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

[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/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/23256/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 ...