Other Issues > Christianity/Judaism/Others
Jesus VS Isa
nobuddy:
--- Quote from: tauhid101 on March 31, 2012, 10:59:27 PM ---4:157 That they said, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"
--- End quote ---
4:157 وقولهم and their saying ...
Peace - since you and everyone else have "quotes" did they really say that verbatim and who talks that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M539PgDjbas
Can we also "quote" them verbatim in the prior verse as well?
4:156 وبكفرهم and their rejection/disbelief وقولهم and their saying على on مريم Mary بهتانا a slander عظيما great
huruf:
I said some time ago, may be discussing with maverick, that in order to get what the Qur'an says, one had to leave aside any other text. Not tie the Qur'an to any other text. If it is revealed, the whole of it, by God, through Jibril, Go does not need to refer back to any previous text at all or bear in mind this or that. -what comes from Him comes with full authority, not conditionnes. God does not need the permission or the foundation of any text whatsoever.
Why to decide what the Qur'an says do we have to reach to texts that are not guranteed by the Qur'an?
If anything the Qur'an says is going to be proved, it must be proved by Qur'an itself, not be translations. Somebody at some time may have thought that the word that translates injil is gospels, but that is extraQur'anic, open to revision at all times.
It may have seemed like a good translation to the translator at some time, but that doesn't bound anybody.
The fact is that the life of Jesus told in the gospels and the life of 3isa told in the Qur'an have, if anything, very little in common. In fact, if it was not, because we have been told from the start and as a fact (as the fact), that 3isa is Jesus but in Arabic, if nobody had told us that, and therefore we hadn't automatically done the summation of the vents in the gospels to the events in the Qur'an without any critical sense, because we didn't have any reason to question something that was handed down to us as unproblematic, would we have ever thought, would it ever have occurred to us that they were the same person?
The idea at first is a shock, one fights it, because finally we have been brought up to cherish that identification of the 3isa, as the Jesus of the Christians. We have a big emotional, doctrinal investment in that identification. But when we just open the door a little to the possibility...
As it goes on and one looks to the whole thing more detachedly, the distinctiveness of the two becomes painfully more and more plausible, more and more, alarmingly possible, in fact a moment comes, when one realises that if one admitted those as a single identity, one would do it out of a feeling of loss of a cherished imagery... of a cherished fiction, like when one of those beliefs of infance that nourrished us with fantase has to be given up.
Many things go, above all one tie with christians which helped bridge sometimes a presumed enmity... Any enmity after giving up that fantasy will have to be overcome through other means, sweet Jesus will not do, but truthfulness even if it doesn't look so sweet, is the best support.
Two lists could be established in one facts in the Qur'an about 3isa, in another facts in the gospels or other christian sources about Jesus. Compare the coincidences, compare the discrepancies.
Right now, the persons evoked by the Qur'n as 3isa, and by th gospels as Jesus, are two different persons.
Salaam
savage_carrot:
I agree with you huruf. I personally don't give a rats posterior regarding the whole it has to be this one or that one since I'm not invested in the personality battle...but by making the quran worthless as far as it's authenticity/accuracy goes if we don't accept an external alt version which is at odds with the text, is illogical for all the reasons mentioned.
It stands on it's own, on God's authority. Nothing else matters, or need apply.
MaverickMonotheist:
--- Quote from: savage_carrot on April 01, 2012, 06:37:35 AM ---When I say tradionalists, I'm saying that you are arguing along the same lines that have been used by them to argue against the quran alone position = what! this will invalidate centuries of history! This cannot be! etc etc. Not to mention the fact that the lenses that you are using to read the quranic verses on this position are ones that necessitate Jesus being Isa instead of looking at it from a neutral position of taking the quran for saying whatever it's saying.
--- End quote ---
Ok, then instead of saying history doesn't matter, focus on the bad use of history by traditionalists in comparison to Qur'an. For example, in the verses we've been discussing, it says that those who follow Isa will be more highly regarded than those who disbelieve (by context here, the Jews claiming to have crucified Jesus). And it is those who say these things that are in confusion.
So let's look at our sources. Those who follow Jesus claimed he died by crucifixion. Even the most critical readings of the earliest manuscripts don't question this. The resurrection is another matter. Even with interpolations, Titus Flavius Josephus attests to the crucifixion. The sources of the Jews claiming to have crucified him? They are a mess. Go read the Talmud sometime. Some sayings say the character most likely Jesus was stoned, another said he was hanged, and so forth. The extant sources from history point to one conclusion. Were this a bad use of source material, then it would not be hard to prove.
--- Quote from: savage_carrot on April 01, 2012, 06:37:35 AM ---Because of 19:15?
--- End quote ---
If you are claiming that this peace on his day of death is a situational one, then the implications are that anyone who suffers situational discord is without God's peace. If one is true, then so must the other. Are you prepared to tell every rape victim, every child who is molested, every victim of economic, social, and racial oppression that God's peace is far from them? I think it is safe to say that this peace is one of experience free from existential angst, regardless of the external circumstances. So this really doesn't make your case. That is, unless you are going to argue that God's peace is purely situational and any discord or suffering is proof of it's absence.
--- Quote from: savage_carrot on April 01, 2012, 06:37:35 AM ---It is al furqan and is supposed to clear wherever there are misconceptions and confirm what is true. If it revises history, so be it. To say that if it does it is cultural/religious thievery is offensively illogical.
--- End quote ---
If an interpretation says that something which is solidly historically documented did not happen, it is guilty of historical revision. If it appropriates Judeo-Christian material, removes it from it's appropriate context, and makes it say something that it was not meant to say for its own ends, then it commits theft.
--- Quote from: huruf on April 01, 2012, 02:40:49 PM ---I said some time ago, may be discussing with maverick, that in order to get what the Qur'an says, one had to leave aside any other text. Not tie the Qur'an to any other text. If it is revealed, the whole of it, by God, through Jibril, Go does not need to refer back to any previous text at all or bear in mind this or that. -what comes from Him comes with full authority, not conditionnes. God does not need the permission or the foundation of any text whatsoever.
Why to decide what the Qur'an says do we have to reach to texts that are not guranteed by the Qur'an?
--- End quote ---
I find it interesting that the notion of Qur'an alone comes out here, after praise of research that Pazuzu and others have made about the names and events described in the Qur'an from outside sources. And I think the ground has been well-covered about how the Qur'an calls the Torah and Gospel a "light and a guidance", and there is not a scintilla of evidence to support any notion that the texts we have now are anything other than what the prophet had at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an.
--- Quote from: savage_carrot on April 01, 2012, 03:20:11 PM ---It stands on it's own, on God's authority. Nothing else matters, or need apply.
--- End quote ---
All texts, even revelatory ones, are revealed in time and describe events in that time period. What would have been known, discussed, and debated at the time of revelation is relevant to what it means.
Gentlemen, this will be my last post on the subject in this thread or any other. Not that I am not enjoying our exchange...actually, I take that back. I don't really enjoy the broken record that the conversations related to previous scripture have become. Feel free to respond to what I've said here. I will read it and consider it with diligence, but I have a hectic work week ahead, and I simply have grown tired of these kinds of discussions here and have made attempts to generally avoid them for this very reason. Threads like this make me question my place in relationship to the Qur'an. The more I read and studied the Qur'an, the more continuity I saw with the texts that I had studied academically as a Christian - even though I was actually looking to disprove the Qur'an. But if you are right and there is no continuity of revelation, then I have no business here and am making serious errors in interpretation and eisegesis. Time will tell, hopefully sooner than later.
Peace,
Joel
noshirk:
More funny things about Joshua bin Nun
we have already seen that in biblical Hebrew that Nun points to mama or to a nun
There is another very funny question asked by a jew here:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/533436/jewish/Why-is-Joshua-referred-to-as-bin-Nun.htm
Question:
When the Torah mentions the names of the spies (Numbers 13:4-15), everyone is referred to as "so and so ben (son of) so and so." The only exception is Joshua, who is called Joshua "bin" Nun. Why bin and not ben?
Answer of Rabbi Baruch S. Davidson:
In his commentary to Exodus 33:11, Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, 1195-1270) points out this unusual vocalization, and suggest that the two words should be read together as "binnun." This name, rooted in the Hebrew word binah, means "the understanding one," and was accorded to Joshua out of respect for his keen intellectual abilities.
Some other explanations that I found:
The Torah tells us that Joshua was Moses' student par excellence. "His attendant, Joshua bin Nun, a lad, would not depart from the tent [of study]" (Exodus 33:11).
We are taught that one's students are considered as his children.1 Some use this idea to explain why Joshua was called "bin" Nun. He may have been Nun's biological child, but he was, to a certain degree, the son of Moses as well. This "dual parentage" is hinted in the unusual way the Torah refers to his relationship with his biological father.
Now let see the answer of etymology:
if we ask our biblical hebrew site: What is the différence between bin and ben ?
http://www.edenics.net/english-word-origins.aspx?word=ben
Roots
The AHD scholarshave probed deep within Indo-European, and could find no “root” for PENETRATE. Latin PENITUS is inward; penus means inmost. פנימה PiNeeYMaH is within (Leviticus10:18) פנימי PiNeeYMeeY is inner (IKings6:27) and פנים PiN(eeYM) means interior.
Ugaritic pnm is "into." For all the emptied out containers in this division of the P-N “Pointer Family” – see POINT-- פנה PeeNaH is to clear out ( Genesis24:31). For the built-in opposite of interiority here, Pey-Noon/PN words of exteriority, see פנים PaNeeYM (face, surface) at PANE. Yes, Edenic has identically spelled words for exact oppostes. This points to creative design in Edenic vocabulary, not semantically-driven human evolution for clear, unambiguous usage in speech.
http://www.edenics.net/english-word-origins.aspx?word=bin
Roots
This bilabial-nasal word for a storage enclosure is attributed to an Indo-European “root” bhendh (to bind).
Words like BIND and BAND are from אבנט AhBHNaiDT, the belt, girdle, or sash that the priests wear in Exodus29:9 – see BUNTING. The interiority of BIN is not about BINDING. For all the emptied out containers in this division of the P-N “Pointer Family”, פנה PeeNaH is to clear out ( Genesis 24:31) . Interiority is the point in the bilabial-nasal word פנים PiNeeYM, “inner” (I Kings 6:29). The more common form has a ה Hey , פנימה PiNeeYMaH is inner (Leviticus 10:18). Many bilbial-nasal containers are in the interior and container division of the “Pointer Family” seen specifically at “PENTRATE” and fully charted out in The Origin of Speeches. The built-in opposite of פנים PiNeeYM (inside) is פנים PaNeeYM (face, facet… the exterior front – see PANE.
Branches
Bin (bottle, jar) is also a storage container in Japanese – just a smaller one. Panimat in Russian means understand. Besides BeeYNaH, understanding (as inside information), the Russian word sounds closer to PiNeeYM, inside (as in being inside the loop and informed.)
In Amazonian languages, in the Bora dialect, PÁÑÉENE means that which is inside or in the
interior. PAÑE is interior, the inside part. O'PONO means inside, deep, internal, bottom in the Yanesha dialect of the Amuesha group of Amazonian. ( Fernando Aedo)
Very funny. Isn't it ?
salam & peace
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version