christian church, with over a billion members.

Most Holy Virgin Mary, Help of Christian,how sweet it is to come to your feet imploring your perpetual help.If earthly mothers cease not to remember their children,how can you, the most loving of all mothers forget me?Grant then to me, I implore you, your perpetual help in all my necessities, in every sorrow, and especially in all my temptations.I ask for your unceasing help for all who are now suffering.Help the weak, cure the sick, convert sinners.Grant through your intercessions many vocations to the religious life. Obtain for us, O Mary, Help of Christians,that having invoked you on earth we may love and eternally thank you in heaven.

Holy Mary,help those in need,give strength to the weak,comfort the sorrowful,pray for God's people,assist the clergy,intercede for religious.Mary all who seek your help experience your unfailing protection.Amen.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
....................
I won't waste my time as a Muslim criticizing such form of idolatry..I will let the christian protestant (whom though they practice shirk themselves while praying to the human Jesus yet have the advantage of avoiding Mary and saints worship) voice speak ...

just a sample quotes:

To this day the worship of Mary is one of the principal points of separation between the Graeco-Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism.
the veneration of Mary gradually degenerated into the worship of Mary; and this took so deep hold upon the popular religious life in the Middle Age, that, in spite of all scholastic distinctions between latria, and dulia, and hyrerdulia, Mariolatry practically prevailed over the worship of Christ.
..The popular religious want had accustomed itself even to female deities, and very naturally betook itself first of all to Mary, the highly favored and blessed mother of the divine-human Redeemer, as the worthiest object of adoration.
The Festivals of Mary.
This mythical and fantastic, and, we must add, almost pagan and idolatrous Mariology impressed itself on the public cultus in a series of festivals, celebrating the most important facts and fictions of the life of the Virgin, and in some degree running parallel with the festivals of the birth, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.

The Roman Catholic view of Mary is pagan, it is utterly pagan.

Does the Roman Catholic Church promote idolatry? According to the scripture and its own practices, yes it does. "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry," (1 Cor. 10:14).

As a faithful Catholic, and later as a nun, I practiced Mary worship for many years without realizing it.....................

If you want to see what a person's real priorities are, then watch what they do when their life, or the life of a loved one, is in danger. When Pope John Paul II was shot, while the ambulance was rushing him to the hospital, the Pope was not praying to God or calling on the name of Jesus. He kept saying, over and over, “Mary, my mother!” Polish pilgrims placed a picture of Our Lady of Czestochowa on the throne where the Pope normally sat. People gathered around the picture. Vatican loudspeakers broadcasted the prayers of the rosary. When the Pope recovered, he gave Mary all the glory for saving his life.......

If you are not persuaded that Catholicism encourages and even requires a level of “devotion” to Mary that really is a form of worship, then I challenge you to ask God what He thinks about it. If you are sincere in your prayer and open to letting God show you the truth, then He will.

you can check hundreds of evangelical input condemning such worship with the strongest of terms ...... Hail Mary! Hail Satan! Catholics Commit Idolatry by Praying to Dead Saints ,Catholics Worship Statues in Vain etc.........

links:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...hail_satan.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...ry_worship.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...cc5-saints.htm


You still wonder, why the worship of Jesus ,Mary and the saints is being attacked rather than the holy spirit? !!!!


.......................................



Is there a christian apologetic agenda in denying that the Qurān does criticize conventional Christian doctrines ?

Too often in the past, Western scholars in particular have wrongly interpreted the rhetorical devices (see rhetoric of the Qur'an) of the Qu rān’s criticism or rejection of conventional Christian doctrines as flawed reports of misunderstood teachings or as echoes of the doctrines of shadowy groups such as the “Nazarenes⁄Nazoreans” or the “Collyridians” of the Byzantine heresiographers or of “Jewish Christian” groups often mentioned
by modern scholars, no historical trace of whom is otherwise to be found in the Arabian milieu in the time of Mu ammad and the Qurān. Such interpretations have themselves often been the product of a polemical or of an apologetic agenda in regard to the Qurān rather than the yield of a credible historical examination of the
milieu in which the text appeared, and to which it spoke in the first instance. In light of the plentiful evidence of the presence of Christians in the world of earliest Islam, their several conventional denominations of that time and place, the most plausible interpretive stratagem is to relate the Qurān’s statements about the “Nazarenes”
and the “People of the Book,” their beliefs and practices, to these known Christian groups with reference to the largely Syriac idiom in which modern scholars can find written expressions of their faith and works. On this reading of the evidence, the “Nazarenes” of whom the Qurān speaks were no other group than the “Melkites,”
“Jacobites” and “Nestorians” of ordinary church history, notwithstanding the fact that in earlier times there were some who were called “Nazarenes⁄Nazoreans” by the Byzantine heresiographers, whom they described as espousing views which, in hindsight,some modern scholars would regard as being compatible with views of Christ
expressed in the Qurān. Rather, the term “Nazarenes” as it is used in the Qurān is taken to be a general one
reflecting an archaic Syriac usage and indicating those “People of the Book” whom others customarily called “Christians.” The Qurān would have had its own reasons for not using the more customary nomenclature and it is not inconceivable that these were polemical reasons comparable to the use of the cognate term no rīm by Jews as attested in some rabbinical texts and in accordance with the practice of non-Christians, as reported in Syriac texts, of calling Christians in Persia “Nazarenes⁄Nazoreans.” to the troubles of the neighboring Byzantines
(q 30:2).

[Al-manar]

before concluding the issue of trinity in the holy Quran , I would answer one last question I got from a christian

Christian : Just why doesn't the verse 5:116 says instead of "Take me and my mother to your selves as two gods, instead of Allah '?"

"Take me and the holy spirit to your selves as two gods, instead of Allah '?"

Muslim : because no christian ever take the holy spirit (as defined by the Quran ,the Angel Gabriel) , the holy spirit as defined by Christians doesn't exist in the Quranic terms .....

The Quran just defined the same exact term Christians use (holy spirit) with a total different object (Gabriel) .....

dear readers , plz provide whatever questions ,notes related to the topic,if you would like to...thanx

to conclude :

It is obvious that while the Quran criticize the trinity ,the criticism comes from within a wider context of a several false objects of worship (Jesus,Mary,numerous saints .......) that the christian world is plagued by !!.......

Allah (what they like to call The Father) , neither the complete term to fill the divinity , nor the one that they direct the worship at alone .... though he is divine in theory ,yet in practice he is ignored !

whenever you go watching the process of worship in the christian world it would be directed at either Jesus or Mary ,saints ...... the father is hardly prayed to .... he is substituted by the so called ( the physical appearance of God) or any other objects of worship receive both the actions and words that is due to God alone .....

In a word .It seems that Satan has succeeded perfectly with Christians to turn the first and second of the commandments into a past .... how about the rest of the commandments,eg, the law? in future posts we will find out that he was as successful as well !.


before we do so , let us go on with the trinity and another chapter.......

.................................................. .................................................. .............

Trinity in the Bible

Introduction

1- should we quote the new testament or the old testament or both ? would we find the apocryphal writings as helpful as well?
2- Does the old testament pave the way to the concept of physical manifestation of the divine,if so ,how would the Jews interpret it?
3- Does the new testament textually support the idea of Jesus being God? did Jesus claim divinity? did the writer(s) of the new testament thought of Jesus as God? was Jesus worshiped the worship that is due to God alone in the new testament?
4- Is there a significance to the answer of that Questions to Muslims?
those are the proper questions that should be answered to approach the matter

I will answer the 3rd and 4th questions in an unexpected way...... but do not be surprised till you read more my input.....


till next post


peace

[Al-manar]

........

The issue of the divinity of Jesus ,and the mistakes of the muslim christian dialogues :

I have noted several mistakes commited by those muslims who are,were involved in trinity debates ...

The first mistake:

Is that, they exaggerate the significance of the issue with regard to the difference between Islam and christianity .... many muslims mistakenly believe that the only difference between Islam and christianity is the issue of Jesus' nature ,that is why there are numerous muslim-christian debates on the trinity.
their mistake here is that they are not fully aware of Islam opposing ,not only how the christians suggest the nature of Jesus is ,but also how would they suggested his role in both past and future ,in addition to all that Islam opposes strongly the concept of blood atonement .

The second mistake

most of them, don't appear to realize the big difference between , the Question, Is Jesus God? and Does the bible say Jesus is God?


I contacted many muslims who scared to find out that the bible suggests Jesus as divine , though they know the Quranic attitude towards the bible ( as partially inspired with some added fabrications therin),yet when it comes to the texts that suggest Jesus as divine ,they would never digest the idea that such passages could be human uninspired concepts, but they must be the true words of Jesus ,it is just those who belong to mainstream christianity misunderstood them !
and that leads to other mistakes

1- If we approch the matter that way ,we will give a wrong impression to the christians that we accept such verses as inspired,it is just we disagree with them regarding how it should be understood !!

Is such tactic Islamic? not it isn't ..actually ,it is against Islam
I will give just one example of the awful consequences of arguing that way (that christians misunderstood the bible !)

eg; what if a muslim engaged in an argument regarding the most important proof text in the bible supporting the divinity of Jesus?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

the debate regarding that passage is linguestic :

The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, "and the Word was the God." The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, "and the word was a God."— David A. Reed. "How Semetic Was John? Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1." Anglican Theological Review, Fall 2003, Vol. 85 Issue 4, p709

There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, theology and proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular.[9] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that "... a god" or "... divine" is the proper rendering.[10] Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation ...a god while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.(wiki)

If you notice, the dispute is whether the word (logos) is God, or "... a god" or "... divine" ... there is no third option ...

Hasn't the muslim debater already assumed that the problem is not the passage but the way christians understand it?!

if so ,what would he suggest the proper understanding would be? ...... it would be logically the second option..... if so , would he accept Jesus as a god (not God) or in some sense divine? is that Quranic? more important have you read what the THE WORD (LOGOS),did according to the writer of John?

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

Through the word ,that is Jesus ,everything was created !.....

Are you ready to accept that?! Is that Quranic?!

Have you as a muslim any chance to have any of John's prologue (with whatever meaning you may suggest) to be in accord with Islam? it is obvious that the meaning that is suggested as an alternative from the text continues to contradict the Qur'an and teachings of Islam!
why would you waste your time arguing with christians the meaning ?...... Have you any difficulty including such passage fully ,as one of the parts of the new testament to be against what the Quran defines as the true gospel revealed to Jesus,and thus has to be be rejected totally ?

now to

The third mistake:

Though the muslim got the message of the Quran that anyone, anywhere,anytime believes in the divinity of Jesus ,has commited blasphemy ,yet he would like to make exceptions !!
I dunno why should a muslim exclude one or more from the writers of the new testament to has been a founder,believer of the belief of the deity of Jesus !!
Just where is such Islamic textaul support either from the Quran or sunnah ,claiming that none of the writers of the new testament believed in the deity of jesus ?


The fourth mistake:

confusing Is Jesus God? with Is Jesus God be biblical? !!

I remember once I visited a coptic christian friend and invited me to watch a lecture on the trinity by a coptic church priest ,after he finsihed the lecture ... the friend said, the father is very convincing he provided unrefutable proofs from the bible that Jesus is God .... he then said to me :

now you have found out that the bible teaches the divinity of Jesus ,so I don't think you have now any excuse not to accept christianity ?

I told him that If I suppose that the man convinced me that the trinity biblical ,still that doesn't proof that the trinity exists..... Islam denies the deity of Jesus ,not whether ,it is there in the bible or not !....I told him ,what If I brought you some Quranic verses affirms that Mohamed is the last of the prophets ,would you accept that he is a prophet,or you will say ,it is just the Quran claims so,but it doesn't neccesarily means so !

I have contacted some un-experienced muslims who felt shaky in their faith after reading or listening to the christian materials that argue for the divinity of jesus as biblical .....
those good ,pious muslims,and due to their lack of reflection , been misleaded and thought the if the bible teaches trintiy then not only christianity is true but Islam is false !!!!

what a shallow thinking,indeed !!!!!

A pill for the trinity headache:

Have you engaged in such futile debates on the trinity whether biblical or not?

why don't you take a pill for such trinity headache? would you waste your time again ,arguing with christian that Islam has no problem with the texts that they use to argue for the divinity of Jesus ,it is just they misunderstood it?!

just be assured of something, whatever amount of attempts to accomodate the trinity proof texts into Islamic style, would fail ! ....

I will show the readers inshallah in next posts that the problem with most (if not all) the trinity proof texts ,is not what some may believe that they are misunderstood ,twisted by christians but is that there is no hope for them entirely to be included in what the Quran define the true gospel of Jesus ....

what is more amazing is that , even the new testament texts that is used against the trinity seems to be against what the Quran defines as the true gospel of jesus !!

dear muslim,just relax to read the following Trinitarians VS unitarian debate on whether the trinity is biblical or not , which by no means is supposed to be Trinitarians VS muslims debate....
simply because whatever outcome of it (whether the case of the divinity of jesus as biblical well established or shaky) should mean anything of significance to muslims more than curiousity ....


to be continued

[Al-manar]

the previous post was dedicated to some of my positive criticism of the good muslims who engage themselves in the trinity debates with the christians ...... let's continue adding more points....


The fifth mistake : "you are worshipping 3 gods" A muslim telling a christian !!

dear muslim ,plz pause and rethink what you have just said !
you have just offended Allah ,without realizing that !!

what christians believe in ? they believe that the divine being is manifested in 3 entities The father (Allah), the son (Jesus),the holy spirit .

you are calling those three (gods) !!
but you know that a god (with small g) denotes false deity,isn't it? do you believe that Allah (whom they call the father) is a false god ?!!!!

so pay attention ,and never say christians worship 3 gods ,that is simply non Quranic ....

The Quranic position? Allah (whom they call the father, considering him just one of the three manifestation of the divine being ) is the only divine entity to be exist and to be alone worshipped ...he doesn't need neither (the son),nor (the holy spirit) to complete the Godhead..... he is simply alone there ....

The Quran accuses christians with ascribing mortal partners to the almighty,besides ,offering the worship that is due to Allah alone ...

the term (3 gods) while criticising christianity is not proper for a muslims (neither a Jew) , it is proper for atheists etc but not muslims who believe in the divinity of Allah (the father) .....

The christian reaction is as flawed as the muslim argument ..... christian would simply respond : but we don't believe in 3 gods, you surely misunderstand the trinity ,it is not 3 gods but one God with three manifestations ....

oh well .... may I ask you where did you get the idea that there is God and he is manifested to his creation with three ways? you will argue that the bible says so.... and the bible is entirely the word of God ,that it must be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth ....

I think it is fair to say that ,the validity of the trinity depends on the validity of the bible ....
it is a matter of faith ,or would you claim that the supreme being is kept there in a laboratory and proven to be with three manifestations?

your definition of the deity (as manifested in 3 ways) is based on a book of faith (bible),on the other hand a muslim counter definition of the deity (one entity with no manifestations) is based on a book of faith ,too (Quran) .......
may be one of us right ,another wrong ... may be we both are wrong and the deity doesn't exist at all...

in sum the Quranic view on the trinity is:

Allah (God,the fully divine being) + Jesus (god) + Holy spirit (god) = One God associated with 2 gods ..

the improper formula that muslims are tricked with

Allah (god) + Jesus (god) + holy spirit (god) = 3 gods !


The sixth mistake : Is when the issue of Arius be brought in the discussion .... usually the muslim while discussing the trinity, would suggest that the Arians were true montheists ,and a representative of the true christians ,who been destroyed by the trinitarians (false christians) ....


The muslim use of such flawed argument besides the argument that the bible surely doesn't teach the divinity of Jesus ,would explain that muslims obviously are greatly influenced by the arguments of the unitarian christians ..eg; the testimony of Jehovah ....

but the fact ,with careful thinking ,one would easily understand that merely the belief that Jesus is not God ,doesn't necessarily require that those adherent to such belief to be muslims or their belief to be in accordance with Islam.......

Though Arians never believed in Jesus as God the almighty ,yet the rest of their beliefs (including their view on the pre-existence of Jesus) are against Islam !.

details on that point, coming soon....

till next post (tomorrow or after tomorrow inshallah )

Peace be upon you all

[Al-manar]

we still with the sixth mistake , I believe, that not only muslims would be wrong once they believe that Arianism is the representative of the true christianity ,but also christians would be wrong if they believe that Mohamed (peace be upon him) integrated and advanced the Arian theology !.....


Who are the Arians?

1-They ,unlike muslims, believe the new testament as fully the word of God .
2-They, unlike muslims , believe Jesus to be the son of God ,while divine , was created by God as the agent through whom he created the universe !.
3-They, unlike muslims ,believe that Jesus was not only crucified but also atoned with his blood those who believe in his message (as it is in the new testament).

Are those supposed to be the true christians?!!

I don't find Islam agree with them in ANYTHING .....
They opposed Jesus as God ,yet they preached the pre-existed ,creator Jesus !! both of the two versions against the Islamic created Jesus the prophet .
Christians whether Trinitarians or unitarians are two faces of the same coin ... no big difference is there ,indeed.


Till next post


peace

[cOsMiCiNtUiTiOn]

Have you guys watched Muhammad in the Bible? it goes through topics such as the ones being discussed currently here.

http://www.youtube.com/gangstrous#p/.../0/toWCM3eqQp0

info may come in handy :) -cOsMiC

[Al-manar]

Have you guys watched Muhammad in the Bible? it goes through topics such as the ones being discussed currently here.

http://www.youtube.com/gangstrous#p/.../0/toWCM3eqQp0

info may come in handy :) -cOsMiC

Thank you sis cosmic ..... Though I disgree with few of the material (eg;the song of solomon as a prophecy) I pray Allah to reward the creator of videos the best for his time and efforts ....

[Al-manar]

Is Jesus God according to the bible?

Though all the writers of the new testament believed in Jesus as the Jewish promised king messiah(whose case to be resumed and yet to be finished in our thread) that was prophecised in the old testament .It doesn’t seem that all of them took that leap of thought Divinizing their Messiah ....

Let’s visit the commonly quoted gospel in trinity discussions ..It is the gospel according to John (a writer whose identity was and still controversal among the scholars of the new testament)

In order to be fair , I will provide the commentaries as much as possible of the people who read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity,or the opposite ….


1- The Prologue of John’s Gospel


1 In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God;
3 all things were made through him,
and without him was not anything made that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light,
that all might believe through him.
8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.
9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the
world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him,
yet the world knew him not.
11 He came to his own home, and his own people received
him not.
12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name,
he gave power to become children of God;
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh
nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,
full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory,
glory as of the only Son from the Father.


Bart Ehrman seems that he (just as most non christian scholars of the new testament) leans to the Trinitarian understanding

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings[/B]]


- divinity, for example, is one of the leading points of the prologue.

- The Gospel of John has always been one of the most popular and beloved books of the New Testament. It is here that Jesus makes some of his most familiar and yet extraordinary declarations about himself, where he says that he is "the bread of life," "the light of the world," "the good shep-herd who lays down his life for his sheep," and "the way, the truth, and the life." This is the Gospel that identifies Jesus as the Word of God "through whom all things were made." It is here that he makes the astonishing claim that "before Abraham was, I am," where he confesses that "I and the Father are one," and where he tells Nicodemus that "you must be born again." And it is in this Gospel that Jesus performs many of his most memorable acts: turning the water into wine, raising his friend Lazarus from the dead, and wash-ing his disciples' feet. These sayings and deeds, and indeed many more, are found only in the Fourth Gospel, mak-ing it a source of perpetual fascination for scholars of the New Testament. Why are such stories found in John but nowhere else? Why is Jesus portrayed so differently here than in the other Gospels? Why, for example, does he talk so much about his own identity in John but scarcely at all in the Synoptic Gospels? And why does this Gospel identify Jesus as God's equal, when none of the earlier Gospels does?

-Jesus, to be sure, was still thought of as a rabbi, as the lamb of God, and as the messiah, but he was much more than that. For these excluded Christians, (the johannine community) Jesus was unique in knowing about God; he was the one who brought the truth of God to his people. How did he know this truth? The community came to think that Jesus knew God because he had himself come from God. He was the man sent from heaven, come to deliver the message of God to his people before returning to his Father. Only those who ultimately belonged to God could receive this truth; only those who were born "from above" could enter into God's kingdom (3:3). The social context of exclusion from the syna-gogue thus led these Johannine Christians to see Jesus as something more than a man representing God or as one sent to deliver God's message. He came to be understood as the embodiment of that message itself. Jesus was himself God's Word. As his Word, he had existed with God from the beginning and was himself God, in a sense. He was God's equal, existent from eternity past, who became human to communicate God's truth to his own. Those who saw him saw the Father, those who heard him heard the Father, and those who rejected him rejected the Father.

-If we were to examine John from a strictly thematic point of view, we might follow the pattern we established for the book of Acts and look at some of the salient motifs established at the outset in the prologue, and in some of the speeches of the main character. From a thematic point of view, it is interesting to note that although the prologue identifies Jesus as the Word of God who has become human, he is never explicitly called this anywhere else in the Gospel. Nonetheless, certain other aspects of the prologue's description recur throughout the narra-tive. For example, just as the Word is said to be "in the beginning" with God, so Jesus later speaks of possessing the glory of the Father "before the world was made" (17:5); just as the Word is said to be "God," so Jesus says "I and the Father are one" (10:30); just as in the Word "was life," so Jesus claims to be "the resurrection and the life" (11:25); just as this life is said to be the "light that enlight-ens all people," so Jesus says that he is "the light of the world" (9:5); just as the Word is said to have come from heaven into this world, so Jesus maintains that he has been "sent" from God (e.g., 17:21, 25); and just as the Word is said to be rejected by.

- "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (14:6). Whereas Jesus scarcely ever talks about himself in the Synoptics, that is virtually all he talks about in John, and there is a close relationship here between what he says and what he does. He says that he is the one sent from God to bring life to the world, and he does signs to show that what he says is true. In short, John is markedly different from the Synoptics in both content and emphasis and with respect to both Jesus' words and his deeds. As I indicated at the outset, historians must try to explain these different portrayals of Jesus. One of the ways they have done so is to use the socio-his-torical method. Before looking at how this method works, however, we should see what important fea-tures of the Fourth Gospel can be uncovered through a redactional approach.
Readers have often noticed that Jesus speaks about himself far more in John than in the Synoptics. Jesus refers to himself using the phrase "I am" only two times in both Mark and Luke (Mark 6:50; 14:62; Luke 22:27; 24:39), and only five times in Matthew (11:29; 14:27; 18:20; 27:43; 28:20). Contrast this with the Gospel of John, where Jesus uses the verb to refer to himself a total of forty-six times! Among Jesus' important self-identifications in this Gospel are seven "I am" sayings in which he speaks of himself symbolically: "I am the bread of life" (6:35, 51), "I am the light of the world" (8:12), "I am the gate "(for the sheep; 10:7, 9), "I am the good shepherd" (10:11, 14), "I am the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (14:6), and "I am the true vine" (15:1). All of these images show that Jesus is uniquely important as the way to God and eternal life. In several other places in the Fourth Gospel Jesus simply says of himself "I am." The most striking occurrence is in 8:58. Jesus' opponents have objected to his reference to the father of the Jews, Abraham; in order to show that he is himself greater than Abraham, Jesus replies, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am" (cf. 8:24, 28; 13:19). It appears that Jesus is not simply claiming to be very old here (Abraham lived some 1,800 years earlier); by calling himself "I am" he may actually be taking the name of God. In the Jewish Scriptures, when Moses is sent by God to assist the Israelites, he asks God his name. God replies "I am who I am... Thus you shall say to the Israelites, 'I am has sent me to you" (Exod 3:14). If God's name as revealed to Moses was "I am," and Jesus in John calls himself "I am," is he claiming to be God? His hearers appear to understand it in this way. They immediately pick up stones to execute him for blasphemy.

.

on the other hand Prof James D. G. Dunn ( Lightfoot Professor Emeritus of Divinity at the University of Durham in England.He is one of the world's premier New Testament scholars). views the alternative understanding

Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. [/B]][B][I]

Jesus as god/God

We have already noted the attribution of the title 'God'/'god' to Jesus in John's Gospel — the pre-incarnate Word as God (John 1.1), the incarnate Word as the only begotten God/god who makes known the unseen/unseeable God (1.18), and the risen Christ worshipped as 'my Lord and my God' by Thomas (20.28). The fact that even when describing the Logos as God/god (1.1), John may distinguish two uses of the title from each other is often noted but too little appreciated. The distinction is possibly made by the use of the definite article with theos and the absence of the definite article in the same sentence: 'In the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God (literally, the God, ton theon), and the logos was god/God (theos, without the definite article):91 Such a distinction may have been intended, since the absence or presence of the article with theos was a matter of some sensitivity. As we see in Philo, in his exposition of Genesis 31.13 (De Somniis 1.227-30): He that is truly God is One, but those who are improperly so called are more than one. Accordingly the holy word in the present instance has indicated him who is truly God by means of the article, saying 'I am the God', while it omits the article when mentioning him who is improperly so called, saying, 'Who appeared to thee in the place' not 'of the God', but simply 'of God' [Gen. 31.13]. Here it gives the title of 'God' to his chief Word.
The possible parallel is notable, since Philo was clearly willing to speak of the Logos as 'God', as we see here and already noted in Chapter 3. But he did so in clear awareness that in so doing he was speaking only of God's outreach to humankind in and through and as the Logos, not of God in himself. John's Gospel does not attempt similar clarification in his use of God/god for the Logos, pre-incarnate and incarnate, though he uses lang-uage in regard to Christ that is very close to that of Philo in regard to the Logos.' But in possibly making (or allowing to be read) a distinction between God (ho theos) and the Logos (theos) the Evangelist may have had in mind a similar qualification in the divine status to be recognized for Christ. Jesus was God, in that he made God known, in that God made himself known in and through him, in that he was God's effective outreach to his creation and to his people. But he was not God in himself." There was more to God than God had manifested in and through his incarnate Word. The same is probably true of the other important Johannine text here — 1 John 5.19-20. For the passage expresses gratitude for the understanding that the Son of God has given us 'so that we may know him who is true [presumably God], and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.' If the last 'he' refers to Jesus (though the point is unclear and disputed), then as with John's Gospel, the godness of Jesus Christ is that as God's Son he fully represents God; to be in Christ is to be in God, or to be in him is to know God; the Son has made God known and present. As such he can even be described as 'the true God and eternal life: It is because the depth and profundity of God has been so fully revealed in and through Christ that Christ can be described as the revelation of the true God. Since we have already given some attention to the Revelation of John, the only other text that needs to be taken into account here is Hebrews. For in Hebrews 1.8 the writer quotes Psalm 45.6 as an address to the Son: 'Your throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever.' Following the strong Wisdom christology of the opening verses (1.1-4), and the interpretation of Deuteronomy 32.43 as a call on the angels to worship God's firstborn Son (1.6), the text must be given due weight. At the same time, however, we should recall that Psalm 45.6-7 was probably addressed to Israel's king, a fact that the writer of Hebrews was probably aware of since he carries on the quotation to Psalm 45.7, which speaks of the king as having been anointed by 'God, your God'. So again we are confronted with the use of (God'rgod' in a transferred sense, emphasizing the divinely accorded status of an individual while always aware that God was still the God of the one so described. In effect we are back into the powerful significance that Paul saw in Jesus' Lordship while he continued to think of God as the God of the Lord Jesus Christ.
.

conclusion :

I think what should matter a muslim is that the prologue is entirely non-islamic

1- Jesus(as the word) pre-existed with Allah ,and I think the writer means it for real (and continued repeating it again and again in his gospel) ...
2- All things were created for and by the Logos(word ,Jesus).

The Islamic Jesus is both created (whether soul or flesh,just as any human being) by Allah ,and wasn't the entity through whom the universe was created....

what are you waiting to include the prologue of John into the flawed words of man that been added to the true word of God ?!

[Burninglight]

Item 2 :

Eden

Bible:

the Earthly eastern garden where the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve, lived after they were created by God, The Genesis creation narrative relates the geographical location of both Eden and the garden to four rivers (Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, Euphrates), and three regions (Havilah, Assyria, and Kush)...
according to the bible ,after they were expelled from such earthly garden God placed cherubim with an omnidirectional "flaming sword" to guard against any future entrance into the garden.

However, The Talmud associates paradise with the Garden of Eden which considered as the the eternal destination for the righteous .or a heavenly realm where souls reside after physical death until the time of bodily resurrection in the days of the Messiah.
Talmudic would view the righteous: sitting at golden banquet tables (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Taanit 25a) or at stools of gold (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Ketubot 77b), enjoying lavish banquets (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Baba Batra 75a) enjoying sexual intercourse (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berachot 57b). no envy or hatred or rivalry; but sitting enthroned [Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berachot 17a ]
"Garden on Eden has two gates of ruby, by which stand SIXTY varieties of pure servants. The luster of the face of each of them glistens like the splendor of the firmament. When a righteous man arrives, they remove his clothes in which he had been buried.." (Yalkut Shimoni, Bere**** 20)


Quran:

1- Eden is such heavenly paradise which has gardens

Holy Quran [9:72] GOD promises the believing men and the believing women gardens with flowing streams, wherein they abide forever, and magnificent mansions in the gardens of Eden. And GOD's blessings and approval are even greater. This is the greatest triumph.

2- Was Adam expelled from heavenly paradise or Earthly garden,according to the Quran ?

though the controversy , I think the clues for the first is overwhelming...I wouldn't mention all the clues but just 2 strong ones...


1- the use of the difinitive article (the) before the word Paradise ,denotes it as the heavenly paradise.

2- The Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) said, "Allah will gather people so the believers would stand up when the Paradise will be brought nearer to them. They would come to Adam and say, "O our father! Open for us the Paradise." He would answer, "Wasn't it the sin of your father which got you out of Paradise?" (Sahih Muslim)


according to the narration,The paradise of eternity is the paradise that Adam been expelled from,isn't it?

Till next item

and any comment from muslims or non muslims is welcome
peace

I found that interesting to note.

[Burninglight]

Christian : Just why doesn't the verse 5:116 says instead of "Take me and my mother to your selves as two gods, instead of Allah '?"

"Take me and the holy spirit to your selves as two gods, instead of Allah '?"

Muslim : because no christian ever take the holy spirit (as defined by the Quran ,the Angel Gabriel) , the holy spirit as defined by Christians doesn't exist in the Quranic terms .....

The Quran just defined the same exact term Christians use (holy spirit) with a total different object (Gabriel) .....

dear readers , plz provide whatever questions ,notes related to the topic,if you would like to...thanx

I don't really understand this explaination. I thought he didn't mention the Holy Spirit was because he thought the trinity consisted of the father, son and Mary. Quran 5:116 doesn't say "Take me and my mother to your selves as two gods, instead of Allah '?" It says "besides Allah" so Allah would be considered the father in this case, Jesus the son, and Mary the mother. Only Catholics worship Mary as the mother of God NOT has GOD this is not a true Biblical practice and never has been.

So the Holy Spirit was totally left out of the Quran when the Bible unequivocally states The Holy Spirit is God way before Muhammad was born. Moreover, Muslims see as commiting shirk when Christians ascribe deity to God's creation (Jesus), but Christians can say the same about what Muslims do with Gabriel (God's creation) who is considedred to be the Holy Spirit by them but who is God to the Christians, but Gabriel is an angel and not God. I know Muslims see gabriel as a creation too, but they call him who we call God as in the Bible.

Christians see Gabriel as a creation but Jesus is not God's creation; He is His very word. God's greatest creation is human life, why wouldn't He want to be a part of and not aloof from what He loves most? How can he be closer to us than our juglar if he doesn't interact with us? It is written, "He came unto his own, but they didn't recognize Him..." God is God, and He is not limited He can take on any form he wants.

The kings of the earth used to walk among their subjects as a peasants just to find out what the people are feeling and really saying and believing about his reign. God doesn't need do do that to know, but to interact with whom He loves (His creation) He can do it how He wants. So Christians don't feel that God is limited to just being aloof and yet closer than our juglar. In fact, I don't understand how that is possible; how is it possile for Allah to be closer than our juglar if he is too good to interact with His creation. We believe God is good, but not too good to be part of our lives in an intimate way.

[Al-manar]

Greetings Burninglight to the thread .... and I hope your posts (if you intend to post more here) will be as focused as your first post here...

I thought he didn't mention the Holy Spirit was because he thought the trinity consisted of the father, son and Mary. .

and I wouldn't find such understanding to be that surprising ,but careful examination of the quranic terms and proper linguestic analysis would at least question the understanding that the Quran attacks a sectarian trinity ....

now all what I ask you ,is to get back again in the thread, to the one post before the post you just quoted, to find out the answer to your question and how should Quran 5:116 be understood in light of the similar verses related .....

Only Catholics worship Mary as the mother of God NOT has GOD

Once any worship that is due to God alone, be directed at anyone ,anything, any time , considered automatically shirk in Islam .... (I have mentioned that previously supported by the Quran itself)...

So the Holy Spirit was totally left out of the Quran

The holy spirit is mentioned several times in the Quran ,but defined as you already know (Gabriel).

Moreover,Muslims see as commiting shirk when Christians ascribe deity to God's creation (Jesus), but Christians can say the same about what Muslims do with Gabriel (God's creation) who is considedred to be the Holy Spirit by them but who is God to the Christians, but Gabriel is an angel and not God. .

that is not shirk (from a christian point of view) ,but let's rightly say ,according to christians,muslims have degraded the third divine mask of the deity (holy spirit) into a creature....
In Islam elevating a creature as divine,or directing a worship to it ,is what we mean by shirk ....

Jesus is not God's creation.

we disagree on that ...

Christians see Gabriel as a creation .

we agree on that .


reagrds

[Burninglight]

Originally Posted by Burninglight
So the Holy Spirit was totally left out of the Quran
The holy spirit is mentioned several times in the Quran ,but defined as you already know (Gabriel).

I know. You missed my point. He was totally left out in regards to being part of the trinity or 3 persons of the one God

Originally Posted by Burninglight
Only Catholics worship Mary as the mother of God NOT has GOD
Once any worship that is due to God alone, be directed at anyone ,anything, any time , considered automatically shirk in Islam .... (I have mentioned that previously supported by the Quran itself)...

This also is missing the point I was trying to make. I know and agree with Muslims on this, but you missed the point being that Allah asks Jesus (Isa) if he claimed himself and his mother as two gods besides Allah. I know of no one in the Bible that consiered Mary to be God or the mother of God. Not even Catholics call Mary "God" so why would Allah ask Jesus such an irrevelant question? Who called Mary God? The only way IMO, Allah's question could make any sense is if he believed Mary was part of the Christian's trinity. Now, Muslims know she is not, and she had never been and never will be. She is not the mother of God either, she was just blessed among woman.

[Al-manar]

you repeat the points already discussed in details in the post ,I'm not sure if you read the post carefully

here it is ,the second half of it is dedicated to the issue of Mary explaining all what you have just mentioned...

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1478071

Regards

[Al-manar]

The prologue of John ,additional points:

A muslim may ask ,wouldn't we understand the prologue's concept of Jesus as not actually a conscious person, but a ‘Divine Decree’ that decreed in the Plan of God ? hence accomodate what the writer wrote with Islam?

I don't think so .

1- we are all God’s will , decreed in the Plan of God ,not only it would be strange for the writer to dedicate the introduction to his gospel to convey such known idea but also the word there is ,life and light and the man sent from God whose name was John , came as a witness to testify concerning that light,He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
If the word is mere Divine Decree ,that requires that John could be light besides jesus too,but the text says otherwise... there is a distinction ...

2- The writer repeated asseertion of the preexistence of Jesus , his coming from heaven etc ... would make one ask ,why he tired himself repeating that Jesus was in God's plan?!

look how many times he asserts it:


he shared with God glory before the world begins !

John 17:5 I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

repeated again !

John 17:24. "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up (to heaven) where he was before?


Again !

John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

again

John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven the Son of Man.


John 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

and

John 3:31
"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

John 8:23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.


John 8:58–59 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. John 6:35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life.

1 John 1:2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal
life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.


etc etc etc.........

It doesn't seem that the writer of John with his repeated assertions ,wanted merely to say Jesus existed in God's plan ...... he simply wanted to convey the idea of the pre-existence of Jesus as a conscious entity (whatever grade such entity is considered, whether God or divine but not God)...

one would never ever find a way to accomodate John's prologue with Islam ...




peace

[Burninglight]

As we know that the first person of the trinity the father (Allah) is recognized as divine by both Muslims and Christians……and when it comes to the holy spirit though thought to be divine by Christians yet he is hardly worshiped ,venerated (we will get back to that point soon)

When we honor and worship Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit are honored & worshipped. We see them as one in essence and nature not just purpose, and they are NOT God's associates or partners in the father. Besides, this is not the issue here.

The issue is why is it that myself and even scholars infer that Allah's understanding or Muhammad's was that the trinity consisted of the Father, Mother and Son. This is not Biblical Christianity never has been, and Mary has never been thought to actually be God by anyone accept what Muhammad understood was who Mary was to Christians judging from Allah's question to Jesus S 5:116.

The Quran doesn't have to say the Father, Mother and Son are the Holy Trinity to Christians. We have enough information to make a satisfying and positive deduction or inference that no one as been able to unequivocally gainsay in any way, shape or form.

I have not gotten a clear sentence or two explaining this to me. In my minds eye, and until it is explain clearly, and not with an esay of 500 words trying to or attempting give a convoluted an explanation that actually evades the topic, IMO, will this cease to be a discreptancy in my minds eye

[Al-manar]

When we honor and worship Christ, the father and the Holy Spirit are honored & worshipped. We see them as one in essence and nature not just purpose, and they are NOT God's associates or partners in the father.

That is your belief that you infered from the book that you believe fully to be the word of God. but we disagree with that....

I have not gotten a clear sentence or two explaining this to me. In my minds eye and until it is explain clearly and not with an esay of 500 words trying to or attempting give a convoluted explanation that actually evades the topic

I think some readers would disagree with your judgment,I neither gave convulted explanation nor evaded the topic !!
... I thought you were going to quote me ,refuting knowledge with knowledge ........

anyway ,thank you for reading ... and that is not the end of the line .... the thread filled with varierd topics ,if you wish to comment..

Regards

[Burninglight]

That is your belief that based on the book that you believe fully to be the word of God. but we disagree with that....

I know you do but you cannot disagree that that is the way we see worship

[جوري]

I enabled my account to rebut this guy and you ban him the minute I make my entry? ^o)

[Abz2000]

^lol .

[Ramadhan]

I am tempted to unban him... but it's best to leave him out. He was trolling anyway.
He pretended to be sincere, but it was very clear that sincerity was far from his mind.
Notice how he kept peppering every other post of his with well known bits and pieces mostly used by anti islamic sites, and notice how he ignored everything everyone else wrote. That's how these new brand of evangelists do these days.
He kept mentioning same thing about Muhammad (saw) which I gave evidence of refutations more than a week ago, and I gave him several warnings for him to stop doing that.

[MustafaMc]

I am in full agreement with the decision and believe that it should stand. Tolerance should be shown to non-Muslims who come here as long as they realize they are guests and follow the rules of the board. He continually violated the rules that I personally quoted for him about not promoting religions other than Islam and about not attacking Islam. I also believe that a person who has been banned should not be allowed to return under a new user name.

[YusufNoor]

I enabled my account to rebut this guy and you ban him the minute I make my entry? ^o)

he didn't need a re-but [we've done plenty of that], he needs a but(t) kicking...

I am tempted to unban him... but it's best to leave him out. He was trolling anyway.
He pretended to be sincere, but it was very clear that sincerity was far from his mind.
Notice how he kept peppering every other post of his with well known bits and pieces mostly used by anti islamic sites, and notice how he ignored everything everyone else wrote. That's how these new brand of evangelists do these days.
He kept mentioning same thing about Muhammad (saw) which I gave evidence of refutations more than a week ago, and I gave him several warnings for him to stop doing that.

exactly!

:wa:

[Al-manar]

The prologue of John ,additional points (P.2):

Having already shown the impossibility to accomodate the theology of the prologue of John with Islam,now let’s get to the opposite direction ,exposing this time ,not a muslim but a christian input to accomodate the Quranic Jesus (as a word) with the logos christian theology, !!

Christian:

Quran 3:45 : "(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)."

Quran 4:171 "O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and his word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him:

These passages support Jesus’ prehuman existence, that prior to becoming man from Mary, Jesus already existed with God.
If God's Word is eternal and Jesus is God's Word,Therefore, Jesus is eternal.

Muslim :

First: other verses shows that all creatures (including Jesus) are simply a by-product of God's creative command (word)

Holy Quran 3:47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me." He said: "So (it will be) for Allah creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" and it is.

Holy Quran 3:59 Jesus´ case with God was the same as Adam´s: He created him from dust; then told him: ´Be!" and he was.

Jesus and Adam(according to the verse) etc .. are not the (be,word) itself but its by-product.

Second : no contradiction in calling Jesus ,on one hand ,(a word) in verse 3:45 ,on the other hand, (a by-product of a word) in verse 3:59 ......

In Arabic the object can be called by the name of its source....

Holy Quran 31:11 Such is the Creation of Allah(heaven and Earth). now show Me what is there that others besides Him have created: nay, but the Transgressors are in manifest error.

heaven and earth (creatures) as objects ,were called by name of the source (the creation of Allah) ,the same way we can call the sky (God's power) , an affliction (God's wrath) etc......

Christian: Quran 4:171. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was a messenger of Allah, and his word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him:

The Quran never calls anyone, with the exception of Christ, a spirit from God. the very Spirit of the living God

In verse 58:22:
"Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever).

In order for the Spirit to be able to strengthen believers everywhere implies that the Spirit is omnipresent. Yet only God is omnipresent which essentially means that the Spirit is God.

Muslim : Calling Jesus a spirit from God,bringing verse 58:22 would weaken dramatically your position

1- A creature (Gabriel) is called ,The spirit,Allah's spirit in the Quran

check our input on the holy spirit

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1461164

2- who told you that in order for a force to support the believers to be divine in essence? the holy spirit is supposed to help in special ,extraordinary situations not for everyone ,everywhere,everytime ....... who would assume that Gabriel needs to be omnipresent in order to support some selected believers in some selected times ?!!.....

3- Assuming, for the sake of argument , that the spirit supporting the believers in verse 58:22 to be the divine holy spirit (according to you) , then it can't be the same spirit describing Jesus in Quran 4:171 ....
Jesus is not the holy spirit,but is certainly was supported by the holy spirit, isn't it?

...

[Al-manar]

Jesus as prexistent ,creator or agent of creation:


our last posts,we visited verses in John with his idea of jesus prexistence and as a creator ....

Are there other verses with the same idea in other books in the new testament?

Yes for sure ....

the writer(s) of :

1 Corinthians 8:6
Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.


Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


Hebrews 1 1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.


Though Trinitarians understand the verses as Jesus God the prexistent creator, Unitarians understand the verses as the function of God the Father as the SOURCE of creation is distinguished from Christ's role as MEDIATOR of creation
the Father alone is the source and his first creation (the only direct creation by Him), His only-begotten son, is the channel through whom he caused all the rest of creation to be.

again both of their understandings are against Islam ... Jesus neither God the creator nor the channel through whom he caused all the rest of creation to be.

[Al-manar]

Calling Jesus God?

John 20:24 Now Thomas , one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"



while trinitarians believe the passage as the clearest affirmation of Christ's deity in the Bible,the greatest single testimony recorded in the Scriptures. yet unitarians note:


It is perfectly appropriate for Thomas to respond to Jesus’ resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus as his Lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus…If we understand Thomas’ confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20.31 becomes an anti-climax.” Greg G. Stafford ,Jehovah's Witness apologist and author

Jesus never referred to himself as “God” in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus “my God”? Given the language of the time, and given that Jesus did represent the Father and have divine authority, the expression used by Thomas is certainly understandable. .....The context of the verse shows that its subject is the fact that Jesus was alive. Only three verses earlier, Thomas had ignored the eyewitness testimony of the other apostles when they told him they had seen the Lord. The resurrection of Christ was such a disputed doctrine that Thomas did not believe it (the other apostles had not either), and thus Jesus’ death would have caused Thomas to doubt that Jesus was who he said he was—the Messiah. Thomas believed Jesus was dead. Thus, he was shocked and astonished when he saw and was confronted by Jesus Himself. Thomas, upon being confronted by the living Christ, instantly believed in the resurrection, i.e., that God had raised the man Jesus from the dead, and, given the standard use of “God” in the culture as one with God’s authority, it certainly makes sense that Thomas would proclaim, “My Lord and my God.” There is no mention of the Trinity in the context, and there is no reason to believe that the disciples would have even been aware of such a doctrine. Thomas spoke what he would have known: that the man Jesus who he thought was dead was alive and had divine authority. biblicalunitarian.com

I agree with the previous in the sense that caling Jesus God seems at odd with the context ....

in spite of the various theories to render the word God metaphorically ,according to, Brown, Raymond E :There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 20:28 identify Jesus with God.

Muslims' position?
the passage is claimed to be a discourse between a resurrected jesus and one of his disciples !... It means clearly that the whole passage and in context is against what the Quran defines as the true Injeel , don't you agree that the Quran denies crucifiction ,resurection? Again my reminder , how on Earth you build a concept that based on parts of the new testament that the Quran strongly goes against?
what muslim who cares for so called post resurrection narratives?!!

[Al-manar]

The authority of Jesus would support a belief of him as God?


Jesus’ Authority to Forgive Sins & Heal the Sick (Mark 2:6-12)


Mark 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, 7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

commentaries:

The surprise in the story comes when Jesus does not simply heal the man, but pronounces his sins forgiven
(v. 5: "Your sins are forgiven"). Some scribes (Luke 5:21 adds "and Pharisees") witness the event and, hearing Jesus' words, regard it as "blasphemy." They reason. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (v. 7). Why do the scribes think this? To answer this question, we must ask in what sense Jesus has forgiven this man's sins. Is his pronouncement an instance of the divine passive? If so, Jesus is saying, "Your sins are forgiven by God]." But in this case, the scribes should be accusing Jesus of presumption, for assuming priestly prerogatives (e.g., "Who does this man think he is? A priest?"). Or is his pronouncement based on his own authority, in which case the scribes' thoughts of blasphemy are better founded. The answer is suggested by v. lo, where Jesus says that "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." The self-designation "Son of Man" and the qualifier "on earth" point to Daniel 7, where a human ("one like a son of man"), coming with the clouds of heaven, approaches God (the "Ancient of Days") and receives authority (Dan 7:9-14). The "clouds of heaven" are antithetical to "on earth." with the latter presupposing the former. That is to say, because the "Son of Man" receives authority from heaven, he possesses authority on earth, among other things, to forgive sins. Only twice in Mark is Jesus accused of blasphemy. and both times Jesus identifies himself as the "Son of Man." The other passage is found in the hearing before Caiaphas the high priest. Jesus declares that he is the "Son of Man" who will be "seated at the right hand of Power, and corning with the clouds of heaven" (14:62). Caiaphas reacts in horror and calls the statement blasphemy . As the human being described in Daniel 7. the human being to whom divine authority is granted. Jesus has authority to forgive sins, or, in the case of someone like Caiaphas. he has the authority to sit in judgment. Jesus has not claimed to be God (if he had, the scribes would have reacted much more violently); he has claimed to be God's vice-regent on earth, proclaiming God's rule and offering forgiveness to those who respond in faith to the proclamation. The link between sin and sickness, forgiveness and restoration of health, is well illustrated in a later rabbinic saying: "A sick man does not recover from his sickness until all his sins are forgiven him, as it is written. 'Who forgives all your iniquities; who heals all your diseases' Ps 103:31'1(6. Ned. 41a). It is also worth noting that in the Aramaic paraphrase of Isaiah (i.e., the Tar gum) the suffering servant of Isa 5z:13-53:1z is understood in messianic terms as one through whom Israel's sins can be forgiven. A few phrases are instructive:"... in that we attach ourselves to his words our sins will be forgiven us ...before the Lord it was a pleasure to forgive the sins of us all for his sake ... he shall beseech concerning their sins ... yet he will beseech concerning the sins of many, and to the rebels it shall be forgiven for him" (Te. 11a 53:5, 6. it, tz). To defend his claim that he truly does possess divine authority to forgive sins, Jesus asks his critics: "Which is easier, to say to the paralyzed man, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or DO say, 'Rise, rake up your pallet, and walk?'" (2:9). The word of healing is harder because it can be verified; the word of forgiveness is easier because it cannot be verified. Therefore, to prove that he really can do the easier (i.e., forgive the man's sins) he does the harder (i.e., heal the man's paralysis). Jesus commands the paralyzed man to rise, take up his pallet, and go home (v. He does so, and everyone is astounded and glorifies God (v.12). This response stands in stark contrast to the grousing of the scribes only moments earlier. "We never saw anything like this!" No, they had not, because the authorized Son of Man had never before been among them. .

.................................................. ............................................

Jesus Forgives Sins.Austin Cline ,Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism[/B]]



If God is the only one with authority to forgive people’s sins, then Jesus assumes a great deal in forgiving the sins of a man who came to him to have his palsy healed. Naturally, there are a few who wonder about this and question whether Jesus should do it.
Note that the scribes don’t actually say anything — they are thinking it. Jesus perceives what they are thinking or, more likely, he knew that his actions would be questioned, knew what some people must have been thinking about him, and addressed his response to the most likely candidates in his midst.
Already in the second chapter we are encountering Jewish authorities accusing Jesus of blasphemy. This is the charge upon which they would convict him at the end of Mark’s gospel, so the theme is being established by the author early on. Of course, if it were true that Jesus were blaspheming, why doesn’t anyone do something about him right now? Why didn’t they do something about John the Baptist who, according to Mark, was also forgiving sins — or at least taking action that caused people’s sins to be forgiven?
It is strange that Jesus should react so negatively to people questioning his authority to forgive sins. He should have expected it — and now he has the perfect opportunity to explain that he is God and therefore has the authority to forgive sins. For some reason he keeps quiet about this. On the other hand, John the Baptist seems to have gone around forgiving people’s sins, so maybe it wasn’t strange for people to claim the authority to do that.
Notice here the basis upon which Jesus does assert his authority to forgive sins: his power to heal the sick. Perhaps there are good reasons for Jesus not to assert his divinity at this point and to these people, but why claim that the authority to forgive sins is demonstrated through the ability to heal someone? Lots of people were going around at the time healing people and exorcising demons — did they also have the authority to forgive sins? John the Baptist isn’t depicted as healing people, so on what authority did he baptize people for the remission of sins?
This was a time when people believed that the sickness and disability were signs of sin — either your own sin or the sins of your forefathers being visited upon you. In this context, maybe the connection between the forgiveness of sins and healing sickness is not so strange after all. By healing palsy, Jesus is showing he is able to eliminate what many would have regarded as a physical manifestation of crimes against God — and how might one do this without also having the authority to forgive those crimes?
This also puts the faith of the man’s friends in a different light: if they had faith that Jesus could heal, perhaps they also had faith that Jesus could forgive. We cannot be certain about this because the connection is tenuous, but it is a real possibility.
This is where Jesus first refers to himself as the “Son of man” — note that it is not the “Son of God.” The two titles are not the same. In Aramaic, Son of man is an honorific which means something akin to “human being” and confers no divine significance. It is important to keep in mind that in the earliest of the four gospels, Jesus does not refer to himself during his ministry as the Son of God or as being divine in any way, even when given the chance.
At no point in the gospels are we told what Jesus meant by the title “Son of man” — it’s possible that he had in mind something other than the usual sense. That, however, would have made matters rather confusing for early listeners and readers of the stories. After all, they couldn’t be expected to read “Son of man” the same way unless it was used in its normal, casual sense.
Historically, Christians have treated the title “Son of man” as having more significance and, therefore, this passage has more theological weight than it may seem For Christians, it signifies Jesus’ fate of suffering, dying, and being raised again. This has been read as creating a link between Jesus’ authority to forgive sins and his eventual resurrection..

This is the first time that Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. It is a description or title that Jesus will use often for himself, and it can carry different shades of meaning. Son of man is an Aramaic idiom for human being, and thus Jesus might be using it simply as a way of saying "I." But it also has other associations, particularly of a heavenly "one like a son of man" in the Inik of Daniel who is given authority by God (Dan 7:13-14). Jesus uses the Son of Man in a complex way, referring to himself as a human who has been given extraordinary authority by God, the authority to forgive sins on earth. Jesus brings God's forgiveness to earth as God's unique agent. That you may know echoes Old Testament texts in which God says he will do something that will demonstrate his might (Exod 8:18; 9:14). Jesus is about to make a similar unmistakable demonstration of his authority.
11 He said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home." The word translated rise is the same word that will later be used for rising from the dead (12:26; 14:28; 16:6): the man's rising from his paralysis is a sign of much greater rising to new life in store for us through Jesus. Pick up your mat, for you will no longer need it to lie on all day long. Go home and begin your new life.
12 The man is able to do as Jesus commands because of Jesus' command. He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone. He was carried in on a mat; now he leaves carrying it—a sign of the complete change Jesus has made in his life, spiritually as well as physically. His healing happens at once, and it is manifest in the sight of everyone. The people in turn were all astounded and glorified God. Again, people are astonished by what Jesus does (see 1:22, 27); they now have a somewhat fuller realization that he is God's agent, and consequently they glorified God for working through Jesus. They say, We have never seen anything like this, yet at least some of them had to have witnessed Jesus' previous healings and exorcisms in Capernaum (1:32-34). What sets this particular healing apart from Jesus' previous healings has to be its link with Jesus' forgiving the man's sins: no one had ever claimed to forgive sins and backed up that claim with a demonstration of authority.
.

the other so called trinity proof text from the synoptic gospels,are even weaker than the previous passage !!!


2- Mt 11:27 "all things have been handed over to me by my Father".


Congratulations !.......


3- Mark 2:23-28 "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath

Among the ways Jesus challenged or defied religious tradition, his failure to observe the Sabbath in the manner expected seems to have been one of the most serious. Other incidents, like not fasting or eating with disreputable people, raised some eyebrows but didn’t necessarily amount to a sin. Keeping the Sabbath holy was, however, commanded by God — and if Jesus failed to that, then his claims about himself and his mission could be questioned.
What does Jesus do to arouse the ire of religious leaders? Nothing, personally — he isn’t depicted as having done anything himself here, but his disciples are “working” on the Sabbath by plucking ears of corn (presumably to eat because they were hungry). It couldn’t have really been corn because that is a New World crop, unknown in Europe or Asia at this time. A better translation is “ears of grain.”
These don’t appear to be their grain fields and hence their grain, so it’s curious that the Pharisees don’t complain about what seems to be theft. Some scholars have argued that the disciples were eating that which had already fallen at the side of a road, as if that made it acceptable; but this isn’t supported by the text.
In fact, what are the Pharisees doing there to begin with? Do they just wander through random fields on the sabbath? Of course not — but Jesus’ opponents, whether scribes or Pharisees or someone else, always manage to appear at just the point Mark needs them to. This should be a signal to readers of the literary, rather than historical, nature of the text.
Jesus is targeted by the Pharisees because, if the disciples were his followers, then it could be presumed that their activities met with his approval. Jesus defends the actions of his disciples by arguing that when a person is hungry, it should be acceptable for them to take whatever action is reasonably necessary in order to stop being hungry. He bases this on an incident involving David when he took bread that was supposed to be restricted to priests, yet Jesus gets the details of the story wrong.
First, David was alone at the time of this incident and therefore could not have given bread to anyone who was “with him.” Moreover, the priest from whom David received the bread is named in 1 Samuel 21 as Abimelech, not Abiathar. Abiathar is Abimelech’s son and successor, but is not mentioned until 1 Samuel 22. Why would Jesus make such errors — unless the words are actually those of Mark, who often makes mistakes about what the scriptures say?
Whatever the accuracy of Jesus’ (or Mark’s) memory, the fact remains that even David’s actions receive no justification — it is simply assumed that unless otherwise noted in the scriptures, David’s actions were honorable. The only justification may be that human needs are placed above religious laws — so, when a person needs to eat, that is more important than any laws prohibiting certain actions on the sabbath.
Thus the Pharisees are presented with a difficult choice: allow Jesus to be exonerated by the parallel actions of David, or undermine their own traditions of accepting the actions of David as just and good. Because we don’t hear any more of this and charges about this are not brought up later, we could assume that the Pharisees go with exonerating Jesus, although that surely annoyed them to no end.

Jesus’ statement that the “Son of man” is lord of the sabbath is interesting because he does not base this on the idea that God is lord of the sabbath — something we should expect if “Son of man” is a title with divine connotations. Instead, Jesus bases this on the fact that the sabbath was made for the sake of men and, presumably, that men are more important than the sabbath. This suggests that the title “Son of man” has purely mundane and human connotations..

To conclude : I think nothing compelling to suggest from the passage,or any other passages from the synoptic gospels, that the writers,in spite of their highly elevated view of Jesus, believed in him as God ...

[Al-manar]

Trinity conclusion

lessons we've learned :

1- The danger of the reading with preconceived ideas, expectations ...
for years I used to read the trinity proof texts (especially John) with preconceived ideas that they are misunderstood by Christians ,but days taught me the true meaning of objectivity which requires me at least not to ignore the other possible meanings of a text ... I applied that lesson not only on Christianity but Islam as well .....some of the textual interpretation by some Islamic schools of thought no longer seems for me as crazy as I used to judge them before ......

2- who made Jesus God , and when ?
the Jewish sect that formed the so called (Early Christianity) began to think of Jesus in very exalted terms not centuries after his missions but few years ….
The exaltation of statue for Jesus was gradual from a prophet and teacher of wisdom to promised king messiah to pre-existent son of God ,God ….
As we explained before(with textual support), During his life, Jews had different understandings of his role … those differences were due to factors:

they must have asked themselves whether the mission of such miracles’ worker (Jesus) based on divine plan (eg; prophecies) ? If so who exactly he is? Is he a prophet ? the prophet that Moses mentioned? Elijah returned to Earth? The promised Davidic king messiah?
Though those who put him in the category of merely a prophet had never found trouble with that notion even after the end of his mission ,as nothing he did or was done to him including the hearsay of his crucifixion) disqualify him from the office of a great prophet who been slaughtered (just as some preceding Jewish prophets) …….
Those who were in trouble were those who zealously motivated to include him in the king messiah category ..... may be some of them were disappointed by the Jewish propaganda that they killed Jesus ,and shifted their hope of him as the king messiah to a prophet but others modified the term davidic king messiah to fit a slaughtered messiah ...

As Wayne A. Meeks:Woolsey "Professor of Biblical Studies Yale University" notes:

"They couldn't go away as they were supposed to ... have to deal with that fundamental question, - what does this mean that the one that we had all of these expectations about has been crucified? How do we deal with this, not merely the end of this life, but the shameful end of this life? And, the amazing thing is, they said, "Hey, Pilate's right - he was the King of the Jews, and moreover, God has vindicated this claim, that he is the King of the Jews, by raising him from the dead." Now, this is where the Jesus movement properly understood, which is to become Christianity, begins, with trying to explain that hard fact.... And so the early Christians, as proper Jews, they begin to search the scriptures, [looking for] what clues are hidden here which no one has noticed before.... They begin to find promises in scripture of an anointed king who will come at the end of days, a notion which they share with many other Jews, at the same time. So, this is where it all begins, with this kind of interpretive process, which of course goes in many different directions."


That was the first deviant step taken by those who formed the Christianity of the new testament ......They weren’t satisfied by calling him merely a prophet so they put him in the more exalted wrong category (king messiah) .. I’m not saying that with bias to the Quran (that negates the category of king messiah to Jesus) but any objective reader to both the old and new testament would find out easily the difficulty harmonizing the Jesus of the new testament with the king messiah of the old testament ….

The other deviant step ,is their exalted view of Jesus
That happened not more than 20-30 years after the mission of Jesus ,some of the adherent to the Pauline Christianity used to venerate, pray to Jesus (hymns) eg: 1 Corinthians 16:22....
it would be exaggeration to conclude that the Christians believed that Jesus was somehow “fully God,”( Early Christianity showed considerable theological diversity) but regarded Jesus as far more than simply an inspired, human teacher of wisdom. He was someone to whom they prayed as if they were praying to God. It is a similar case to the catholic prayer to Mary …….

Remember Philippians 2:5-11?
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


1 Corinthians 8, the relationship of Jesus Christ to God the Father is extraordinarily intertwined. Jesus not only receives God’s unique name of Lord, but also he is the agent through whom God created all things and all people. Thus Jesus has begun to take on the attributes of God’s Wisdom as portrayed in the Hebrew Scriptures and other ancient Jewish writings. In Proverbs, for example, as God creates the universe, Wisdom speaks in this way: “When [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master worker; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always” (Prov 8:29-30). God created, but Wisdom was the master worker. In 1 Corinthians 8, all things come from God, but all things come through Jesus Christ the Lord.

Even the synoptic gospels 30-40 years after the mission of Jesus have exalted view (won’t reach the limit of divinity though), the writer(s) of John (supposed to be the latest) developed and elaborated the notion of divinity…..

You see? The notion of the divinity of Jesus (or at least its seed),is there 20-30 years (if the dating is accurate) after the mission of Jesus ,initiated by Paul …..


3- what may explain this startling theological development,why they deified Jesus? The answer though complicated ,yet impressive.....


till next post

[MustafaMc]

It means clearly that the whole passage and in context is against what the Quran defines as the true Injeel , don't you agree that the Quran denies crucifiction ,resurection?

Yes, I agree that the Quran denies the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus. Note that the term 'crucifiction' is a creation of Ahmad Deedat as in his debates with Christians http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxapFifdSaA This new word implies that the 'crucifixion' is a 'fiction' or a made-up story.

[Al-manar]

:sl:

Yes, I agree that the Quran denies the crucifixion..

that depends on the way the verse be understood , If you accept the common understanding (substitution of someone looks exactly like Jesus) then the Quran denies not the act of crucifixion itself.
on the other hand if you understand it differently ( the whole matter of crucifixion was a conjecture,hearsay accounts based on Jewish conjecture of those who opposed Jesus) then the Qur'an denies it completely ....

there is a claim that Most secular scholars acknowledge the crucifixion" such claim may be true, or it may not. (I have in my library those secular scholars who buy it and others not necessarily from among those who believe in the Christ myth , won't buy it )Many scholars would suggest that the earliest layer of traditions concerning the death ofJesus was created by historicizing OT prophecies, and that this prophetic tradition was later developed into a single extended story through the narrative pattern of "The Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent One" (see Crossan 1995, 1; A. Dewey 199(1, 108).


anyway the scholars who handled the matter, are either Christians or atheists ..if they are Christians then no wonder they all would love to believe in the historicity of not only the crucifixion but also the resurrection , the massacre of the baby innocents in Bethlehem etc.....

on the other hands the irreligious scholars ,though deny the resurrection narratives (that comes at the feet of the crucifixion narratives ) historically ,they buy the crucifixion ,and the reason?
they say there was no strong reason for the writers to fake the story (though they would accuse the writers of faking details of the story for theological purposes) , they wouldn't fake a scandalous story ,shameful death about their messiah ..also if he wasn't crucified and kept on living ,what sense of such narrative then ?
the answer for eg:: they didn't really fake it ,they heard it as a conjecture from his enemies ,and he disappeared from the scene and been raised to God ..


I know that such answer won't satisfy those irreligious secular scholars ,and I never intend it to be proved historically ,it is based on the belief that the Qur'an is the word of God . on the other hand I'm not satisfied with their opinion which not supported by evidence and should be backed up with a reference .. they clearly indicate that the basis of suggesting that it did happen relies almost entirely upon the Christian teaching and documents.
Non Christian sources amount to a couple of unreliable passages one of which was almost certainly amended by Christians and the other of which may well have been sourced from Christians(check the scholarly works on the forged "Testimonium Flavianum",even if assuming it original ,Josephus needs to have been an independent witness to the information contained in the Testimonum or to have used a source which was an independent witness to this information, i.e. if Josephus did write it, but he based his information on a Gospel or another Christian source, then it is of no value in supporting the crucifixion of Jesus.
also the Tacitus's passage, that does not make it clear whether he is citing Christian teaching or accepted Roman history.
.

the Qur'an take on the crucifixion can't be challenged ,not only the common understanding of the verse (the substitution) won't help those who would like to criticize, but also challenging the other understanding (no act of crucifixion happened) not supported by plausible evidence , sufficient for stating that the crucifixion is fact.
once again

No claim of crucifixion by historical witness.

some elaborations to those points coming later,inshallah,in the thread.....................

Note that the term 'crucifiction' is a creation of Ahmad Deedat ,This new word implies that the 'crucifixion' is a 'fiction' or a made-up story.

I hope you (and other members) converse more in the thread for the benefit .....
thank you for your note ,and May Allah bless his soul Ameen ....


:wa:

[Insaanah]

:sl:

that depends on the way the verse be understood , If you accept the common understanding (substitution of someone looks exactly like Jesus) then the Quran denies not the act of crucifixion itself.

I think brother Mustafa was saying that the Qur'an denies the crucifixion of Jesus (alayhi assalaam), which it does, completely:

Yes, I agree that the Quran denies the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Pickthall
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Yusuf Ali
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (4:157)

[Al-manar]

:sl:

I think brother Mustafa was saying that the Qur'an denies the crucifixion of Jesus (alayhi assalaam), which it does, completely:

Pickthall
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Yusuf Ali
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (4:157)

:sl:
I don't know whether Bro Mustafa held that understanding or the other eg;

Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
(4:157)and for their saying: We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God. And they killed him not, nor they crucified him. Rather, a likeness to him of another was shown to them. And, truly, those who were at variance in it are in uncertainty about it. There is no knowledge with them about it but they are pursuing an opinion. And they for certain killed him not.

if we go to the Arabic pronoun (ha) which is translated (it) in bold in Pickthall and yusuf Ali ,we could have a hint why they translated it differently....

:wa:

[MustafaMc]

I have 8 translations of the Quran into English. Only the Noble Quran translated by Muhsin Khan has a phrase about the likeness of Jesus being put on another man and even then it is in brackets which distinguishes it as an interpretive insert by the translator and that it was not derived from the Arabic text. Two additional translations had a footnote by the translator stating this as well; however, it is clear that Allah did not explicitly reveal the means by which they were deceived into thinking Jesus had been crucified.

It is enough for me that in a single ayat of the Quran, Allah destroyed the very foundation of Christianity for even if Jesus was God incarnate (astaghfir'Allah) there is no redemption from sin if there was no crucifixion, no sacrifice of an unblemished Lamb, and no resurrection of Jesus from the tomb. This critical point is even admitted in the Bible as in 1 Corinthians 15:13-19 "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."

[Insaanah]

:sl:

if we go to the Arabic pronoun (ha) which is translated (it) in bold in Pickthall and yusuf Ali ,we could have a hint why they translated it differently....

As far as I know, that ha at the end of shubbiha is not a pronoun, but is the third letter of the root verb shabbaha in it's passive (maj'hool) state. There is no Arabic word for 'it' here with the verb, it is implied, the word for 'it' comes later: innallatheenakhtalafoo feehi la fee shakkin minhu.

But please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I have a rather old copy of the Pickthall translation, and the 'it' is not in bold. I no longer have my old copy of the Yusuf Ali translation, but his thoughts on the matter sometimes seemed to be at variance with the mainstream Islamic view, for example his now infamous footnote to 19:33, which stated that "those who believe that Jesus never died should ponder over this verse." This has now been removed by many.

I have never heard of Laleh Bakhtiar, but just been researching. Not a translation to be relied upon, with her feminist leanings resulting in changing the meanings of some words.

And Allah knows best in all matters, and may He forgive me if I said anything wrong.

[Al-manar]

:sl:

As far as I know, that ha at the end of shubbiha is not a pronoun, but is the third letter of the root verb shabbaha in it's passive (maj'hool) state. There is no Arabic word for 'it' here with the verb, it is implied, the word for 'it' comes later: innallatheenakhtalafoo feehi la fee shakkin minhu.But please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are absolutely right ....I wrote in hurry and missed some words ...

I wanted to say If we go to the Arabic pronouns (ha) preceding shubbiha ,and the pronoun 'it' (which you rightly said, to be implied) .... comes the question what does Shubbiha (appeared,imagined) refers to? the words mentioned before to be reference are either Jesus ,killed, crucified ..... Jesus can't be a reference to Shubbiha (appeared,imagined) why? according to the substitution tradition المسيح مشبه به وليس مشبه

I'm sure you will translate the previous in better English than me.....
If we make the reference to someone else ,just where he is mentioned in the verse?
so the only way to make sense is to make the reference to ( killed, crucified )


that is just a beginning to check the verse....... more in others posts inshallah ......


thanx sister Insaanah

[Al-manar]

It is enough for me that in a single ayat of the Quran, Allah destroyed the very foundation of Christianity

you know Bro ..... even if we skip the Quran and study the new testament besides the old testament ,objectively ,without preconceived conclusion ,we could find out that the foundation of Christianity (Christ is the messiah who was sacrificed to erase sins) is baseless .....

[Al-manar]

peace

to continue with the Holy Quran

verse 4:157 In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, "Our hearts are the wrappings ";- Nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their disbelieve, and little is it they believe;That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and those who differ about it are full of doubts, with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not,nay, God exalted him unto Himself - and God is indeed almighty, wise,And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in (him,it) before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them.


the context of the verse is about the group of Jews who opposed Jesus ,and propagated falsehoods regarding him related to the three basic things of his life
1-BIRTH : Illegal one accusing his mother with adultery .
2-MISSION: He was a magician deceiving the sons of Israel(that is mentioned in another verse).
3-DEATH : They have killed him .


Allah refuted their accusation against Mary ,now the quranic comment on their claim that it is them who put an end to the life of Jesus ,should be our focus now:

1- The Qur'an says they neither killed him nor crucified him ,so what follows? but (it)seemed (appeared,thought) so unto them ..

till now the verse tells ,his enemies from the Jews thought that they killed him and propagated that, while he wasn't ...

that may open the door to different arguments:

1- could they have tried to kill him ,got someone else who has his exact looking,on the cross (called the substitution theory) ?

2- could they have crucified him but he didn't die and escaped the cross "called the Swoon Theory"

3- could the meaning be ,that they (his enemies from the Jews) thought they killed while the fact they didn't kill him ,it was the Roman who did so?

4- could the meaning be ,they thought they killed him ,while the fact the righteous won't die spiritually .... the martyrs though people think they are dead ,yet they are alive in heaven ?


5- could he just disappeared from the scene ultimately ,and his sudden absence opened the door for conjecture that he was killed ??

.................................................. ...........

let's discuss how every theory be consistent with the holy Qur'an:


1- problems with "the substitution theory" :

A- If "shubbiha" to be understood as a reference to a physical appearance,likeness ,just where the noun that it refers to?! it can't be Jesus(if we accept the theory) ,so it has to be the crucifixion itself ... in other words no linguistic basis for the theory ...

b- the Islamic sources of that theory are mere opinions of 2 or 3 christian sahabi converts to Islam who may have been Gnostic Christians before conversion or orthodox(the majority of the ex-christian sahabas belonged to mainstream Christianity) but thought the gnostic believe in accord with the verse ..

to add ,the way Gnostics Christians define Jesus and his message is very different from the Islamic way ,so how could we trust their concept of the crucifixion ?!

c-more problem while we discuss the 5th meaning.


2- problems with "the Swoon Theory" :

A- such theory would get the word (shubbiha) as a reference to Jesus ,in other words Jesus himself appeared to be dead while he wasn't and later escaped the cross....

B- That theory could have been strong one ,if the words in ( 4:157 neither crucified him) ,and ( 5:110 Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee ..................I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs) . are absent .


3- problems with "the Jews killed him not ,the Romans did .theory"

A- such theory is suggested by William Montgomery Watt,and many other Christians......
the same previous objection ,how could Allah remind Jesus of restraining the violence of Children of Israel to him allowing the violence of the Romans ??!!!!!

B-more problem while we discuss the 5th meaning.

4-problems with " They thought he died but spiritually he can't die"

If they were sure he was killed physically ,what was the doubt and conjecture (mentioned in the verse later) about ?!


to conclude next post inshallah...


peace

[Al-manar]

to conclude the discussion about the noble verse ,we would go to :

The fifth and last argument :

The verse goes on and tells literally " and those who differed about it were full of doubts from it , with no knowledge about it, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him,it not,nay, God exalted him unto Himself - and God is indeed almighty, wise"


first: "Those" is a pronoun refers to those people who during that time ,had differing,doubtful ,conjecture based opinions regarding what exactly happened to Jesus before his mission was terminated ......

using those expressions,the verse tells that the opinions regarding the matter ALL based on conjecture and not eyewitnesses report ....

the verse goes on "surety they killed him,it not,nay, God exalted him unto Himself "

in other words ,Allah says " nothing of your differing guessing is true" ,he wasn't killed but was exalted,raised to God .....

that weakens more the third theory, if the Quran suggests Roman crucifixion what was the doubt,conjecture about!

that understanding makes sense for me ,especially that we know that the disappearance of important figures opens the door to every color of conjecture ...

you remember for example ,Ben Laden years ago, some of his enemies propagated that he was killed ...and some people began to believe that ,not till he sent voice message that he is alive .... what if he didn't react forever?
wouldn't most people believe that he was really killed? wouldn't some others doubt(for some reasons) that it is him who was killed but someone else looks like him? wouldn't some others suggest him traveling from the place he was in, to isolate island marrying there (Mary Magdalena) :sunny:.. ......

that understanding not only Quranic supported ,but unlike others no problems associated ,and makes much sense .....

[Al-manar]

Amazingly ,we have some old and modern times scholars who held the previous understanding eg;

famous old ,hanbali scholar "Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya" wrote in his book "Hidayat al-Hiyara "

"There is a disagreement regarding the meaning of the verse , some understand it as, a likeness to him of another ,who been crucified instead,was shown to them. others understood it as " that the Christians who believed in it ,it wasn't because they witnessed it,but his enemies of the Jews propagated his killing while he was raised to Allah and they believed them ..
whatever meaning ,remains the fact Jesus peace be upon him neither was killed nor crucified ..."

.................................................

Muhammad Asad, author of the well acclaimed Translation of the meaning of the Quran "The Message of the Qur'an",wrote:


" The Qur'an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist,among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas),who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur'an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at "harmonizing" the Qur'anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion. The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur'anic phrase "wa-lakin shubbiha lahum", which I render as "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so" To my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression shubbiha li is idiomatically synonymous with khuyyila 1i, "[a thing] became a fancied image to me", i.e., "in my mind" - in other words, "[it] seemed to me" (see Qamus,art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833, and IV, 1500)."

.................................................. .......

next post additional points related ,inshallah

[Al-manar]

................................
Eminent Tunisian scholar Ibn 'Ashur (1879 -1973)





wrote in his Quranic commentary(is considered one of the greatest tafsirs ever ) "Tafsir Al-Tahrir Wal Tanwir"

"Another possible meaning to the verse ,is that they confused the falsehoods with the truth .Arab says "khuyyila elaika" means "became a fancied image to your mind ,seemed to you" ,there wasn't someone looked like him,but the falsehoods came through the news of being killed,which was due to their (his enemies from the Jews) absolute hatred ....."

..................................................


Additional notes:

1- There is no Quranic clue to exclude the disciples of Jesus from those who listened to the conjecture of his enemies from the Jews , it is possible that some (or all) of his disciples believed such conjecture,if not why not? ....

2- Would it fair that Allah let them believe in his death by crucifixion and condemned them later for that?

the answer,why would anyone be condemned for believing (before the revelation of the Quran) that Jesus died that way?!

if there is something that the Quran condemns is to attache salvific significance to his death ,besides attaching divinity to his nature ....
the Quran doesn't attack those who were misinformed regarding, how the mission of Jesus was terminated.....
that is nothing to blame them for ,unless they intentionally attached false significance (blood atonement) to such death ......

Is it Islamic ,for those Jews who believed in Jesus and his true message,yet were misinformed and believed that he was killed,to be called "true christians" ? I think so ,if not, why not?!!!

[Al-manar]

Crucifixion in the bible



where did the crucifixion stories come from??

you know the sayings ,"You are what you eat" and "you are what you read" ?

It seems that such saying, fits perfectly with the writers of the new testament...

most detail of the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospels relates back to some prior Hebrew scripture, mostly from the scriptures that we now call the Old Testament, though some elements of the Gospels appear to be based on other non-scriptural works as well.

right now our focus is on the crucifixion,resurrection narrative....
the following quotations would shows how their details of the crucifixion scenes are drawn directly from the older scriptures (the book that they often used to read) ....

the authors either explicitly references Hebrew scriptures, uses Hebrew scriptures for underlying theme and quote or paraphrases Hebrew scripture without indicating they have done so ....



1- mocking ,hurl insults,He trusts in the LORD;let the LORD rescue him !


Matthew 27:They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. 31 After they had mocked him ......................................
39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him.

was the writer inspired by God,or informed by eyewitnesses testimony? ....... just compare the previous with the old testament (the book that he almost daily read)...

Psalm 22:7 All who see me mock me;they hurl insults, shaking their heads:8 "He trusts in the LORD;let the LORD rescue him.Let him deliver him,since he delights in him."

...................................

Want more details of the crucifixion story that was created by combining elements from the old testament? here you are


2- My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Mark and Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

based clearly on the

Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
...............................

It seems that the writer of Luke ,wasn't satisfied by such desperate call ,written by Mark ,so he included another one

Luke 23:46 "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"

based on

Psalm 31:5 " Into thine hand I commit my spirit."

.................................................. ......

3- the sun go down at noon and darken the earth


Matthew 27:45 From the sixth hour( noon) until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.

based on

Amos 8:
8 "Will not the land tremble for this, and all who live in it mourn? ... 9 "In that day," declares the Sovereign LORD, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.

.................................................

4- They offered Jesus wine

Matthew 27:34 There they offered Jesus wine to drink ..
based on

Amos 2:11 I also raised up prophets from among your sons and Nazirites from among your young men. Is this not true, people of Israel?' declares the LORD. 12 'But you made the Nazirites drink wine and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.

Proverbs 31:6 Give liquor to a person who is dying and wine to one who feels resentful.

..........................................

5- Dividing up his clothes, casting lots

Mark15:24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

based on

Psalm 22:18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

.................................................

6- Remained silent:

Mark 14:61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 1 Peter 2:23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
based on

Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.


7- His tomb with the rich ,though no sin neither deceit in his mouth!:

Matthew 27:57 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph(alleged to be the man who donated his own tomb for the burial of Jesus) .. 1 Peter 2:22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."

based on
Isaiah 53:9

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

.................................................. ..


8- No bone broken:

John 19:33,36 ("...they brake not his legs....A bone of him shall not be broken)
based on
PSALM 34:20 ("He keepeth all his bones; not one of them is broken")

..........................................



9- thirsty

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
based on
Psalm. 22 15My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

..........................................

10- away watching

Mark 15:40
Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.
based on

Psalm 38:11
My friends and companions avoid me because of my wounds; my neighbors stay far away.

.................................................. ...


11- a friend betrayal


Luke 22:21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.
based on
Psalm 41:9
Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. and , Psalm 55:12If an enemy were insulting me, I could endure it; if a foe were raising himself against me, I could hide from him. But it is you, a man like myself, my companion, my close friend,

.................................................. ........

12- Thirty pieces of silver

Matthew 26:15
15 and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver.
based on
Zechariah 11:12-13, 30 pieces of silver is the price Zechariah receives for his labour. He takes the coins and throws them "to the potter"

.................................................. ......

13 - false evidence ,witnesses ,enemies without cause.


Matthew 26:59
The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death.John 15:24 If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. Matthew 26:60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
based on

Psalm 35:11
Ruthless witnesses come forward; they question me on things I know nothing about. Psalm 69:4 Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, Psalm 27:12
Do not turn me over to the desire of my foes, for false witnesses rise up against me, breathing out violence.

..................


Clearly the story of the crucifixion of Jesus doesn't require a real event for its inspiration, all of the ideas needed to inspire the story already existed in the scriptures (the old testament) that the writers of the new testament, used as food for their thoughts .