Free Minds

I think Ayman and Layth might be interested in this topic.

For the past year, I have been reading the books of Dr. Kamal Salibi, and digesting every word in them. Salibi (b.1928) just to let you know, is considered to be the most important historian of the Middle East, and wa previously a teacher in London as well as the American University in Beirut, Lebanon.

In 1985, he published a book called: "The Bible Came from Arabia", where he presented some irrefutable proofs that the Israelites originated  in South Western Arabia, and that the original kingdom of David and Solomon was located somewhere near the present day Asir mountains, in the South Western corner of Hijaz, Saudi Arabia, not too far from Yemen.  This revolutionary theory (which caused him to be labeled  a madman at the time) is now begining to resonate in Europe, and some anti-zionist Rabbis have actually embraced it.

I don't want to bore you with details. You will have to read the books of Salibi to find out more. For those of you who are interested in Biblical history and archeology, Salibi's books are a MUST READ. They have opened my eyes to many truths, and confirmed some suspicions I had for many years (I always suspected that Isa, son of Maryam , was from from a far older time that the historic Jesus).  What struck me about his theories is that Salibi, despite being a devout Christian, did not shy from using Quranic verses to prove his point, and supported them with archeological and geographical evidence.

Anyway, to make it brief, Salibi, who is also a proffessional in old Hebrew linguistics, made the following observations to validate his theory:

1- The geography of Palestine does NOT fit at all with the stories of the Old Testament.
2- The names of 99% of the towns and villages in the old Testament (before its text was corrupted by the clergy of later ages, who manipulated the accentuation of its letters) are exact matches with names of towns that can still be seen today in the Asir region in SW of Saudi Arabia.
3- The towns of Lot, Aad, Median, were destroyed by volcanic activity, and if the Arabs had any sense of curiosity or discovery like the West, they could probably find their ruins scattered all over the Hijaz area, which has many volcanoes around it.
4- There is absolutely no historical or archeological evidence in Palestine that indicates that the kingdom of Solomon was ever in Plaestine to begin with. The idea of the "Promised Land" for the Jews is a fallacy. (he then explains the difference between Jews and Israelites). The Jews  have been digging and excavating the region in and around Jerusalem for over 150 years and have failed to uncover the slightest shred of evidence to support their claims concerning the Kingdom of David.  Jewish proffessor Zaif Hertzog, who teaches Biblical archeology in the university of Tel-Aviv has also backed Salibi's theory, as have many other scholars of the West.

5- Salibi points out also the absence of any Hieroglyphic or archeological evidence proving that the Israelites were ever in Egypt to begin with. The word "misr" in the Quran does NOT mean Egypt. It is not even a proper noun. The word means: "a walled fortified farming town", and pharaoh is simply the title of its ruler. Interstingly, Egypt came to be called "Misr" by the Arabs, for the first time, in much later ages. During the time of Moses, the Egyptians called their land: "Kimi", while the Greek historians called it "ha-ka-ptah" (meaning land of Ptah).  He points out that Egypt (Nile country) never had any fortified towns at all. All its towns were open and built on the banks of the nile.

Interestingly, there is a town in Asir, Saudi Arabia, called "Masrama", (مصرمة), and it has existed under the same name for over 3000 years! The name appears in the OT, and archeologists have confirmed its existence.

6- This is where it gets interesting:  The Quran calls Maryam (mother of Isa) the Sister of Aaron

{Then she came to her people carrying him. They said: "O Maryam, you have come with a thing totally unexpected!" * O Sister of Aaron, your father was not a wicked man, and your mother has never been unchaste!}...19:27,28    (This is the FM transaltion, which is not very accurate, but that's not the point).

This Aaron who is mentioned here...is he not the brother of Moses???

Christian scholars used the above verses to claim that the Quran is historically inaccurate because it confused Maryam daughter of Amran (sister of Aaron)  with Mary, mother of Jesus.

The Muslim "scholars" in their hypocricy, and in order to "defend" the Quran (and at the same time, support unknowingly the Christian doctrine), claimed the following:  "It doesn't literally mean SISTER, but rather that Maryam was akin to Aaron in her righteousness"  Bla.Bla.Bla

Funny!!! How come when the Quran tells us that Aaron was the BROTHER of Moses, they don't give the same explanation?

I agree that the word BROTHER or SISTER doesn't have to be in the literal sense, but when God calls Matyam the SISTER of Aaron, it means Maryam, Aron and Moses were contemporaries.

In the old testament, when The Israelites, led by Moses, safely crossed a body of water, and watched pharaoh (tyrant ruler of a walled town) drown (NOT THE PHARAOH OF EGYPT), we can read the following passage in
( Exodus 15: 19,20):  "And the horses and chariots of Pharaoh entered the sea, and the Lord sealed them in its waters, while the Israelites walked on dry land in the middle. And Maryam, sister of Aaron, took a "daff" (drum-like musical instrument) in her hand, and all the women came out behind her, playing and dancing".

Could this be the mother of Isa???  Could the "Isa" mentioned in the Quran actually be the nephew of Moses? If this is true, then it means that Isa came not 600 years before MUhamad, but the gap is much much longer!!

I started making a thread in this section, but never had the chance to finish it. It proved that "Isa" and "Jesus" are not the same name. They are two distinct Hebrew names.

When the Jews during Muhamad's time boasted of having crucified Isa, son of Mary, the Quran tells us that "SHUBBIHA LAHUM". What does this mean? Could it be that they confused Isa, the real nabi who lived in SW Arabia somewhere, and was born under a date tree, with the political rebel called JESUS who came to Plaestine centuries later seeking to overthrow Herod?

It is all slowly starting to fit together now... the historicity of Biblical Israel, Salibi's theory that has been supported by many Jewish scholars, the lack of any archeological evidence linking David and Solomon to Plaestine, or linking Moses to Egypt (Nile country), and the mysterious travel of Paul to Arabia....


What do you think? Please give feedback. I will elaborate more on the points when I can.

Peace to all,


Great post pazuzu,  I always enjoy reading your well thought out and researched opinions,  very interesting concepts. Keep up the good work bro.

Kurt

Selam

Very interesting. Is there any evidence that the Jews were ever in Egypt? e.g. were there any writings? Egyptians took good records I am sure they would have documented such events.

Peace

QuoteGreat post pazuzu,  I always enjoy reading your well thought out and researched opinions,  very interesting concepts. Keep up the good work bro.

Thanx.  :) I hope I can find the time.

QuoteVery interesting. Is there any evidence that the Jews were ever in Egypt? e.g. were there any writings?
Egyptians took good records I am sure they would have documented such events.

Absolutely NONE. We know every little detail about the life of Egytians (Nile country), their kings, priests, how they lived, ate, traded, etc... from hierogliphs and artifacts uncovered from under the sands. There is ZERO mention of Isrealites who escaped , or of "Pharaoh who drowned". Evrything that has been said about Mernephta and the possibility that he may be the Pharaoh mentioned is nothing but conjecture.

The word "MISR" in the Quran does NOT mean Egypt, nor is it a proper noun in any way, shape or form.

What is even more baffling is that the OT, despite recounting details of the life of the Isrealites in "Masrama", does not say anything about pyramids. You think they might have overlooked those collossal structures? (the OT mentions much more trivial things).

Proffessor Hertzog described the situation (of trying to link the Israelites to Palestine or Egypt) as one of total despair, and called for a complete re-evalutaion of Israelite history.

The evidence is begining to point to SW Arabia, near Yemen.

All of this is extremely interesting. Keep it coming please

Selam

I would love to see a massive budget reserved for serious archaeological search in and around Arabia. I think many things will be revealled.

Peace

Eh, I disagree. Why is it that this Jesus and Elizabeth and Yahya are never mentioned until the first century CE when Messianic fervor in Judea was relevant? There's no crucified figure in history before the Christian Christ, and after his generally agreed upon lifetime both Jewish and Christian sources buzz with views relating to him.

Remember that only five hundred years passed between Jesus and Mohammed. Hard to believe there was that much misapprehension in that period. The whole revisionist theory is just too out there.

Maududi in his tafsir gives the best explanation on the dual Maryam controversy, in my opinion.

I also disagree with Salibi on the revisionism of the Bible. Again, the only reason to even look for such a conclusion would be to legitimize Muslim claims to Biblical history after the foundation of Islam. Kind of like sub-saharan Africans claiming to be Hebrews, or white Christians claiming the Bible took place in Europe. Or Mormons claiming to be Israelites.

Peace, Pazuzu!  :yay:

I noticed the "sister of Harun" but never put it into the equation in time/history...!   :nope:

Now if we think the Sura 3 is titled "The Family of `Imraan" -- Musa, Harun, Maryam? Interestingly, there is no occurence of "Harun" in Sura 3, but here's a quick found of their occurences in Sura 3 and 19, and Sura 20 which confirms that Harun is from Musa's family:

Sura 'Ali `Imraan:
   3:35, 36        The "wife of `Imraan" gave birth to a female child and named her "Maryam"
   3:37             "Maryam" was under the care of Zakariyya
   3:42, 43, 44   "Maryam"
   3:45             "`Iysa" son of "Maryam"
   3:84             "Musa" "`Iysa" (mentioned after "Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants")

Sura Maryam
   19:16             And mention in the Book, "Maryam", when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east.
   19:27             "Maryam"
   19:28             "Harun" ("O, sister of Harun")
   19:34             "Iysa" son of "Maryam"
   19:51             "Musa"

20:19-30
   20:19             said, "Throw it down, O Musa."
   20:20-28         ...
   20:29             And appoint for me a minister/helper from my family -
   20:30             "Harun, my brother"


فأتت به قومها تحمله قالوا يا مريم لقد جئت شيئا فريّا

19:27 Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, "O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented.

يا أخت هارون ما كان أبوك امرأ سوء وما كانت أمك بغيّا

19:28 O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste."

فأشارت إليه قالوا كيف نكلم من كان في المهد صبيّا

19:29 So she pointed to him. They said, "How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?"

قال إني عبد الله آتاني الكتاب وجعلني نبيّا

19:30 said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet (Nabiyya).

وجعلني مباركا أين ما كنت وأوصاني بالصلاة والزكاة ما دمت حيّا

19:31 And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me AlSalaAt and AlzakaAt as long as I remain alive

وبرّا بوالدتي ولم يجعلني جبارا شقيّا

19:32 And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant.

والسلام علي يوم ولدت ويوم أموت ويوم أبعث حيّا

19:33 And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive."

ذلك عيسى ابن مريم قول الحق الذي فيه يمترون

19:34 That is `Iysa, son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute.
19:34 That is Jesus, son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute.




... must remember to refer to the Prophet as "`Iysa son of Maryam" instead of "Jesus son of Mary" now


Peace

Quote from: Cushan on November 23, 2009, 11:22:18 PM
There's no crucified figure in history before the Christian Christ,

You are joking of course? There were thousands of people crucified, it was a common form of execution in the Roman Empire in those days

QuoteI noticed the "sister of Harun" but never put it into the equation in time/history...! 

I still insist that the word "sister" doesn't necessarily mean so in the literal sense. However, it certainly means that Harun and Maryam were contemporaries. That at least, hold true. The Quran would NOT call her SISTER of Harun if she came 1000 years later. Had that been the case, It would simply have been enough to call her "Daughter of Amran"  (Daughter / Son means decendents - not necessarily direct children, if you catch my drift).

I don't blame you for not noticing. But if a person who reads the Quran extensivley such as you do (I presume) missed it, what can we say about the 90% of Muslims living today, who go about reciting the Quran like zombies?

Quote... must remember to refer to the Prophet as "`Iysa son of Maryam" instead of "Jesus son of Mary" now

This is exactly what I am trying to prove, with God's help.  Jesus (Yeshu) is NOT (or rather, WAS not) Esau (Isa)

These are two distinctinct Hebrew names. Does anyone here speak Hebrew?? Please confirm this. The brainwashed Muslims have been led to believe that Yeshu is the Hebrew transliteration of Isa. Well it is NOT >:(

Both are Hebrew names. The implications of this fact are quite devastating.

QuoteRemember that only five hundred years passed between Jesus and Mohammed.

Yes. Between JESUS (the son of a carpenter and political rebel who stormed into Jerusalem some 2000 years ago) and Muhamad.  But ISA the son of Maryam came centuries before JESUS.

QuoteMaududi in his tafsir gives the best explanation on the dual Maryam controversy, in my opinion.

I regret to say that I am not familiar with Maududi's explanation. Can you please post it for us, so that we can study it under the light of reason?

QuoteI also disagree with Salibi on the revisionism of the Bible. Again, the only reason to even look for such a conclusion would be to legitimize Muslim claims to Biblical history after the foundation of Islam.

Why would Salibi, a devout Christian, want to legitemize Muslim claims? What can he hope to gain from that? The man is a linguist and historian, and his discovery will soon shake the very foundation of all 3 rampant faiths.

QuoteI would love to see a massive budget reserved for serious archaeological search in and around Arabia. I think many things will be revealled.

Dream on!!

The Wahabis who rule Saudi Arabia are not interested in science. All they care about is how to fill their bellies with food, and spin 7 times around their cubic idol. Right under them are the ruins of the past nations that God spoke of in the Quran. Everything is right there, under their very noses, but they are too lazy to move their a$$es and investigate. All they do is boast about the "scientific miracles" of the Quran?? Who discovered all that?? Certainy not them!

I will quote proffessor Hertzog next.

Peace...

Very interesting subject,

I am actually doing some reaserches too about Moses and Egypt, this might interest you :
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599235.msg231320#new

And I am confronted also in the problem of anachronism, I am not able to get when all this occured, but my idea is that everything point to Babylon rather than SW Arabia!!!!

Regards

Quote from: Pazuzu on November 24, 2009, 09:10:57 AM
I still insist that the word "sister" doesn't necessarily mean so in the literal sense. However, it certainly means that Harun and Maryam were contemporaries. That at least, hold true. The Quran would NOT call her SISTER of Harun if she came 1000 years later. Had that been the case, It would simply have been enough to call her "Daughter of Amran"  (Daughter / Son means decendents - not necessarily direct children, if you catch my drift).

looks like i erased that part when posting the above. I'd say something similar: Whether sister "IN-BLOOD" or not, they must be in the same timeframe. Not even 100 years difference. Same timeframe.  :yes

Reading 3:37 and 19:16 though, Maryam might had been separated (far?) from Musa and Harun, correct?

Quote
I don't blame you for not noticing. But if a person who reads the Quran extensivley such as you do (I presume) missed it, what can we say about the 90% of Muslims living today, who go about reciting the Quran like zombies?

I read Alqur'aan extensively since only recently, so call me amateur on this matter. Most muslims (including myself previously) perhaps don't put too much care on the Prophets other than the Last Prophet. That was a big mistake. I'd say we as muslims must not make distinction of the Prophets. The history of any Prophet is just as important as the other Prophet's! This thread should notice more people, Insha ALLAH.

Quote

Quote... "`Iysa son of Maryam" ...

This is exactly what I am trying to prove, with God's help.  Jesus (Yeshu) is NOT (or rather, WAS not) Esau (Isa)

These are two distinctinct Hebrew names. Does anyone here speak Hebrew?? Please confirm this. The brainwashed Muslims have been led to believe that Yeshu is the Hebrew transliteration of Isa. Well it is NOT  >:(

Both are Hebrew names. The implications of this fact are quite devastating.

I can only imagine. GO Pazuzu GO!!! I'm one of those people who think that all Scriptures are still intact somewhere somehow.

Quote
Why would Salibi, a devout Christian, want to legitemize Muslim claims? What can he hope to gain from that? The man is a linguist and historian, and his discovery will soon shake the very foundation of all 3 rampant faiths.

...and unite the like-minded ("not god except THE GOD") of all faiths?

QuoteI will quote proffessor Hertzog next.

Can't wait.

@herbman, really hope you can work together with Pazuzu on this.


Can someone give us a clue on the relationship between the actors:

`Imran, and his wife who gave birth to Maryam, Zakariyya who took care of Maryam, Musa, Musa's mother, Musa's sister who was supposedly 'watching him from a distance' (28:10-11), and Harun (Musa's brother from his own family and ... ?),

(then the out-of-the-family actors: Fir`aun, and his wife, Haman, Qarun... ???)

Up until recently, it was thought that the presence of Jews in Palestine during the age of Moses was a historical fact that could not be doubted or refuted. But this ?fact? received a severe blow that shook it to its roots, after archeological excavations found zero proof of the presence of Jews during that era. This is also further supported by the absence of any mention of ?Jews in Palestine? in Egyptian, Babylonian, or Syrian writings. The Israelis have combed every square inch of the Sinai peninsula and couldn?t find any trace of Judaism there, and they were eventually forced to return all the artifacts that they found to the Egyptians.

Many books and study articles were published to disprove the theory of any Holy or Promised Land in Palestine, but not doubt that the writings of Kamal Salibi constitute the pinnacle of these works.



The primary tool that Salibi used to disprove the forged history was actually a linguistic one. He made as study of the ancient Hebrew names of geographic areas or of towns that are mentioned in the OT, and found that 99% of them matched the names of locales in SW Arabia. He also pointed out how the Jewish Rabbis of later ages twisted the words and names of the OT by manipulating the accentuation of the letters. (Modern Hebrew ? the one spoken and written in Israel today - is similar to Arabic in that some of its letters have certain marks above them to help differentiate them from other similar letters. However, unlike Arabic, which has the 3 known tools of ?fatha? , ?damma? and ?kasra?, Hebrew uses dots of certain silent letters which are added at the end of words).

Interestingly, Salibi quoted some verses of the Quran which proved how the Jewish religious Elite, had, through the ages, twisted the language through their articulation and pronunciation of certain words.



{From among those who are Jewish are some who take the words out of context, and they say: ?We hear and disobey, and listen but let not any listen, and shepherd us,? in a twisting of their tongues and as a mockery of the deen! (the divinely prescribed way of life) And had they said: ?We hear and obey, and listen, and watch over us? it would have been better for them and more upright; but God has cursed them for their disbelief, they do not believe except very little.}?.4:46


Please open your eyes to what these verses are saying. The ?twisting of their tongues? that is being mentioned is done through manipulation of the accentuation of similar letters, or adding/removing silent letters for the purpose of corruption.

I will provide tons of examples for you in time, but for now please pay attention to the underlined words.  If we  translate them to Hebrew, we will find they are probably similar in the way they are spelt, with only minor alterations in the articulation. ( Please check for yourselves to tell me if this is true. Is it not?? Any Hebrew speakers here??? Please confirm???)

Anyway?This is how the Jewish clergy corrupted the scripture. The ?Muslim? clergy, who learned corruption from their masters and teachers, the Rabbis, also twisted and corrupted the divine word, not by manipulating the text of the Quran (They couldn?t, because it was revealed in the language of the common people ? the ?ummiyeen?) but by injecting the ?deen? with man-made hadiths and Satanic interpretations, and conspiring to distance the Quran from the masses and to effectively ?de-activate? it, so to speak. The phrase that best describes what they did is: They made the Quran ?mahjoor?.

Salibi, who by chance, in 1977, got his hands on a gazetteer of towns and countries in Saudi Arabia, removed all the silent letters and articulation dots from the rampant copies of the OT, and Lo and Behold!! He found exact matches of names and places in the OT, with localities in the Asir region of Saudi Arabia (Asir literally means: ?difficult land?). The number of matches is bind-boggling to say the least (we are talking by the HUNDREDS). He showed some of his works to scholars in Europe and even some anti-zionist Rabbis in Israel, and they gave him green light to investigate further. (Some of these Rabbis were actually suspicious, since as early as the 19th Century, about the historicity of ?the Kingdom of David? in Palestine).  In 1985 Salibi completed his book ?The Bible Came from Arabia? and after all Arab countries + Israel refused to let him publish it, he finally found support in Gemany, where the same company that issues ?Der Spiegel? Magazine agreed to publish the book.

Salibi was able to prove that the original homeland of Abram (Abraham) and his progeny (Moses included) was in SW Arabia, NOT in Palestine. In fact there was ZERO presence of Jews in Palestine until after the 5th Century BC. Is it a wonder why the Greek historian Herodotus who visited Palestine during the 5th Century never mentions anything about them there? (I will show you how the Quran confirms this later on in this thread).

In order to maintain objectivity, I will quote a famous Jewish scholar, one of many historians who agreed with Salibi. The following is from an article penned by Professor Zaif Hertzog, teacher at the faculty of  middle-eastern history in the University of Tel-Aviv, in 1999 (17 years after Salibi wrote his book):

?The facts falsify the Torah.  It is conceivable that all the people of the world, not just Israeli citizens, or Jews, will be awe-struck when they hear the truth that is slowly being revealed to the archeologists who are in charge of the excavations in Israel for over a century?? It is evident to all now that the ?People of Israel? never lived in Egypt, never wandered the deserts, and never led a military expedition to annex ?the Promised Land? of Palestine through their 12 tribes?..It is even more difficult and more painful for us to digest the fact that the unified Kingdom of David and Solomon which the Torah describes as a ?great state? was probably no more that a small tribal country??As a student of the school (the Torah)
I must say that we have reached the point of despair brought about by the huge gap which exists between what we have been taught to be true, and what the excavations have revealed?.I have been living this awareness, in my flesh, examining, analyzing, and criticizing the previous conclusions, as well as the contemporary interpretations of my colleagues??The many Egyptian documents and trophies that are available to us have absolutely no mention of ?People of Israel? ever having settled in there. This despite the fact that we have many documents recording the nomad raiders who entered the Nile country close to the time of famine and building settlements there?..The archeological digs which have spanned wide areas of  Jerusalem, the alleged capital of the Kingdom of David, over the past 150 years, have revealed nothing but artifacts from the Middle  Bronze Age, and from the Iron Age Kingdom of Judea?. Not one ruin has ever been found indicating that the Unified Kingdom was ever located there?


And that pretty much sums it all up. You have heard it straight from their own mouths!

There are 3 pieces of what I consider to be damning evidence of the fallacy of the theory of ?Israelites in Egypt?.

1)  The word "misr" in the Quran does NOT mean Egypt. It is not even a proper noun. The word means: "a walled fortified farming town", and pharaoh is simply the title of its ruler. Interstingly, Egypt came to be called "Misr" by the Arabs, for the first time, in much later ages. During the time of Moses, the Egyptians called their land: "Kimi", while the Greek historians called it "ha-ka-ptah" (meaning land of Ptah).  He points out that Egypt (Nile country) never had any fortified towns at all. All its towns were open and built on the banks of the nile.

2) There is ZERO mention of pyramids in the OT. (An oversight, perhaps?? Not likely!!)

3) This is straight from the Quran, which the Muslims have desecrated by making it a book to be read over the dead, or recited like parrots:

Are you all aware of the dream that Joseph had??

Let?s read the verses together:

{?Joseph, O man of truth, explain to us the matter regarding seven fat cows being eaten by seven thin ones, and seven green pods and others which are dry? Then perhaps I may go back to the people so they will know.? * He (Joseph) said: ?You will plant regularly for seven years, and whatever you harvest you must leave it in its pods, except for the little that you will eat.? * ?Then there will come seven after that which are severe (with drought) and which will consume all that you plant except for what you have stored.? * ?Then after that will come a year in which the people will have abundant rain and which they will be able to produce once again.?}?..[12:46-49]

Note from these verses that Joseph lived in a land where they depended on rain for agriculture. The proof is clear from the fact that he interpreted the king?s dream as meaning that there would be 7 ?severe years?, which will exhaust most of their crops (this is why he advised them to start storing food). The ?severity? here can only mean drought. The proof is in the verse which comes directly after, where Joseph says: ?A year will come with abundant rain, and you will produce once again?.

Egypt does NOT depend on rain for agriculture. This is geographical fact. It depends on the Nile river, with its extensive stream network as the source of water. This is why in the beginning of the story of Joseph, we find him in a well. Countries whose climates depend on rain for agriculture often build wells to store water. Abundant rain would be catastrophic for Egypt, because it would probably cause the flooding of the Nile (This is why the hieroglyphs tell us they used to sacrifice virgins to their gods in order to appease the Nile).

Joseph was in a country where the agriculture took place in enclosed plains, along mountain slopes!!! This is called in Arabic الزراعة البعلية   He was not in Egypt.

________________________________________

It's no secret that 19th century and early 20th century biblical scholars and archaeologists thought that a lot of biblical history actually emerged from the Arabian Peninsula. Now after a century of political correctness and downright mis-representation, the truth begins to come out. New and independent theories indicate that Mount Sinai and the land of Midian may actually be in north-west Saudi Arabia, the Queen of Saba'a was from Yemen, which was also home to the powerful Jewish Kingdom of Himyar. A Jewish kingdom in Yemen!!! And now one takes a closer look??
If ten per cent of what Dr. Salibi postulates is correct, then biblical history gets turned on its head. Maybe that's why the pundits are silent. I mean who would give you a grant to find the original home of Abraham in Arabia??

It's also no secret that the sloth-infected Wahabi rulers of Saudi Arabia bulldozed the entire region of Asir just months after Salibi published his book in 1985,  and allow no archeological research there under any circumstance.

Are they afraid that the truth will come out?? Are they afraid that Israel will call for the conquest of Arabia under the excuse of re-establishing the Kigdom of David?? OR are they afraid that the false and conjectural religious history they have been feeding to the masses for over 12 Centuries will fall apart??

Where did Solomon live?? Was he not near the Kingdom of the Queen of Saba'a, in YEMEN?? Did he not employ, in his service, mountain dwelling nomads (jinn) who have tunneling capabilities to secretly move Balkis' throne from her palace to his?? Everything is there, under the ground in Arabia.

The Israelis haven't found anything because they have been looking in the wrong place  :)

QuoteAnd I am confronted also in the problem of anachronism, I am not able to get when all this occured, but my idea is that everything point to Babylon rather than SW Arabia!!!!

I will destroy the Babylon theory as well. Be patient.  ;D

Quote@herbman, really hope you can work together with Pazuzu on this.

Help is always welcome!!

this is very interesting stuff..... look forward to reading the rest of your posts on the topic pazuzu!

Selam Pazuzu

Thank you for enlightening us with this knowledge. I find it fascinating that there are still pieces of the puzzle which are still missing, may Allah help us in finding the truth.

Peace

Hope

:wow  ...


i can only comment on this for now... jinn == mountain dwelling nomads? are they not human mountain dwelling nomads? Because the separation between Aljinn and Alnaas in Alqur'aan (e.g., in the Hereafter) wouldn't make sense if they are human...

Quote
Where did Solomon live?? Was he not near the Kingdom of the Queen of Saba'a, in YEMEN?? Did he not employ, in his service, mountain dwelling nomads (jinn) who have tunneling capabilities to secretly move Balkis' throne from her palace to his?? Everything is there, under the ground in Arabia.

OK, i'll be patient inshaAllah  :peace:

Peace

Quotei can only comment on this for now... jinn == mountain dwelling nomads? are they not human mountain dwelling nomads? Because the separation between Aljinn and Alnaas in Alqur'aan (e.g., in the Hereafter) wouldn't make sense if they are human...

That's exactly what they were. Human tribes who dwelt in far off places, away from civilized towns. They are called "JINN" because they are often unseen.  Solomon employed them under his service.

The word "jinn" in the Quran is a commomn noun which doesn't have any supernatural or mythological meanings. It is the MUSLIMS who gave the word a capital "J" and interpreted it as meaning "demons" or "supernatural beings made of fire".  The word "jinn"      (جن)    literally means: unseen / hidden / veiled / screened / blurred We have many words that are derived from this root, and they all have similar meanings. Here are  few examples:

1) A crazy or mentally disordered person is called  "majnoon" in Arabic.    مجنون , because his "thinking" has been blurred - so to speak.

2) A forested land is called "janna",   جنة  because the ground is covered by trees.

3) The fetus inside a pregnant woman is called "janeen"     جنين  because it is hidden inside the womb.

4) "Iblis" (the selfish ego of man which causes him to rebel against God's laws)  is classified as "jinn" because we cannot see it. It is not something physical. We see only its manifestation in the actions and deeds of man.

5) Here is a verse that describes night falling on Abraham, as he sat outside contemplating the heavens:


{When the night covered him (janna alyhi),  he saw a planet, and he said: "This is my rabb." But when it disappeared he said: "I do not like those who disappear"}...6:76

So as you can see, once you understand the word as being a common noun, the meaning becomes clear. The Quran also tells us "jinn" is the counterpart of "ins". This gives a very important clue as to who offered to bring the queen's throne to Solomon.
The word "ins"  إنس is actually the root of "insan"   (إنسان) , which has a very precise meaning in the Quran: civilized / gentle / urban / social (being).  This is why a friend who sits with you to chat and socialize is described as "anees"   (أنيس).   Hence the soldiers of Solomon included both "ins" (urbanites/civilized men) and "jinn" (dwellers in far-away places / nomads / uncivilized / unsociable).

Let's read what one of these jinns said to Solomon:

{(When Solomon found out that the Queen was coming), he said, ?O Chiefs! Which one of you can present the best plan to get her throne before they come to me in submission?? }....[27:38] (Solomon could NOT have been in Palestine. The distance between Palestine and Saba'a -Yemen  is over 1500 miles!!)

{An "efreet" from among the jinn said, ?I can accomplish this mission before you rise up from your seat (idiomatic expression meaning: I can do it very fast). Indeed, I am competent and trustworthy for this job.?}....[27:39]

Most traditional interpreters, because of their mythological mindset tand their belief in the supernatural, translate the above as follows:  "A demon from among the Jinn said....".   Note the use of "demon" and Jinn (always with a capital "J").

If you look in the classical lexicons, you will find that the word "efreet"       عفريت comes from the root   عفر   which means:   "to dig in sand or earth / cover with dirt / burry someone in dust or sand / to show excessive audacity, malignancy,  cunning, deviancy  or craftiness."  

Thus, the efreet there, could be the leader of a tribe of nomads (jinn) who had tunneling or digging ability, OR whose character was malignant, devious, or cunning (diabolically intelligent so to speak  >:D).

(I lean toward the "cunning" possibility, rather than digging or tunneling but I wouldn't completely rule out the second possibility).

It was a HUMAN BEING who offered to bring her throne, NOT a DEMON  >:(

QuoteMaududi in his tafsir gives the best explanation on the dual Maryam controversy, in my opinion.

I am still waiting for Maududi's tafseer.

Wow, very good research, and this is enlightening information. May Allah guide us all to the truth...

Peace all

@Pazuzu, thanks for the explanation on jinn vs ins. That's quite helpful.

Pardon me for possibly being slightly off-topic, but since i deem it important to understand the relationship between jinn and naas, please let me continue for a while.

Ins

Alif-Nun-Siin = to be or become sociable, companionable, conversable, inclined to company or conversation, friendly, amicable, or familiar. To be or become cheered, or gladdened or cheerful, gay, or gladsome. To be or become at ease, or tranquil; without shrinking or aversion.

:: gay? Oh, just google define:gay and you'll see   :D <-- so gay


jinn

Jiim-Nun-Nun (root of jinn) = veiled/concealed/covered/hid/protected (e.g. cloth,  armour, grave, shield), invisible, become dark/posessed, darkness of night, bereft of reason, mad/insane/unsound in mind/intellect, confusedness.
Become thick/full-grown/blossom, herbage, garden.
Spiritual beings that conceal themselves from the senses (including angels), become weak and abject, greater part of mankind, devil/demon, people who are peerless having no match or equal, a being who is highly potent, sometimes refers to Kings because they are concealed from the common folk

:: by this definition, i could have been a majnuwn myself, in case of being hidden and insane ...  :-X

::                                                                     :jedi: <-- now a jinn, now a lightsabred-jedi, ...


So Alnaas are civilized mankind? That would give us a better understanding as to why we're told to warn the 'Mother of City' first, and then those around it:

6:92 And this is a Book which We have sent down, blessed and confirming what was before it, that you may warn the Mother of Cities and those around it. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in it, and they are maintaining their SalaAt.


And re: Aljinn, i found this much more sensible when they're regarded as humans. In Sura 72, for example, there are now only two verses still missing from the big picture:

72:8  And we have sought Alsamaa'a but found it filled with Harasan shadīdan and shuhuban.
72:9 And we used to sit therein in positions for hearing, but whoever listens now will find for him, shihaban lying in wait/watch/observation/ambush.

traditional translations of Harasan shadīdan wa shuhuban :
stern guards and flaming fires.
powerful guards and burning flames.
strong warders and meteors.
stern guards and flaming fires.
strong guards and flaming stars.
very strict guards and flaming (meteors).

How majestic.

Ha-Ra-Siin = To guard/keep/preserve, take care of a person or thing, watch over. (only occurence is on this verse)

Shiin-Dal-Dal = to bind tightly, strap, strengthen firmly, run, establish, make firm, hard, strong, be advanced (day), be intense. ushdud - harden, strengthen. shadiid (pl. shidaad & ashidda'u - great, firm, strict, vehement, strong, violent, severe, mighty, terrible, stern, grievous, miserly, niggardly. (adj. of the forms fa'iil and fiaal are used indifferently for both m. and f.): ashuddun: age of full strength, maturity. ishtadda (vb. 8 ) - to act with violence, become hard.

Shiin-ha-Ba = to burn/scorch, become of a colour in which whiteness predominates over blackness. shihaab (pl. shuhub) - flaming fire, bright blaze/meteor, star, penetrating flame, shining star, brisk/sprightly, flame, brand, radiating or gleaming fire, shooting or falling star. shihaab al-herb - dauntless warrior, one who is penetrating sharp and energetic in war.

Seems like a "strong rejection" for the jinns however you see it, but from whom? Alsamaa'a? which is usually translated to heaven ???

Siin-Miim-Waw = to be high/lofty, raised, name, attribute. samawat - heights/heavens/rain, raining clouds. ismun - mark of identification by which one is recognised. It is a derivation of wsm (pl. asma). ism - stands for a distinguishing mark of a thing, sometimes said to signify its reality.

Could they be/related to other humans, Alsamaa'a? People living in a high/heightened place -- which the jinns saw as 'the sky' (why the word "skyscrapers" suddenly comes to mind?)

This would give me a new understanding on the HUMAN issues between jinn and naas -- anthropological and sociological, instead of supernatural/metaphysical or even psychological (thought it might also plays a role in understanding "jinn"). God knows best.


Or do you have another explanation for this?


Peace

(ed: someone should fix it: "8)" vs. "8 )" ... it's annoying)

 :& No way no no no not agreed with all of you on this Jin subject  :& all are wrong on this. :'(

Quote from: afridi220 on November 28, 2009, 06:46:08 AM
:& No way no no no not agreed with all of you on this Jin subject  :& all are wrong on this. :'(

Hey, i know it's difficult...

Especially with the (traditional?) translations like 'jinn are made from scorching/smokeless fire' ... there is, however, a need to understand who these actors are: Insan, jinn, bashar, malaA'ikat, Ibliys ...

I could be totally wrong, but still there are much to learn from studying these subjects.


Peace

Quote from: san on November 28, 2009, 07:41:03 AM
Hey, i know it's difficult...

Especially with the (traditional?) translations like 'jinn are made from scorching/smokeless fire' ... there is, however, a need to understand who these actors are: Insan, jinn, bashar, malaA'ikat, Ibliys ...

I could be totally wrong, but still there are much to learn from studying these subjects.


Peace

Is there any difference between the British and Japanese ? Study is different than experience. what you all are saying is not true.

Quote from: Rev.John on November 24, 2009, 01:35:21 AM
You are joking of course? There were thousands of people crucified, it was a common form of execution in the Roman Empire in those days

In the Christian context? You have Jesus of Christianity and Yesu the heretic of Judaism (who is also Jesus) and they both happened in 1st century common era. There's nothing in the Quran to qualify this event other than the assumed conflation of the two Miriams and the strange spelling of Isa.

I'll just have to agree to disagree with everyone on this. Gotta go with the traditionalists.

QuoteThere's nothing in the Quran to qualify this event other than the assumed conflation of the two Miriams and the strange spelling of Isa.

There's nothing "strange" about the spelling of Isa in the Quran.

The concept is so ridiculously simple, and has been under oour noses all along, yet we have failed to see it:

Yeshu = Jesus  = يسوع

Esau = Isa = عيسي

BOTH ARE DISTINCT HEBREW NAMES.      Jesus was NOT Isa.  Different names, different persons, different place, and different eras.


Here is how I understand the conflation concerning Maryam:

When the Quran calls Maryam the SISTER OF AARON, it can only mean that she and Arron were contemporaries. This makes ISA the nephew of MOSES  :)

The Jewish and Christian scholars attacked the Quran and critisized it for being historically inacurate because it mixed up Maryam, the daughter of Imran with Mary mother of Jesus. The "Muslim" scolare, in their hypocracy, either claimed that:

1)  the term "Sister of Aaron" means "of teh same virtue and righteousness as him"
OR, 2) the Aaron there is not the same Aaron who was with Moses.

They twisted and corrupted the Quranic word in order to make it fit with Christian belief, just as they twisted the meaning of the word "mutawaffika" - when dealing with the subject of Isa - to mean other than death, although the Quran clearly tells us that he died a natural death here on Earth, and is NOT coming back.

None of them had the courage and the honesty to stand face to face with their critics and say the plain truth:
That there is NO confusion. That it is the JEWS who are confused when they declared they had crucified Isa, when the truth is that it was JESUS whom they crucified. None of them had the guts to stand up for what the Quran said, and declare that Maryam, daughter of Imran WAS THE MOTHER OF THE NABI ISA.  
None of them had the sense to declare that the term "Shubbiha lahum" does NOT mean that on the eve of the appointed crucufixion, God twisted the facial features of another man to make him resemble Isa. But that it rather means it was case of a mistaken identity (CONFUSION) on the part of the "People of the Book".


Again I point you to the Old Testament (Exodus 15: 19,20):  [ And the horses and chariots of Pharaoh entered the sea, and the Lord sealed them in its waters, while the Israelites walked on dry land in the middle. And Maryam, the nabiyya,  sister of Aaron, took a "daff" (drum-like musical instrument) in her hand, and all the women came out behind her, playing and dancing".]

This Maryam, who is described as "nabiyya" in the OT, WAS THE MOTHER OF ISA.  PERIOD.

Jesus, the son of the carpenter was not the same person.

The "scholars" of all three faiths have been caught in one of the most spectacular and mind-boggling mixups of identities
in history.

Quote@Pazuzu, thanks for the explanation on jinn vs ins. That's quite helpful.

Pardon me for possibly being slightly off-topic, but since i deem it important to understand the relationship between jinn and naas, please let me continue for a while.

Dear San.. MY advice to you is to start a seperate thread on that subject, and copy/paste the very interesting things you wrote, so we can discuss them independantly.

Peace.

Peace,

Quote from: Pazuzu on November 23, 2009, 04:41:16 PM
6- This is where it gets interesting:  The Quran calls Maryam (mother of Isa) the Sister of Aaron

{Then she came to her people carrying him. They said: "O Maryam, you have come with a thing totally unexpected!" * O Sister of Aaron, your father was not a wicked man, and your mother has never been unchaste!}...19:27,28    (This is the FM transaltion, which is not very accurate, but that's not the point).

This Aaron who is mentioned here...is he not the brother of Moses???

Christian scholars used the above verses to claim that the Quran is historically inaccurate because it confused Maryam daughter of Amran (sister of Aaron)  with Mary, mother of Jesus.

The Muslim "scholars" in their hypocricy, and in order to "defend" the Quran (and at the same time, support unknowingly the Christian doctrine), claimed the following:  "It doesn't literally mean SISTER, but rather that Maryam was akin to Aaron in her righteousness"  Bla.Bla.Bla

Funny!!! How come when the Quran tells us that Aaron was the BROTHER of Moses, they don't give the same explanation?

I agree that the word BROTHER or SISTER doesn't have to be in the literal sense, but when God calls Matyam the SISTER of Aaron, it means Maryam, Aron and Moses were contemporaries.

...

What do you think? Please give feedback. I will elaborate more on the points when I can.

66:12    ومريم and Mary ابنت daughter of عمران Imran

Common place in most cultures to name themselves after prominent ancestors even to this day.

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest, by name Zacharias, of the course of Abijah, and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elisabeth...

Likewise, sister/s of Aaron would be descendants of the brethren Aaron; same tree trunk, different branch.

Quote from: NunHolidayPseudoEidRex on November 28, 2009, 10:08:53 PM
Peace,

66:12    ومريم and Mary ابنت daughter of عمران Imran

Common place in most cultures to name themselves after prominent ancestors even to this day.

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest, by name Zacharias, of the course of Abijah, and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elisabeth...

Likewise, sister/s of Aaron would be descendants of the brethren Aaron; same tree trunk, different branch.

Peace, NunHolidayPseudoEidRex,  :)

How about a woman/wife of `Imran?

Could that mean a woman/wife of a descendant of `Imran?

إذ قالت امرأت عمران رب إني نذرت لك ما في بطني محررا فتقبل مني إنك أنت السميع العليم
3:35  when the woman/wife of 'Imran said, "My Lord, indeed I have pledged to You what is in my womb, consecrated, so accept this from me. Indeed, You are the Hearing, the Knowing."

فلما وضعتها قالت رب إني وضعتها أنثى والله أعلم بما وضعت وليس الذكر كالأنثى وإني سميتها مريم وإني أعيذها بك وذريتها من الشيطان الرجيم
3:36  But when she delivered her, she said, "My Lord, I have delivered a female." And Allah was most knowing of what she delivered, "And the male is not like the female. And I have named her Mary (Maryam), and I seek refuge for her in You and her descendants from Satan, the expelled."


Please cross-reference to verses where ImraAt is mentioned. For example, 4:128.

Miim-Ra-Alif = It (food) was wholesome or approved in its result, easy to swallow, not attended by trouble, quick in digesting, light to the stomach, to descend well, to be salubrious in its air (land), in the habit of doing what is approved and shunning what is held base, preserve the soul from filthy actions, to be possessed of manly perfection or manly virtue or moral goodness, give food (on the occasion of building a house or marrying).

Ba-Ayn-Lam =
Husband, took a husband or became a wife
People intermarrying with a people
Playful toying between man and wife
Resistance
Obedience to the husband
Lord, master, owner or possessor
Head, chief, ruler or person in authority
Someone whom it is a necessary duty to obey
Lacking strength, power or ability
Elevated landPalm trees or trees watered only by rain, trees imbibing with roots without irrigation or rain, a male palm tree
Confounded or perplexed

My previous question is also intended as a trigger for everyone to study from AQ, the relationship between people related to the family of `Imran.

Quote
Can someone give us a clue on the relationship between the actors:

`Imran, and his wife who gave birth to Maryam, Zakariyya who took care of Maryam, Musa, Musa's mother, Musa's sister who was supposedly 'watching him from a distance' (28:10-11), and Harun (Musa's brother from his own family and ... ?),

Peace.

Quote from: afridi220 on November 28, 2009, 08:04:45 AM
Is there any difference between the British and Japanese ? Study is different than experience. what you all are saying is not true.

Is there any mention of British and Japanese in AQ? I didn't say that jinn could not also include those you experienced, especially since they're mostly hidden from most people. And i'm ready to be proven not true, remember?

Quote
I could be totally wrong, but still there are much to learn from studying these subjects.

Quote
Dear San.. MY advice to you is to start a seperate thread on that subject, and copy/paste the very interesting things you wrote, so we can discuss them independantly.

I was going to do that right after posting it, but then i found the 15:25-28 (or even extended to the verses related to "`ibliys") needing further observation. My current view is that, nas and bashar are "originated" through a process--much like developing a character following a pattern of behavior (masnuwn -- sunna), while jann "originated" from fire/flame/light/shine/sparkle/irritating/provoking-war which is penetrating/poisoning (exemplified by 'ibliys who refused to sujud to the bashar). Allegorical or literal, these verses should give some idea on how each of them are originated and what their most prominent characters are.

Whatever jann and naas are, seems like Prophet Solomon had some degree of control over a number of both parties.

Please continue the topic of "Isa Vs Jesus."


Peace

Peace san,

Quote from: san on November 29, 2009, 12:59:03 AM
How about a woman/wife of `Imran?

Could that mean a woman/wife of a descendant of `Imran?

Please cross-reference to verses where ImraAt is mentioned.

In addition to cross-reference, explained best in context 3:33-35?

That God chose Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham and the family of Imran above the Alamin (mankind) offspring one of the other, and God Hearing, Knower; اذ when قالت she said امراة a woman of عمران Imran

4:12...and if was a man to be inherited Kalālatan or a woman (spouse-less case)?

27:23 امراة  تملكهم -- a woman/lady, she rules them

66:10 امراة نوح وامراة لوط -- the spouse/wife of Noah and the wife of Lot

Quote from: NunHolidayPseudoEidRex on November 29, 2009, 03:50:02 AM
Peace san,

In addition to cross-reference, explained best in context 3:33-35?

That God chose Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham and the family of Imran above the Alamin (mankind) offspring one of the other, and God Hearing, Knower; اذ when قالت she said امراة a woman of عمران Imran

4:12...and if was a man to be inherited Kalālatan or a woman (spouse-less case)?

27:23 امراة  تملكهم -- a woman/lady, she rules them

66:10 امراة نوح وامراة لوط -- the spouse/wife of Noah and the wife of Lot

Peace, NunHolidayPseudoEidRex  (hey, it's not fair, your id's much longer than mine!  :D)

Thank you for the additional references.

The text in red (spouse-less case), however, could you please tell us how did you get that understanding?

Referencing from PRL, i get this:
Kaf-Lam-Lam = To lose father and child, lose direct heirs, be weary, tired, weak, have only remote relations.

66:10 is an excellent reference, thanks. It's the nearest to that of 3:35 (Imra'ata nuwH, Imra'ata luwT, Imra'atu `imraAn)


Peace

...continuing from the post above (i was going to wait for NunHolidayPseudoEidRex's reply ... but never mind)

1) Imra'a and kalaalatan

From the context of verse 4:12 we can get the picture of a man/woman who have no direct ascendant/descendant to inherit to, and has brother/sister to inherit to. Yet nothing about being "spouseless" mentioned--in fact, the verse  says,

"And for you is half of what your spouses/wives (azwaajukum) leave if they have no child, if they have child(ren) ..." .

"And for the spouses/wives is one fourth of what you leave if you have no child, if you have child(ren) ..."

"And if a man (rajulun) to inherit have no direct ascendant/descendant (kalaalatan) or a woman (Imra'atun), and has a brother or a sister, ... "

The only thing which can be proven from that verse is that an Imra'a could be a kalaalatan, but not necessarily one.

Yet, "kalaalatan" does not equal "spouseless".


and


2) Who, "offspring/descendants one of the other" (3:34)?

* Imra'atu-`Imran and `Imran (3:35) ?

* Or Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham and the family of Imran (3:33) ?

Hint: 3:35 is started with  اذ


Peace

Peace san,

Quote from: san on November 29, 2009, 04:20:24 AM
Peace, NunHolidayPseudoEidRex  (hey, it's not fair, your id's much longer than mine!  :D)

Holiday or Eid which my name translates as will do fine. :D

Quote from: san on November 29, 2009, 04:20:24 AM
Thank you for the additional references.

The text in red (spouse-less case), however, could you please tell us how did you get that understanding?

Deduced by careful study of the inheritance verses without contradictory meaning.

Quote from: san on November 29, 2009, 04:20:24 AM
Referencing from PRL, i get this:
Kaf-Lam-Lam = To lose father and child, lose direct heirs, be weary, tired, weak, have only remote relations.

Arabic dictionaries were written between the 13th - 19th centuries parroting someone's conjectures/verdict from the past and according to traditions, كلالة Kalala was never really understood; Ibn Kathir wrote: ?If a man or a woman was left in Kalalah? derivative of Iklil or ?crown that surrounds the head? and was conjectured as having neither ascendants nor descendants leading to contradiction evident by the simple example:

What amount to give an only sister; the 1/6 specified in 4:12 or 1/2 specified in 4:176?

See also Sahih Muslim Book #011, Hadith #3937
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=11&translator=2&start=10&number=3937

Abu Talha reported: 'Umar b. al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) delivered a sermon on Friday and made a mention of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he also made a mention of Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) and then said: I do not leave behind me any problem more difficult than that of Kalala. I did not refer to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) more repeatedly than in case of the problem of Kalala, and he (the Holy Prophet) never showed more annoyance to me than in regard to this problem, so much so that he struck my chest with his fingers and said: 'Umar, does the verse revealed in summer season, at the end of Sura al-Nisa' not suffice you? Hadrat 'Umar (then) said: If I live I would give such verdict about (Kalala) that everyone would be able to decide whether he reads the Qur'an or he does not.

Quote from: san on November 29, 2009, 05:40:35 AM
...continuing from the post above (i was going to wait for NunHolidayPseudoEidRex's reply ... but never mind)

1) Imra'a and kalaalatan

From the context of verse 4:12 we can get the picture of a man/woman who have no direct ascendant/descendant to inherit to, and has brother/sister to inherit to. Yet nothing about being "spouseless" mentioned--in fact, the verse  says,

"And for you is half of what your spouses/wives (azwaajukum) leave if they have no child, if they have child(ren) ..." .

"And for the spouses/wives is one fourth of what you leave if you have no child, if you have child(ren) ..."

"And if a man (rajulun) to inherit have no direct ascendant/descendant (kalaalatan) or a woman (Imra'atun), and has a brother or a sister, ... "

The only thing which can be proven from that verse is that an Imra'a could be a kalaalatan, but not necessarily one.

Yet, "kalaalatan" does not equal "spouseless".


and


2) Who, "offspring/descendants one of the other" (3:34)?

* Imra'atu-`Imran and `Imran (3:35) ?

* Or Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham and the family of Imran (3:33) ?

Hint: 3:35 is started with  اذ

A spouse regardless of gender can never inherit together with a sibling; example: inheritors sister, wife

1 ? 1/4 wife ? 1/6 sister = 7/12 unallocated!

Kalalah is spouse-less and fatherless with toggle as to which verse to exactly use being specified:

Kalala with Child use 4:12...and if was a man to be inherited Kalālatan or a woman
Kalala NO Child use 4:176 say: "God decrees in alkalalati, if human died, not for him a child

Also see post/thread: http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16179.msg207587#msg207587

Imr?ata can be a woman of the house or family tree of ImraAn or simply a woman e.g. the Queen?

27:23 امراة  تملكهم -- a woman, she rules them

Notice chronology, best read without verse #s (a later addition) which often cause confusion by taking things out of context...

That God chose Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham and the family of Imran above the Alamin (mankind) offspring one of the other, and God Hearing, Knower; اذ when قالت she said امراة a woman of عمران Imran

As stated it's important to understand cultures and even to this day we have tribes amongst various clans who refer to themselves as descents of the house of their prominent ancestors.

Peace

Peace Pazuzu

Great post. Your arguments are rational, solid and very convincing. Truly thoughtprovoking. The arguments should make everyone of us to question everything we have learned about the story of Jesus from mainstream sources. Thanks for sharing this truthful information with us. And if something about the mainstream story of Jesus is falsehood, it is bound to vanish:   

Quran
21:18 Nay, We hurl the truth against the falsehood, and it knocks out the
latter. And certainly falsehood has to vanish. And there is destruction for
those of you who contrive falsehood.

I hope more people will read this thread.

Plenty more is yet to come.

I will address the issue of "Al-Imran", and all the "players" involved (for member san  :) ) to prove:

1) That Isa, the son of Maryam could NOT have been Jesus the son of the carpenter. There is a mixup of identities.
2) That the Muslims don't read the Quran. They recite it like zombies. Had they read it and reflected upon its verses, as God wants them to, they would have disowned 99% of their beliefs.
3) Most importantly, I will show you just HOW this confusion came to be, and the role that Paul played in it.

To David_K I say:

You must understand that we live (and have been living) in a sensored world. The unholy triangle of Pharaoh - Hamann - Qaroon  (politicians, clergy, financiers) have been enslaving mankind since forever. This truth is slowly starting to dawn and I believe that we are on the verge of a global awakening.

We have been living in a web of illusions and lies set up by the unholy triangle to subdue mankind into slavery. There is a famous saying: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free".

Remember what Moses did?  The story of Moses and his stand against Pharaoh and his servants is best understood as a METAPHOR. It talks about a man who stood face to face with the unholy triangle and exposed their falsehoods. He made the servants of Pharaoh (the "sahara" - his henchmen, and supporters) see the illusion that they have been living under.

This unholy triangle is still alive and well today, and unless it is toppled, we will continue to be slaves for all eternity.

You know exactly of whom I speak.

Selam Pazuzu

May I ask what is the sources to your information? I really like reading your posts and it is truely thought provoking.

:peace:

Peace Pazuzu

I know. The world we live in based on the Pyramide system where the elites on the top are exploiting those on the bottom. The wealthy on the top of the pyramide do what they want without much work, while does on the bottom have to struggle to pay for basic necessities like food and water. The elite gave us all these toys and gadgets to make us busy so that we won't learn anything about politics, religion and other things which really matter in life. They constantly create new mobile phones, cars, and other gadgets that make our life easier according to them. Off course technology can make our life easier, but easier does not necessarily mean better. They sell us a lots of crap we don't need. You don't need to buy the most trendy mobile every 6 months.

They say that we live in advanced society, but still in year 2009 our cars pollute the earth. If we are so advanced, then why did people in the past pollute the earth less than us? There is an abundance of everything we need to lead a happy and prosperous life, but the whealthy take the natural resources and put it in the hands of their partners. They don't share it with everyone. They created the "overpopulation myth" (google) so that we will accept wars. Because if people accept that the world can never have more than a certain amount of people in it, then they will not protest against the depopulation methods of the elites. There is plenty of space for all the people in the world. For example, lots of huge areas in Russia, Africa and latin america has lots of space for much more people. When in japan (which is a very little country) it lives more than 120 million people, then in russia, africa or latin america (which have huge areal), there is lots of space for more people. The idea of overpopulation is forced on people to condition them to accept wars. If human beings created sustainable communities all over the world, there would be enough space for more people than 6 billion, and maybe even more than 20 billion, and there would certainly be enough resources and food for everyone. God's earth is spacious. Society lied to us:

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed - Gandhi

The "scarcity myth" have also conditioned people to believe there is not enough resources for mankind.  

This is the life of the average joe:

The first 25 years of your life you go to school...
then you work from 9-5 like a donkey another 40 years to pay your loans and bills...  
then you can relax the last 5 years of your life in oldness...
This is what is called human ignorance...

However, there is still hope. There are many solutions for those who wish to live rationally. Those who escape "the matrix of our society" can lead happy lives and don't have to work for a boss that threats them like an animal. They can become their own bosses and start their own companies. All they need to do is to finish their education, and when they are around 26-30 years old they can become free agents and work where they work in any country they want in the world.

I also believe that we are on the verge of global awakening.

We think our civilization is so great, but our world is still backwards:

Just look at us, everything is backwards. Everything is upside-down. doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religion destroy spirituality - Michael ellner

Quote from: NunHolidayPseudoEidRex on November 29, 2009, 01:24:00 PM
Peace san,

Holiday or Eid which my name translates as will do fine. :D

Peace Nun, Eid, ... :)

i've been looking at the verses 4:11, 4:12 and 4:176, and i really think that a serious amount of attention must be put onto them, perhaps by freeing ourselves  entirely from the 'traditional' translations. Syntactical analysis need to be conducted first (especially on the sequence rijaalun, kalaalatan, imra'atun). i can't yet agree/disagree with your view on this matter.

However, to get back on topic, the Quran is consistent with the meaning of the words used. So if you were to take one meaning for a single occurrence of a word, all the concordances of the word in the Quran must be in harmony with that single occurrence.

For example:

Imra'ata `Imraan
Imra'ata Nuh
Imra'ata Lut
Imra'ata Fir`aun

`Iysaa 'ubnu Maryam
`Iysaa 'ibni Maryam
`Iysaa 'ibna Maryam
... 'ibnay Adam (5:27)
... Nuhun 'ibnahu (11:42)
... Luqman li'ibnihi: ... ya bunayya (31:13)
... 'ibnaka (12:81, Yusuf's story)
... wa 'ib'nahaa (21:91)
The one Musa is talking to, said to his brother: 'ibna 'umma! (7:150) (hint: musa li 'akhihi haruna 7:142)
Harun to his brother: yaa 'bna 'umma (20:92-94)

Maryam 'ibnata `Imraan (66:12)
'ibnatayya (28:27)


Let me repeat: if you were to take one meaning for a single occurrence of a word, all the concordances of the word in the Quran must be in harmony with that single occurrence. For example, if you were to take the expression "Maryam 'ibnata `Imraan" as "Maryam descendant of `Imraan", then to make things in harmony:

for 28:27 it would be:
(The father, or, the ascendant/ancestor) said (to Musa): 'Indeed, I wish to wed you one of these, my two descendants, ...'

for 7:150 it would be:
he said (to his brother, or, to the descendant of another branch of his ancestor): 'Descendant of my ancestor-mother! Indeed, the people judged me as weak ...'

and then there are still a lot more verses to make in harmony with the great ancestor/descendant view...

Quote

Notice chronology, best read without verse #s (a later addition) which often cause confusion by taking things out of context...

That God chose Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham and the family of Imran above the Alamin (mankind) offspring one of the other, and God Hearing, Knower; اذ when قالت she said امراة a woman of عمران Imran

True, chronology is the keyword. And then there is also another keyword: "continuity". Please don't pay attention to the verse numbers, but instead pay attention the actual syntax/adverbs/conjunctions used. 'Time adverb' Idh / اذ / when may connect the chronology of the events succeeding its occurrence. Please observe sura 110 for example. In 3:35, there is not even a conjunction "wa / و / and" before the "Idh", beginning the verse, which should give us a clue of the "chronology" and "continuity" between the verses. Everyone can find each occurence of Idh beginning a verse, and analyze for him/herself the continuity/chronology between that verse and the preceding verse.
(ed: try this link for concordance "Idh / اذ / when" (http://quran.uk.net/Search.aspx?q=lem%3a%3Ci*+pos%3at), look for only "idh" as first word: sura:verse:1 )

To make it fair, however, let's replace the end of verses with comma -- i.e., to remove the issue of the verse numbering -- to see if they are indeed logically connected (or not).

3:34-3:35  :  " ... offspring one of the other and God Hearing, Knower, when she said, a woman of Imran ..."

3:33-3:34  :  " ... , and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran above the `alamin, offspring one of the other and God Hearing, Knower... "

Honestly, which one do you see as logically connected? Which sequence is in continuity?

I'm not saying that 3:33-34 is not connected with 3:35-, in fact, 3:35- describes just how the the line of nabiyyin is continued as "offspring one of the other". `Imraan himself is indeed not 'present' in the verses describing Maryam's birth. The question which should arise: What happened with the father of Maryam in the time of her birth? And why did Maryam was put under the care of Zakariyya?

Quote
As stated it's important to understand cultures and even to this day we have tribes amongst various clans who refer to themselves as descents of the house of their prominent ancestors.

Peace

Of course it is important and that practice is understandable, however it doesn't mean that the Qur'aan, precise on its wording, conforms to their practice.

I hope this would contribute to the topic discussed.


Peace

Peace san,

Quote from: san on December 01, 2009, 01:22:27 AM
i've been looking at the verses 4:11, 4:12 and 4:176, and i really think that a serious amount of attention must be put onto them, perhaps by freeing ourselves  entirely from the 'traditional' translations. Syntactical analysis need to be conducted first (especially on the sequence rijaalun, kalaalatan, imra'atun). i can't yet agree/disagree with your view on this matter.

However, to get back on topic, the Quran is consistent with the meaning of the words used. So if you were to take one meaning for a single occurrence of a word, all the concordances of the word in the Quran must be in harmony with that single occurrence.

For example:

Imra'ata `Imraan
Imra'ata Nuh
Imra'ata Lut
Imra'ata Fir`aun

`Iysaa 'ubnu Maryam
`Iysaa 'ibni Maryam
`Iysaa 'ibna Maryam
... 'ibnay Adam (5:27)
... Nuhun 'ibnahu (11:42)
... Luqman li'ibnihi: ... ya bunayya (31:13)
... 'ibnaka (12:81, Yusuf's story)
... wa 'ib'nahaa (21:91)
The one Musa is talking to, said to his brother: 'ibna 'umma! (7:150) (hint: musa li 'akhihi haruna 7:142)
Harun to his brother: yaa 'bna 'umma (20:92-94)

Maryam 'ibnata `Imraan (66:12)
'ibnatayya (28:27)


Let me repeat: if you were to take one meaning for a single occurrence of a word, all the concordances of the word in the Quran must be in harmony with that single occurrence. For example, if you were to take the expression "Maryam 'ibnata `Imraan" as "Maryam descendant of `Imraan", then to make things in harmony:

for 28:27 it would be:
(The father, or, the ascendant/ancestor) said (to Musa): 'Indeed, I wish to wed you one of these, my two descendants, ...'

for 7:150 it would be:
he said (to his brother, or, to the descendant of another branch of his ancestor): 'Descendant of my ancestor-mother! Indeed, the people judged me as weak ...'

and then there are still a lot more verses to make in harmony with the great ancestor/descendant view...

True, chronology is the keyword. And then there is also another keyword: "continuity". Please don't pay attention to the verse numbers, but instead pay attention the actual syntax/adverbs/conjunctions used. 'Time adverb' Idh / اذ / when may connect the chronology of the events succeeding its occurrence. Please observe sura 110 for example. In 3:35, there is not even a conjunction "wa / و / and" before the "Idh", beginning the verse, which should give us a clue of the "chronology" and "continuity" between the verses. Everyone can find each occurence of Idh beginning a verse, and analyze for him/herself the continuity/chronology between that verse and the preceding verse.
(ed: try this link for concordance "Idh / اذ / when" (http://quran.uk.net/Search.aspx?q=lem%3a%3Ci*+pos%3at), look for only "idh" as first word: sura:verse:1 )

To make it fair, however, let's replace the end of verses with comma -- i.e., to remove the issue of the verse numbering -- to see if they are indeed logically connected (or not).

3:34-3:35  :  " ... offspring one of the other and God Hearing, Knower, when she said, a woman of Imran ..."

3:33-3:34  :  " ... , and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran above the `alamin, offspring one of the other and God Hearing, Knower... "

Honestly, which one do you see as logically connected? Which sequence is in continuity?

I'm not saying that 3:33-34 is not connected with 3:35-, in fact, 3:35- describes just how the the line of nabiyyin is continued as "offspring one of the other". `Imraan himself is indeed not 'present' in the verses describing Maryam's birth. The question which should arise: What happened with the father of Maryam in the time of her birth? And why did Maryam was put under the care of Zakariyya?

Of course it is important and that practice is understandable, however it doesn't mean that the Qur'aan, precise on its wording, conforms to their practice.

I hope this would contribute to the topic discussed.

Not necessarily that using word substitution always carries with it the best meaning.

Example again from inheritance verses;

4:11 للذكر to the male مثل alike حظ fortune الأنثيين the two females? ‏

54:17 للذكر to the remembrance

Which one is best meaning to be consistent and in harmony or are both correct?

In addition, Qur?an came to set things straight, like the doctrine of trinity, at time of revelation and today?

4:171 يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا

4:176 ? الله لكم أن تضلوا والله بكل شيء عليم

Quote
This is the life of the average joe:

The first 25 years of your life you go to school...
then you work from 9-5 like a donkey another 40 years to pay your loans and bills...  
then you can relax the last 5 years of your life in oldness...
This is what is called human ignorance...

I wrote something wrong in my last post. I actually meant the first 20 years, not 25 years. So let me correct that mistake.

This is the life of the average joe:

The first 20 years of your life you go to school...
then you work from 9-5 like a donkey another 40 years to pay your loans and bills... 
then you can relax the last 5 years of your life in oldness...
This is what is called human ignorance...

Reality bite, doesn't it?

Quote from: Pazuzu on November 30, 2009, 02:22:45 PM

Remember what Moses did?  The story of Moses and his stand against Pharaoh and his servants is best understood as a METAPHOR. It talks about a man who stood face to face with the unholy triangle and exposed their falsehoods. He made the servants of Pharaoh (the "sahara" - his henchmen, and supporters) see the illusion that they have been living under.

This unholy triangle is still alive and well today, and unless it is toppled, we will continue to be slaves for all eternity.

You know exactly of whom I speak.

I think that the story of moses also is literal. And by literal i do not mean that he had a magic stick and used magic to try to convince pharaoh and his people. He probably debated with them to show them the falseness of their beliefs. According to my understanding, he did not perform any miracles (which are against the laws of nature).

From my understanding, he told the truth and then the pharaoh told him that what he is telling is Magic.

This accusation of magic reminds me of the word conspiracy which is often misused in our time. Whenever somebody tells something which is not accepted by the majority, people tell that what this person says is only a conspiracy theory. Sometimes the conspiracies are just conspiracies, but often those who are telling the controversial stuff are telling the truth. However, since most people are programmed away from reality, it is hard for them to accept anything which the majority do not accept.
So according to my understandm, magic = conspiracy/lie/falsehood.

But are you saying that the story is completely metaphorical? hmm.  

I agree that the story of Moses is understood as Metaphor as well. Why? So that it can be universal and work for all times, or work until the system of Bankers, Clergy, and Politicians collapses and is replaced by something better.  Yes, i know of whom you speak.

Unfortunately more than 90% of the worlds population have fallen under the spell of this unholy triangle. But there is always hope as long as there exist opposition against the system.

Quote from: NunHolidayPseudoEidRex on December 01, 2009, 05:29:25 AM
Peace san,

Not necessarily that using word substitution always carries with it the best meaning.

Example again from inheritance verses;

4:11 للذكر to the male مثل alike حظ fortune الأنثيين the two females? ‏

54:17 للذكر to the remembrance

Which one is best meaning to be consistent and in harmony or are both correct?

4:11 لِلذَّكَرِ li-dhdhakari
54:17 لِلذِّكْرِ li-dhdhikri

Actually, they are different. (that's not fair! :P) Let's not forget that Alqur'aan is also preserved through oral tradition--and that, of course, different vocalizations of a root produce different meaning, though their origin might be related conceptually.

my previous examples are of exact same vocalization, exact same words: ابْنَتَ 'ibnata and ابْنَتَيَّ 'ibnatayya (of course you know very well that يَّ- -yya is a pronoun).

Quote
In addition, Qur?an came to set things straight, like the doctrine of trinity, at time of revelation and today?

4:171 يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا

4:176 ? الله لكم أن تضلوا والله بكل شيء عليم

Agreed. That's why we must observe the details while keeping our mind open.


Peace  :)

Peace Pazazu,

Quote from: Pazuzu on November 23, 2009, 04:41:16 PM

I started making a thread in this section, but never had the chance to finish it. It proved that "Isa" and "Jesus" are not the same name. They are two distinct Hebrew names.

When the Jews during Muhamad's time boasted of having crucified Isa, son of Mary, the Quran tells us that "SHUBBIHA LAHUM". What does this mean? Could it be that they confused Isa, the real nabi who lived in SW Arabia somewhere, and was born under a date tree, with the political rebel called JESUS who came to Plaestine centuries later seeking to overthrow Herod?

What do you think? Please give feedback. I will elaborate more on the points when I can.

Yeshua = Jesus = Isa

4:171 O people of the book, do not overstep in your obligation, nor say about the god except the truth. Isa, the son of Maryam was no more than the god's messenger and the fulfillment of His word to Maryam, and an inspiration from Him. So trust with the god and His messengers, and do not say, "trinity." Cease, for it is better for you. The god is only One god, exalted is He that He should have a son! To Him is all that is in the heavens and what is in the earth. God is enough as a caretaker.

5:17 Rejecters/concealers of the truth/ingrates indeed are those who have said, "The god is the Messiah the son of Maryam." Say, "Who has any power against the god if He had wanted to destroy the Messiah son of Maryam, and his mother, and all who are on earth!" To the god is the sovereignty of heavens and earth and all that is in-between; He creates what He pleases. God has power over all things.

5:72 Rejecters/concealers of the truth/ingrates indeed are those who have said, "The god is the Messiah son of Maryam!" Although the Messiah had said, "O children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever sets up partners with the god, then the god will forbid paradise for him, and his destiny will be the fire; and the wrongdoers will have no supporters."

5:73 Rejecters/concealers of the truth/ingrates indeed are those who have said, "The god is the third of a trinity!" There is no god but one god. If they do not cease from what they are saying, then those who reject from among them will be afflicted with a painful retribution.

The people of the book made up the trinity of Jesus, God and the "Holy Spirit". They also say that Jesus is the son of God. They are obviously fabricating these lies about none other than Jesus (or, of you want, "Isa/Yeshua"), and, of course, also God. God is presenting the truth to to those who idolize Jesus/Isa and fabricate lies about him.
Also note that Isa/Jesus was a messenger for the children of Israel.

Peace Progressive,

Quote from: progressive1993 on December 01, 2009, 11:30:00 AM
The people of the book made up the trinity of Jesus, God and the "Holy Spirit". They also say that Jesus is the son of God. They are obviously fabricating these lies about none other than Jesus (or, of you want, "Isa/Yeshua"), and, of course, also God. God is presenting the truth to to those who idolize Jesus/Isa and fabricate lies about him.

Actually, Christians DIDN'T make up the concept of the Trinity, nor is the word "trinity" used in the Qur'aan; the word used means "three", not "trinity"... The idea of a Holy Trinity originated with the ancient Egyptians, who instituted the trinity of Ausar (Osiris), Auset (Iris), and Heru (Horus), and this was several centuries before the Israelite religion popped on the scene. After them, and still before the Jews, was Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. In reality, since the Qur'aan says that messengers and warners went to EVERY NATION on the earth, the passages alluding to Trinitarian ideas could've been referring to any of them. The implication of a "messiah" doesn't necessary solidify anything either because, according to the Biblical writings, there were many "messiahs" in Israelite history. In fact, every king in the land, as well as rabbis and priests, was called an "annointed" person of God; the character "Jesus" was by no means the only one. In fact, the Jews adamantly rejected, and still do reject, Jesus as the Biblical messiah.

Personally, I believe "Eesa al masiyh" IS the same person (minus the extraordinary works and myths) as the Biblical Jesus. However, there is also proof to support the contrary. It can really be interpreted in a number of different ways, depending on the student.

Peace Ahmad,

Quote from: Ahmad Bilal on December 06, 2009, 11:38:38 PM
Actually, Christians DIDN'T make up the concept of the Trinity, nor is the word "trinity" used in the Qur'aan;
the word used means "three", not "trinity"...

I never said that the Christians made up the general concept of the trinity. I said that they made up the trinity of Jesus, God and the "holy spirit".

"Three" is used, but it still refers to the trinity.

Quote from: Ahmad Bilal on December 06, 2009, 11:38:38 PM
In reality, since the Qur'aan says that messengers and warners went to EVERY NATION on the earth, the passages alluding to Trinitarian ideas could've been referring to any of them. The implication of a "messiah" doesn't necessary solidify anything either because, according to the Biblical writings, there were many "messiahs" in Israelite history. In fact, every king in the land, as well as rabbis and priests, was called an "annointed" person of God; the character "Jesus" was by no means the only one. In fact, the Jews adamantly rejected, and still do reject, Jesus as the Biblical messiah.

4:171 ...Isa, the son of Maryam was no more than the god's messenger

5:17 Rejecters/concealers of the truth/ingrates indeed are those who have said, "The god is the Messiah the son of Maryam".

The above verses clearly talk about Jesus not being the son of God/part of a trinity, etc.
The following one talks about trinities/trinitarians in general:

5:73 Rejecters/concealers of the truth/ingrates indeed are those who have said, "The god is the third of three (i.e. part of a trinity)." There is no god but one god. If they do not cease from what they are saying, then those who reject/conceal the truth/are ungrateful from among them will be afflicted with a painful retribution.

Peace Progressive,

Quote from: progressive1993 on December 07, 2009, 11:45:02 AM
Peace Ahmad,

I never said that the Christians made up the general concept of the trinity. I said that they made up the trinity of Jesus, God and the "holy spirit".

"Three" is used, but it still refers to the trinity.

4:171 ...Isa, the son of Maryam was no more than the god's messenger

5:17 Rejecters/concealers of the truth/ingrates indeed are those who have said, "The god is the Messiah the son of Maryam".

The above verses clearly talk about Jesus not being the son of God/part of a trinity, etc.
The following one talks about trinities/trinitarians in general:

5:73 Rejecters/concealers of the truth/ingrates indeed are those who have said, "The god is the third of three (i.e. part of a trinity)." There is no god but one god. If they do not cease from what they are saying, then those who reject/conceal the truth/are ungrateful from among them will be afflicted with a painful retribution.

I don't think that's what Pazazu was speaking about, brother. I think he was saying that "Eesa" and "Jesus" aren't necessarily the same person. From this perspective, how do you know that another man named "Eesa" wasn't idolized by his people and even placed inside a Trinitarian family? The One God (Allah) has been placed in many trinities by various religious groups (i.e. Khemites, Hindus, Greeks, Romans, etc.), and since Allah's messengers have gone to every nation on the planet Earth, then any of their "highest" gods could've been their own portrayal of the Almighty... I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but I think this may have been what Pazazu was stating and implying.

QuoteI don't think that's what Pazazu was speaking about, brother. I think he was saying that "Eesa" and "Jesus" aren't necessarily the same person. From this perspective, how do you know that another man named "Eesa" wasn't idolized by his people and even placed inside a Trinitarian family?

That's exactly what happened with a great majority of the so-called "Nasara", as I will soon prove. (Elements of Sufism had already entered their beliefs concerning Eesa, by the time Paul made his "mysterious" trip to Arabia).

I was delayed from making further posts ever since the thread turned into a debate on inheritance laws between members san and NunHoliday   >:(

There is no need to ponder over complex philosophical issues about "what God meant when He said 'Imra'at' Amram". Did he mean wife of Amran, or descendant??

The simplest answer is usually the most correct.

Imra'at Ibraheem = WIFE of Abraham (not daughter or descenfant). She received tidings of giving birth at an elderly age.
Imra'at Nuh = WIFE of Nuh
Imra'at al-Azeez = WIFE of the ruler of city where Joseph lived (she tried to seduce him, as in Surah 12)

Hence, by comparison, "Imra'at Imran" = WIFE of Amran.

Let us see what the OT says about this woman:  

[The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and she bore to Amram: Aaron and Moses and their sister Miriam.]....(Numbers 26:59)

This "Miriam" mentioned there is the mother of Esau (Isa).  :)
This is the same woman who was holding a drum and dancing and singing when the waters drowned pharaoh and his troops, as per Exodus 15: 19,20.

The Quran did not confuse "Miriam" daughter of Amram, with Mary mother of Jesus.It was rather the JEWS during Muhamad's time who didn't know their head from their arse  :)

The mother of the historical Jesus could NOT have been the daughter of Amran. This is chronologically impossible. Please open your eyes.

Furthermore, Paul NEVER claims that Jesus' mother was called Mary. Rather, it was his AUNT who was called Mary. (John also supports this).

Read (John 19:25) in the NT. It says clearly, that, standing near the cross was Jesus' mother, and her sister Mary and Mary Magdalen (Jesu's wife, according to the "Heretical" bibles later banned by emperor Constantine).

How in the HELL could a woman AND her sister have the same name??

Why was it only Paul and John who never called Jesus's mother "Mariam" ??  
The other three bibles do mention his mother's name as Mary, thus exposing the contardictions and falsehoods. I will prove to you later, that this was the result of miscalculated tampering. (This is going to be one Hell of a therad, I'm afraid. There are so many things I wish to point your attention to, but so little time!).

It is because when Mathew, MArk and LUke wrote their bibles (which contradict Paul and John), the idea that Jesus was Esa, was born of a virgin mother, and was the son of God who died on the cross to absolve humanity of their sins was already rampant, which is precisely what Paul wanted, after his "mysterious" trip to Arabia and the 'enlightenment" that he experienced there, as will soon made be clear to you.

QuoteYeshua = Jesus = Isa

WRONG.  Ask any Herew speaker and he will confirm this fact.


Read the following very carefully please:

Jesus" (pronounced /ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ἰησοῦς  (Iēso?s), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ  (Yē??ă?) or Hebrew-Aramaic יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhō?uă?, Joshua), meaning "Yahweh delivers (or rescues)".[31] "Christ" (pronounced /ˈkraɪst/) is a title derived from the Greek Χριστός (Christ?s), meaning the "Anointed One", a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Messiah).[32][33] A "Messiah" is a king anointed at God's direction or with God's approval, and Christians identify Jesus as the one foretold by Hebrew prophets.


Esau (pronounced /ˈiːsɔː/) (Hebrew עֵשָׂו, Standard Hebrew Esav, Tiberian Hebrew ʿĒśāw; Greek: Ἡσαῦ) was the fraternal twin brother[1][2][3] of Jacob (whom God renamed Israel)?the patriarch and founder of the Israelites

For God's sake will you compare the etymology?? Do you still insist that they are the same name??


Now let's ask this question:

The Quran says that they were boasting about having crucified ISA, but the truth is they didn't.  "Shubbiha lahum".

There can be only 3 possibilities:

1) They meant to catch ISA, but they crucified someone else instead (who was made to "resemble him" ).

2) They nailed Isa to the cross, but he didn't actually die. He was comatose. He was still alive when he was brought down (it "appeared to them" that he had died). He survived, and fled with his mother to India, and is burried there somewhere.

3) There is a mixup of two persons from different eras.


Which of the above 3 is the most likely to have happened?  Is there a fourth possibility?


Peace...
To Be Continued...

Quote from: Pazuzu on December 07, 2009, 04:03:26 PM
I was delayed from making further posts ever since the thread turned into a debate on inheritance laws between members san and NunHoliday   >:(

Hey i didn't start it ;D  OK i'll keep :-X until you finished

Quote from: Pazuzu on December 07, 2009, 04:03:26 PM

Jesus" (pronounced /ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ἰησοῦς  (Iēso?s), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ  (Yē??ă?) or Hebrew-Aramaic יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhō?uă?, Joshua), meaning "Yahweh delivers (or rescues)".[31] "Christ" (pronounced /ˈkraɪst/) is a title derived from the Greek Χριστός (Christ?s), meaning the "Anointed One", a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Messiah).[32][33] A "Messiah" is a king anointed at God's direction or with God's approval, and Christians identify Jesus as the one foretold by Hebrew prophets.


Esau (pronounced /ˈiːsɔː/) (Hebrew עֵשָׂו, Standard Hebrew Esav, Tiberian Hebrew ʿĒśāw; Greek: Ἡσαῦ) was the fraternal twin brother[1][2][3] of Jacob (whom God renamed Israel)?the patriarch and founder of the Israelites

Hello,

I am making some reaserch too, but I am getting blocked on the following question:
WHO IS YESHUA then????  was he a prophete?
and following your statments the the Gospel is definitly NOT the INJEEL.

regards

QuoteWHO IS YESHUA then?  was he a prophete?

Absolutely not.

Here follows the short version of the story:

Yeshu bar nagara, son of the craftsman (or carpenter) as he is called, was an Israelite from the Davidic line, who came to Palestine some 2,000 years ago with his mother, aunt, brothers, and was later joined by his wife (Mary Magdalene). He came with the same goal in mind that his grandfather Zerbabel had: to overthrow the  Herodian Dynasty and re-establish the Kingdom of David in Judea, wherein all Isralites could live and be free from Roman rule. (He came to liberate the Jews from the tyrannical Romans and their Herodian puppets). He traveled from village to village, gathering supporters around him. Gradually, the Pharisees became aware of his movement. The Pharisees were Jews of NON-ISRAELI heritage who enjoyed certain priviledges under Roman rule, and were content with the status quo. Thus, when Jesus the troublemaker came along, he constituted a threat to their position. (These were the same Pharisees who had prevented Jesu's grandfather from attaining the same goal before). It was not in their interest to have an Israeli be declared as king. They tried to subdue him with promises and warnings, but to no avail. Finally, they conspired against him, arrested him, and presented him before Pilate. He was tried for treason and crucified. End of the story.

His loyal followers held close to his teachings and lived on with the hope that somedeay, things would change in Palestine, and they would have the opportunity to re-stablish the Unified Kingdom. These Israelites who lived in Palestine originated from Arabia. They were all descdents of the era of David and Solomon, whose kingdom was far south, in the Asir region of the Hijaz, not too far from Yemen.

Note # 1: The presence of these Israelite descendants in Palestine can be traced back to no earlier than the 5th Century B.C. It  was the result of the "Exile Years", when their ancestors (Bani Israel) had spread all over the Arabian peninsula. The Quran clearly tells us that the Exile was a punishment for their transgression; as such, they did NOT receive any messengers or anbiya during that era. They remained without messengers until the advent of Muhamad (P) who came nearly 6 centuries later, and declared himself a messenger for ALL PEOPLE. This is why Jesus could NOT have been a nabi ("prophet" as you call them),because he came during the time of the Exile.

Note # 2: The Quran clearly tells us something that the Muslims are too blind to see: That Isa, son of Maryam (The REAL "prophet") came to the Israelites at a time when:

a) They were still unified under one rule (not exiled), which means SHORTLY after Moses' time, and BEFORE the time of David. (Isa was the nephew of Moses, as I have already shown you, and as the Quran clearly states).

b) They still had the Torah with them, in its original, pure form. This is why Isa (P) told them:

{And authenticating what is between my hands of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was made unlawful to you; and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so be aware of God and obey me}...[3:50]

So this was in a time when the trace and influence of the "Torah" was still fresh in the mind of their generation, and was not yet completely lost.

Note # 3: Isa was born under a date tree, in late summer, when dates are ripe. Dates grow in warm and dry climates. Palestine was never known for having date trees back then. But the lush plains along the Asir mountains in Saudi Arabia certainly had (and still do).


Note # 4: The Quran tells us that Isa lived to middle-age (grey-haired) age and died a natural death, and was raised in honor.  Yeshu, the political trouble-maker died on the cross 2000 years ago.

So now comes the big question:  Who, or what caused this confusion??

Here's your answer:

The followers of Yeshu (Jesus) continued to multiply in number, and were being persecuted by the Pharisee Clergy. But no one was more enthuastic about persecuting them than a man named "Saul". He says it himself in his "Letters", as I will soon show you. He kept on killing them, exiling them, imprisoning them; you name it. Their movement could not be stopped. There seemed to be no solution to the headcahe they were causing and the threat they posed to the Herodian rule. So this "Saul" then received a "vision" - as he called it - of Jesus apearing to him in a dream, and telling him to go to Damascus. So he heeds the call, packs his gear, and travels eastwards to meet with an important but somewhat reclusive figure called Hannania ("Annanias"), a Jewish Rabbi of some reknown in the region. (Read the "Letters: of the NT and you will see what I'm talking about). It was there, in Damascus, that the diabolical plot of Annanias was concocted:

"You want to get rid of their movement?" He says to Saul.
"Of course!"
"Here's what you do: Go south into Arabia, and bring me the Scrolls  (in Arabic: al-ruqooq), which contain historical information + legends  about a man - a prophet - named Isa, son of Maryam. Bring them to me, and I will then tell you what you need to do".

Saul dissapears for 3 years (read the "Letters" of the OT where he describes his "journey of enlightenment"), and manages to return to Annainias with the Scrolls. These artifacts apparently contained information (no-doubt legendized by the mystic Nasaras of Arabia) about a man named Isa, who lived a thousand years earlier, was said to have been born of a virgin, and who was completely UNKNOWN to the Israelites in Palestine (the followers of Jesus the Trouble-Maker).

"Here's what you  must do" Annanias explains: "You cannot get rid of them physically, so...you corrupt their creed. You change their beliefs. You must  preach to them the TRUTH about Yeshu. He did not come to liberate them from opressive Roman rule, NO!!! He came to DIE on the cross as the son of God, to absolve ALL HUMANITY of its sins!!"

And the rest, my friends, became history...   Ananias took all that was known about Isa, son of Maryam, truths and legends combined, and dumped them onto the figure of Jesus.

There you have it: The birth of Christianity as we know it.

Saul traveled back with this new creed, changed his demeanor to "Good Christiann Soul" , changed his name to Paul, and all Hell broke loose.

Paul was by nature a very violent man. He could not have come up with an idea like that. Only a diabolical genious could concoct a plan this sinister. But Paul was convinced to try because he had nothing to lose. The true mastermind was his teacher Annanias.

At first, the followers of Jesus, whose memory was still fresh (he died barely 10 years before) refused to accept Paul's manipulations. But later on when the idea was backed by ROME itself, in all its might, when Emperor Constantine himself declared himself embracing of it, and his banning - in the Council of Nicea - of any idea, writing, or movement that contradicted Paul's idea, it propagated like the plague!! It had an effect that not even Paul could have dreamed of!

____________________

Dear herbman:

You want to do research? By all means do.

I will give you the begining of the rope, so you can start:

1) In another thread in this section entitled: "Jesus: Seperating Truth from Myth", which is on hold at the moment, I took it upon myself to bring to your attention the work of two genious men: Kamal Salibi, and Ibn Qarnas (code name of an unknown author).

Go to the thread, and start reading it. I will eventually finish it and link it to this one, so the whole picture becomes clear.

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598926.0


The first, Kamal Salibi, is a historian and expert in ancient Hebrew, who has shown astonishing and thus-far irrefutable proof that there is ZERO evidence of Judaism in Palestine before the 5th Century B.C, and that the first Jews who settled there where Isrealite descendants who had traveled northwards from Arabia, and that the Kingdoms of David, Solomon, Sheba, the walled city of "Misraim" (falsely believed to be Egypt of the Nile), and ALL THE ANBIYA AND MESSENGERS MENTIONED IN THE QURAN, came form Western Arabia.

The second. Ibn Qarnas is a thinker who was able to read between the lines of the NT, and discoverd that, despite all the tampering and corruption that the Gospels suffered (which is proven from the blatant contradictions in them), a faint trace of Jesu's true identity can still be seen: He was a political figure who came seeking earthly rule and nothing more!!

Due to the diabolical machinations of Paul, and his teacher Ananias, false beliefs about Jesus were spread, and thus Christianity began as an idea to get rid of the followers of Jesus by corupting their rebelious movement by injecting it with a dose of opium (He didn't come to liberate you from Herod!! He was the son of God who died to absolve you from your sins!! can't you see that?! All you have to do is believe in this fact and you're saved!!)

What stronger opium is there? (Sin all you want! Accepting Jesus as your savior is enough to save you!! In fact, if you don't sin, then Jesus's death was in vain! )

Ask yourself: What better way to defeat a movement than by changing their creed?

There is a famous saying (by Victor Hugo was it?): "No army can defeat an idea whose time has come".
You catch my drfit?

Who could fight the idea of Jesus having been the son of God, having died on the cross for the sins of mankind, when all of ROME, with all its economic and political might was backing it???


2) You MUST read the books of Kamal Salibi.  You can find them translated to over 20 languages. They are opening peoples' eyes to the lies that our teachers and elite have been spoonfeeding us.

3) Read the "Letters of Paul" in the NT, and do some research on "Ananias of Damascus".

4) Then, read Haym Makkabi's "Paul, and the Corruption of Christianity"  (How he turned it from a political to a religious and mystical movement).

_______________________________________

Peace.

To be continued...

Interesting thread :)

Thank you, Pazuzu, for presenting a different and interesting take on the history of the Israelites.

Peace,

Quote from: Pazuzu on December 11, 2009, 12:07:57 PM
Note # 3: Isa was born under a date tree, in late summer, when dates are ripe. Dates grow in warm and dry climates. Palestine was never known for having date trees back then. But the lush plains along the Asir mountains in Saudi Arabia certainly had (and still do).

JUDAEA CAPTA, 'Judaea conquered'.

(http://www.livius.org/a/1/judaea/coin_judaea_capta_valkhof.JPG)

Coin of Vespasian, showing a personification of Judaea mourning the loss of her independence under a date palm.

Salam Pazuzu , all,

I agree with some of your arguments but others are too weak to be presented, I mean like the one about the palm trees!!!!

Also I haven't read the Salibi's book, but I don't think it is all correct from what I heard, one example is the concordance he makes between cities name found in the Bible with arabian cities in Arabia; I don't think it is exact science if you know what I mean, also I think he has no archeological proofs or whatever.

Having said that, I and surely others have always been confused with Issa=Jesus, knowing Jesus is Yeshua is Yesu3 in arabic and not Issa.

Also we must all agree with the anachronism problem  between Issa and Yeshua, Issa ibnu Maryem is nephew of Aaron and therefore lived long long before Yeshua.

For Yeshua there is jewish testimony about him living around the begining of first millenium and beeing a troublemaker (for them), and was indeed not recognized by the jewish rabbi's as a prophete.

My questions to you if you can help are:
what about Esau records, I found very little about him?  Is the Injeel the book of Esau in the OT?
Who is John the baptiste?  Definitly not Yahya!

Regards

ps: In the manuscripts of Qumran, the book of Esau was the only one complete and rolled in leather.

Peace,

The woman/wife of... 11:81 illa imraataka   ا مْ رَ أَ تَ كَ

66:10 Daraba Allahu mathalan lillatheena kafaroo imraata noohin waimraata lootin
ا مْ رَ أَ تَ    وَ ا مْ رَ أَ تَ

A woman/daughter or descendant of... 3:35 Ith qalati imraatu ا مْ رَ أَ تُ AAimrana

28:9 Waqalati imraatu ا مْ رَ أَ تُ firAAawna
And said a woman/daughter of Pharaoh: "A comfort of the eye for me and for you. Kill him not, perhaps he may be of benefit to us, or we may adopt him as a son." And they perceived not.

To give another example usually transcribed with same spelling yet completely different meaning and recital...

4:11 لِلذَّكَرِ Lildhdhakari (to the male/masculine)
54:17 لِلذِّكْرِ Lildhdhikri (to the remembrance)

The works of Flavius Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews"...

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-2.htm

5. Thermuthis was the king's daughter. She was now diverting herself by the banks of the river; and seeing a cradle borne along by the current, she sent some that could swim, and bid them bring the cradle to her. When those that were sent on this errand came to her with the cradle, and she saw the little child, she was greatly in love with it, on account of its largeness and beauty; for God had taken such great care in the formation of Moses, that he caused him to be thought worthy of bringing up, and providing for, by all those that had taken the most fatal resolutions, on account of the dread of his nativity, for the destruction of the rest of the Hebrew nation. Thermuthis bid them bring her a woman that might afford her breast to the child; yet would not the child admit of her breast, but turned away from it, and did the like to many other women. Now Miriam was by when this happened, not to appear to be there on purpose, but only as staying to see the child; and she said, "It is in vain that thou, O queen, callest for these women for the nourishing of the child, who are no way of kin to it; but still, if thou wilt order one of the Hebrew women to be brought, perhaps it may admit the breast of one of its own nation." Now since she seemed to speak well, Thermuthis bid her procure such a one, and to bring one of those Hebrew women that gave suck. So when she had such authority given her, she came back and brought the mother, who was known to nobody there. And now the child gladly admitted the breast, and seemed to stick close to it; and so it was, that, at the queen's desire, the nursing of the child was entirely intrusted to the mother.

6. Hereupon it was that Thermuthis imposed this name Mouses upon him, from what had happened when he was put into the river; for the Egyptians call water by the name of Mo, and such as are saved out of it, by the name of Uses: so by putting these two words together, they imposed this name upon him. And he was, by the confession of all, according to God's prediction, as well for his greatness of mind as for his contempt of difficulties, the best of all the Hebrews, for Abraham was his ancestor of the seventh generation. For Moses was the son of Amram, who was the son of Caath, whose father Levi was the son of Jacob, who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham. Now Moses's understanding became superior to his age, nay, far beyond that standard; and when he was taught, he discovered greater quickness of apprehension than was usual at his age, and his actions at that time promised greater, when he should come to the age of a man. God did also give him that tallness, when he was but three years old, as was wonderful. And as for his beauty, there was nobody so unpolite as, when they saw Moses, they were not greatly surprised at the beauty of his countenance; nay, it happened frequently, that those that met him as he was carried along the road, were obliged to turn again upon seeing the child; that they left what they were about, and stood still a great while to look on him; for the beauty of the child was so remarkable and natural to him on many accounts, that it detained the spectators, and made them stay longer to look upon him.

7. Thermuthis therefore perceiving him to be so remarkable a child, adopted him for her son, having no child of her own. And when one time had carried Moses to her father, she showed him to him, and said she thought to make him her successor, if it should please God she should have no legitimate child of her own; and to him, "I have brought up a child who is of a divine form, (21) and of a generous mind; and as I have received him from the bounty of the river, in , I thought proper to adopt him my son, and the heir of thy kingdom." And she had said this, she put the infant into her father's hands: so he took him, and hugged him to his breast; and on his daughter's account, in a pleasant way, put his diadem upon his head; but Moses threw it down to the ground, and, in a puerile mood, he wreathed it round, and trod upon his feet, which seemed to bring along with evil presage concerning the kingdom of Egypt. But when the sacred scribe saw this, (he was the person who foretold that his nativity would the dominion of that kingdom low,) he made a violent attempt to kill him; and crying out in a frightful manner, he said, "This, O king! this child is he of whom God foretold, that if we kill him we shall be in no danger; he himself affords an attestation to the prediction of the same thing, by his trampling upon thy government, and treading upon thy diadem. Take him, therefore, out of the way, and deliver the Egyptians from the fear they are in about him; and deprive the Hebrews of the hope they have of being encouraged by him." But Thermuthis prevented him, and snatched the child away. And the king was not hasty to slay him, God himself, whose providence protected Moses, inclining the king to spare him. He was, therefore, educated with great care. So the Hebrews depended on him, and were of good hopes great things would be done by him; but the Egyptians were suspicious of what would follow such his education. Yet because, if Moses had been slain, there was no one, either akin or adopted, that had any oracle on his side for pretending to the crown of Egypt, and likely to be of greater advantage to them, they abstained from killing him.

I will get back to this thread and answer your questions as soon as I finish with my translation. But for now, please read the following:

(The Long Version).

                                                                       The Stage of Paul
                                                                     (The Brains and the Brawn)


? Paul was a mysterious figure about whom very little is known.
? From what we do know, he was a militant figure who worked as head of intelligence in Roman Judea, and had an insatiable enthusiasm for persecuting the followers of Jesus? purely political movement ? a movement whose members sought the opportunity to overthrow Roman rule and establish their own independent state in Palestine.
? Ananias, a diabolically brilliant Jew, was the ?brains? behind the creation of the entirely new beliefs about Jesus, which he sought to spread in order to put an end to his followers? movement.
? Paul was the ?brawn?, the tool that Ananias used, to spread these false and corrupting ideas, from which the Christianity that is rampant today was born.



Paul was indeed a shadowy figure. His actual birth date and the location of his up-bringing are not known for certain. It is for this reason that the Christian church does not encourage any talk about the history of his personal life. In fact he himself, in his letters, describes himself as being ?as crafty as a chameleon lizard?, changing his colors as the occasion saw fit. He was a Jew when around Jews, and a Roman when among Romans, so to speak.
Paul appeared suddenly in Palestine, years after the crucifixion of Jesus, whom he never saw or met in person. We know that he was born in Tarsus (present-day Syria), which was then known to be a hub for Greek pagan beliefs. He was not among the descendants of Israel; in fact he did not fully embrace Judaism until his middle years, upon whence he claimed he became a fanatic.

He was best known for his unrivaled enthusiasm for putting an end to Jesus? followers and their freedom movement. In fact, he became the head of the inquisition in Jerusalem and was charged with the task of closely monitoring their movement. He persecuted them, exiled them in large numbers, killed many of them, and put others in prison. In fact, Luke says the following about him:

?And Saul (Paul, before he changed his name) approved of their killing him. That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria. Devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul (Paul) was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison? [Apostles 8:1-3]

So, from what we do know about him, he was part of the Roman intelligence forces in Palestine ? so to speak, and had full authority to silence the followers of Jesus? liberation movement by whatever means possible.
In fact, this is what Paul himself declares:

?I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law, being zealous for God, just as all of you are today. I persecuted this Way up to the point of death by binding both men and women and putting them in prison, as the high priest and the whole council of elders can testify about me. From them I also received letters to the brothers in Damascus, and I went there in order to bind those who were there and to bring them back to Jerusalem for punishment? [Apostles 22:3-5]
__________


                                                         Ananias Brainwashes Saul

In his letters, Saul tells of how his feelings towards Jesus changed when he (Jesus) appeared to him in a dream while he was on his way to Damascus to persecute the remaining members of the movement. It was from that very moment that the drastic ?transformation? of Saul took place, and he later became the first preacher of what was later to become Christianity as we know it today.
Here is what the New Testament (NT) says on this matter:

?Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, ?Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?? He asked, ?Who are you, Lord?? The reply came, ?I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.? The men who were travelling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. For three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank?. [Apostles 9:1-6]

According to what we read above, this alleged ?vision? took place as Saul was on his way to Damascus to persecute the remaining members of Jesus? movement who had fled from Judea. The truth of this matter is very doubtful for the simple reason that Damascus was, at the time, completely out of Rome?s jurisdiction.  It was thus very unlikely that Saul, or any other figure representing Roman authority for that matter, could have simply stormed into Damascus and arrested members of the opposition to Roman rule that were present there. This is in fact confirmed by Haim Maccabi in his book ?Paul and the Perversion of Christianity? (page 137), where he mentions that Damascus, at the time, was part of the Nabatean kingdom, ever since Emperor Caligula relinquished Roman hold over it in the year +37.  Damascus was ruled by a maniacal Arab monarch known as ?Al-Hareth?, who was never known to make any compromise as far as his sovereignty or authority was concerned. It was very unlikely that Al-Hareth, who was an enemy of Rome, could allow a figure of Roman authority to march all the way from Judea, and persecute anyone who lived in his domain.

Yet understanding what exactly happened in Damascus holds the key to grasping how Christianity as we know it today was born. For it was upon Saul?s return from Damascus, that he began to preach the new beliefs about Jesus. This new creed held that Jesus hadn?t come to liberate the Israeli Jews from foreign rule and establish an independent state for them, as Jesus himself had claimed when he told the Canaanite Jewish woman who came asking him to ?heal? her child:  ?I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel?. [Matthew 15:24]  (Meaning: the kingdom that Jesus envisioned was for the Israeli Jews only ? a statement clearly smacking of political racism). But rather that Jesus had come to absolve all of humanity from their sins by dying on the cross, and that the kingdom he wished to establish was in Heaven, not on Earth. This idea served as opium to appease the people ? the followers of Jesus at their foremost ? so they would no longer entertain any rebellious ideas towards Roman rule.

This drastic turn of events begs the following question:  ?How could Saul, who believed that violence and physical extermination were the most effective ways to silence the followers of Jesus, transform into a devious manipulator, and preach a new creed of ?peace and love?, whose effect on the movement was far more destructive than any force of arms or physical extermination??

The answer to this question is hidden within the folds of the NT?s pages ? in the letters of the apostles to be precise ? and anyone who examines these letters with an open mind, and reads between the lines, so to speak, will surely find the answer.

In Saul?s alleged ?vision?, we find that the ?Lord? Jesus asked him to go to Damascus and await further instructions there. Let us see what the NT itself says:

?I asked, ?What am I to do, Lord?? The Lord said to me, ?Get up and go to Damascus; there you will be told everything that has been assigned to you to do.? Since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, those who were with me took my hand and led me to Damascus.  A certain Ananias, who was a devout man according to the law and well spoken of by all the Jews living there, came to me; and standing beside me, he said, ?Brother Saul, regain your sight!? In that very hour I regained my sight and saw him. Then he said, ?The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice; for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.? [Apostles 22:10-16]

The above passage asserts ? from the mouth of Saul himself - that it was not Jesus who told Saul what was to be done, nor was it he who instructed him as to the nature of the new preaching. What happened was that Saul met another Jewish man of some renown, who went by the name of Ananias. This Jewish man, citizen of Damascus, which was then a part of Cilicia, also did not wish to witness the rise of an independent kingdom for the Israelites in Palestine, and wanted to put an end to the freedom movement of Jesus? followers. This Ananias had the patience, the intelligence, and the craftiness to know exactly which approach was most effective, for he had been closely monitoring the activities of the Roman authorities in their hunt for members of the movement. He understood full well that neither physical extermination, nor imprisonment could weaken their resolve; on the contrary, such actions would only increase peoples? sympathy towards the movement, and possibly draw more members to it! So he concocted a devious, subtle, but more effective way to silence it, by corrupting the movement to its very core. Ananias also understood that if there was ever anyone who was qualified to carry out this diabolical task, anyone with the enthusiasm and energy to see it done, it was none other than Saul himself.

Here is another passage from the NT, asserting that Ananias also saw Jesus in a vision, and told Saul that he had been chosen by the Lord to carry out the task:

?Now there was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, ?Ananias.? He answered, ?Here I am, Lord.? The Lord said to him, ?Get up and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul. At this moment he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.? But Ananias answered, ?Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints in Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who invoke your name.? But the Lord said to him, ?Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel; I myself will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.? So Ananias went and entered the house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, ?Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.? And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his sight was restored. Then he got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength? [Apostles 9: 10-19]

Now the truth is beginning to emerge. It was Ananias, a Jewish priest, who brainwashed Saul and put him under the illusion that the ?God of our ancestors?, as Ananias himself labeled him - meaning the ancient god of the Jews, NOT Jesus ? had chosen Saul to preach new ideas to the people concerning Jesus? true identity and mission. These new ideas were of course completely unheard of and unfathomable to the followers of Jesus? movement at the time.
It was not a vision that Saul saw which prompted him to change his approach towards Jesus? followers, but rather it was his trip to Damascus, whether for the purpose of persecuting members of the movement ? as he claimed ? or to accept a personal invitation from Ananias. This change in approach could not have come from Saul himself, who was, by nature a man of violent action. It must have been planted in his head by one who was more devious. Saul was simply the tool to carry out the diabolical plan of the architect Ananias.
__________

                                                                      The Plan

The ?brainwashing? of Saul required three years to be accomplished, and was orchestrated in several stages.

? Stage 1: The Conviction:

Ananias had to convince Saul, the prime persecutor of Jesus? followers, that Jesus had appeared to him in a dream, and was very perturbed because of this persecution, and asked him to cease and desist. He also had to convince Saul that he (Saul) was chosen by the God of the Jewish ancestors to preach some new principles about Jesus, who had died before being able to deliver them to his followers.
Saul truly believed that Ananias had seen Jesus in a dream, so he announced his readiness to cease all forms of persecution of Jesus? followers, and devote his entire life to absolve himself of the horrors he had perpetrated against them. Ananias brainwashed Saul into unquestionably believing that he was doing a service to the ancestral God of the Jews. It was thus that Saul became like soft dough, easily manipulated by Ananias.  

? Stage 2: The Birth of a New Creed:

Ananias came to the realization that the most effective way to put an end to any rebellious threat against Roman authority in Palestine, was to assign to Jesus ? the man who had come into Palestine as a stranger, and whose father was hence unknown to the people of Judea ? certain attributes that some Jews had assigned, in bygone days, to a true messenger of God by the name of Isa, who had been sent to the Israelites in Arabia. Many legends had seeped into the story of Isa, no doubt the result of embellishments by mystics from among the Nasara, throughout the many centuries separating Jesus? time from Isa?s. Among these legends that were rampant at the time of Saul?s visit to Damascus (and his trip further south into Arabia ? as we shall soon see), was that this Isa was the son of God.
And since the goal of this new creed was to silence the rebellious movement of Jesus? followers in Judea, and surrounding territories, Ananias saw it fit to make those followers believe that Jesus hadn?t come to establish an Earthly and independent state for the Israelites; but rather that he was the son of God, who had come to die on the cross to absolve all of humanity of their sins, and establish for them a kingdom in Heaven.

As such, Ananias had to spoon-feed Saul the creed of the Nasara, which was completely unknown to Saul. All that remained of this creed was preserved in scriptures penned in one of the languages of Arabia (most probably Aramaic), which was also alien to Saul, who was born in Tarsus (Asia Minor) and had lived all his life in Palestine, whose inhabitants spoke Greek or Roman. It is highly likely that Ananias needed more information about the Nasara?s beliefs, and so he sent Saul on a trip to Arabia, to salvage what could be salvaged of written scriptures, without any fear that Saul might discover the truth of Ananias? scheme, for he was completely oblivious as to the content of these scriptures he was sent to retrieve.
And so it was that Saul did indeed travel to Arabia, as he himself sates:

?But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus? [Galatians 1:15-18]

Now comes the question: What did Saul do in Arabia? What was the purpose of his trip there, and his ?mysterious? disappearance for three years in that alien land?

Christian scholars themselves habe been, and continue to be baffled by this. Most of them claim that Saul made the trip to that far away land in order to find peace and tranquility, to clear himself from the turmoil burning within him, and to better condition himself for his mission. This of course is mere speculation. If the purpose was to ?condition? himself, or be at peace, he might well have travelled to some secluded grove, or wilderness place a day?s march from Damascus.

Instead, he travelled over 1000 kilometers into Arabia, which means there must have been a truly important purpose to the trip. Although Paul didn?t state this purpose clearly, we need to read in between the lines and to look at the bigger picture in order to deduce what the purpose of the trip was.

In any case, it seems that Saul returned from Arabia with some scrolls, which he immediately delivered to Ananias. In his excellent book ?The Search for Jesus?, Kamal Salibi states the following:  ?It is likely that what Saul found in Arabia and returned with to Damascus were ?the Ruqooq?, (parchments of animal skin) which he mentioned in his second letter sent from his prison in Rome to his ?beloved son? Timothy in his later days?.

The letter that Salibi is referring to is the following:

?Do your best to come to me soon, for Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful in my ministry. I have sent Tychicus to Ephesus. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will pay him back for his deeds. You also must beware of him, for he strongly opposed our message?
[2 Timothy 4: 9-13]

? Stage 3: The Teaching:

The most obvious proof we have to support the claim that it was Ananias who planted in Saul?s head the idea that he had been chosen by God to bear the message of the new principles concerning Jesus, is that upon completing his mission in Arabia, Saul did not immediately head towards Jerusalem to begin his preaching because, up until that point, he still had no idea what it was that he had preach. Instead, he returned to Damascus first, to deliver to Ananias the parchments he had recovered from the land of the Nasara.  Ananias studied these parchments extensively for three years, and finally decided to attribute to Jesus  all that the Nasara believed about Isa, the son of Maryam, a true messenger who had been sent by God to the Israelites of Arabia, many centuries before. He also embellished the story with some pagan beliefs that were rampant in Judea and Syria at the time. Saul remained in Damascus for three years, taking Ananias? teachings to heart, as he himself asserts in his letters.

? Stage 4: The Preaching:

After three years of training for his new responsibility under the tutelage if Ananias, Saul changed his name to Paul - a necessary precaution ? for the people of Jerusalem needed to forget the old ?Saul?, whose name was symbolic of the violent persecution of Jesus? followers.
Indeed Paul actually began his very first preaching while still in Damascus, but it seemed that the Jewish minority in that city did not like what they heard, and conspired to kill Paul. Eventually, with the help of Ananias? men, he was rather comically smuggled out of Damascus? walls in a basket, by night.

?For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, ?He is the Son of God.? All who heard him were amazed and said, ?Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem among those who invoked this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?? Saul became increasingly more powerful and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah.
After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him; but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.? [Apostles 9:20-25]

Paul then went immediately to Jerusalem, to meet with Jesus? brothers and disciples, who by that time were lead by Jacob, and tried unsuccessfully to get them to abandon their beliefs concerning Jesus. Paul stayed in Jerusalem for a mere fifteen days, before he was forced to re-direct his course towards Cilicia again:

?Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord?s brother. In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only heard it said, ?The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.? And they glorified God because of me.? [Galatians 1:18-24]

The real reason for Paul?s hasty departure from Jerusalem was no doubt the instruction of Ananias, who clearly did not want him to spread the ?New Faith? among Jews. Proof of this fact comes straight from Paul?s mouth:

?After I had returned to Jerusalem and while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw Jesus saying to me, ?Hurry and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.? And I said, ?Lord, they themselves know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. And while the blood of your witness Stephen was shed, I myself was standing by, approving and keeping the coats of those who killed him.? Then he said to me, ?Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.??  [Apostles 22:17-21]

This is another example of Paul?s tendency to claim these ?visions?. It is very likely that it wasn?t Jesus whom he saw, but rather an actual man ? a messenger from Ananias, telling him to return at ounce to Cilicia. The wisdom of starting the preaching of the ?New Faith? in the non-Jewish land of Cilicia was completely oblivious to the short-sighted Paul, but not so to the devious Ananias, whose goal was to quell a rebellious movement, not spread a new religion among the Jews which might endanger their ancient beliefs!
Thus Cilicia was a wise choice for the following reasons:

1) It was Saul?s country of birth, and most of its inhabitants held Greek or pagan beliefs. (Which explains why in Paul?s ?vision?, Jesus told him to go send word to the Gentiles?).
2) If some of the inhabitants of Cilicia, a country that is relatively far from Jerusalem, had heard of Jesus? failed attempt at rebellion against the Romans, the memory of those events must have, by that time, become blurry in their minds, because over 10 years had passed since his crucifixion. And because most of Cilicia?s inhabitants were gentiles, the country constituted a perfect environment for the spread of beliefs about the identity of Jesus that were drastically different from what was already known. Ananias knew that it would not be long before this new creed would spread, its influence would eventually reach Jerusalem, and it would be nurtured at the expense of the people forgetting Jesus? true identity and the goal he had come to Judea to achieve. This is exactly what Ananias wanted all along.

And so it was that Paul?s preaching spread all around the pagan world, and people gradually began to hear about a man named Jesus, who was allegedly born in Palestine some 40 years earlier, from a virgin mother, and was God?s only begotten son. This man lived as an ordinary human among humans so that his father, God, could better learn the nature of His creations. (According to Paul, God could not understand why humans were prone to sin, ever since Adam ate the fruit of the Forbidden Tree, so He sent His son to live among them, in order to better understand their nature). God eventually became convinced that humans could not refrain from committing sin, because it was in their very nature to do so. God then had to ?correct His mistake?, since He could not punish his creations for committing something that was in their very nature. So He made His only begotten son die on the cross in order to absolve humanity of its sins.

Such was the creed founded by the diabolical Ananias, and spoon-fed to Paul: No longer could good deeds and kindness to fellow man pave the way to Paradise for humanity; rather it was belief in Jesus as the son of God and his sacrifice on the cross alone that became the key to salvation. Such was the destructive opium that he subtly injected to curb the determination of Jesus? followers.

And so Paul began preaching a new creed that was based on attributing falsehoods to Jesus -claims that the man never made. This was how Christianity was born.

For three centuries, most people did not accept Paul?s ideas, and secretly resisted them. In fact, Paul?s ideas would gain leverage only when Roman Emperor Constantine declared his embracing of Paul?s creed in the beginning of the 4th Century A.D, and whence he embellished the belief by introducing into it many pagan elements which were rampant in the region at that time, to make it more acceptable and attractive to the gentiles. It was this Christianity, propelled by the political and economical might of Rome, which eventually flourished far beyond the wildest dreams or intentions of Ananias and his pupil.

________________

To be continued.

I found in a french book, that there was some gossip going around about "the virgin mother of Isaiah" in the begining of christianity!

here are the references:

Author: Renan, Ernest, 1823-1892
Subject: Paul, the Apostle, Saint
Publisher: Paris, Michel Lévy frères
Year: 1879
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT
Language: French
Digitizing sponsor: Google
Book from the collections of: Oxford University
Collection: europeanlibraries

http://www.archive.org/details/histoiredesorig01renagoog

Peace

Salam aleikum w.r.w.b.

Dear Members,

It's always a belssing to exchange some ideas. The truth is out there and we must find it. There are some interesting insights in the this topic. I can not comment on them yet but Joshua might have been son of Mary. He is the one who become King of the Jews after Moses death. He is the one who leads the fight against the people of the city. BUT there is a problem with this theory. Mary grew up in the Temple under the care of Zacharia. I don't think the whole world has been fooled and even base their counting on the years on a lie.

Mary is called " O sister of Aaron" by HER PEOPLE not by God. It's a QUOTATION. And why do her people call her that? Because she used to reside in the Temple and live there and serve their. So I think her people mean "O sister of the PRIESTS" because in Christianity Aaron was the first High Priest. Also some christian sources call the father of Mary JOACHIM. I do not know if Imran was a common name and what it means but maybe it DOES not MEAN AMRAM but JOACHIM. It might be also a refference like Dhul Qanain refers to Cyrus The Great or Dhul Kifl to Yunus. Anyway here is the Christian Story which resembles much to the Quran Story:

The Evangelium of James
Very Glorious Mother of Jesus Christ

IN THE RECORDS OF THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL was Joachim, a man rich exceedingly; and he brought his offerings double, saying: There shall be of my superabundance to all the people, and there shall be the offering for my forgiveness to the Lord for a propitiation for me. For the great day of the Lord was at hand, and the sons of Israel were bringing their offerings. And there stood over against him Rubim, saying: It is not meet for thee first to bring thine offerings, because thou hast not made seed in Israel. And Joachim was exceedingly grieved, and went away to the registers of the twelve tribes of the people, saying: I shall see the registers of the twelve tribes of Israel, as to whether I alone have not made seed in Israel. And he searched, and found that all the righteous had raised up seed in Israel. And he called to mind the patriach Abraham, that in the last day God gave him a son Isaac. And Joachim was exceedingly grieved, and did not come into the presence of his wife; but he retired to the desert, and there pitched his tent, and fasted forty days and forty nights, saying in himself: I will not go down either for food or for drink until the Lord my God shall look upon me, and prayer shall be my food and drink.

2. And his wife Anna mourned in two mournings, and lamented in two lamentations, saying: I shall bewail my widowhood; I shall bewail my childlessness. And the great day of the Lord was at hand; and Judith her maid-servant said: How long dost thou humiliate thy soul? Behold, the great day of the Lord is at hand, and it is unlawful for thee to mourn. But take this head-band, which the woman that made it gave to me; for it is not proper that I should wear it, because I am a maid-servant, and it has a royal appearance. And Anna said: Depart from me; for I have not done such things, and the Lord has brought me very low. I fear that some wicked person has given it to thee, and thou hast come to make me a sharer in thy sin. And Judith said: Why should I curse thee, seeing that the Lord hath shut thy womb, so as not to give thee fruit in Israel? And Anna was grieved exceedingly, and put off her garments of mourning, and cleaned her head, and put on her wedding garments, and about the ninth hour went down to the garden to walk. And she saw a laurel, and sat under it, and prayed to the Lord, saying: O God of our fathers, bless me and hear my prayer, as Thou didst bless the womb of Sarah, and didst give her a son Isaac.

3. And gazing towards the heaven, she saw a sparrow's nest in the laurel, and made a lamentation in herself, saying: Alas! who begot me? and what womb produced me? because I have become a curse in the presence of the sons of Israel, and I have been reproached, and they have driven me in derision out of the temple of the Lord. Alas! to what have I been likened? I am not like the fowls of the heaven, because even the fowls of the heaven are productive before Thee, O Lord. Alas! to what have I been likened? I am not like the beasts of the earth, because even the beasts of the earth are productive before Thee, O Lord. Alas! to what have I been likened? I am not like these waters, because even these waters are productive before Thee, O Lord. Alas! to what have I been likened? I am not like this earth, because even the earth bringeth forth its fruits in season, and blesseth Thee, O Lord.

4. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by, saying: Anna, Anna, the Lord hath heard thy prayer, and thou shalt conceive, and shall bring forth; and thy seed shall be spoken of in all the world. And Anna said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God; and it shall minister to Him in holy things all the days of its life. And, behold, two angels came, saying to her: Behold, Joachim thy husband is coming with his flocks. For an angel of the Lord went down to him, saying: Joachim, Joachim, the Lord God hath heard thy prayer Go down hence; for, behold, thy wife Anna shall conceive. And Joachim went down and called his shepherds, saying: Bring me hither ten she-lambs without spot or blemish, and they shall be for the Lord my God; and bring me twelve tender calves, and they shall be for the priests and the elders; and a hundred goats for all the people. And, behold, Joachim came with his flocks; and Anna stood by the gate, and saw Joachim coming, and she ran anti hung upon his neck, saying: Now I know that the Lord God hath blessed me exceedingly; for, behold the widow no longer a widow, and I the childless shall conceive. And Joachim rested the first day in his house.

5. And on the following day he brought his offerings, saying in himself: If the Lord God has been rendered gracious to me, the plate on the priest's forehead will make it manifest to me. And Joachim brought his offerings, and observed attentively the priest's plate when he went up to the altar of the Lord, and he saw no sin in himself. And Joachim said: Now I know that the Lord has been gracious unto me, and has remitted all my sins. And he went down from the temple of the Lord justified, and departed to his own house. And her months were fulfilled, and in the ninth month Anna brought forth. And she said to the midwife: What have I brought forth? and she said: A girl. And said Anna: My soul has been magnified this day. And she laid her down. And the days having been fulfilled, Anna was purified, and gave the breast to the child, and called her name Mary.

6. And the child grew strong day by day; and when she was six months old, her mother set her on the ground to try whether she could stand, and she walked seven steps and came into her bosom; and she snatched her up, saying: As the Lord my God liveth, thou shall not walk on this earth until I bring thee into the temple of the Lord. And she made a sanctuary in her bed-chamber, and allowed nothing common or unclean to pass through her. And she called the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews, and they led her astray. And when she was a year old, Joachim made a great feast, and invited the priests, and the scribes, and the elders, and all the people of Israel. And Joachim brought the child to the priests; and they blessed her, saying: O God of our fathers, bless this child, and give her an everlasting name to be named in all generations. And all the people said: So be it, so be it, amen. And he brought her to the chief priests; and they blessed her, saying: O God most high, look upon this child, and bless her with the utmost blessing, which shall be for ever. And her mother snatched her up, and took her into the sanctuary of her bed-chamber, and gave her the breast. And Anna made a song to the Lord God, saying: I will sing a song to the Lord my God, for He hath looked upon me, and hath taken away the reproach of mine enemies; and the Lord hath given the the fruit of His righteousness, singular in its kind, and richly endowed before Him. Who will tell the sons of Rubim that Anna gives suck? Hear, hear, ye twelve tribes of Israel, that Anna gives suck. And she laid her to rest in the bed-chamber of her sanctuary, and went out and ministered unto them. And when the supper was ended, they went down rejoicing, and glorifying the God of Israel.

7. And her months were added to the child. And the child was two years old, and Joachim said: Let us take her up to the temple of the Lord, that we may pay the vow that we have vowed, lest perchance the Lord send to us, and our offering be not received. And Anna said: Let us wait for the third year, in order that the child may not seek for father or mother. And Joachim said: So let us wait. And the child was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them stand with the lamps burning, that the child may not turn back, and her heart be captivated from the temple of the Lord. And they did so until they went up into the temple of the Lord. And the priest received her, and kissed her, and blessed her, saying: The Lord has magnified thy name in all generations. In thee, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel. And he set her down upon the third step of the altar, and the Lord God sent grace upon her; and she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her.

8. And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord thy God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in thy house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received thee from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave thee in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to thee. The Lord will protect thee.

10. And there was a council of the priests, saying: Let us make a veil for the temple of the Lord. And the priest said: Call to me the undefiled virgins of the family of David. And the officers went away, and sought, and found seven virgins. And the priest remembered the child Mary, that she was of the family of David, and undefiled before God. And the officers went away and brought her. And they brought them into the temple of the Lord. And the priest said: Choose for me by lot who shall spin the gold, and the white, and the fine linen, and the silk, and the blue, and the scarlet, and the true purple. And the true purple and the scarlet fell to the lot of Mary, and she took them, and went away to her house. And at that time Zacharias was dumb, and Samuel was in his place until the time that Zacharias spake. And Mary took the scarlet, and span it.

11. And she took the pitcher, and went out to fill it with water. And, behold, a voice saying: Hail, thou who hast received grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women! And she looked round, on the right hand and on the left, to see whence this voice came. And she went away, trembling, to her house, and put down the pitcher; and taking the purple, she sat down on her seat, and drew it out. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood before her, saying: Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found grace before the Lord of all, and thou shalt conceive, according to His word. And she hearing, reasoned with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? and shall I bring forth as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow thee: ******************************************************************. And thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold, the servant of the Lord before His face: let it be unto me according to thy word.

12. And she made the purple and the scarlet, and took them to the priest. And the priest blessed her, and said: Mary, the Lord God hath magnified thy name, and thou shall be blessed in all the generations of the earth. And Mary, with great joy, went away to Elizabeth her kinswoman, and knocked at the door. And when Elizabeth heard her, she threw away the scarlet, and ran to the door, and opened it; and seeing Mary, she blessed her, and said: Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? for, behold, that which is in me leaped and blessed thee. But Mary had forgotten the mysteries of which the archangel Gabriel had spoken, and gazed up into heaven, and said: Who am I, O Lord, that all the generations of the earth should bless me? And she remained three months with Elizabeth; and day by day she grew bigger. And Mary being afraid, went away to her own house, and hid herself from the sons of Israel. And she was sixteen years old when these mysteries happened.

13. And she was in her sixth month; and, behold, Joseph came back from his building, and, entering into his house, he discovered that she was big with child. And he smote his face, and threw himself on the ground upon the sackcloth, and wept bitterly, saying: With what face shall I look upon the Lord my God? and what prayer shall I make about this maiden? because I received her a virgin out of the temple of the Lord, and I have not watched over her. Who is it that has hunted me down? Who has done this evil thing in my house, and defiled the virgin? Has not the history of Adam been repeated in me? For just as Adam was in the hour of his singing praise, and the serpent came, and found Eve alone, and completely deceived her, so it has happened to me also. And Joseph stood up from the sackcloth, and called Mary, and said to her: O thou who hast been cared for by God, why hast thou done this and forgotten the Lord thy God? Why hast thou brought low thy soul, thou that wast brought up in the holy of holies, and that didst receive food from the hand of an angel? And she wept bitterly, saying: I am innocent, and have known no man. And Joseph said to her: Whence then is that which is in thy womb? And she said: As the Lord my God liveth, I do not know whence it is to me.

14. And Joseph was greatly afraid, and retired from her, and considered what he should do in regard to her. And Joseph said: If I conceal her sin, I find myself fighting against the law of the Lord; and if I expose her to the sons of Israel, I am afraid lest that which is in her be from an angel, and I shall be found giving up innocent blood to the doom of death. What then shall I do with her? I will put her away from me secretly. And night came upon him; and, behold, an angel of the Lord appears to him in a dream, saying: Be not afraid for this maiden, for that which is in her is of the Holy Spirit; and she will bring forth a Son, and thou shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins. And Joseph arose from sleep, and glorified the God of Israel, who had given him this grace; and he kept her.

15. And Annas the scribe came to him, and said: Why hast thou not appeared in our assembly? And Joseph said to him: Because I was weary from my journey, and rested the first day. And he turned, and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest? and said to him: Joseph, whom thou didst vouch for, has committed a grievous crime. And the priest said: How so? And he said: He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord, and has married her by stealth, and has not revealed it to the sons of Israel. And the priest answering, said: Has Joseph done this? Then said Annas the scribe: Send officers, and thou wilt find the virgin with child. And the officers went away, and found it as he had said; and they brought her along with Joseph to the tribunal. And the priest said: Mary, why hast thou done this? and why hast thou brought thy soul low, and forgotten the Lord thy God? Thou that wast reared in the holy of holies, and that didst receive food from the hand of an angel, and didst hear the hymns, and didst dance before Him, why hast thou done this? And she wept bitterly, saying: As the Lord my God liveth, I am pure before Him, and know not a man. And the priest said to Joseph: Why hast thou done this? And Joseph said: As the Lord liveth, I am pure concerning her. Then said the priest: Bear not false witness, but speak the truth. Thou hast married her by stealth, and hast not revealed it to the sons of Israel, and hast not bowed thy head under the strong hand, that thy seed might be blessed. And Joseph was silent.

16. And the priest said: Give up the virgin whom thou didst receive out of the temple of the Lord. And Joseph burst into tears. And the priest said: I will give you to drink of the water of the ordeal of the Lord, and He shall make manifest your sins in your eyes. And the priest took the water, and gave Joseph to drink and sent him away to the hill-country; and he returned unhurt. And he gave to Mary also to drink, and sent her away to the hill-country; and she returned unhurt. And all the people wondered that sin did not appear in them. And the priest said: If the Lord God has not made manifest your sins, neither do I judge you. And he sent them away. And Joseph took Mary, and went away to his own house, rejoicing and glorifying the God of Israel.

17. And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judaea should be enrolled. And Joseph said: I shall enrol my sons, but what shall I do with this maiden? How shall I enrol her? As my wife? I am ashamed. As my daughter then? But all the sons of Israel know that she is not my daughter. The day of the Lord shall itself bring it to pass as the Lord will. And he saddled the ass, and set her upon it; and his son led it, and Joseph followed. And when they had come within three miles, Joseph turned and saw her sorrowful; and he said to himself: Likely that which is in her distresses her. And again Joseph turned and saw her laughing. And he said to her: Mary, how is it that I see in thy face at one time laughter, at another sorrow? And Mary said to Joseph: Because I see two peoples with my eyes; the one weeping and lamenting, and the other rejoicing and exulting. And they came into the middle of the road, and Mary said to him: Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth. And he took her down from off the ass, and said to her: Whither shall I lead thee, and cover thy disgrace? for the place is desert.

18. And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a widwife in the district of Bethlehem. And I Joseph was walking, and was not walking; and I looked up into the sky, and saw the sky astonished; and I looked up to the pole of the heavens, and saw it standing, and the birds of the air keeping still. And I looked down upon the earth, and saw a trough lying, and work-people reclining: and their hands were in the trough. And those that were eating did not eat, and those that were rising did not carry it up, and those that were conveying anything to their mouths did not convey it; but the faces of all were looking upwards. And I saw the sheep walking, and the sheep stood still; and the shepherd raised his hand to strike them, and his hand remained up. And I looked upon the current of the river, and I saw the mouths of the kids resting on the water and not drinking, and all things in a moment were driven from their course.

19. And I saw a woman coming down from the hill-country, and she said to me: O man, whither art thou going? And I said: I am seeking an Hebrew midwife. And she answered and said unto me: Art thou of Israel? And I said to her: Yes. And she said: And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave? And I said: A woman betrothed to me. And she said to me: Is she not thy wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but has conceived of the Holy Spirit. And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen strange things -- because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to thee: a virgin has brought forth -- a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.

20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show thyself; for no small controversy has arisen about thee. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire. And she bent her knees before the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; do not make a show of me to the sons of Israel, but restore me to the poor; for Thou knowest, O Lord, that in Thy name I have performed my services, and that I have received my reward at Thy hand. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the Lord hath heard thee. Put thy hand to the infant, and carry it, and thou wilt have safety and joy. And Salome went and carried it, saying: I will worship Him, because a great King has been born to Israel. And, behold, Salome was immediately cured, and she went forth out of the cave justified. And behold a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell not the strange things thou hast seen, until the child has come into Jerusalem.

21. And, behold, Joseph was ready to go into Judaea. And there was a great commotion in Bethlehem of Judaea, for Magi came, saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him. And when Herod heard, he was much disturbed, and sent officers to the Magi. And he sent for the priests, and examined them, saying: How is it written about the Christ? where is He to be born? And they said: In Bethlehem of Judaea, for so it is written. And he sent them away. And he examined the Magi, saying to them: What sign have you seen in reference to the king that has been born? And the Magi said: We have seen a star of great size shining among these stars, and obscuring their light, so that the stars did not appear; and we thus knew that a king has been born to Israel, and we have come to worship him. And Herod said: Go and seek him; and if you find him, let me know, in order that I also may go and worship him. And the Magi went out. And, behold, the star which they had seen in the east went before them until they came to the cave, and it stood over the top of the cave. And the Magi saw the infant with His mother Mary; and they brought forth from their bag gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned by the angel not to go into Judaea, they went into their own country by another road.

22. And when Herod knew that he had been mocked by the Magi, in a rage he sent murderers, saying to them: Slay the children from two years old and under. And Mary, having heard that the children were being killed, was afraid, and took the infant and swaddled Him, and put Him into an ox-stall. And Elizabeth, having heard that they were searching for John, took him and went up into the hill-country, and kept looking where to conceal him. And there was no place of concealment. And Elizabeth, groaning with a loud voice, says: O mountain of God, receive mother and child. And immediately the mountain was cleft, and received her. And a light shone about them, for an angel of the Lord was with them, watching over them.

23. And Herod searched for John, and sent officers to Zacharias, saying: Where hast thou hid thy son? And he, answering, said to them: I am the servant of God in holy things, and I sit constantly in the temple of the Lord: I do not know where my son is. And the officers went away, and reported all these things to Herod. And Herod was enraged, and said: His son is destined to be king over Israel. And he sent to him again, saying: Tell the truth; where is thy son? for thou knowest that thy life is in my hand. And Zacharias said: I am God's martyr, if thou sheddest my blood; for the Lord will receive my spirit, because thou sheddest innocent blood at the vestibule of the temple of the Lord. And Zacharias was murdered about daybreak. And the sons of Israel did not know that he had been murdered.

24. But at the hour of the salutation the priests went away, and Zacharias did not come forth to meet them with a blessing, according to his custom. And the priests stood waiting for Zacharias to salute him at the prayer, and to glorify the Most High. And he still delaying, they were all afraid. But one of them ventured to go in, and he saw clotted blood beside the altar; and he heard a voice saying: Zacharias has been murdered, and his blood shall not be wiped up until his avenger come. And hearing this saying, he was afraid, and went out and told it to the priests. And they ventured in, and saw what had happened; and the fretwork of the temple made a wailing noise, and they rent their clothes from the top even to the bottom. And they found not his body, but they found his blood turned into stone. And they were afraid, and went out and reported to the people that Zacharias had been murdered. And all the tribes of the people heard, and mourned, and lamented for him three days and three nights. And after the three days, the priests consulted as to whom they should put in his place; and the lot fell upon Simeon. For it was he who had been warned by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death until he should see the Christ in the flesh.

And I James that wrote this history in Jerusalem, a commotion having arisen when Herod died, withdrew myself to the wilderness until the commotion in Jerusalem ceased, glorifying the Lord God, who had given me the gift and the wisdom to write this history. And grace shall be with them that fear our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory to ages of ages. Amen.

The Salibi theory is interesting....The images of the land look very beautifull:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMW_JDt1z0

"When the wife of Imran said:

'O my Lord! I have vowed to You what is in my womb [my child] to be dedicated to Your services, so accept this [my vow] from me. Verily, All-Hearer, the All-Knowing.' Then we she delivered her she said:

'O my Lord! I have delivered a female child' - and Allah knew better what she delivered - 'And the male is not like the female, and I have named her Maryam and I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from Satan, the outcast.' " (Quran 3:35-36)

Quran verses 3:37 continue ..

"So her Lord accepted her with good acceptance. He made her grow in a good manner and put her under the care of Zachariya. Every time he entered Al-Mihrab (the praying place) to visit her, he found her supplied with sustenance [food]. He said:

'O Maryam! From where have you got this?' She said:
'This is from Allah. Verily, Allah provides sustenance who He wills, without limit.' "

3:42:

"And (remember) when the angels said: 'O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah (God) has chosen you, purified you (from polytheism and disbelief), and chosen you above the women of the world (of her lifetime).' "



Surah Maryam:

10 (Zakariya (Zachariah)) said: "My Lord! Appoint for me a sign." He said: "Your sign is that you shall not speak unto mankind for three nights, though having no bodily defect."
11 Then he came out to his people from Al-Mihrab (a praying place or a private room, etc.), he told them by signs to glorify Allahs Praises in the morning and in the afternoon.

19 (The angel) said: "I am only a Messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son."
20 She said: "How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?"
21 He said: "So (it will be), your Lord said: That is easy for Me (Allah): And (We wish) to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (Allah), and it is a matter (already) decreed, (by Allah). "

Quote from: ihsan on May 25, 2010, 09:49:33 PM
"When the wife of Imran said:

'O my Lord! I have vowed to You what is in my womb [my child] to be dedicated to Your services, so accept this [my vow] from me. Verily, All-Hearer, the All-Knowing.' Then we she delivered her she said:

'O my Lord! I have delivered a female child' - and Allah knew better what she delivered - 'And the male is not like the female, and I have named her Maryam and I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from Satan, the outcast.' " (Quran 3:35-36)

Quran verses 3:37 continue ..

"So her Lord accepted her with good acceptance. He made her grow in a good manner and put her under the care of Zachariya. Every time he entered Al-Mihrab (the praying place) to visit her, he found her supplied with sustenance [food]. He said:

'O Maryam! From where have you got this?' She said:
'This is from Allah. Verily, Allah provides sustenance who He wills, without limit.' "

3:42:

"And (remember) when the angels said: 'O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah (God) has chosen you, purified you (from polytheism and disbelief), and chosen you above the women of the world (of her lifetime).' "



Surah Maryam:

10 (Zakariya (Zachariah)) said: "My Lord! Appoint for me a sign." He said: "Your sign is that you shall not speak unto mankind for three nights, though having no bodily defect."
11 Then he came out to his people from Al-Mihrab (a praying place or a private room, etc.), he told them by signs to glorify Allahs Praises in the morning and in the afternoon.

19 (The angel) said: "I am only a Messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son."
20 She said: "How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?"
21 He said: "So (it will be), your Lord said: That is easy for Me (Allah): And (We wish) to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (Allah), and it is a matter (already) decreed, (by Allah). "

did this thread die? It has been one of my favorite threads to discover! how sad!

Salaam alaykum.

That is very interesting. I can't comment on whether or not Isa and Jesus were different people with certainty, as I'm not familiar with all the information about the Jesus according to Western/Christian accounts. I am more familiar with Jesus according to the Qur'an. I believe that conjecture is the source of any information that doesn't follow with the Qur'an. I read something that explained where the name "Jesus Christ" came from. Christ, I read, was the Greek pronunciation of the Hebrew word that meant "messiah". So Jesus is not his correct name. Esau or Issa would be correct (pronounced similarly). Christ is not his name either.Jesus was the Greek/European pronunciation of the Hebrew name Esau. Issa is the Arabic pronunciation of the name. As most of us know, Hebrew and Arabic are similar in many ways, although pronunciation may differ of some words and names. For example, in Arabic, we say "salaam alaykum". In Hebrew, we say "shalom alokum". Both the fathers of Arabs and Jews were half-brothers - the sons of Prophet Abraham, who spoke Aramaic. So both language may have roots in Aramaic, an ancient language. Anthropologists assert that either Aramaic or Ge'ez was the first language. Ge'ez and Aramaic are similar - Ge'ez was the ancient language of Eritrea/Ethiopia, a place that anthropologists and other scientists argue is the first homeland of the first peoples. There is also a thread on this site that is called "Race and culture" and talks about the oldest Arab people, who often have dark skin and wooly hair, like Moses and Jesus did, and like Eritrean and Ethiopian people have. So if you think about it, we are all related, including the Prophets. I don't think the Qur'an lists dates or gives clues for the times when Jesus lived but it may be possible that it was close to Moses' time. But then again, Moses spoke Hebrew, didn't he? And if I'm not mistaken (although it does not exactly state in the Qur'an), that Jesus spoke mainly Aramaic, as his GoIspel was originally in Aramaic, because Hebrew was a dying language at that time (it obviously made a come-back). Also, Moses lived at a time when Jews just started living outside of Egypt. By Jesus' time, there were many of them outside of Egypt. In order for their numbers to grow so much, there must have been some time that had passed, don't you think?

Forgive me if there was more information here than was needed to be. I sometimes ramble on, especially about things that interest me, like Islam or history or anthropology.  :P

Peace Pazuzu.

Have you found any new information about the topic? Perhaps you will keep us updated.

Quote from: Neh22 on February 04, 2011, 05:22:53 PM
Salaam alaykum.

That is very interesting. I can't comment on whether or not Isa and Jesus were different people with certainty, as I'm not familiar with all the information about the Jesus according to Western/Christian accounts. I am more familiar with Jesus according to the Qur'an. I believe that conjecture is the source of any information that doesn't follow with the Qur'an. I read something that explained where the name "Jesus Christ" came from. Christ, I read, was the Greek pronunciation of the Hebrew word that meant "messiah". So Jesus is not his correct name. Esau or Issa would be correct (pronounced similarly). Christ is not his name either.Jesus was the Greek/European pronunciation of the Hebrew name Esau. Issa is the Arabic pronunciation of the name. As most of us know, Hebrew and Arabic are similar in many ways, although pronunciation may differ of some words and names. For example, in Arabic, we say "salaam alaykum". In Hebrew, we say "shalom alokum". Both the fathers of Arabs and Jews were half-brothers - the sons of Prophet Abraham, who spoke Aramaic. So both language may have roots in Aramaic, an ancient language. Anthropologists assert that either Aramaic or Ge'ez was the first language. Ge'ez and Aramaic are similar - Ge'ez was the ancient language of Eritrea/Ethiopia, a place that anthropologists and other scientists argue is the first homeland of the first peoples. There is also a thread on this site that is called "Race and culture" and talks about the oldest Arab people, who often have dark skin and wooly hair, like Moses and Jesus did, and like Eritrean and Ethiopian people have. So if you think about it, we are all related, including the Prophets. I don't think the Qur'an lists dates or gives clues for the times when Jesus lived but it may be possible that it was close to Moses' time. But then again, Moses spoke Hebrew, didn't he? And if I'm not mistaken (although it does not exactly state in the Qur'an), that Jesus spoke mainly Aramaic, as his GoIspel was originally in Aramaic, because Hebrew was a dying language at that time (it obviously made a come-back). Also, Moses lived at a time when Jews just started living outside of Egypt. By Jesus' time, there were many of them outside of Egypt. In order for their numbers to grow so much, there must have been some time that had passed, don't you think?

Forgive me if there was more information here than was needed to be. I sometimes ramble on, especially about things that interest me, like Islam or history or anthropology.  :P

Salam,

regarding what is in bold, please confirm/argue/correct it, do you know where to find the Injeel in Aramaic, or where it is? Please refer to http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601944.0

Another point about Jesus:

The Qur'an in 5:46 states that:
"And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel (Injeel): therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah."

وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِمْ بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنْجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِينَ

Jesus did not had a book, the Gospel have been written after him and "describing" his life.  So he (Jesus) did not receive a Book from The God.

While Esau had received a Book and is well known as "The Book of Esau/Isahia"

Peace

Peace,

This is conjecture which has everyone living in the same generation and easily refuted...

2:120
And never will be pleased with you the Jews and [not] the naṣārā until you follow their religion.

4:171
O People the Book!
Not commit excess in your religion and not say about Allah only the truth.
Only the Messiah, Isa son Maryam, a Messenger of Allah and His word which He conveyed to Maryam and rūḥun from Him.
So believe in Allah and His Messengers and not say, "Three;" desist,  better for you...

5:72 Certainly disbelieved those who say, "Indeed Allah - He the Messiah, son (of) Maryam."
While said the Messiah, "O Children (of) Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord."

9:30
And said the Jews, "Uzair son (of) Allah."
And said the naṣārā, "Messiah son (of) Allah."

Quote from: SEid on March 10, 2011, 08:30:56 AM
Peace,

This is conjecture which has everyone living in the same generation and easily refuted...

2:120
And never will be pleased with you the Jews and [not] the naṣārā until you follow their religion.

4:171
O People the Book!
Not commit excess in your religion and not say about Allah only the truth.
Only the Messiah, Isa son Maryam, a Messenger of Allah and His word which He conveyed to Maryam and rūḥun from Him.
So believe in Allah and His Messengers and not say, "Three;" desist,  better for you...

5:72 Certainly disbelieved those who say, "Indeed Allah - He the Messiah, son (of) Maryam."
While said the Messiah, "O Children (of) Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord."

9:30
And said the Jews, "Uzair son (of) Allah."
And said the naṣārā, "Messiah son (of) Allah."

Peace Seid,

interresting to underline in 9:30, the word used is Messiah never Issa!!!
Indeed the christians never say "Issa son of God" but they say "Jesus son of God"!!!!

Peace

On the subject of jinns, pazuzu, you disappoint:

Many God Only Submitters in this site are misled by the ideas that Jinns are:

1. Hidden humans...

2. Fantasies in the head of Humans...

3. Metaphors to define mental illness, despair, hallucinations or delusions...

etc.

Despite not having instruments to prove they exist or not, only by twisting words and meanings in the Quran can we reach the above conclusions... which is surprising by Muslims who claim to base their understanding of the world through the guidance of Allah...

Not accepting what Allah says in the Quran puts them in grave danger of becoming what they accuse the muslim "sectarians" to be... i.e. invent stories and explanations that make them more comfortable about certain aspects of the Quran they feel uneasy with...

This is extremely disappointing from people such as pazuzu who seems to be open minded enough to shake the whole theology of Islam and Allah's Books by accepting and propagating very controversial (and maybe valid) works by Israeli and Christian scholars, but using the Arabic language to refute the existence of beings that the Quran and Allah describes very clearly and uncompromisingly...

There is always the danger that using alternative meanings of words in any writing, one can get strange results... and that what seems to be fantastic or far fetched can after all be the truth...

After all, germs and microbes did not exist before someone proved they did...

Being at an advantage of having the Creator Himself warning that there are other Beings ought to be taken with gratitude, and not turned into derision to refute their existence by twisting meanings as Israelites scholars did for their Books...

and in any event it is also an act of blasphemy...

http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/jesus_live_100/index.htm http://www.quranicstudies.com/louay-fatoohi-books/historical-jesus/the-mystery-of-the-historical-jesus.html http://www.susianapress.wordpress.com http://www.islammattersnow.com http://www.georgeronald.com/show_book.php?book_id=105 http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/book925.html http://atheists.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=186 160 252  http://www.scienceofthesoul.org the gospel of jesus by john davidson

 http://www.askelm.com/books/book008.htm http://www.askelm.com/temple/index.asp

Quote from: Pazuzu on November 28, 2009, 02:00:29 PM


There's nothing "strange" about the spelling of Isa in the Quran.

The concept is so ridiculously simple, and has been under oour noses all along, yet we have failed to see it:

Yeshu = Jesus  = يسوع

Esau = Isa = عيسي

BOTH ARE DISTINCT HEBREW NAMES.      Jesus was NOT Isa.  Different names, different persons, different place, and different eras.


Here is how I understand the conflation concerning Maryam:

When the Quran calls Maryam the SISTER OF AARON, it can only mean that she and Arron were contemporaries. This makes ISA the nephew of MOSES  :)

The Jewish and Christian scholars attacked the Quran and critisized it for being historically inacurate because it mixed up Maryam, the daughter of Imran with Mary mother of Jesus. The "Muslim" scolare, in their hypocracy, either claimed that:

1)  the term "Sister of Aaron" means "of teh same virtue and righteousness as him"
OR, 2) the Aaron there is not the same Aaron who was with Moses.

They twisted and corrupted the Quranic word in order to make it fit with Christian belief, just as they twisted the meaning of the word "mutawaffika" - when dealing with the subject of Isa - to mean other than death, although the Quran clearly tells us that he died a natural death here on Earth, and is NOT coming back.

None of them had the courage and the honesty to stand face to face with their critics and say the plain truth:
That there is NO confusion. That it is the JEWS who are confused when they declared they had crucified Isa, when the truth is that it was JESUS whom they crucified. None of them had the guts to stand up for what the Quran said, and declare that Maryam, daughter of Imran WAS THE MOTHER OF THE NABI ISA. 
None of them had the sense to declare that the term "Shubbiha lahum" does NOT mean that on the eve of the appointed crucufixion, God twisted the facial features of another man to make him resemble Isa. But that it rather means it was case of a mistaken identity (CONFUSION) on the part of the "People of the Book".


Again I point you to the Old Testament (Exodus 15: 19,20):  [ And the horses and chariots of Pharaoh entered the sea, and the Lord sealed them in its waters, while the Israelites walked on dry land in the middle. And Maryam, the nabiyya,  sister of Aaron, took a "daff" (drum-like musical instrument) in her hand, and all the women came out behind her, playing and dancing".]

This Maryam, who is described as "nabiyya" in the OT, WAS THE MOTHER OF ISA.  PERIOD.

Jesus, the son of the carpenter was not the same person.

The "scholars" of all three faiths have been caught in one of the most spectacular and mind-boggling mixups of identities
in history.

Dear San.. MY advice to you is to start a seperate thread on that subject, and copy/paste the very interesting things you wrote, so we can discuss them independantly.

Peace.

SLM,
I am sorry to be "confused"
But "who" is isa in th? quran !?
Why should it be p?ace on him !??
Peace&Truth for All

Quote from: progressive1993 on December 01, 2009, 11:30:00 AM
Peace Pazazu,

Yeshua = Jesus = Isa

4:171 O people of the book, do not overstep in your obligation, nor say about the god except the truth. Isa, the son of Maryam was no more than the god's messenger and the fulfillment of His word to Maryam, and an inspiration from Him. So trust with the god and His messengers, and do not say, "trinity." Cease, for it is better for you. The god is only One god, exalted is He that He should have a son! To Him is all that is in the heavens and what is in the earth. God is enough as a caretaker.

5:17 Rejecters/concealers of the truth/ingrates indeed are those who have said, "The god is the Messiah the son of Maryam." Say, "Who has any power against the god if He had wanted to destroy the Messiah son of Maryam, and his mother, and all who are on earth!" To the god is the sovereignty of heavens and earth and all that is in-between; He creates what He pleases. God has power over all things.

5:72 Rejecters/concealers of the truth/ingrates indeed are those who have said, "The god is the Messiah son of Maryam!" Although the Messiah had said, "O children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever sets up partners with the god, then the god will forbid paradise for him, and his destiny will be the fire; and the wrongdoers will have no supporters."

5:73 Rejecters/concealers of the truth/ingrates indeed are those who have said, "The god is the third of a trinity!" There is no god but one god. If they do not cease from what they are saying, then those who reject from among them will be afflicted with a painful retribution.

The people of the book made up the trinity of Jesus, God and the "Holy Spirit". They also say that Jesus is the son of God. They are obviously fabricating these lies about none other than Jesus (or, of you want, "Isa/Yeshua"), and, of course, also God. God is presenting the truth to to those who idolize Jesus/Isa and fabricate lies about him.
Also note that Isa/Jesus was a messenger for the children of Israel.

SLM,
"isa" / "J?sus" !
I dont understand your "post" ...
Peace&Truth for All

Quote from: Supernaut on December 12, 2009, 12:18:42 AM
Interesting thread :)

Thank you, Pazuzu, for presenting a different and interesting take on the history of the Israelites.

SLM,
I dont understand, ...
Could you explain to me,
what you did understand between isa & J?sus !??
Peace&Truth for All

Quote from: NunHolidayPseudoEidRex on December 12, 2009, 02:49:00 AM
Peace,

JUDAEA CAPTA, 'Judaea conquered'.

(http://www.livius.org/a/1/judaea/coin_judaea_capta_valkhof.JPG)

Coin of Vespasian, showing a personification of Judaea mourning the loss of her independence under a date palm.

SLM,
What is "judea" !?
Peace&Truth for All

Quote from: herbman on January 05, 2010, 04:36:29 AM
Salam Pazuzu , all,

I agree with some of your arguments but others are too weak to be presented, I mean like the one about the palm trees!!!!

Also I haven't read the Salibi's book, but I don't think it is all correct from what I heard, one example is the concordance he makes between cities name found in the Bible with arabian cities in Arabia; I don't think it is exact science if you know what I mean, also I think he has no archeological proofs or whatever.

Having said that, I and surely others have always been confused with Issa=Jesus, knowing Jesus is Yeshua is Yesu3 in arabic and not Issa.

Also we must all agree with the anachronism problem  between Issa and Yeshua, Issa ibnu Maryem is nephew of Aaron and therefore lived long long before Yeshua.

For Yeshua there is jewish testimony about him living around the begining of first millenium and beeing a troublemaker (for them), and was indeed not recognized by the jewish rabbi's as a prophete.

My questions to you if you can help are:
what about Esau records, I found very little about him?  Is the Injeel the book of Esau in the OT?
Who is John the baptiste?  Definitly not Yahya!

Regards

ps: In the manuscripts of Qumran, the book of Esau was the only one complete and rolled in leather.

SLM,
what th? "quran" said about "isa" !?
Peace&Truth for All

Quote from: jaimesss on March 03, 2012, 06:43:14 AM
SLM,
what th? "quran" said about "isa" !?
Peace&Truth for All

Salam Jaimess,
To find out what Al Quran said about Isa, you need to collect all verses related to Isa, including his mother, Maryam. And Maryam familiy tree is the good point to start:

=Maryam Parents=

3:35   When the wife of Imran said: "My Lord, I have vowed to You what is in my womb, dedicated, so accept from me, You are the Hearer, the Knower."
3:36   So when she had delivered she said: "My Lord, I have delivered a female," and God is fully aware of what she delivered, "And the male is not like the female, and I have named her Maryam, and I seek refuge for her and her progeny with You from the outcast devil."

So Maryam's father is Imran.

=Maryam Siblings=

19:27   Then she came to her people carrying him. They said: "O Maryam, you have come with a thing totally unexpected!"
19:28   "O sister of Harun, your father was not a wicked man, and your mother has never been unchaste!"

Also please take a look at this verse from Torah:

Numbers 26:59
Amram's wife was Jochebed daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and she bore to Amram Aaron, Moses, and Miriam their sister.

Harun is Maryam's brother and so does Musa:

19:53   And We granted him (Musa) from Our mercy his brother Harun as a prophet.

=Maryam's son=

3:45   And the angels said: "O Mary, God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him. His name is the Al Masih, Isa, son of Maryam. Honorable in this world and in the Hereafter, and from among those who are made close."

Hope it's clear for you that Isa is Musa's nephew. And they had lived almost in the same time, so no room for Jesus to become same person with Isa who lived hundred years after Musa.

You should read another Pazuzu's writing in this thread to get more information regarding the story behind this hijacked profile.

And here is a verse talks about the confusion between the people regarding the death of Isa:

4:157   And their saying: "We have killed Al Masih, Isa, son of Maryam, messenger of God!" And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them (like Isa) <shubbiha lahum> . And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

Shubbiha <Shiin-Ba-ha> here means :to be like, to resemble/assimilate/liken/imitate,

And Allah has described in following verse what they have done to put Isa profile into Jesus:

13:16   Say: "Who is the Lord of the heavens and the earth?" Say: "God." Say: "Have you taken besides Him allies who do not possess for themselves any benefit or harm?" Say: "Is the blind and the seer the same? Or do the darkness and the light equate? Or have they set up partners with God who have created like His creation, so the creation seemed alike <fatashābaha> to them?" Say: "God has created all things, and He is the One, the Supreme."

The Rejecters created the story of Jesus just like God's creation, Isa, so they seemed alike each other.

They thought they had killed Isa, but they had not. Isa has died long time ago before they crucified Jesus.

So where is the real Injil then?

Simply, I dont know. But I can tell you what Injil is, and what Injil all about. It has described in Al Quran:

=The Injil=

61:6   And when Isa, son of Maryam, said: O children of Israel, I am a messenger of God to you, authenticating what is between my hands of the Torah and bringing good news of a messenger to come after me whose name will be Ahmad. But when he showed them the clear proofs, they said: This is clearly magic.

3:49     And as a messenger to the Children of Israel (Isa): "I have come to you with a sign from your Lord; that I create for you from clay the form of a bird, then I blow into it and it becomes a bird with the permission of God, and I heal the blind and the lepers, and give life to the dead with the permission of God, and I declare to you what you shall eat and what to store in your homes. In that is a sign for you if you are believers."

3:50   "And authenticating what is between my hands of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was made unlawful to you; and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so be aware of God and obey me."

As you can see in those verses, that Injil is all about the good news. News about the upcoming messenger and news about lawful food which has been made unlawful for Bani Israil before, and authenticating Torah as well.

=Al Masih=

Triliteral root word for Al Masih is Miim-Siin-Ha = to wipe

Isa Al Masih has come to wipe the unlawful food for Bani Israil and make it lawful. The unlawful food is:

6:146   And for those who are Jewish We have made unlawful all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We made unlawful their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.

That is the response of Isa prayer upon the request of his followers:

3:52       So when Isa felt their rejection, he said: "Who are my supporters to God?" The disciples said: "We are the supporters of God, we believe in God and we bear witness that we have submitted."

5:111   "And I inspired the disciples: 'You shall believe in Me and My messenger;' they said: 'We believe, and bear witness that we have submitted.'"
5:112   And the disciples said: "O Isa, son of Maryam, can your Lord send down for us a maidatan from the heaven?" He said: "Be aware of God if you are believers."
5:113   They said: "We want to eat from it and so our hearts become relieved, and so we know that you are truthful, and so that we can become a witness over it."
5:114   Isa, son of Maryam, said: "Our god, our Lord, send down to us a maidatan from the heaven, that it becomes a joy to us from the first to the last, and a sign from You, and provide for us, you are the best provider."
5:115   God said: "I will send it down to you, but whoever rejects after this from among you, I will punish him a punishment like no one else from the worlds will be punished!"

As the response of the Isa's follower request, Allah has sent down the Maidatan in Injil, which means lawful food as described in 3:50. The maidatan here should be understood metaphorically as new rules for unlawful food for Bani Israel as a sign.

=The third messenger=

36:14   Where We sent two to them, but they disbelieved in them, so We supported them with a third one, thus they said: We are messengers to you.

Al Masih is the third messenger after Musa and Harun to support them.

=Injil, an old and forgotten book=

5:14   And from those who have said: "We are Nazarenes," We have taken their covenant and they have forgotten much of what they were reminded of; so We planted between them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection; and God will inform them of what they had done.

Peace..

Quote from: tlihawa on March 03, 2012, 08:43:37 AM
Salam Jaimess,
To find out what Al Quran said about Isa, you need to collect all verses related to Isa, including his mother, Maryam. And Maryam familiy tree is the good point to start:

=Maryam Parents=

3:35   
When the wife of Imran said:
"My Lord, I have vowed to You what is in my womb, dedicated, so accept from me, You are the Hearer, the Knower."
3:36   
So when she had delivered she said: "My Lord, I have delivered a female," and God is fully aware of what she delivered, "And the male is not like the female, and I have named her Maryam, and I seek refuge for her and her progeny

Al Masih is the third messenger after Musa and Harun to support

Peace..

SLM,
I am so lost ...
3:35
Th? Wife (?) of " Imran" ...
Had "Vowed" & "Dedicated" to "God" ...
What was in her "Womb" ...
So, "God" had to "accept" from "her" !
Why ? & What ??

3:36
"God" was fully "aware" of "what" "She" "delivered" !!
"m?le" was not like th? "female" ?...
Why this ... ??? I am lost...
"She" had "delivered" ? "female" & "named" "her", "Maryam" !!!
& had "seeked" for "her" & her "progeny" "refuge" with "God" from th? "devil" ...

So, "Maryam" was th? "daughter" of "imran"  ... & "She" had no "mother" ?

So, "Imran" is th? "father" of "Maryam", "mose" & "haarun" !?
(Do we know their "?ge" ! Youngest, oldest.. ?).

Were "they" in th? "d?sert" at that Time !?

And alreday had "received" th? "Law" ???

19:27   
Then she came to her people carrying him.
They said: "O Maryam, you have come with a thing totally unexpected!"

Why "unexpected" !?

19:28
"O sister of Harun,
your father was not a wicked man, and your mother has never been unchaste!"

Could you please Translate for me ?
in "arabic" those "words";

"wicked" & "unchaste".

Both, "sounds" "n?gative" !...

What means "wicked" and why should have him, to be !?

What means "unchaste" and why should have her, to be !?

Why?, th? "mother" of  "Maryam" had n? "relation" with th? "father" of "mose"&"haarun" !?

I am lost ...

Sorry,
I cannot "discern" what is from "quran, injil, thora" !!!!

"mose" & "haarun", both Were "prophets" !?
Why ?

3:45   
And the angels said:
"O Mary, God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him.
His name is the Al Masih, Isa, son of Maryam.
Honorable in this world and in the Hereafter, and from among those who are made close."

(which "angels" ?).

Th? "angels" said to "Mary" (Maryam) that his "name" was "al masih, isa" and "precised" to "her"
that "he" was her son !

In th? "quran", what CAN we "found" about th? "hereafter" !?
Very interesting, Thank you Very much.

What do you think, th? meaning was for ; honorable ..  from among "those" who are "made close" ?

4:157   
And their saying:
"We have killed Al Masih, Isa, son of Maryam, messenger of God!"
And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them (like Isa) <shubbiha lahum>
And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty

"who" Were "saying" !? That,  "we" "killed" "isa" ?

I am so lost.. Now !

Are we in th? year 0 ?

Were they  "talking" about "J?sus" or "isa" ... ???

It "appeared" to "them" ... How "isa" could "appear" ?!
What is th? meaning of that ???

Who Were "disputing" ? "having n? knoledge" ?? "following conjecture" ???
What was that ????

You wrote;
And Allah has described in following verse what they have done to put Isa profile into Jesus:
The Rejecters created the story of Jesus just like God's creation, Isa, so they seemed alike each other.
They thought they had killed Isa, but they had not. Isa has died long time ago before they crucified Jesus.
So where is the real Injil then?
Simply, I dont know.

Th? "rejecters" of "what" !? Who Were th? "rejecters" ??
How could they "seemed" alike !
Who knew or "remembered" of " isa " !?

So lost ... I am !!!

What is " injil" is this, th? " quran" ?!

I dont know either ...
But we all, are " brothers " ( n? ?) ... And all, for, Truth&Peace

But I can tell you what Injil is, and what Injil all about. It has described in Al Quran:
61:6   And when Isa, son of Maryam, said: O children of Israel, I am a messenger of God to you, authenticating what is between my hands of the Torah and bringing good news of a messenger to come after me whose name will be Ahmad. But when he showed them the clear proofs, they said: This is clearly magic.

"injil" Were "described" in th? "quran" !?

61:6  is this "quran" or "injil" .... I get lost more&more !!!

In the "quran", "Ahmad" was "writen" ?

Which "proofs" !?
Th? "birds" of clay ...

3:49     And as a messenger to the Children of Israel (Isa): "I have come to you with a sign from your Lord; that I create for you from clay the form of a bird, then I blow into it and it becomes a bird with the permission of God, and I heal the blind and the lepers, and give life to the dead with the permission of God, and I declare to you what you shall eat and what to store in your homes. In that is a sign for you if you are believers."
3:50   "And authenticating what is between my hands of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was made unlawful to you; and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so be aware of God and obey me.

"isa" had th? "permission" of "God" !?
"isa" "healed" th? "blind"&"leper" !??
"isa" "gav?" Life to th? "Dear" !???

"isa" said; "obey me" ( with th? "permission" of "God") !????

Al Masih is the third messenger after Musa and Harun to support them.

=Injil, an old and forgotten book=

5:14   
And from those who have said: "We are Nazarenes," We have taken their covenant and they have forgotten much of what they were reminded of; so We planted between them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection; and God will inform them of what they had done.

"injil" is an old "forgoten book" !
Could you explain it, to me ?

Th? "injil" isnot th? "book" of "Christian" ??

And about "haarun", could you tell, what h? did, Being an "messenger" !?

Whats about 5:14... Is this from the "quran" ?
Who Were th? "nazarean" !?
What is the day of "r?surrection"'!?? Is this in th? "quran" or "bible" !??

Un t'il, th? end i get lost, my bother !!!!

Sorry i hav? to many "questions".
Thank you Very much for your time & knowledge.

Peace&Truth for all

Peace tlihawa

QuoteNumbers 26:59
Amram's wife was Jochebed daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and she bore to Amram Aaron, Moses, and Miriam their sister.

Harun is Maryam's brother and so does Musa:

If Maryam mother of Prophet Isa was sister of Prophet Musa then surely she should have been older than her brothers/Musa&Harun,right?....Maryam ,is this the sister who went after the baby Musa in river ?

Then how old was she when she had Prophet Isa? How old was Prophet Musa when he died and how many years she was unmarried till she had Prophet Isa????????

Are you sure you and pazuzu got it right?

Peace
Asana

Quote from: Asana on March 04, 2012, 08:54:55 PM
Peace tlihawa

If Maryam mother of Prophet Isa was sister of Prophet Musa then surely she should have been older than her brothers/Musa&Harun,right?....Maryam ,is this the sister who went after the baby Musa in river ?

Yup. Ukhtihi means his sister.

Quote
Then how old was she when she had Prophet Isa? How old was Prophet Musa when he died and how many years she was unmarried till she had Prophet Isa????????

I don't know. Do you have any information about that?
But actually it doesn't matter to me. It won't change the fact that Maryam is Harun and Musa's sister, unless you can show me the evidence that she wasn't.

Quote
Are you sure you and pazuzu got it right?

Peace
Asana

It's not about me. It is about what we can read in Quran and Torah. Pazuzu explanations make sense to me. Even though his explanations will stand against 6 billions people's understanding, It won't change anything. The truth doesn't count in number.

But I might be wrong, so I let myself open to any thought. If you have something that you think better than Pazuzu's  writings, please don't hesitate to share.

peace

Quote from: tlihawa on March 05, 2012, 12:17:11 AM
Yup. Ukhtihi means his sister.

"Sister of Aaron" refer to a "sister" within a judaism sect / group named "Aaron Order"..
Maria / Miriam is a 'member' of "Aaron Order", the 'highly regarded by jewish society' group with high standard for morality.  And so does her dad, mom, cousin (Elizabeth, the mother of John The Baptist).

That's why it say, oh Sister of Aaron, your dad is not a pimp and your mom is not a slut, then why the heck you turn yourselves into a slut?

In 'today culture' comparison it's the same as saying to a catholic nun within Jesuit order... "Oh Jesuit sister, your dad is not a pimp and your mom is not a slut, then why the heck you turn yourselves into a slut?"

Mary is also the name of Moses's sister.. but Mary mother of Jesus and Mary sister of Moses (and Aaron) is totally different person which lived centuries apart. Miriam Bat Amran is the sister of Moses Ben Amran and Aaron Ben Amran, while 'that' Mary which is being referenced in that verse is Miriam Bat Ioachim, the cousin of Elisheva Bat Zachariyah.. a member of "Aaronic Priestly Order" within Judaism.

Salam / Shalom / Peace

Quote from: Asana on March 04, 2012, 08:54:55 PM
Peace tlihawa



If Maryam mother of Prophet Isa was sister of Prophet Musa then surely she should have been older than her brothers/Musa&Harun,right?....Maryam ,is this the sister who went after the baby Musa in river ?

Then how old was she when she had Prophet Isa? How old was Prophet Musa when he died and how many years she was unmarried till she had Prophet Isa????????

Are you sure you and pazuzu got it right?

Peace
Asana

That sister you mention, was the only sister Musa and Aaron had? ?How do you know?

Salaam

Quote from: Jafar on March 05, 2012, 02:43:21 AM
"Sister of Aaron" refer to a "sister" within a judaism sect / group named "Aaron Order"..
Maria / Miriam is a 'member' of "Aaron Order", the 'highly regarded by jewish society' group with high standard for morality.  And so does her dad, mom, cousin (Elizabeth, the mother of John The Baptist).

That's why it say, oh Sister of Aaron, your dad is not a pimp and your mom is not a slut, then why the heck you turn yourselves into a slut?

In 'today culture' comparison it's the same as saying to a catholic nun within Jesuit order... "Oh Jesuit sister, your dad is not a pimp and your mom is not a slut, then why the heck you turn yourselves into a slut?"

Mary is also the name of Moses's sister.. but Mary mother of Jesus and Mary sister of Moses (and Aaron) is totally different person which lived centuries apart. Miriam Bat Amran is the sister of Moses Ben Amran and Aaron Ben Amran, while 'that' Mary which is being referenced in that verse is Miriam Bat Ioachim, the cousin of Elisheva Bat Zachariyah.. a member of "Aaronic Priestly Order" within Judaism.

Salam / Shalom / Peace

That is the explanation given to make the Qur'an fit the Biblical narrative and not contradict the Christian beliefs in that count since in other counts it contricts them squarely, but should the Qur'an fit that narrative or those beliefs? It doesn't fit it in many ways.

Let us say that that would be a possibility, but for that the possibility that it is indeed the sister of Harun and Musa must be logically discarded first. If the Qur'an purported to bring clarity to things mentionned in previous scriptures which were muddled up why not make that point clear addressing Mariam in some other way that wasn't confusing, and why does it talk about Imran family? It never talks about Josephs )the biblical father of Mary family nor mentions Mary in the linneage of David as does the Bible but in the family of Imran. So, Maryam is not sister of Musa and Harun, and therefore, neither was Isa, that would mean the the whole Imran family, to which the Qur'an dedicates so much ink are just two brothers?

I think the Qur'an has to be looked at anew without preconceptions on that or any othr counts. Right now it is colonised by the Bible narrative and what has been construed from it.

Salaam

Quote from: huruf on March 05, 2012, 03:31:17 AM

That is the explanation given to make the Qur'an fit the Biblical narrative and not contradict the Christian beliefs in that count since in other counts it contricts them squarely, but should the Qur'an fit that narrative or those beliefs? It doesn't fit it in many ways.

Let us say that that would be a possibility, but for that the possibility that it is indeed the sister of Harun and Musa must be logically discarded first. If the Qur'an purported to bring clarity to things mentionned in previous scriptures which were muddled up why not make that point clear addressing Mariam in some other way that wasn't confusing, and why does it talk about Imran family? It never talks about Josephs )the biblical father of Mary family nor mentions Mary in the linneage of David as does the Bible but in the family of Imran. So, Maryam is not sister of Musa and Harun, and therefore, neither was Isa, that would mean the the whole Imran family, to which the Qur'an dedicates so much ink are just two brothers?

I think the Qur'an has to be looked at anew without preconceptions on that or any othr counts. Right now it is colonised by the Bible narrative and what has been construed from it.

Salaam

Of course anyone is entitled to any opinion....
If somebody else makes a derived opinion that this Maryam is actually a chinese named "Lee Kia Shing" then it's his/her right to do so as well...

1. The Quran makes many references to the Gospel (not Bible) in many places, and it never makes any bad references about it whatsoever.
2. Among the audience of Mohammed during his time are christians and jews, as thus it make sense that Quran (which basically is a recorded saying from Mohammed's mouth which is not coming from his own 'soul') talk about Isa/Eeso/Jesus and Moses. If the 'revelation' is conveyed through chinese prophet then it will talk about Lao Tse and other 'chinese legendary heroes' using chinese language and vocabulary which is well known by the local society.
3. Due to point no 2, it will be misleading to understand the Quran without putting it in the context of middle eastern society and culture 1400 years ago. Where the society is consisted of many sects such as Xtians, Jews, Pagans and hundreds of others.
4. Miriam chapter 19, where "Sister of Aaron" is being mentioned begins with mention of Zachary, John (Iochan / Yahya) and then Miriam, and then her son Isa/Eesoo (aramaic)/ Iashua (Hebrew) / Jesus (English).
5. As thus 19:28 should be understood within those context and not with other chapters.. (such as Amran/Imran)
6. To me it is clear Miriam "Sister Of Aaron" here in chapter 19 is Miriam the mother of Iashua. The linkage is clear especially between Iashua Ben Miriam and Iochanan Ben Zacharia. Two prominent figures very famously well known by middle eastern society 1400 years ago due to their 'tragic' story and death.. (crucified and beheaded)

Salam / Peace

Your explanation relies on something that is not in the Qur'an, and which is hipothetical an that you imagine, with yuour reasons for it may be, and also you imagine that, but are unable, it seems, to imagine, much of what Pazuzu has put forward as to the own traditions of Arabs of that time and the region. Also, one would have to tsake as undisputable that the Injil and the gospels are the same things. And even if they are the same things, I may like the gospels a lot, which many things in them I do, and still not take them seriously as a source of historical knowledge, which I don't.

However, bearing in mind, both things, I find your conclusions tend to follow the bible (the gospels are part of it) and not to take into account at all much of what has been brought up by Pazuzu. Your surmission is hypothetical, maybe Paazuzu's too, but more logical and more explained from the Qur'an's point of view the one put forward by Pazuzu.

The Qur'an speaks about the injil as given to Isa, the gospels are not that.

Salaam

Salam Jafar,

Quote from: Jafar on March 05, 2012, 06:51:23 AM
Of course anyone is entitled to any opinion....

I agree with you on this.  :handshake:

Quote
4. Miriam chapter 19, where "Sister of Aaron" is being mentioned begins with mention of Zachary, John (Iochan / Yahya) and then Miriam, and then her son Isa/Eesoo (aramaic)/ Iashua (Hebrew) / Jesus (English).
5. As thus 19:28 should be understood within those context and not with other chapters.. (such as Amran/Imran)

But still I don't understand how you get into this conclusion. It's clear in these verses below that Isa is grandson of Imran:

3:35 When the wife of Imran said: "My Lord, I have vowed to You what is in my womb, dedicated, so accept from me, You are the Hearer, the Knower."
3:36   So when she had delivered she said: "My Lord, I have delivered a female," and God is fully aware of what she delivered, "And the male is not like the female, and I have named her Maryam, and I seek refuge for her and her progeny with You from the outcast devil."
3:37   So her Lord accepted her a good acceptance, and made her grow into a good growth, and charged Zachariah with her. Every time Zachariah entered upon her in the temple enclosure, he found provisions with her. He said: "O Maryam, from where did you get this?" She said: "It is from God, for God provides for whom He wishes without reckoning."
3:38   It was then that Zachariah implored his Lord; he said: "My Lord, grant me from You a good progeny. You are the hearer of prayer."
3:39   So the angels called to him while he was standing, making contact, in the temple enclosure: "God gives you glad tidings of John, authenticating the word from God, and a master, and steadfast, and a prophet from the upright."
3:40   He said: "My Lord, how can I have a son when old age has reached me and my wife is infertile?" He said: "It is as such that God does what He pleases."
3:41   He said: "My Lord, make for me a sign." He said: "Your sign is not to speak to the people for three days except by symbol, and remember your Lord greatly, and glorify at dusk and dawn."
3:42   And the angels said: "O Maryam, God has selected you and cleansed you, and He has selected you over all the women of the worlds."
3:43   "O Maryam, be dutiful to your Lord and prostrate and kneel with those who kneel."
3:44   This is from the news of the unseen that We inspire to you. You were not with them when they drew straws as to which one of them will be charged with Maryam; you were not with them when they disputed.
3:45   And the angels said: "O Maryam, God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him. His name is the Al Masih, Isa, son of Maryam. Honorable in this world and in the Hereafter, and from among those who are made close.

It's clear that in this chapter, there's only one Maryam being told, and she is Isa's mother and also daughter of Imran. No need to get into chapter 19.

peace..

Quote from: tlihawa on March 05, 2012, 07:52:30 AM
Salam Jafar,I agree with you on this.  :handshake:

But still I don't understand how you get into this conclusion. It's clear in these verses below that Isa is grandson of Imran:

3:35 When the wife of Imran said: "My Lord, I have vowed to You what is in my womb, dedicated, so accept from me, You are the Hearer, the Knower."
3:36   So when she had delivered she said: "My Lord, I have delivered a female," and God is fully aware of what she delivered, "And the male is not like the female, and I have named her Maryam, and I seek refuge for her and her progeny with You from the outcast devil."
3:37   So her Lord accepted her a good acceptance, and made her grow into a good growth, and charged Zachariah with her. Every time Zachariah entered upon her in the temple enclosure, he found provisions with her. He said: "O Maryam, from where did you get this?" She said: "It is from God, for God provides for whom He wishes without reckoning."
3:38   It was then that Zachariah implored his Lord; he said: "My Lord, grant me from You a good progeny. You are the hearer of prayer."
3:39   So the angels called to him while he was standing, making contact, in the temple enclosure: "God gives you glad tidings of John, authenticating the word from God, and a master, and steadfast, and a prophet from the upright."
3:40   He said: "My Lord, how can I have a son when old age has reached me and my wife is infertile?" He said: "It is as such that God does what He pleases."
3:41   He said: "My Lord, make for me a sign." He said: "Your sign is not to speak to the people for three days except by symbol, and remember your Lord greatly, and glorify at dusk and dawn."
3:42   And the angels said: "O Maryam, God has selected you and cleansed you, and He has selected you over all the women of the worlds."
3:43   "O Maryam, be dutiful to your Lord and prostrate and kneel with those who kneel."
3:44   This is from the news of the unseen that We inspire to you. You were not with them when they drew straws as to which one of them will be charged with Maryam; you were not with them when they disputed.
3:45   And the angels said: "O Maryam, God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him. His name is the Al Masih, Isa, son of Maryam. Honorable in this world and in the Hereafter, and from among those who are made close.

It's clear that in this chapter, there's only one Maryam being told, and she is Isa's mother and also daughter of Imran. No need to get into chapter 19.

peace..

So? What's the point here?

I was discussing "Sister of Aaron" in 19, which is not 'literally' sister of Aaron.. or that Maryam mother of Isa/Eeso/Jesus has a blood brother named Aaron.. although figuratively sayings she might have many 'brothers' named Aaron (or Moshe or Avraham or Yakov etc..)

There are many Maryam(s) and Amrans within Jewish society... up until now...
Just like there are many Li in China, and Mohammad in Arabs and Kim in Korea..

Salam / Peace

Quote from: huruf on March 05, 2012, 07:29:35 AM
Your explanation relies on something that is not in the Qur'an, and which is hipothetical an that you imagine, with yuour reasons for it may be, and also you imagine that, but are unable, it seems, to imagine, much of what Pazuzu has put forward as to the own traditions of Arabs of that time and the region. Also, one would have to tsake as undisputable that the Injil and the gospels are the same things. And even if they are the same things, I may like the gospels a lot, which many things in them I do, and still not take them seriously as a source of historical knowledge, which I don't.

However, bearing in mind, both things, I find your conclusions tend to follow the bible (the gospels are part of it) and not to take into account at all much of what has been brought up by Pazuzu. Your surmission is hypothetical, maybe Paazuzu's too, but more logical and more explained from the Qur'an's point of view the one put forward by Pazuzu.

To be frank and truly objective..

Scientifically; there are no historical evidence on the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Mariam, Jesus/Isa, John/Yahya and Muhammad.

As thus; everyone are free to speculate... and at end of the day it doesn't really matter..

Salam / Peace

Quote from: Jafar on March 05, 2012, 08:30:12 AM

There are many Maryam(s) and Amrans within Jewish society... up until now...
Just like there are many Li in China, and Mohammad in Arabs and Kim in Korea..

Salam Jafar,
I think no more points to be added. Thanks for your reply.

Peace..

Peace tlihawa and huruf


I didn?t question to find out how old Prophet Musa or Maryam were?.My point was to calculate their age to see whether it fits in this case at all!

Let?s assume mother of Musa was 20 when she had him and Maryam wasn?t born yet?Ok Musa reaches age of maturity (let's say 30 ) when become messenger .Now his mom is 50 years old?Let?s say Musa lived up to 80 years old before he died?.His mom is now 110 years old???..Let?s say Marayam was born when her mom was 50? By the time Musa died Maryam was 50 years old !.........Then Zacharia and Yahya became Prophet??.How long was it after the death of Musa that they became Prophets!?....Is it possible that 50 years old Maryam go under the care of Zacharia!?!!!!!

Why would mother of a Prophet want a boy to give it to the monastery when her own son Musa is already a Messenger and alive preaching to the children of Israel????????................How on earth could it possible that Musa and Zacharia both be Prophets at the same time and later Yayha come to the scene too!!!!!!!!?Wasn?t Zacharia very old when he had Yahya?!!!!!How is it possible old Zacharia be a prophet after Musa while Musa'smom is 50 years old having Maryam??!!!!.........Zacharia came after Musa...It means Musa was dead .His mom was either dead or very old....We are talking about impossibily here!

You see none of the simple calculation makes sense even if we assume that mother of Musa had Maryam at the age of 50 NEVER MIND Zachariah?s prophethood and old age?!...Please do some calculation before asking the next question.

May God guide us all to His Straight Path

Peace
Asana

Quote from: tlihawa on March 03, 2012, 08:43:37 AM
36:14   Where We sent two to them, but they disbelieved in them, so We supported them with a third one, thus they said: We are messengers to you.

Al Masih is the third messenger after Musa and Harun to support them.

Salaam once again tlihawa  :)

sorry for so much responses, I was just checking your posts. Most of them I find very interesting and also got some  :! from some of your posts, thanks.

I don't agree here.

The people of the town said this:
36:15 They said: �You are but human beings like us, and the Almighty did not send down anything, you are only telling lies.�

This is not what people said about Musa and AlMasih Isa ibnu Meryem.

btw please also note how the story begins:
36:13 And put forth for them the example (methal) of the people of the town, when the messengers came to it.

Salaam and may Allah increase us in knowledge and lead us to His path,
Bender

Quote from: Asana on March 05, 2012, 11:08:24 AM
Peace tlihawa and huruf


I didn?t question to find out how old Prophet Musa or Maryam were?.My point was to calculate their age to see whether it fits in this case at all!

Let?s assume mother of Musa was 20 when she had him and Maryam wasn?t born yet?Ok Musa reaches age of maturity (let's say 30 ) when become messenger .Now his mom is 50 years old?Let?s say Musa lived up to 80 years old before he died?.His mom is now 110 years old???..Let?s say Marayam was born when her mom was 50? By the time Musa died Maryam was 50 years old !.........Then Zacharia and Yahya became Prophet??.How long was it after the death of Musa that they became Prophets!?....Is it possible that 50 years old Maryam go under the care of Zacharia!?!!!!!

Why would mother of a Prophet want a boy to give it to the monastery when her own son Musa is already a Messenger and alive preaching to the children of Israel????????................How on earth could it possible that Musa and Zacharia both be Prophets at the same time and later Yayha come to the scene too!!!!!!!!?Wasn?t Zacharia very old when he had Yahya?!!!!!How is it possible old Zacharia be a prophet after Musa while Musa'smom is 50 years old having Maryam??!!!!.........Zacharia came after Musa...It means Musa was dead .His mom was either dead or very old....We are talking about impossibily here!

You see none of the simple calculation makes sense even if we assume that mother of Musa had Maryam at the age of 50 NEVER MIND Zachariah?s prophethood and old age?!...Please do some calculation before asking the next question.

May God guide us all to His Straight Path

Peace
Asana

Sorry, I cannot follow what you say with the ages. May be you can explaina bit more what is in your mind, because I really do not make anything out of it.

Salaam

Quote from: Asana on March 05, 2012, 11:08:24 AM
Please do some calculation before asking the next question.

Salaam Asana,
thanks for your advice. But I cannot do the calculation just like you did. I cannot calculate something if all the the things to be calculated is variable.
x+y=z. I need a reference, at least a constanta. It's not as simple as you said. You need more than that to prove that Isa is Jesus.

And for me, the clear evidence is what is written in Al Quran.

peace

Salam tlihawa and huruf

Peace

It was a hypothetical calculation...

I try my best making it simple although I don?t know how it didn?t make sense!

If hypothetically say mother of Musa /daughter of Imram was 20 years old when she had baby Musa!
Mother 20 years old

Mom 20 ====> Musa was born

Musa became messenger at the age of 30 ==== > mom is 50 years old ==> Maryam was born

Musa at the age of 80 died===> mom is 100 years old ===>Maryam is 50

Is it possible a 50 years old woman/Maryam go under the care of Zacharia ,meaning he become her guardian?....I?m saying this because her mom gave her up to the monastery under the care of Zacharia.

After Musa, Zacharia and Yahya became prophets too?.Zacharia was old when he saw God?s blessing on Maryam and then asked God grant him an inheritor  ?Doesn?t this mean that he lived as a prophet till old age after Musa ?If so how is it possible Maryam lived that long became old woman and Zacharia too and then Zacharia  became her guardian?

Insha-Allay you understand me now.

BTW I?m not implying Isa is Jesus here?I?m trying to prove that Maryam is definitely not sister of Musa&Harun

Peace
Asana

Peace, Asana

"Ukht Haroun" does not necessarily mean she was his blood sister. It simply shows that they were contemporaries (meaning:  Maryam and Harun lived in the same age).  By the same logic, Musa and Harun also lived in the same age. Even in the Old Testament, Maryam is portrayed as a fairly young maiden at the time the Israelites escaped from Msrim and the drowning of Far3oun. This means that Moses and Harun were far older than she was.

The Quran tells us that "Imra'at Imran" (meaning: woman or wife of Imran) gave birth to a girl, and named her Maryam. But it does not say that Musa and Harun were also children of this same mother. They were, however, of the same era and constituted the same household. And There is an entire chapter in the Quran named after this small household. 

The claim that Maryam and Moses lived 1000 years apart is quite plainly absurd and does not make any sense.

Regards..

Quote from: Pazuzu on March 09, 2012, 01:16:06 AM
"Ukht Haroun" does not necessarily mean she was his blood sister. It simply shows that they were contemporaries (meaning:  Maryam and Harun lived in the same age).  By the same logic, Musa and Harun also lived in the same age. Even in the Old Testament, Maryam is portrayed as a fairly young maiden at the time the Israelites escaped from Msrim and the drowning of Far3oun. This means that Moses and Harun were far older than she was.

The Quran tells us that "Imra'at Imran" (meaning: woman or wife of Imran) gave birth to a girl, and named her Maryam. But it does not say that Musa and Harun were also children of this same mother. They were, however, of the same era and constituted the same household. And There is an entire chapter in the Quran named after this small household. 

The claim that Maryam and Moses lived 1000 years apart is quite plainly absurd and does not make any sense.

Regards..

Peace,


A sister/brother (sibling) is of the same mother/father and there was definitely an older sister...

20:40 إذ when تمشي was going أختك your sister فتقول so she said هل shall أدلكم I show you على on من from يكفله nurse him فرجعناك so We returned you إلى to أمك your mother كي that تقر to cool عينها her eyes ولا and not تحزن she grieve ?

It was/is common to refer back to a prominent ancestor and absurd is they were altogether.

Quote from: nobuddy on March 09, 2012, 07:34:31 AM
Peace,


A sister/brother (sibling) is of the same mother/father and there was definitely an older sister...

20:40 إذ when تمشي was going أختك your sister فتقول so she said هل shall أدلكم I show you على on من from يكفله nurse him فرجعناك so We returned you إلى to أمك your mother كي that تقر to cool عينها her eyes ولا and not تحزن she grieve ?

It was/is common to refer back to a prominent ancestor and absurd is they were altogether.

Salaam
In the Qur'an members of a tribe are often refered to as brother or sister of their people; for examples surah 26; 105-106 and  141-142 whereas when refering to siblings the term used is "son of my mother" 7;150 and 20;94 so it could mean tirbe of Harun.
Salaam

Peace pazuzu

Quote
"Ukht Haroun" does not necessarily mean she was his blood sister. It simply shows that they were contemporaries (meaning:  Maryam and Harun lived in the same age).

If she wasn?t blood sister then you shouldn?t have said it in first place that they were brother and sister?..You should have clearly said they were contemporaries. This changes the whole issue.

Quote
Even in the Old Testament, Maryam is portrayed as a fairly young maiden at the time the Israelites escaped from Msrim and the drowning of Far3oun. This means that Moses and Harun were far older than she was.

Ok lets assume she was 10 years old and Moses was 170 years old!?.It means Moses was messenger and alive and Zacharia was a prophet too??Question is, wasn?t Zacharia a Jewish prophet, meaning was sent to children of Israel, right? In this case Moses and Zacharia were contemporaries too?It means Children of Israel received Moses as a messenger and Zacharia as prophet at the same time?Is it possible???! .It doesn?t make sense or does it?
Zacharia was old when became guardian of Maryam?.It means he lived long enough as a contemporary prophet along side with Moses the messenger?.This doesn?t make sense too. Have you ever read it some where that these two were contemporaries?

Quote
The Quran tells us that "Imra'at Imran" (meaning: woman or wife of Imran) gave birth to a girl, and named her Maryam. But it does not say that Musa and Harun were also children of this same mother. They were, however, of the same era and constituted the same household.

Sorry for my error by saying daughter of Imran.

Not being from the same mother still is called sister if their father was the same!
Either they were brother and sister through same parents or half or they never were brother and sister in first place.
Being from a same household is totally different than being from the same parents or half.
Being from the same era establishes another story too as it needs to be proved yet if Moses and Zacharia were contemporaries.

Quote
And There is an entire chapter in the Quran named after this small household.

Sorry it doesn?t prove anything?..It doesn?t prove Maryam was sister of Moses nor were contemporaries.

Quote
The claim that Maryam and Moses lived 1000 years apart is quite plainly absurd and does not make any sense.

God knows best .Unfortunately your claim doesn?t make sense and I don?t see any proof for it.

Peace
Asana

Salaam Bender,

Quote from: Bender on March 05, 2012, 12:26:06 PM

I don't agree here.

The people of the town said this:
36:15 They said: �You are but human beings like us, and the Almighty did not send down anything, you are only telling lies.�

This is not what people said about Musa and AlMasih Isa ibnu Meryem.

could you please elaborate which verses?

Quote
btw please also note how the story begins:
36:13 And put forth for them the example (methal) of the people of the town, when the messengers came to it.

Salaam and may Allah increase us in knowledge and lead us to His path,
Bender

Here is how I see the story:

=Night Journey=

17:1   Glory be to the One who took His servant by night <asra> from the Masjidil Haram to the Masjidl Aqsa which We had blessed around, so that We may show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearer, the Seer.

there are two masjid here, first one is Masjidil Haram and the second one is Masjidil Aqsa. As per my understanding, Masjid means place of sujood.

=Place of sujood #1=

20:70   So the magicians went down sujjadan. They said: "We believe in the Lord of Harun and Musa."

and Firaun became angry:

20:71   He said: "Have you believed to him before taking my permission? He is surely your great one who has taught you magic. So, I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of the palm trees, and you will come to know which of us is greater in retribution and more lasting!"

and then the night journey took place as described in 17:1:

20:77   And We inspired to Musa: "Take My servants out by night <asri>, and strike for them a path through the sea that is dry. You shall not fear being overtaken, nor be concerned."

=Place of sujood #2=

4:154   And We raised the mount above them by the covenant they took, and We said to them: "Enter the passageway sujjadan." And We said to them: "Do not transgress the Sabbath;" and We took from them a solemn covenant.

from these verses above, I knew that the Masjidil Haram is the place of sujuud before the night journey, and they moved to distant place called Masjidil Aqsa, or place of sujood in distance (Masjidil Aqsa).

Now, another story, here was a man came from Aqsa'l Madinati, he warned young Musa:

28:20   And a man came running from the Aqsa'l Madinati, saying: "O Musa, the commanders are plotting to kill you, so leave immediately. I am giving you good advice."

So I believe that Musa and his people had moved from the place where the magicians had sujood (it's something must be understood metaphorically, means submissive to God) called Masjidil Haram to Masjidil Aqsa, caused by they were hunted. Please note that Masjidil Haram also exist in Muhammad time with the same situation, they were expelled.

And the Masjidil Aqsa here must be located in the same area with the man who came from Aqsa'l madinati to warn Musa.

Now let's get back to the 'third messenger' :

36:20   And a man came running from Aqsa'l Madinati, saying: O my people, follow the messengers.

The same word has been used to link the messengers in 36:14 with Musa and Harun.

And what about the third one?

The third one had been born in :

19:22   So she (Maryam) was pregnant with him, and she went to deliver in a far place. <makānan qaṣiyyan>

That's all I can say, just to explain my point of view.

36:14   Where We sent two (messengers) to them, but they disbelieved in them, so We supported them with a third one, thus they said: We are messengers to you.

peace

wow, I managed the first 5 pages then gave up, so my bit which has probably been said before, if so sorry about that!  :peace:

Moses, Aaron and Miriam were brothers and sister. Their father was Amram and mother was Jochebed the daughter of Levi. (Numbers 26:59) Miriam was the sister that watched Moses and suggested to Pharaoh about feeding the baby Moses, which was the mother.

Chapter 19 of Quran, 1-15 is about Zacharia the father of John the baptist, then at verse 16 it relates the story of Mary the mother of Jesus as Zacharia is old and his wife is barren so this is showing that God can do what He says he can do, which is give Zacharia a son. 19:28 IMHO does not mean the sister of Aaron,  Miriam it is descendent.

Chapter 3 the 'woman of Imran' again I would say descendent of Imran and mother of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Mary from birth was 'dedicated' to the service of God so was given to the care of Zacharia as he was a priest.

Isa is Jesus, Mother was Mary who was a descendent of Imran (Amram in the Torah) = Family of Imran. The mother of Mary is not NAMED, she is 'a woman of Imran' nor is it clear as mud who the mother of Mary was in the Torah or the rest of the books. What is clear is that Moses and Jesus did not exist at the same time and that Miriam was a VERY common name.  Jesus and John the baptist existed at the same time and Mary, mother of Jesus, visited Elizabeth the mother of John and wife of Zacharia while they were both pregnant at the same time.  Miriam, sister of Aaron and Moses was a long time before this.

That's my take on it  :peace:

Quote'woman of Imran' again I would say descendent of Imran and mother of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

When you say "woman of Imran" means DESCENDANT of Imran, you are going against uniformity in the way the Quran used this word. The Quranic term is "Imra'at", and NOWHERE was this term ever used as meaning "descendant".  We have to be consitant with our interpretation of terms. If a word appears 50 times in the Quran, and we give it the same meaning 49 times, and a different meaning on just 1 occasion, this means we are being inconsistant.

Let's see how the Quran used the word "Imra'at":


1) Concerning Noah:

{Allah puts forth as examples of those who have rejected, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were under  two of Our righteous servants, but they betrayed them and, consequently, they could not help them at all against Allah. And it was said: "Enter the Fire, both of you, with those who will enter it."}...[66:10}

The Arabic text says:  "Imra'at Nuh" and "Imra'at Lut".  Which means "woman or wife", NOT descendant. 

Hence, "Imra'at Noah" perished during Noah's time, and was destined to enter the fire. She was not a 1000-year descendant of Noah.

2) Concerning Lot:

{They said: "O Lot, we are messengers of your Rabb; they will not be able to harm you, so travel with your family during the cover of the night and let not any of you look back except for your wife, she will be afflicted with what they will be afflicted. Their scheduled time will be the morning. Is the morning not near?"...[11:81]

Again, we have the same word used: "Imra'atuka" (meaning: you wife or woman). This woman, who stayed behind and persihed with the other inhabitants of the doomed town, lived DURING Lot's time. She was not a 1000-year descendant of Lot.


3) Concerning Abraham:

{He  (Abraham) then became fearful of them. They said: "Do not fear" and they gave him good news of a knowledgeable son. His wife then approached in amazement. She slapped upon her face, and said: "A barren old woman!"}...[51:28,29]


The Arabic text clearly says: "Imra'atuhu" (his woman - wife), slapped her face in disbelief when she was given the tidings. This woman lived during Abrahams' time. Wether it means his wife, concubine, servant, or whatever, that's not the point. The point is  "Imra'atuhu" does not mean DESCENDANT, in any way, shape, or form.

4) Concerning Far3oun:

{And the wife of Pharaoh said: "A pleasure to my eye and yours, so do not kill him, perhaps he will benefit us or we may take him as a son;" while they did not perceive}...[28:9]

Here, we see a conversation taking place between Far3oun and "Imra'at Far3oun", where she convinces him to take baby Moses and raise him in Far3oun's house.  Imra'at Far3oun means WIFE or WOMAN of Far3oun, and lived during Far3oun's time, not 1000 years after.


5)Concerning Imran:

{When the wife of Imran said: "My Rabb, I have vowed to You what is in my womb, dedicated, so accept from me, You are the Hearer, the Knower."}...[3:35]


This is no different than all the above instances: "Imra'at Imran" means wife/woman of Imran's household, not some figure who came 1000 years after him.

Its about methodology and common sense. It's about not twistng the meaning of the Quran to fit with pre-conceived dogma, and make it match the Bible. The Quran is an INDEPENDANT document that supercedes all previous scriptures.

____________________

The word "Injeel" is an Arabic term which comes from the root N-J-L, meaning "good news or tidings of good things to come". This is why a man would label his baby son as "NJL"  نجل   in Arabic, because the baby is tidings of an inheritor and descendant.  The Arabic female name "Najla'a"  نجلاء    also comes from the same root. 

This is similar to the  "JBR" - "JIBREEL"  and "BLS" - "IBLEES" phenomena.

Of course the stubborn traditioanlists insist the Quran contains non-Arabic terms, so they can't even grasp this. (They want to defy Allah, who clearly says He revealed an "Arabic Quran"). They tell you that "Injeel" is a bastardization of the Greek word "Evangelion".  For the 1000' th time I repeat: The Quran did not borrow from Greek or Persian.

You can expect no better from those who put the Quran in second place to make it conform to previous scriptures and dogmatic ideas, rather than making it the JUDGE and CORRECTOR of those scriptures and ideas.

____________________

The Isa of the Quran told the people around him that a messenger would come after him, by the name of "Ahmad".
Isa could not have been in Palestine, and given tidings of a messenger who would appear centuries later, and 2000 KM away in South Arabia.

____________________

Peace...

Quote from: tlihawa on March 09, 2012, 12:16:19 PM
Salaam Bender,
could you please elaborate which verses?

Salaam tlihawa

7:109 The commanders from among the people of Pharaoh said: "This is a knowledgeable magician!"

5:116 And God will say: "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell the people to take you and your mother as gods other than God?" He said: "Glory to you, I cannot say what I have no right of. If I had said it then You know it, You know what is in my self while I do not know what is in Your self. You are the Knower of the unseen."

Also in chapter 2, you see that the followers of Musa always talk to musa like this: Say to YOUR Lord...
And in chapter 5, the followers of Isa do the same.

It looks to me that they didn't saw them as "humans like us", but more like some humans with super powers.

QuoteHere is how I see the story:

=Night Journey=

17:1   Glory be to the One who took His servant by night <asra> from the Masjidil Haram to the Masjidl Aqsa which We had blessed around, so that We may show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearer, the Seer.

there are two masjid here, first one is Masjidil Haram and the second one is Masjidil Aqsa. As per my understanding, Masjid means place of sujood.

I agree, I also believe that 17:1 is talking about Musa, cos he is the only one who did a night journey in The Quran. But also because 17:2 talks about Musa.

17:2 And We gave Moses the Book and We made it a guidance for the Children of Israel: "Do not believe in any besides Me."

I believe that if there is a candidate among the servants mentioned in The Quran who can be potentially the servant of 17:1 then it must be Musa.

I also believe that masjid means place of sujood.

Quote=Place of sujood #1=

20:70   So the magicians went down sujjadan. They said: "We believe in the Lord of Harun and Musa."

and Firaun became angry:

20:71   He said: "Have you believed to him before taking my permission? He is surely your great one who has taught you magic. So, I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of the palm trees, and you will come to know which of us is greater in retribution and more lasting!"

and then the night journey took place as described in 17:1:

20:77   And We inspired to Musa: "Take My servants out by night <asri>, and strike for them a path through the sea that is dry. You shall not fear being overtaken, nor be concerned."

Yup, I agree that al-masjid al-haram is the area where the magicians went down.

Quote
=Place of sujood #2=

4:154   And We raised the mount above them by the covenant they took, and We said to them: "Enter the passageway sujjadan." And We said to them: "Do not transgress the Sabbath;" and We took from them a solemn covenant.

from these verses above, I knew that the Masjidil Haram is the place of sujuud before the night journey, and they moved to distant place called Masjidil Aqsa, or place of sujood in distance (Masjidil Aqsa).

Here I don't know. Maybe al-masjid al-aqsa is where Musa saw the fire.
note in verse 17:1 the blue part:
17:1 Glory be to the One who took His servant by night from the Restricted Temple to the most distant temple allathee barakna hawlahu  , so that We may show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearer, the Seer

take now a look at this:
27:8 So when he came to it he was called: "an boorika man fee alnnari waman hawlaha, and glory to God, Lord of the worlds."

Quote
Now, another story, here was a man came from Aqsa'l Madinati, he warned young Musa:

28:20   And a man came running from the Aqsa'l Madinati, saying: "O Musa, the commanders are plotting to kill you, so leave immediately. I am giving you good advice."

So I believe that Musa and his people had moved from the place where the magicians had sujood (it's something must be understood metaphorically, means submissive to God) called Masjidil Haram to Masjidil Aqsa, caused by they were hunted. Please note that Masjidil Haram also exist in Muhammad time with the same situation, they were expelled.

And the Masjidil Aqsa here must be located in the same area with the man who came from Aqsa'l madinati to warn Musa.

Now let's get back to the 'third messenger' :

36:20   And a man came running from Aqsa'l Madinati, saying: O my people, follow the messengers.

The same word has been used to link the messengers in 36:14 with Musa and Harun.

And what about the third one?

The third one had been born in :

19:22   So she (Maryam) was pregnant with him, and she went to deliver in a far place. <makānan qaṣiyyan>

That's all I can say, just to explain my point of view.

36:14   Where We sent two (messengers) to them, but they disbelieved in them, so We supported them with a third one, thus they said: We are messengers to you.

peace

I think the man who warned Musa in 28:20 is the same man as in 40:28-45

I also believed earlier that the messengers of the story in chapter 36 where reffering to Musa and Harun and some other messenger, because of the man from "aqsa almadinah", but i'm not sure.  So overal this is just a theorie, I don't know.
At the moment I think the messengers of chapter 36 are just some other messengers, not one of the messengers with a name in The Quran.

Salaam and may Allah increase us in knowledge,
Bender

Quote from: Ayisha on March 09, 2012, 04:13:27 PM

salaam,

really like your avatar  :D

Quote from: Pazuzu on March 09, 2012, 05:09:17 PM
When you say "woman of Imran" means DESCENDANT of Imran, you are going against uniformity in the way the Quran used this word. The Quranic term is "Imra'at", and NOWHERE was this term ever used as meaning "descendant".  We have to be consitant with our interpretation of terms. If a word appears 50 times in the Quran, and we give it the same meaning 49 times, and a different meaning on just 1 occasion, this means we are being inconsistant.

Let's see how the Quran used the word "Imra'at":


1) Concerning Noah:

{Allah puts forth as examples of those who have rejected, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were under  two of Our righteous servants, but they betrayed them and, consequently, they could not help them at all against Allah. And it was said: "Enter the Fire, both of you, with those who will enter it."}...[66:10}

The Arabic text says:  "Imra'at Nuh" and "Imra'at Lut".  Which means "woman or wife", NOT descendant. 

Hence, "Imra'at Noah" perished during Noah's time, and was destined to enter the fire. She was not a 1000-year descendant of Noah.

2) Concerning Lot:

{They said: "O Lot, we are messengers of your Rabb; they will not be able to harm you, so travel with your family during the cover of the night and let not any of you look back except for your wife, she will be afflicted with what they will be afflicted. Their scheduled time will be the morning. Is the morning not near?"...[11:81]

Again, we have the same word used: "Imra'atuka" (meaning: you wife or woman). This woman, who stayed behind and persihed with the other inhabitants of the doomed town, lived DURING Lot's time. She was not a 1000-year descendant of Lot.


3) Concerning Abraham:

{He  (Abraham) then became fearful of them. They said: "Do not fear" and they gave him good news of a knowledgeable son. His wife then approached in amazement. She slapped upon her face, and said: "A barren old woman!"}...[51:28,29]


The Arabic text clearly says: "Imra'atuhu" (his woman - wife), slapped her face in disbelief when she was given the tidings. This woman lived during Abrahams' time. Wether it means his wife, concubine, servant, or whatever, that's not the point. The point is  "Imra'atuhu" does not mean DESCENDANT, in any way, shape, or form.

4) Concerning Far3oun:

{And the wife of Pharaoh said: "A pleasure to my eye and yours, so do not kill him, perhaps he will benefit us or we may take him as a son;" while they did not perceive}...[28:9]

Here, we see a conversation taking place between Far3oun and "Imra'at Far3oun", where she convinces him to take baby Moses and raise him in Far3oun's house.  Imra'at Far3oun means WIFE or WOMAN of Far3oun, and lived during Far3oun's time, not 1000 years after.


5)Concerning Imran:

{When the wife of Imran said: "My Rabb, I have vowed to You what is in my womb, dedicated, so accept from me, You are the Hearer, the Knower."}...[3:35]


This is no different than all the above instances: "Imra'at Imran" means wife/woman of Imran's household, not some figure who came 1000 years after him.

Ok, woman of Imran, it still does not mean it was NOT a woman of the family of Imran as in later on but of the line of, and that's your assumption it's not.

QuoteIts about methodology and common sense. It's about not twistng the meaning of the Quran to fit with pre-conceived dogma, and make it match the Bible.

That's not the Bible, it's the Torah, the Book God confirms was from Him and was the same at the time of Muhammed.  :peace:

QuoteThe Quran is an INDEPENDANT document that supercedes all previous scriptures.

I disagree, the Quran is a part of The Book which consists of Torah, Gospel and Quran. It is the completion of the message and in it are many references to to the other 'portions of the Book' given before it.

____________________

QuoteThe word "Injeel" is an Arabic term which comes from the root N-J-L, meaning "good news or tidings of good things to come". This is why a man would label his baby son as "NJL"  نجل   in Arabic, because the baby is tidings of an inheritor and descendant.  The Arabic female name "Najla'a"  نجلاء    also comes from the same root. 

This is similar to the  "JBR" - "JIBREEL"  and "BLS" - "IBLEES" phenomena.

Of course the stubborn traditioanlists insist the Quran contains non-Arabic terms, so they can't even grasp this. (They want to defy Allah, who clearly says He revealed an "Arabic Quran"). They tell you that "Injeel" is a bastardization of the Greek word "Evangelion".  For the 1000' th time I repeat: The Quran did not borrow from Greek or Persian.

I must've missed the bits that this has to do with, my apologies for that, but as you are replying to one line of my post with this I will stick my bit in. I have certainly never said Quran has none Arabic words, I will have to put that on my study list so thank you for bringing that up  :peace: Although I disagree with Injeel meaning good news at this time, but it's late here, but the mention of Injeel in 3.3 is alongside Torah, a book, so does 5.66, 5.68, 9.111 as a start. I will check tomorrow on the instances of good news and glad tidings, but I doubt at this time they say Injeel, even in Arabic.

QuoteYou can expect no better from those who put the Quran in second place to make it conform to previous scriptures and dogmatic ideas, rather than making it the JUDGE and CORRECTOR of those scriptures and ideas.

I put Quran in the first place as I know that is the absolute word of God as related to the prophet Muhammed but I do also study the other parts of the message of God and try to line things up in my head, I don't discard any part of the message of God claiming one is independent and supercedes others that that one clearly tells me are from the same source and part of the message, I believe in ALL the books of God as instructed.

____________________

QuoteThe Isa of the Quran told the people around him that a messenger would come after him, by the name of "Ahmad".
Isa could not have been in Palestine, and given tidings of a messenger who would appear centuries later, and 2000 KM away in South Arabia.

Why not? Quran says he told the Children of Israel, where do you think they were? He wouldn't be telling the children of Israel in Mekka would he? Or maybe Muhammed was not in Saudi Arabia as Mekka and Medina are not mentioned in Quran anyway, are they?

The curious thing about these questions is that the narrations of the Bible are undisputed but not proved, but on the other hand people want to prove what the Qur'an says or not based on a narration that has not been proved.

Where in the gospels is it question of a family of Imran whose grand child would be Jesus. Where is the Haroon who, if the Qur'an is taken seriously would, be Jesus' contemporary or Mary's contemporary.

The thing is that in order to prove the Qur'an by the Bible these things do not match, not to speak about Joseph the carpenter, who appears nowhere in the Qur'an. Was the Gospel Jesus born in a city or qaryia or was he born in a remote and lonely place? Can it be that we are talking about the same person? Can we pick the pieces that we take grom the gospels and those we take from the Qur'an and make up a prophetic frankenstein?

With Musa and Haroon, the bani Israil continued turning away and then comes the kindom with Suleymand and Dawood and the people are again good. So which prophet made them turn to good?

On the other hand, Miryam daughter of of Imran matches in both books, sister of Haroon matches in both books, do we have to make two Myriams in the Qur'an so as to comply with the gospels, or rather split the Miryam in the Qur'an to match both Myriams in the Bible. Because the Bible may give two, but the Qur'an gives only one.

Where are the documents apart from the gosples themselves and the literature sprung from them that prove the narrations and circumstances of the gospel.

Obviously, anybody can ask the same question regarding the stories as told by the Qur'an, but for those who believe the Qur'an is revelation without contamination, proof of everything might be welcomed but it is not necessary, and we know that the literature sprung around the figure of Jesus is not above criticism and certainly not documented. The most that is dared is to say that Jesus did exist, that he was mentioned by Favio Josefo and I do not know whether there is much else. There is also a trip to Egypt in his childhood, but in the Qur'an there is nothing.

Salaam 

Quote from: Bender on March 09, 2012, 05:37:49 PM
salaam,

really like your avatar  :D

Salam Bender, shukran  :peace:

Quote from: huruf on March 09, 2012, 06:12:39 PM
The curious thing about these questions is that the narrations of the Bible are undisputed but not proved, but on the other hand people want to prove what the Qur'an says or not based on a narration that has not been proved.

In my mind trying to piece the facts of the previous books from Quran is a way of proving those parts if not all. If that makes sense.

QuoteWhere in the gospels is it question of a family of Imran whose grand child would be Jesus. Where is the Haroon who, if the Qur'an is taken seriously would, be Jesus' contemporary or Mary's contemporary.

Haroon (Aaron) is in Torah, not the gospels. The lineage of jesus is in both Luke and Mark but different accounts, some say one is from Mary and the other from Joseph, both go back to Amram (Imran) as far as I'm aware, will check tomorrow.  :peace:

QuoteThe thing is that in order to prove the Qur'an by the Bible these things do not match, not to speak about Joseph the carpenter, who appears nowhere in the Qur'an. Was the Gospel Jesus born in a city or qaryia or was he born in a remote and lonely place? Can it be that we are talking about the same person? Can we pick the pieces that we take grom the gospels and those we take from the Qur'an and make up a prophetic frankenstein?

Personally, I'm trying to find the facts in Torah and other books from Quran, not trying to prove Quran, that doesn't need any proof, for me anyway. I'm looking at what Quran says about that past and trying to piece that in those past books, and there is a LOT that matches what is in Torah, haven't started on the New Testament yet as still playing with 'lost' books which I think are more 'gospel' than dear old Pauls versions in the NT.

QuoteWith Musa and Haroon, the bani Israil continued turning away and then comes the kindom with Suleymand and Dawood and the people are again good. So which prophet made them turn to good?

All, and none. As always there will be those that see and those that don't and those that say they do and don't, Quran tells you even up to that time there were people of Muhammed's that were non-believers who claimed to follow.

QuoteOn the other hand, Miryam daughter of of Imran matches in both books, sister of Haroon matches in both books, do we have to make two Myriams in the Qur'an so as to comply with the gospels, or rather split the Miryam in the Qur'an to match both Myriams in the Bible. Because the Bible may give two, but the Qur'an gives only one.

I disagree, there are 2 Maryams in Quran, as there is not only one pharaoh in Quran but more  :peace:

QuoteWhere are the documents apart from the gosples themselves and the literature sprung from them that prove the narrations and circumstances of the gospel.

too tired to understand the question, will try tomorrow  :hypno:

QuoteObviously, anybody can ask the same question regarding the stories as told by the Qur'an, but for those who believe the Qur'an is revelation without contamination, proof of everything might be welcomed but it is not necessary, and we know that the literature sprung around the figure of Jesus is not above criticism and certainly not documented. The most that is dared is to say that Jesus did exist, that he was mentioned by Favio Josefo and I do not know whether there is much else. There is also a trip to Egypt in his childhood, but in the Qur'an there is nothing.

Everything from before isn't in Quran, it's not necessary to tell you again that Jesus was in Egypt and there is more about Moses and Abraham in Quran than there is about Jesus I think, could be wrong though.

Now I AM going to sleep, I knew it was a bad idea to come back on this forum, I never get any sleep!! 

Salam and goodnight all.  :peace:

Quote from: Ayisha on March 09, 2012, 06:38:36 PM

Haroon (Aaron) is in Torah, not the gospels.

Quote

I disagree, there are 2 Maryams in Quran, as there is not only one pharaoh in Quran but more

Precisely, there is no Harun in the gospels, therefore if there is any sister or Harun or Harun contemporary, she cannot be from the time the gospels purport to narrate about.

That is diagnostic.




Please tell which are those two Maryams, and how do you know from the Qur'an that they are not the same. And Please do as much with the fir3awn


Salaam

Quote from: Ayisha on March 09, 2012, 04:13:27 PM


Moses, Aaron and Miriam were brothers and sister. Their father was Amram and mother was Jochebed the daughter of Levi. (Numbers 26:59) Miriam was the sister that watched Moses and suggested to Pharaoh about feeding the baby Moses, which was the mother.

That's my take on it  :peace:

Salaam
The Qur'an does not reveal the name the sister who watched Moses and suggested to Pharaoh about feeding the baby Moses
Salaam

Salaam Ayisha,

Quote from: Ayisha on March 09, 2012, 04:13:27 PM

Isa is Jesus, Mother was Mary who was a descendent of Imran (Amram in the Torah) = Family of Imran. The mother of Mary is not NAMED, she is 'a woman of Imran' nor is it clear as mud who the mother of Mary was in the Torah or the rest of the books. What is clear is that Moses and Jesus did not exist at the same time and that Miriam was a VERY common name.  Jesus and John the baptist existed at the same time and Mary, mother of Jesus, visited Elizabeth the mother of John and wife of Zacharia while they were both pregnant at the same time.  Miriam, sister of Aaron and Moses was a long time before this.

That's my take on it  :peace:

When you say Isa is Jesus, did you consider the fact stated in both Quran and Gospel about how they died?

Quran said:

4:157   And their saying: "We have killed the Al Masih, son of Maryam, messenger of God!" And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

Gospel said:

Matthew 27
(38) At the same time two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right hand and one on the left.

(50) And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and gave up His spirit.


I saw you compiled the information about family tree from both Quran and Gospel to get the conclusion that Isa is Jesus, but you did not take into account that both Kitab has different information about their death.

Did God sent down different information about their death? Why God didn't tell people in Gospel that it wasn't Jesus that they had crucified?

Why God sent down different information about him, if Isa is Jesus?

Did you could find any miraculously story about Jesus had been replaced by someone at the cross, from Al Quran or Gospel?

I think Al Quran is consistent about it, and so does Gospel. It is our mind having that inconsistency. They were not the same person.

It is our mind dare enough to say that there are two Maryam in Al Quran, just to support that Isa is Jesus, but didn't provide anything when both Kitab said something different about their death.

The fact is they did not crucify Isa:

4:157   And their saying: "We have killed Al Masih, Isa, son of Maryam, messenger of God!" And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them (like Isa) <shubbiha lahum> . And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

and also the fact that some people had tried to imitate God's creation, explained using the same triliteral root shīn bā hā which also used in 4:157:

13:16   Say: "Who is the Lord of the heavens and the earth?" Say: "God." Say: "Have you taken besides Him allies who do not possess for themselves any benefit or harm?" Say: "Is the blind and the seer the same? Or do the darkness and the light equate? Or have they set up partners with God who have created like His creation, so the creation seemed alike <fatashābaha> to them?" Say: "God has created all things, and He is the One, the Supreme."

QuoteI disagree, the Quran is a part of The Book which consists of Torah, Gospel and Quran. It is the completion of the message and in it are many references to to the other 'portions of the Book' given before it.

And Allah has warned us about the man made Kitab:

2:79   So woe to those who write the Book with their hands then say: "This is from God," so that they can purchase with it a cheap price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they gained.

And the people whose confound the truth with falsehood :

3:71   "O people of the Book, why do you confound the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?"

With this reality, I do not dare put the gospel as a reference to explain the contents of the Quran. If the Quran only mentions one Maryam, then indeed there is only one Maryam as the Mother of Isa and the daughter of Imran.

If you could consider Isa is Jesus according to how they had birth, you also have to consider the fact how they had died.

Peace

Quote from: huruf on March 09, 2012, 07:19:26 PM

Precisely, there is no Harun in the gospels, therefore if there is any sister or Harun or Harun contemporary, she cannot be from the time the gospels purport to narrate about.

That is diagnostic.

Does Quran say Aaron is in the gospel? Quran says he is the brother of Moses and Maryam, it doesn't say from the gospel.

QuotePlease tell which are those two Maryams, and how do you know from the Qur'an that they are not the same. And Please do as much with the fir3awn

Salaam

I have told which is which, one is the sister of Moses and Aaron and the other is the mother of Jesus, different times as per Torah and Gospel. Quran is a reminder and confirmation  of the books that went before it so when it speaks to remind me of those past times I refer to those books to find it.

Moses was given The Law, 3.3, later there was Jesus sent to confirm the Law sent before him with Moses 5.46 and Jesus was given the gospel (injeel)

Concerning Pharaoh, Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham was in Egypt a long time doing various things working for Pharaoh. Moses was the grandson of Levi, the brother of Joseph, when Moses was born Joseph was already in Egypt working for Pharaoh. Moses was in Egypt most of his life (Exodus) as was Joseph. 'Historically' the only Pharaoh around that time who reigned over 60 years was Ramses II but the span of time from Joseph going to Egypt and his grandson leading the people out of Egypt was longer than that. IMHO.

It is totally irrelevant to the message of God who was where when for how long, IMHO, but I like to link things up when they have been told to me that this or that happened. Obviously I cannot 'prove' this theory, just as you cannot 'prove' it's wrong, it's a theory based on the books of God.  :peace:

I do not think you are answering. Of course the Qur'an doesn't say there is a Haroon in the Gospel and therefore if in the Qur'an there is a sister of Harun and that Harun is a brother of Musa, Maryam is contemporary of Musa not o9f the people depicted in the Gospels.

On the other hand, you do not bring any proof from the Qur'an that there are two Maryams. Please do not bring the Gospels, support with the Qur'an only those two Maryams and those two fir3aun.

In the gospel there is one malik of misr, and there is a fir3aun. Just one fir3aun.

Quote from: tlihawa on March 09, 2012, 10:44:57 PM
Salaam Ayisha,

When you say Isa is Jesus, did you consider the fact stated in both Quran and Gospel about how they died?

Quran said:

4:157   And their saying: "We have killed the Al Masih, son of Maryam, messenger of God!" And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

Gospel said:

Matthew 27
(38) At the same time two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right hand and one on the left.

(50) And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and gave up His spirit.


I saw you compiled the information about family tree from both Quran and Gospel to get the conclusion that Isa is Jesus, but you did not take into account that both Kitab has different information about their death.

Did God sent down different information about their death? Why God didn't tell people in Gospel that it wasn't Jesus that they had crucified?

Why God sent down different information about him, if Isa is Jesus?

Did you could find any miraculously story about Jesus had been replaced by someone at the cross, from Al Quran or Gospel?

I think Al Quran is consistent about it, and so does Gospel. It is our mind having that inconsistency. They were not the same person.

Salam tlihawa  :peace:

Quran is the word of God, Matthew 27 is the word of man and not the 'Gospel' of Jesus, it's actually called 'The Gospel "according to" Matthew' so naturally there will be inconsistencies and that's why Quran in this instance is 'correcting' what was said in Matthew. I am still in search of the 'Gospel' of Jesus but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John isn't it. However, somewhere in those books it does say Jesus 'ascended' and didn't die, I do not believe he died on a cross for the sins of the world, didn't even as a Christian.

QuoteIt is our mind dare enough to say that there are two Maryam in Al Quran, just to support that Isa is Jesus, but didn't provide anything when both Kitab said something different about their death.

I am not saying there are 2 Maryams in Quran 'just to support that Isa is Jesus', it's from Torah and Quran and if you look at both, as both are from God, then you can piece that together. And my mind dare enough to dig as deep and as wide as possible into finding the truth of God, however many Mary's or Maryams there are. FACT is that Jesus was the Word of God and his mother was Mary, whatever 'language' you want to use for the names. The English translation says Jesus, the Hebrew said (I think) Yeshua and the Arabic Isa, possibly the Aramaic had another slightly different translation.

QuoteThe fact is they did not crucify Isa:

4:157   And their saying: "We have killed Al Masih, Isa, son of Maryam, messenger of God!" And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them (like Isa) <shubbiha lahum> . And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

I know  :peace:

Quoteand also the fact that some people had tried to imitate God's creation, explained using the same triliteral root shīn bā hā which also used in 4:157:

13:16   Say: "Who is the Lord of the heavens and the earth?" Say: "God." Say: "Have you taken besides Him allies who do not possess for themselves any benefit or harm?" Say: "Is the blind and the seer the same? Or do the darkness and the light equate? Or have they set up partners with God who have created like His creation, so the creation seemed alike <fatashābaha> to them?" Say: "God has created all things, and He is the One, the Supreme."


And Allah has warned us about the man made Kitab:

2:79   So woe to those who write the Book with their hands then say: "This is from God," so that they can purchase with it a cheap price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they gained.

And the people whose confound the truth with falsehood :

3:71   "O people of the Book, why do you confound the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?"

With this reality, I do not dare put the gospel as a reference to explain the contents of the Quran. If the Quran only mentions one Maryam, then indeed there is only one Maryam as the Mother of Isa and the daughter of Imran.

If you could consider Isa is Jesus according to how they had birth, you also have to consider the fact how they had died.

Peace

You seem to be mixing up Torah and Gospel here. The Moses bit is in Torah not Gospel. People of the Book are Jews, Christians (or those purporting to follow Jesus) and Muslims, the BOOK is the whole of the message Torah, Gospel, Quran. These were given at different times to different people, Torah was given to Moses, Moshe, Musa, that's in 3 languages so do you also think these are 3 'different' people too? The story of Moses is in Torah, the story of Jesus is not, Jews following Moses do not believe that Jesus was who he said he was, they are still waiting for the 'messiah'. If Jesus was the nephew of Moses he would be mentioned and all those other prophets and messengers in between would be irrelevant if they were around at the same time. Jesus was sent to uphold the Law of Moses AFTER the people had 'changed it with their tongues' so it's illogical to assume Jesus was as close to Moses as a nephew.  Quran is clearly telling you there was time between the 2.

Quote from: huruf on March 10, 2012, 02:42:36 AM
I do not think you are answering. Of course the Qur'an doesn't say there is a Haroon in the Gospel and therefore if in the Qur'an there is a sister of Harun and that Harun is a brother of Musa, Maryam is contemporary of Musa not o9f the people depicted in the Gospels.

sorry that doesn't make any sense.

QuoteOn the other hand, you do not bring any proof from the Qur'an that there are two Maryams. Please do not bring the Gospels, support with the Qur'an only those two Maryams and those two fir3aun.

I didn't bring any gospels, I brought Torah, there is a difference.

QuoteIn the gospel there is one malik of misr, and there is a fir3aun. Just one fir3aun.

I think you mean in Quran, you are getting confused over the 3 distinctly different Books of God here. The King of Egypt IS Pharaoh, NONE of them are named in Quran.

Quote from: tlihawa on March 09, 2012, 10:44:57 PM
Salaam Ayisha,

When you say Isa is Jesus, did you consider the fact stated in both Quran and Gospel about how they died?

Quran said:

4:157   And their saying: "We have killed the Al Masih, son of Maryam, messenger of God!" And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

Gospel said:

Matthew 27
(38) At the same time two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right hand and one on the left.

(50) And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and gave up His spirit.


I saw you compiled the information about family tree from both Quran and Gospel to get the conclusion that Isa is Jesus, but you did not take into account that both Kitab has different information about their death.

Did God sent down different information about their death? Why God didn't tell people in Gospel that it wasn't Jesus that they had crucified?

Why God sent down different information about him, if Isa is Jesus?

Did you consider why God is 'correcting' the information about Jesus in Quran if it's NOT the same person?

:peace:

Quote from: farida on March 09, 2012, 07:25:18 PM
Salaam
The Qur'an does not reveal the name the sister who watched Moses and suggested to Pharaoh about feeding the baby Moses
Salaam

Salam Farida, no it doesn't but as there is only 1 sister of Moses mentioned one would assume she is it. Exodus 2 also doesn't name her, but we already know who it is.

Salam

Since I saw brother pazuzu took bible verses into account, so there should be some kind of credibility on brother pazuzu mind regarding the authenticity of old and new  testament to be taken as one of the basis of ongoing analysis, at least on the related aspect.
Please kindly direct me on which books I can find that Moses have a nephew named Esau from Miriam?  ::)


CMIIW, base from my finding so far

Esau, is the son of Isaac. Miriam, Aaron, Moses has not yet born during Esau lifetime. The story of Miriam recorded in old testament entirely differents (despite kamal's salibi claims) than Miriam who gave birth to Isa. The first, struggling with their brother, no record having a husband and did not bare a child with the ruhul qudus, etc,  and she died during the exodus (before reaching the promised lands <-whereever it may be!) and the later is the wife of Joseph who bare child called Jesus or Isa.

So please fisrt clear up one or two things. Regarding Esau = Isa, which 'Esau'?
Are we talking about imaginative Esau or Esau whose stated in Book of Genesis?

Please do mind the languange and grammar.

Thank you.  :peace:

Peace Ayisha,

Quote from: Ayisha on March 10, 2012, 02:59:15 AM
You seem to be mixing up Torah and Gospel here.

Ok, so let see.

Quote from: Ayisha on March 09, 2012, 04:13:27 PM

Isa is Jesus, Mother was Mary who was a descendent of Imran (Amram in the Torah) = Family of Imran. The mother of Mary is not NAMED, she is 'a woman of Imran' nor is it clear as mud who the mother of Mary was in the Torah or the rest of the books. What is clear is that Moses and Jesus did not exist at the same time and that Miriam was a VERY common name.  Jesus and John the baptist existed at the same time and Mary, mother of Jesus, visited Elizabeth the mother of John and wife of Zacharia while they were both pregnant at the same time.  Miriam, sister of Aaron and Moses was a long time before this.

That's my take on it  :peace:

You started the paragraph with statement that Isa is Jesus, and supported by " Jesus and John the baptist existed at the same time and Mary, mother of Jesus, visited Elizabeth the mother of John and wife of Zacharia while they were both pregnant at the same time."

Since you didn't mention your reference, I'll do it for you, and please let me know if I'm wrong:

Matthew 3
(13) Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him.

Luke 1
(13) But the angel said to him, Do not be afraid, Zachariah, because your petition was heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you must call his name John [God is favorable].

It's clear that your statement is based on gospel, to support that Isa is Jesus. And here is your statement regarding gospel:

Quote from: Ayisha on March 10, 2012, 02:59:15 AM
Quran is the word of God, Matthew 27 is the word of man and not the 'Gospel' of Jesus, it's actually called 'The Gospel "according to" Matthew' so naturally there will be inconsistencies and that's why Quran in this instance is 'correcting' what was said in Matthew.

so based on your statement, you should not put the gospel as reference to support your conclusion that Isa is Jesus.

And now, let's take a look at how Isa and Jesus died:

Quran said:

4:157   And their saying: "We have killed the Al Masih, son of Maryam, messenger of God!" And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

Gospel said:

Matthew 27
(38) At the same time two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right hand and one on the left.
(50) And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and gave up His spirit.

And again, here is your comment:

Quote from: Ayisha on March 10, 2012, 02:59:15 AM
I know  :peace:

So please let me understand your position against the Quran and Gospel. How could you said that Isa is Jesus based on Gospel reference and at the same time they weren't the same person when we having contradiction?

No matter how hard I try, the final conclusion based on your explanation is Isa and Jesus are the same person at the day they were born, and they are not at the day they were died.

And here is another verse to ponder:

19:33   "And peace be upon me (Isa) the day I was born, and the day I die, and the Day I am resurrected alive."

Isa had died in peace, not being crucified and said "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"

peace..

Salaam, Ayisha,

Yes it was a slip of the keys that I wrote that there is malik of misr in the Gospel, of course I meant to write The Qur'an.


Therefore thre is just in fir3aun in the Qur'an, and I would refer you to several threads started by Pazuzu regarding the identity of that malik and that fir3aun, and the identity of that misr. Everything is already explained in those threads and it makes no sense to repeat it somewhere else.

And still all you are doing is repeating your opinion that Isa is the Jesus in the Bible, but no proof. You haven't shown that there are two Maryam in the Qur'an.

Salaam

Quote from: tlihawa on March 10, 2012, 08:40:04 AM
Peace Ayisha,
Ok, so let see.
You started the paragraph with statement that Isa is Jesus, and supported by " Jesus and John the baptist existed at the same time and Mary, mother of Jesus, visited Elizabeth the mother of John and wife of Zacharia while they were both pregnant at the same time."

Since you didn't mention your reference, I'll do it for you, and please let me know if I'm wrong:

Matthew 3
(13) Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him.

Luke 1
(13) But the angel said to him, Do not be afraid, Zachariah, because your petition was heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you must call his name John [God is favorable].

It's clear that your statement is based on gospel, to support that Isa is Jesus.

Salam  :peace:

Quran
19.2 (This is) a recital of the Mercy of thy Lord to His servant Zakariya.
19.3 Behold! he cried to his Lord in secret,
19.4 Praying: "O my Lord! infirm indeed are my bones, and the hair of my head doth glisten with grey: but never am I unblest, O my Lord, in my prayer to Thee!
19.5 "Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself,-
19.6 "(One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!"
19.7 (His prayer was answered): "O Zakariya! We give thee good news of a son: His name shall be Yahya: on none by that name have We conferred distinction before."
19.8 He said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son, when my wife is barren and I have grown quite decrepit from old age?"
19.9 He said: "So (it will be) thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: I did indeed create thee before, when thou hadst been nothing!'"
19.10 (Zakariya) said: "O my Lord! give me a Sign." "Thy Sign," was the answer, "Shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for three nights, although thou art not dumb."
19.11  Ali   So Zakariya came out to his people from him chamber: He told them by signs to celebrate Allah's praises in the morning and in the evening.
19.12 (To his son came the command): "O Yahya! take hold of the Book with might": and We gave him Wisdom even as a youth,
19.13 And piety (for all creatures) as from Us, and purity: He was devout,
19.14 And kind to his parents, and he was not overbearing or rebellious.
19.15 So Peace on him the day he was born, the day that he dies, and the day that he will be raised up to life (again)!

Luke 1
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both well advanced in years.

8 So it was, that while he was serving as priest before God in the order of his division, 9 according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. 10 And the whole multitude of the people was praying outside at the hour of incense. 11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.

13 But the angel said to him, ?Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother?s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ?to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,? and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.?

18 And Zacharias said to the angel, ?How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is well advanced in years.?

19 And the angel answered and said to him, ?I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings. 20 But behold, you will be mute and not able to speak until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words which will be fulfilled in their own time.?

21 And the people waited for Zacharias, and marveled that he lingered so long in the temple. 22 But when he came out, he could not speak to them; and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple, for he beckoned to them and remained speechless.

23 So it was, as soon as the days of his service were completed, that he departed to his own house. 24 Now after those days his wife Elizabeth conceived; and she hid herself five months, saying, 25 ?Thus the Lord has dealt with me, in the days when He looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.?

These appear to be the same story about the same people, wouldn't you agree?

Quran

19.16 Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.
19.20 She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
19.18 She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.
19.19 He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
19.20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
19.21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."
19.22 So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
19.23 And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"
19.24 But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;
19.25 "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.
19.26 "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (Allah) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"
19.27 At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
19.28 "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"
19.29 But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
19.30 He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
19.31 "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
19.32 "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
19.33 "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!
19.34 Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.

Luke 1
26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin?s name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, ?Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!?[c]

29 But when she saw him,[d] she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, ?Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.?

34 Then Mary said to the angel, ?How can this be, since I do not know a man??

35 And the angel answered and said to her, ?The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.?

Following on the same story, same people so what is in Quran 19 is in Luke 1.

21.89 And (remember) Zakariya, when he cried to his Lord: "O my Lord! leave me not without offspring, though thou art the best of inheritors."
21.90 So We listened to him: and We granted him Yahya: We cured his wife's (Barrenness) for him. These (three) were ever quick in emulation in good works; they used to call on Us with love and reverence, and humble themselves before Us.
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.
The virgin in Luke 1.27 is the woman who guarded her chastity in Quran 21.91, the father of John whose wife was barren in 21.90 is the same man, woman and child in Luke 1. 

Quran is a reminder of what went before it, so there are other parts to the message. What you are trying to do is a jigsaw puzzle with many parts missing and trying to figure the picture, those pieces are there but you believe they are not the same jigsaw and refuse to use them. Quran is confirming those pieces are there and if you NEED to know some things then you should look at them.

Quran mentions Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mary mother of Jesus, John, Aaron, Lot and many others from before Quran. Quran does not tell you which books those stories are in but it tells you they were there, it?s up to us to go look and find them if we need to OR we could ignore them and say all these existed at the same time because they are all in Quran and Moses came down the Nile in the Ark with his sister who was mother of Jesus.

Quran tells you that the people of the book KNOW this Quran is from the same source because of what?s in THEIR scriptures. In their scriptures there is no Jesus in Torah and the Miriam is the sister of Moses and Aaron, the sister that watched over Moses when he was left in the Nile, but as that sister is not named we could always invent another if we don?t bother to look at ?their scriptures? where this is told.  The story of Jesus is told later but Luke is not the ?gospel? as given to Jesus, Jesus? gospel wouldn?t contain the story of his own birth, it would contain the message from the same God as Quran and he was sent NOT to abolish the Law of Moses. Luke is written by someone else ABOUT the birth of Jesus, as is Matthew, so it?s not what I would say is the Gospel given to Jesus by God. Maybe I?m wrong but Luke 1 matches the descriptions in Quran 19 enough to show me this is the same people. The ONLY verse in Quran that seems to throw people off is 19.28 where sister of Aaron is mentioned and to you it?s negating the rest of the verses.

Reminder of the beginning of Chapter 3, Family of Imran.
3.7 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

So proving that Mary mother of Jesus is not the sister of Moses, is not necessary to the message of God, certainly not for me anyway as I have no fear of reading the other books God Himself confirms are from Him. The Jesus in Luke is the same EXACT story of Quran 19 and if one single verse of the whole of that is throwing you off then good luck to you and good luck finding ?Isa? the Word of God and Messiah anywhere else in the previous books.

The ?death? of Jesus in Luke and Matthew and the ?son of God? are the parts that Quran is CORRECTING. It?s not saying these are different people, it?s correcting that SAME story about those same people and just because those parts are different does not mean it?s not the same people, it means THAT PART is being corrected and told in Quran.

Quoteso based on your statement, you should not put the gospel as reference to support your conclusion that Isa is Jesus.

I didn?t. The verses in Quran match Luke 1, Luke 1 is not what I consider ?the Gospel? as given to Jesus.  I wrote a long bit here but lost it in copying to the site, but never mind.

QuoteAnd now, let's take a look at how Isa and Jesus died:

Quran said:

4:157   And their saying: "We have killed the Al Masih, son of Maryam, messenger of God!" And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

Gospel said:

Matthew 27
(38) At the same time two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right hand and one on the left.
(50) And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and gave up His spirit.

The clue is in your quote.
4:157   And their saying: "We have killed the Al Masih, son of Maryam, messenger of God!" And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty

QuoteSo please let me understand your position against the Quran and Gospel. How could you said that Isa is Jesus based on Gospel reference and at the same time they weren't the same person when we having contradiction?

No idea how you arrived at that from my post. I have not said they weren?t the same.  Quran CORRECTS the ?misconception? that he was killed, as your quote of 4.157 is showing, they 'believed' they had killed him.

QuoteNo matter how hard I try, the final conclusion based on your explanation is Isa and Jesus are the same person at the day they were born, and they are not at the day they were died.

Again, no idea how you arrived at that conclusion from my post. They are the same person. Jesus in 19 is the same Jesus in Luke 1.

QuoteAnd here is another verse to ponder:

19:33   "And peace be upon me (Isa) the day I was born, and the day I die, and the Day I am resurrected alive."

yes, that does appear to actually match the Christian belief of death and resurrection doesn?t it.
:peace: ;)

Quote from: huruf on March 10, 2012, 12:30:06 PM
Salaam, Ayisha,

Yes it was a slip of the keys that I wrote that there is malik of misr in the Gospel, of course I meant to write The Qur'an.


Therefore thre is just in fir3aun in the Qur'an, and I would refer you to several threads started by Pazuzu regarding the identity of that malik and that fir3aun, and the identity of that misr. Everything is already explained in those threads and it makes no sense to repeat it somewhere else.

And still all you are doing is repeating your opinion that Isa is the Jesus in the Bible, but no proof. You haven't shown that there are two Maryam in the Qur'an.

Salaam

:peace:
Any links to those threads for me to read?

Salaam to all :sun: :peace:


LETS SEE HOW MANY MARYS in GOSPEL : Reliable testimony?

HOW many women at the tomb?

Four ?    Luke 24.10: "It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles."
   
Three ?    Mark 16.1:"And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him."

Two ? Matthew 28.1:"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."

One ?John 20.1: "The first day of the week came Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, to the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre."

None ! 1 Corinthians 15.4,8: "He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me."


MAKE YOUR BETS...pools are open >:D

From Merest Shadow to Queen of Heaven

Who?

Scripture may have very little to say about Jesus; it has even less to say about his supposed mother. For the earliest Christians ?Mary Mother of Jesus? almost did not exist: they were not interested in the nativity of their god-man ? it was his re-birth after death that mattered. Paul does not mention Mary (or Joseph) at all, and in the gospels, the shadowy figure of Mary, destined to become the most pre-eminent of all the saints and Queen of Heaven, at best, is a two-dimensional nonentity.

In the gospel pageant, ?Mary? appears in several scenes. In all of them she is a passive character, habitually in the background and virtually without a voice (she speaks in total three times, twice in a single sentence). She is not described (but then, none of the gospel characters are!); nor do we know her age. She is a bit player, primarily with ?witnessing? parts. We learn nothing of her origins, save for the family connection to cousin Elizabeth and as betrothed of Joseph. She appears first in the so-called ?Annunciation? (at the well ..?) when an angel maps out her career. With little ado, she accepts the ?blessed? role revealed to her (Luke 1.38) and rushes off to spend three months in the mountains with the pregnant Elizabeth (she who will mother John the Baptist). In this, her biggest scene, Mary delivers her only set-piece speech (such articulation at this gob-smacking moment!) ? the so-called 'Magnificat':


        My soul doth magnify the Lord,
        And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
        For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden:
        for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
        For he that is mighty hath done to me great things;
        and holy is his name.
        And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
        He hath shewed strength with his arm;
        he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
        He hath put down the mighty from their seats,
        He hath filled the hungry with good things;
        and the rich he hath sent empty away.
        He hath helpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
        As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
        (Luke 1.46,55)


God only knows who was also in the room (or was it a cave? ) to record all this! Perhaps she wrote her memoirs. (In truth, the piece is an obvious adaptation of the song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2). But after this soliloquy Mary has not a word to say for herself. She witnesses visits of shepherds and wise men and ?ponders? (Luke 2.16); she is taken to Egypt (Matthew 2.13.18) and brought back to Galilee; she puzzles at her twelve-year old?s claim to messiahship (Luke 2.48,52); she witnesses the turning of water to wine (John 2.1,12); she is rejected by her super-star off-spring (Luke 8. 19,21); she witnesses his crucifixion (John 19.25,27); and she waits for the holy spirit (Acts 1.14). Her ultimate fate is not revealed and she is credited with no role at all in the creation of the Christian Church.


Pagan Model

Yet upon this sketchy outline a full-bodied character was to be fleshed out soon enough by ?creative? Christian scribes. Pagan gods, as often as not, were supposedly sired by virgin goddesses ? quite commonly as a result of impregnation by a sun-beam. The resultant sun-god was depicted as an infant at the breast of his mother ? the ?Madonna and Child? no less! Such iconography is to be found all the way from Egypt to China. The Romans' own virgin goddess, Vesta, was served by women who maintained her perpetual flame and their own chastity for thirty years.

The ?Mary? of the Christians considerably upstaged this achievement by the double whammy of mothering a god and maintaining her virginity for two millennia! But it was to take a few centuries of creative story telling for all the paraphernalia of the pagan myths to be fused into the Christian one.

Rather like a delayed echo of the invented life of the illustrious super-hero himself, Mary?s own ?biography? blossomed over the centuries. Early Christian writers, like Justin and Irenaeus, elevated Mary as a ?second Eve?, her ?obedience? reversing the sin of the original garden dweller.

Justin ?Martyr?, a Greek from Palestine who had fled to Ephesus at the time of Bar Kochbar?s revolt, adopted the embryonic Christianity he found in the city with relish. But Justin?s enthusiasm came with a prior familiarity of Greek classics. In his adopted city the venerable cult of the moon goddess Artemis (or Diana as the Romans called her) had been the eternally virgin protector of youth, chastity and fertility for a millennium. In the process the city had become a wealthy place of pilgrimage ? the world?s first bankers had been the priests of Artemis.


Becomes a Virgin

Justin set about infusing his Christianity with aspects of the rival cult. Despite the opposition of ?established? Christians, Justin insistently embellished the skimpy biblical Mary story with the idea that Mary had delivered a ?Virgin Birth?. This belief, so he himself admitted, was based solely on ?predictions set forth by the blessed prophets?, in other words, upon the notorious mistranslation of Isaiah 7.14 (in which ?virgin? was substituted for ?young woman?; see: Lying for God ? Virgin Birth Fraud) to be found in the Septuagint. In the context in which upstart Christianity was competing with a far more ancient faith, it is no surprise that the Christ followers eventually settled on a ?Virgin Birth?. The ?miraculous? arrival provided a useful rebuttal to early critics of the Christians, who were suggesting that if the Jesus figure had ever existed, he had a rather dubious parentage.

The next major contribution to the Mary legend came in the mid-second century, with the so-called ?Protevangelium of James?, a document so clearly fictitious that it has been rejected even by the Catholic church since the Renaissance.

Nonetheless, this pious nonsense underpins much of current belief regarding the Blessed Virgin, providing such information as the names of Mary?s parents and grandparents, a story of her prodigious childhood ("left at the Temple from the age of three" ? an event without precedent in Jewish custom!); her early commitment to chastity (why ? did she know what was coming?); daily chats with angels; and a ?safe? marriage at puberty to the elderly widower Joseph. With this embellished ?history?, Mary began her ascendancy as a mediator, more approachable than Christ because of her ?humbling? femininity. Artistic representations of her began to proliferate, uncannily like the prototype they were based upon ? Artemis, the goddess with more than a thousand years of marketing success behind her!

A century later the ?Gospel of the Nativity of Mary? (well, we can never have enough gospels, can we?) added background detail. This story of Mary?s birth to ancient parents Anne and Joachim was a simple re-write of Samuel?s birth to Hannah and Elkanah already to be found in 1 Samuel. But now we learn of such delights as Mary?s grandmother?s seven marriages. Six husbands were dispatched by the Lord for feeling lust while having sex. Thankfully the seventh was inert during the sinful act, or we would not have had Anne, Mary, Jesus and the whole nine yards!


Remains a Virgin

Though the gospels clearly stated that Jesus had four brothers and two (unnamed) sisters the theologians of Christ were disposed to argue that the virgin "purity" of their goddess was not to be compromised: she had, they insisted, remained a virgin throughout the whole birthing process.

        "In the 4th century the idea came to prominence that Mary's hymen had remained intact through the birth of Jesus... Mary's in partu virginity was an issue addressed by all the great theologians of the period."

        ? D. Hampson, After Christianity, p189.


As the doctrine of Mary's 'perpetual virginity' became widespread so did confusion among theologians over the supposed siblings of Jesus. They had to be harmonized with the new dogma, so 'brothers and sisters' became 'cousins, step-siblings', etc.

The fourth century was particularly favourable to the thriving Mary cult, largely thanks to the peripatetic activities of the Empress Helena. As mother of Constantine, she probably felt a particular affinity with the original mother of a Lord of the World. Helena positively invented ?ecclesiastical archaeology? (or at least the shrine-creation business).

Everywhere she went in the ?Holy Land? she found ?evidence? of Christ and ordered the construction of churches at the spot: the cave of the nativity (or so the locals said), the house of the last supper (or so the locals said), the garden of Gethsemane (or so the...), the hill of crucifixion, the empty tomb, the cross itself, even the very tree from which the wood was cut! And sure enough, Helena ?found? the very location (a cave) in Nazareth where the angel Gabriel had made his ?announcement? to Mary. Like every other shrine it thereafter became the recipient of imperial patronage and profitable pilgrimage. With the shrine went a Mary festival, the ?Annunciation?. Unfortunately for the town of Capernaum ? supposedly the chief site of Jesus? ministry ? Helena did not get that far ? and the town was lost to history!



Immaculate Deception

In the fifth century, the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) accorded Mary the title ?Theotokos? (?Mother of God?).

        "The surest protection against Christological heresy was the affirmation and veneration of Mary as Theotokos."

        ? Varghese, God Sent, p43.


In other words, here was an attempt to call a halt to the continuing speculation as to just how far human, and just how far god, was the divine carpenter. He was God, part of the "Trinity" no less, and Mary was his Mother.



The "Trinity" crowns Mary "Queen of Heaven."

How many Gods is that?

Ephesus, of course, had long been the home of the Mother of God, though through that period she had been happy with the name Cybele, the mother and consort of the dying/reborn god Attis. In the Roman period the Phrygian Cybele was conflated with the Greek Artemis. With a certain amount of desecration and rebuilding, the sanctity business continued as usual.

The Byzantine Romans had a particular affection for court ritual and regalia and Mary as a queen, complete with crown and sceptre, appealed much more to imperial appetites than a shadowy peasant woman. Like Jesus himself, she had ?gone royal? and was elevated into the sainthood.The sixth century Council of Constantinople (553 AD) went on to endorse as dogma Mary's "perpetual virginity". The "purity" of virginity, it seems, is closer to the "purity" of God.



Getting a Death or two

The first four hundred years of Christian testimony are silent regarding the end of the Blessed Virgin. But after the Council of Ephesus the 'tradition' emerged that, following on from JC's instructions from the cross, the disciple John had taken Mary to Ephesus ? surprise, surprise! ? and had built her a house in which to live out her days. Glory be, you can still visit it!

        "He said to His mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then He said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' From that hour the disciple took her into his own household."

        ? John 19.26.27.


Meanwhile, a rival 'tradition' surrounding Mary's death had arisen in Jerusalem and here they had an empty tomb to prove it, located in the Kidron Valley, on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, and convenient for pilgrims. That claim has itself been contested by the extravagant Abbey of the Dormition, built across town by the Kaiser at the beginning of the 20th century. Here again, 'tradition' suggests early pilgrims regarded the site as the place were Mary 'fell asleep'.

By the seventh century, creative writers had replaced the limp ending of the Mary story with something altogether more satisfying. John Damascene (together with Gregory of Tours) developed the idea that Mary?s corporal body (and not just her spirit) had been ?assumed? into Heaven (again, paralleling the career of her illustrious son). John lived in Umayyad Damascus and his inspiration may well have been the claim made by upstart Islam that Muhammad had 'ascended to Heaven', supposedly in the year 620 (Qur'an, surah 17.1).

The doctrine of Mary's Assumption was defined as dogma as recently as 1950 by Pope Pius XII. In his Munificentissimus Deus, the pope left open the question of Mary's actual death, with the result that Catholics differ on whether Mary actually died before she was "assumed" into heaven and, if so, whether her soul arrived three days ahead of her body. The Orthodox Church uses the word Dormition for the same preposterous event.



Rise and Rise

In 787 the prelates and bishops again convened in Nicaea. Mary's continuing promotion was once more on the agenda. Earlier in the century, with relentless pressure coming from Islam, two emperors ? Leo III (717 - 741) and his son Constantine V (741 - 775) ? had outlawed "idolatry" and its plethora of "holy icons". But their "iconoclasm" had wiped out much of the income of hundreds of monasteries and shrines and had set the Orthodox Church against the imperial court. Empress Irene, acting as regent for her young son, Constantine VI, caved in to religious pressure and convened the 7th Ecumenical Council.

The Council energetically endorsed the acceptance of icons, and in particular the worship of Mary:

        "The Lord, the apostles. and the prophets have taught us that we must venerate in the first place the Holy Mother of God, who is above all the heavenly powers. If any one does not confess that the holy, ever virgin Mary, really and truly Mother of God, is higher than all creatures visible and invisible, and does not implore with a sincere faith, her intercession, given her powerful access to our God born of her, let him be anathema."

        ?  Varghese, God Sent, p16.


By the ninth century Mary had all but eclipsed the god-man himself ? and Mary could be whatever the Church hierarchy wanted her to be.


Sources:
Graham Phillips, The Marian Conspiracy (Sidgwick & Jackson, 2000)
Marina Warner, Alone of All Her Sex (Picador, 1976)
John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels (Harper, 1996)
John Shelby Spong, Born of a Woman (Harper, 1992)
Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version (Penguin, 1991)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984)
Riane Eisle, The Chalice & the Blade (Harper Collins, 1987)
Ruth Harris, Lourdes: Body & Spirit in the Secular Age (Allen Lane, 19990
Roy A. Varghese, God Sent - A History of the Accredited Apparitions of Mary (Crossroad, 2000)


After this i must Say again as i and others said in this and posts before, MARY is not MYRYAM,
AQ IS very Simple detailed and complete  to understand... we must stop translating names acording to Bible.. a bible wich still is considered to have tons of mistakes,errors and inacurate acounts.. New jerusalem Jesus is nothing to do with ISA , Myryam(Prophetess and IsA mother is Myryam sister of Musa and Harun) theres not 2 or 3 haruns nor iIbrahims, so theres no 2 or 3 Maryam or Isa..
its My humble opinion only, and correct me if im wrong.. AQ Excels all Knowledge and is to be taken as THE KANON to be use wisely and not acording or equalizing to old historical books like upanishadas, bible, vedas, ahadith, whatever...[/b][/b]

SAlaam

Salam

^ Whether it's reliable or not,  it's a fact that prophet overlooking much of those alkitab verses during his time.

[5:15]
يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ قَدْ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولُنَا يُبَيِّنُ لَكُمْ كَثِيرًا مِّمَّا كُنْتُمْ تُخْفُونَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَعْفُواْ عَن كَثِيرٍ قَدْ جَاءَكُم مِّنَ اللّهِ نُورٌ وَكِتَابٌ مُّبِينٌ

So, at least, there is portions of truth in those Alkitabs. The major ones which was concelaed  was  corected  and explain by Quran. Allah clearly stated there's a light/nur and guidance/hudan in taurat and Injell [5:46]. Therefore, it s strongly stated, for those who received Injell, should judge/yahkumu based on it [5:47].

To TS and those who claim Yehoshua is not Isa.

1.  if Esau = Isa,  just give proof based on aramaic root and etimology  that עֵשָׂו/Esav (in aramaic) = عِيسَى/Isa (in arabic), and please bring the mean of those word as well.
2.  Which Esau, Moses nephew, from his sister Miriam?  please give further evidences based on Quran  that there are Zechariah who took care of Miriam livin during Moses timelife?
3. Also light me on evidence that  Injeel that the prophet has overlooking much of the verses [5:15] is not the injeel which exist during prophet lifetime


Thank you

Quoteif Esau = Isa,  just give proof based on aramaic root and etimology  that עֵשָׂו/Esav (in aramaic) = عِيسَى/Isa (in arabic), and please bring the mean of those word as well.

Salams...

This has already been proven.

But we have to depart from the assumption that Arabic is older than Aramaic. 

The name  "Isa" (or "Esa") is spelled   عيسى   in Arabic, and contains a silent letter at the end, called "aliph maqsoora". That is the letter  ى.

Because the Aramaic and so-called "Hebrew" dialects do NOT have this letter, they replace it with a "w" sound, and render it as  Esaw - Esav - Esau.  Try looking it up in an Arabic Old Testament. There you will find the name appearing as    عيسو  , (in the story of Jacob's twin sons, Issac and Esau), where the letter و   corresponds to the "w", in the Aramaic dialect.  The correct rendering, however, should be  عيسى NOT  عيسو  .

Technically, this means that   the Arabic  Esa corresponds to the Aramaic Esaw.

Now, Yehoshua is a completely different name.  It's Arabic equivalent is clearly   Yesu3, and is spelled as such:     يسوع  .

Even in Greek, the two words are spelled differently, although their pronunciation is the same: Iessous. (Please look it up yourself). This is another element which contributed to the confusion.

Conclusion:

Esaw(Aramaic) = Esa (Arabic) = Esau (English) = Ἡσαῦ (Greek)
Yehoshua (Aramaic) = Yesu3 (Arabic) = Joshua / Jesus (English = Ἰησοῦς (Greek)

The etymology proves they are not the same name. Hence, the claim that  "Esa" is the Arabic version of "Yeshua" is FALSE. 

Peace, and regards.

Yahia, if we take it means John, which I do not think, is said in the Bible to have been beheaded on the orders of Herod, and the way he is depicted in the Bible also reflects a grim, fiery,  expression whcih contrasts with what the Qur'an says about Yahia:

He is given the book of wisdom, tenderness, purity and devoutness, kind to his parents, no arrogance or uppity and

And peace on him the day he was born and the day he dies and the day he is raised alive. "

So, where is his beheading?


Notice this:

23.
Then sent We our messengers in succession: every time there came to a people their messenger, they accused him of falsehood: so We made them follow each other (in punishment): We made them as a tale (that is told): So away with a people that will not believe! (44) Then We sent Moses and his brother Aaron, with Our Signs and authority manifest, (45) To Pharaoh and his Chiefs: But these behaved insolently: they were an arrogant people. (46) They said: "Shall we believe in two men like ourselves? And their people are subject to us!" (47) So they accused them of falsehood, and they became of those who were destroyed. (48) And We gave Moses the Book, in order that they might receive guidance. (49) And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground, affording rest and security and furnished with springs."

If we go by all that comes before and the way it is explaining, does this not signal that Maryam and 3isa are Musa successors?


Salaam

Quote from: Pazuzu on March 12, 2012, 02:17:22 AM
Salams...

This has already been proven.

But we have to depart from the assumption that Arabic is older than Aramaic. 

The name  "Isa" (or "Esa") is spelled   عيسى   in Arabic, and contains a silent letter at the end, called "aliph maqsoora". That is the letter  ى.

Because the Aramaic and so-called "Hebrew" dialects do NOT have this letter, they replace it with a "w" sound, and render it as  Esaw - Esav - Esau.  Try looking it up in an Arabic Old Testament. There you will find the name appearing as    عيسو  , (in the story of Jacob's twin sons, Issac and Esau), where the letter و   corresponds to the "w", in the Aramaic dialect.  The correct rendering, however, should be  عيسى NOT  عيسو  .

Technically, this means that   the Arabic  Esa corresponds to the Aramaic Esaw.

Now, Yehoshua is a completely different name.  It's Arabic equivalent is clearly   Yesu3, and is spelled as such:     يسوع  .

Even in Greek, the two words are spelled differently, although their pronunciation is the same: Iessous. (Please look it up yourself). This is another element which contributed to the confusion.

Conclusion:

Esaw(Aramaic) = Esa (Arabic) = Esau (English) = Ἡσαῦ (Greek)
Yehoshua (Aramaic) = Yesu3 (Arabic) = Joshua / Jesus (English = Ἰησοῦς (Greek)

The etymology proves they are not the same name. Hence, the claim that  "Esa" is the Arabic version of "Yeshua" is FALSE. 

Peace, and regards.

Salam

Thank you.

CMIIW.
So far you are asaying Esau= Isa, because the etymology proved it, correct?
Also you are saying this etymology based solely on assumption  that Arabic is older than Aramaic, correct?

Arabic is more older than Aramaic? assumption? Please do not use dzana/asumption. Just tell me direct, are u sure arabic is much older than aramic? please kindly give irefutable evidences and references.

Please  note that I also asked for Esau (aramaic) and Isa (arabic) literal meaning. This need to be address as their meaning should be, more or less,  identical. (despite anyone claim on bible origen, and assumption that arabic is older than aramaic)

If Im not mistaken,  'Yehoshua' comes from two root

יְהֹוָה/ Yehovah; and
יָשַׁע/yasha`

Since I'm not well acquainted with aramaic primitive root, could you also please give literal meaning for  'Yehoshua' 

thank you

Quote from: Ayisha on March 11, 2012, 05:12:32 AM
:peace:
Any links to those threads for me to read?

I am de worst searcher I know o this kind of thing. Best if you look for threads started by Pazuzu,  there is a collection of htem alll very interesting.

Salaam

Quote from: Pazuzu on March 12, 2012, 02:17:22 AM
Salams...

This has already been proven.

But we have to depart from the assumption that Arabic is older than Aramaic. 

The name  "Isa" (or "Esa") is spelled   عيسى   in Arabic, and contains a silent letter at the end, called "aliph maqsoora". That is the letter  ى.

Because the Aramaic and so-called "Hebrew" dialects do NOT have this letter, they replace it with a "w" sound, and render it as  Esaw - Esav - Esau.  Try looking it up in an Arabic Old Testament. There you will find the name appearing as    عيسو  , (in the story of Jacob's twin sons, Issac and Esau), where the letter و   corresponds to the "w", in the Aramaic dialect.  The correct rendering, however, should be  عيسى NOT  عيسو  .

Technically, this means that   the Arabic  Esa corresponds to the Aramaic Esaw.

Now, Yehoshua is a completely different name.  It's Arabic equivalent is clearly   Yesu3, and is spelled as such:     يسوع  .

Even in Greek, the two words are spelled differently, although their pronunciation is the same: Iessous. (Please look it up yourself). This is another element which contributed to the confusion.

Conclusion:

Esaw(Aramaic) = Esa (Arabic) = Esau (English) = Ἡσαῦ (Greek)
Yehoshua (Aramaic) = Yesu3 (Arabic) = Joshua / Jesus (English = Ἰησοῦς (Greek)

The etymology proves they are not the same name. Hence, the claim that  "Esa" is the Arabic version of "Yeshua" is FALSE. 

Peace, and regards.

The only place Esaw/Esau is mentioned is in the old testament, and it was in hebrew, is about Esau who was the twin of Jacob, their father was Isaac, not Jacob's twins Isaac and Esau but Isaac's twins Jacob and Esau, so nothing to do with Moses and his sister there either.

To claim all this proves that Jesus is not the same as Isa is ridiculous and why would God correct what is clearly in Luke and the NEW testament about this man and why wasn't any of this in the old testament? Do you think God was correcting something that wasn't even IN the Jewish religion or books??

Salam
I have an amazing theory :&. I can?t prove it but it seems logic.

The starting point is that if isa is not jesus then where is isa? is it possible that he completely disappeared ?

What is the problem if myriam was the older sister of Moise and aaron and mother of isa ?
This hypothesis can make isa a bit younger that moise.
Quran says that myriam is sister of aaron and that aaron is brother of moses as that myriam is daughter of imran
Bible says that imaran had three childs, moses, aaron and miriam (called a prophetess)

From quranic story of moses, God "spoke" to his sister and mother. God Also "spoke" to mother of isa and to his mother. Coincidences ?

Now, consider the hypothysis that isaa=Esau as Pazuzu said.
When we search for Esau in genesis, we found one. He is the twin and older brother of Jacob

From wikipedia (esau)
In Genesis, Esau returned to his brother Jacob being famished from the fields. He begged his twin brother to give him some "red pottage". (paralleling his nickname, Hebrew: אדום‎`Edom, meaning "Red".) Jacob offered to give Esau a bowl of stew in exchange for his birthright (the right to be recognized as firstborn), and Esau agreed. Thus Jacob fairly buys/exchanges Esau's birthright. This is believed to be the origin of the English phrase "mess of pottage".

And also
Hebrews 12:15?16 depicts Esau as unspiritual for thoughtlessly throwing away his birthright. Romans 9:13 references the "hatred" for Esau.

Esau, in rabbinic theology,  is the father of occidental civilisation, including roman empire (?) , and he is the father of Christians. He symbolize strength without mind compared to his brother, Jacob, inactive and ?student?.  :voodoo:

The metaphoric is interesting. Keep it in mind. "prophecy of the only Esau we have, father of christians, stolen by a father of jews"

Now consider that Quran don?t speak about such a brother of Jacob. So we can consider the story a false. Such Esau may probably never existed.

Where is then the true isa = Esau ?
Confusion between Esau and Yeshau is well known and was underlined by Pazuzu.
Messianic jews says that yechua is jesus but we know that isa=esau is the messie according to Pazuzu hypothesis.
The true isa hidden behind a "yeshua" ? Why not ?
If we search for Yeshua in bible we found two. Isn?t that a problem ?.
Is it possible that one of them is the true isa and the other the true yeshua (verses 6-86 and 38-48 ) ?

The first yeshua is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_the_High_Priest

and the second is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua

what is interesting with the second candidate is that he is :
1-   Contemporary of Moses and can be son of Miriam
2-   Named as successor by Moses before he died to conquest canaan (fulfilling prophecy of messie ?). An Hero.
3-   He died old and had sufficient time to give ?words of god?. He had more time than Moses and Jesus of Nazareth and true torah was between his hands.

The jesus we know had not fulfilled any prophecy. He is a "god" who was crucified by romans in a big movie (shobbiha lahom)! The political aims of scenarists is underlined by the post of pazuzu about Paul (saul) and could be division of the jewish population by religion, as we see today in our world.

According to this incredible theory, injeel could be completely integrated within bible; stolen or partially forgotten (we found again the story of esau). A false injeel could have been delivered to Christians by false writers according to stories upholded by old Christians. "Christians" have to love their ennemies....
Such big lies would not astonish me from rabbinic scholars.
Christians from a stupid guy and muslims from a bastard, son of slave (hagar) :voodoo:. This is a human writing.

Notice also that mary, sister of aaron, was punished by god in the bible for wanting to be as prophet as moses. She was made leprous. An interesting metaphoric ? :voodoo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam

Of course, all this is conjecture.
I have not sufficient knowledge of bible to go further. I repeat, i can't prove it.
A question remains! Where is isa of Quran if he is not jesus ?

Quote from: noshirk on March 25, 2012, 08:25:06 AM
Salam
I have an amazing theory :&. I can?t prove it but it seems logic.

The starting point is that if isa is not jesus then where is isa? is it possible that he completely disappeared ?

Now, consider the hypothysis that isaa=Esau as Pazuzu said.

The jewish dude who got crucified 2000 years ago was named Iashua in Hebrew and Eesoo in Aramaic, due to closeness of Aramaic to Arabic it's natural that Eso become Isa in Arabic.

Iashua and Esau are two different name with different meanings, Esau is 'rough/not smooth/hairy' in Hebrew.
While Iashua means "Yah Saves"..  similarly Iachanan (John) means "Yah is Gracious".

During Esau and Isaac time they didn't refer God as Yahveh / YHVH most probably they refer god as "EL".
The introduction of "YHVH" (meaning "He who is" in Hebrew) only came some generation after Moses. The origin was due to the answer of "I AM WHO I AM" (Ehyeh asher Ehyeh) when Moses ask "Who are you?". And most probably even Moses refer to God as "EL" or any other names but not YHVH.

As thus it's nearly impossible for the name Iashua and Iochanan to exist within Moses lifetime..
Since Yahveh is not yet a common name of God during Moses time..

Regarding the 'prophecy' of Messiah, as shown in Quran by referring to the title of "Al Masih Isa" give stronger push towards mapping "Isa Al Masih" in the Quran with "Iashua Ha Mossiach" in the Gospel.

Some Israelites folks has different conception of what "Messiah" will / should be.. as thus the prophecy.
Many of them (not all) rejected Mr. Iashua as Messiah (The choosen one). The Quran give a stronger clarification that Iashua that you reject is the messiah and the prophecy has been fulfilled.

Having said that; I enjoy reading the Gospel especially Matt, Mark and Luke. I agree with a lot of what Iashua said.
And the same as me he seems to be anti-sectarian. As shown by the 'good samaritan' parable and his condemnation of the hypocrisy from organized religion as built by the jewish rabbis, furthermore he called them 'dumb', 'blind', 'hypocrites' and 'vipers' '.  There are many striking similarities between Judaism and 'the jewish rabbis' in the gospel and sunni/shiites's clerics and "Organized Religion called Islam" as commonly found today.

Whether Iashua really did exist or not it doesn't matter to me as his teaching as recorded in the gospel has certainly inspired me.

Salam / Peace

Quote from: Jafar on March 25, 2012, 02:15:54 PM

As thus it's nearly impossible for the name Iashua and Iochanan to exist within Moses lifetime..
Since Yahveh is not yet a common name of God during Moses time..

salam

i dont know hebrew but i know logic
a yechoua existed in the lifetime of moses since it is the name of his successor.
salam

Quote from: noshirk on March 25, 2012, 03:35:03 PM
salam

i dont know hebrew but i know logic
a yechoua existed in the lifetime of moses since it is the name of his successor.
salam

That's Yehoshua.. slightly different variation..
Yehoshua was born as Hoshea later on Moses renamed him as Yehoshua..
Look like it's Moses who first invented Yahveh name....

Salam / Peace

QuoteA question remains! Where is isa of Quran if he is not jesus ?

The Isa (P) of the quran was a messenger sent by Allah to the Bani Israel, not too long after Moses' (P) time, when they were still a unified group,  and before they were scattered to the four winds due to the Babylonian Exile. This means Isa was an older figure than Yeshua, the controversial trouble-maker of Palestine.

I have been trying to prove that all the messengers mentioned in the Quran lived and preached in the same geographical region, (the Towns surronding the Mother of Towns), and their stories are the stories of Muhammad's ancestors. This means that Muhammad (P) was preaching to his people the fate of their fathers who lived before them in the same region.

For example, if you look at Chapter 43 of the Quran (starting from verse #24), Muhammad (P) begins by relating to his people the story of the Patriarch Abraham (P):

{He said: "What if I brought to you better a guidance than what you found your fathers upon?" They said: "We are disbelievers in that with which you have been sent." * Consequently, We took revenge upon them. So see how was the consequences of the deniers. * ..... * Indeed, I have given these people and their fathers to enjoy, until the truth came to them, and a clarifying messenger (Muhammad) * And when the truth came to them, they said: "This is magic, and we reject it." * And they said: "If only this Qur'an was sent down to a man of greatness from the two towns?!" *....*Can you (O Muhammad) make the deaf hear, or can you guide the blind and those who are far astray? *...*You (Muhammad) shall hold on to that which is inspired to you; for you are on a straight path. * And this is indeed a reminder for you and your people; and you will all be questioned. * And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before you (O Muhammad) "Did We ever appoint gods besides the Almighty to be served?" * And We sent Musa with Our signs to Far3oun and his commanders; so he said: "I am a messenger of the Lord of all peoples" *...*And when the son of Maryam was put forth as an example, your people (O Muhammad) turned away from it. *...* He (Isa) was no more than a servant whom We blessed, and We made him an example for the Children of Israel.}...[43:24-59]

As you can see, Muhammad relates to his people how THEIR FATHERS had rejected the messengers who came before them. He recounts to them the story of Musa and Far3oun, then immediately moves to talk about Isa, who came shortly after Musa, and was a messenger sent EXCLUSIVELY to Bani Israel. This means that the Israelites where still a group f tightly unified clans, and living in one limited region, when Isa was sent to them to restore Musa's Law, a law that was still fresh in their memory.

This cannot be Yeshua of Palestine, who lived in a multicultural society of Jerusalem, which harbored Jews, pagans, and Romans.

Muhammad did not live in Palestine, neither did his fathers, to whom he is recounting these stories.

As for your question of what happened to Isa, the Quran is clear that he lived until middle-age (he preached to his people as a youngster, under 20 years of age, and as a middle-aged man, possibly in his 50's). He died a natural death and was exalted (raised in status) by Allah. And on the Era of Resurrection (NOT BEFORE THAT), he will be a witness against the Israelites, as an attestation to the lies that they made up about him.

Peace...

Thank you Pazuzu for your interest

It?s you who interested me in stories about prophets.

I have two questions for you.
What is your main argument for rejecting the fact that isa is the nephew of Moses ?

According to bible, Imran has three childs (Moses,Aaron and miriam).
According to Quran, literally, we find the same family with same names.
Is it all coincidences?

Second question:
3:33 God has selected Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran over the worlds.

Why family of Imran is so important is there is only isa as prophet ?

We know from quran that isa studied thorah and injeel (3:48; 5:110). Then we can deduce that isa had the true version of thora, with no alterations, between his hands (5:46).
Injeel and thora are strangely linked in quran. Injeel appeared 12 times, Thorah 16 times, and they appeared in common 10 times (so injeel only two times and thorah only six times). In the 10 common times, they were never opposed.

I am now quite sure that Jesus of Palestine is not isa.

4-157: 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

It is clear. They didn?t kill him. They didn?t crucify him. All conjectures.
Any trace of any suffering of isa in quran.
Genealogy of biblical Jesus is clearly impossible (no genetic relation with his ?father? joseph).

Dear Pazuzu;
You accept that, by twisting tongues, isa became Yeshua of palestine. Why can?t you accept that with the same twisting tongue, isa became also Yeshua of canaan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua
Really, that Yeshua fulfilled every thing we can wait from the messiah. Isaa succeeded (61-14). Even the fact you underlined that he was sent to bani Israel match. Isaa died normally while partially rejected (3-55).
The hypothesis that Joshua was child of the sister of moses suffices to ?close the case? and fill all the blanks. Moses liberated Jews from Firaoun but it is Joshua who established the kingdom and won all the battles.

However, this assumption is probably unprovable.
But if isa is the nephew of moses then it is logic to assume that he is his successor.

The main objection for me is why quran is not more precise on what really happened after the death of moses ? However, it seems that it is not the only puzzle we found in the quran.



salam

salam

Other question :
Why joshua was designed as successor of Moise when there was a certain aaron around ?
Bible probably response: Because aaron was also jealous, like Miriam, from Moses. He was not allowed by God to enter the promise land.

Now, lets resume, according to bible:
Esau, Miriam, Aaron disqualified. :voodoo:
Is it possible that god made such mistakes when choosing prophets?

more funny things

I have read the story of Joshua son of Nun according to bible
http://biblescripture.net/Joshua.html
it is very impressive.
Can such a prophet be absent from Quran ?

Notice that ?muslims scholars? says (I ask forgiveness for such reference) that the boy with Moses in the travel (18-60) is that Yoshua (ibn nun!!).
The funny thing is when I searched nun  in web I found this:
?A nun is a woman who has taken vows committing her life to her religion.[1] She may be an ascetic who voluntarily chooses to leave mainstream society and live her life in prayer and contemplation in a monastery or convent.?
Very funny no!
So I searched more and I found this:
http://www.edenics.net/english-word-origins.aspx?word=NUN
and this
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_does_the_word_nun_come_from

Italian nonna, French nonne?.very very funny.
Unfortunately, I am not a linguist.

However ?Hebrew? says that nun is a fish ! (the story of verses 18-60? contains fishes also).

27:76 This Qur'an tells to the Children of Israel most of that which they are in dispute over.

2:113 And the Jews say: "The Nazarenes have no basis," and the Nazarenes say: "The Jews have no basis," while they are both reciting the Book! Similarly, those who do not know have said the same thing. God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection

10:93 And We helped the Children of Israel reach a place of sanctity, and We provided them from the good things, and they did not differ until the knowledge came to them. Your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection for what they differed

salam

 :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: Good One Pazuzu

59:21 Had We sent down this Quran to a mountain, you would have seen it trembling, crumbling, out of concern from God. And such are the examples We put forth for the people, that they may reflect.


more funny things about fishes:

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nun_(Bible):
In Aramaic, "nun" means "fish". Thus the Midrash tells: "[T]he son of him whose name was as the name of a fish would lead them [the Israelites] into the land." (Genesis Rabba 97:3.)

From Quran (discussion between Moses and "the boy"):
18:61 But when they reached the junction that was in-between, they forgot their fish, and it was able to make its way back to the sea in a stream.
18:62 And when they passed further on, he said to his youth: "Bring us our lunch; we have found much fatigue in this journey of ours."
18:63 He said: "Do you remember when we rested upon the rock? I forgot the fish, and it was the devil who made me forget to remember it. It made its way back to the sea amazingly!"


How a fish can go back to the sea alone ? 18-63 says it is amazing!
But the response of Moses is also amazing!

18:64 He said: "That is what we have been seeking!" So they went back retracing their steps.

No comments!
"Do you remember when we rested upon the rock? (18-63)

now read to the end of the story until (18-82)
in wich level (third, fourth ...) the trip of Moses and "the boy" is written?
Only Allah knows!

Not finished. Fish returned to the sea ? What is the sea ?
in the same sourate:
18:109 Say: "If the sea were an inkwell for the words of my Lord, then the sea would run out before the words of my Lord run out;" even if We were to bring another like it as an extension.

What is the extension ?

But not finished!
metaphor can go further:
the word used for sea is bahr, same as used when God splitted the sea when hebrew (Abara) escaped from Faroun. Not only that means that "sea" of Farouan can be a river containing fishes but also, apparently, the "sea" words of God have been also splitted in that moment in two fractions. But words of God are not finished, even if "an extension" is brought

"Do you remember when we rested upon the rock? (18-63)
Jews have Talmud, Muslim have hadiths, Christians have books relating hadiths about a crucified guy who failed quite every thing, even to assume human kind suffering.
Now the funniest question is, where is the injeel ?
Bible says that "Esau" had his prophety stolen by his twin !!!

salam

Peace noshirk,

I don't believe you (or Pazuzu) are correct on this subject, largely for reasons related to the Hebrew language and how the Jewish scriptures handle issues of genealogy.  But I see no need to argue over it.   :peace:  But let me ask:  What would be gained if you were correct?

Peace,
Joel

Which subject?

If you mean who was 3isa, I do not think that the hebrew genealogy has much weight in the matter, since we are talking about the 3isa, prophet about which the qur'an says something. Nowehere says the Qur'an that it is speaking about any hebrew genealogy, and speaks of 3isa from direct knowledge not from quoting any source whatsoever. Whether any study of any hebrew matter says this or that, that cannot undo what the Qur'an says, otherwise, we would not be speaking about the 3isa of the Qur'an, but about some other question which has nothing to do with the Qur'an and which should be examined just as any other historical question and with escatly the same objectivity.

Salaam

Quote from: huruf on March 29, 2012, 09:23:50 AM
Which subject?

If you mean who was 3isa, I do not think that the hebrew genealogy has much weight in the matter, since we are talking about the 3isa, prophet about which the qur'an says something. Nowehere says the Qur'an that it is speaking about any hebrew genealogy, and speaks of 3isa from direct knowledge not from quoting any source whatsoever. Whether any study of any hebrew matter says this or that, that cannot undo what the Qur'an says, otherwise, we would not be speaking about the 3isa of the Qur'an, but about some other question which has nothing to do with the Qur'an and which should be examined just as any other historical question and with escatly the same objectivity.

Salaam

Yes, the subject of who Isa actually is.  The issue of Hebrew genealogy is an issue, if for no other reason than the number of posts on this thread that have cited genealogy in the Qur'an and the Bible as evidence. Once someone brings it into the discussion as evidence, than that evidence becomes relevant and up for discussion.  Correct?

And since the Qur'an mentions stories that are also cited in books that were considered scripture at the time of the prophet, then those books and the languages that they were written do have bearing in determining who Isa was.

In which case, a few things need to be considered.  Miriam (mother of Jesus) was a descendant of Aaron in the gospels, too.  Elizabeth, who was her cousin, was married to Zachariah, who was a descendant of Aaron.  Since he was in Aaron's family, he had to marry another descendant of Aaron in order to do service in the temple.  So, it naturally follows that Elizabeth was an Aaronite.  And if Miriam and Elizabeth were cousins, guess what tribe Miriam would have been?  She was an Aaronite according to the gospels.

Also, it is highly unlikely that if the Miriam in Sura 19 were literally the sister of Moses and Aaron, they would have called her the "sister of Aaron".  Moses was a much more prominent figure in both the Torah and the Qur'an.  They logically would have called her a sister of Moses.  But since Miriam the mother of Jesus would have only been a descendant of Aaron (and having a child out of wedlock would have disqualified her from marrying within the Aaronite clan, so the phrase was a strong reproach of her pregnancy), it makes much more sense that calling her that was both allegorical and specific to someone descended from Aaron.

Peace,
Joel

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 29, 2012, 10:02:11 AM
Yes, the subject of who Isa actually is.  The issue of Hebrew genealogy is an issue, if for no other reason than the number of posts on this thread that have cited genealogy in the Qur'an and the Bible as evidence. Once someone brings it into the discussion as evidence, than that evidence becomes relevant and up for discussion.  Correct?

Yes, one cannot cherry pick bible quotes as evidence then also criticize the same source.

Quote from: noshirk on March 29, 2012, 05:24:14 AM
How a fish can go back to the sea alone ? 18-63 says it is amazing!

18:60 وإذ and when قال said موسى Moses لفتاه to his boy/youth لا not أبرح I stop حتى until أبلغ I reach مجمع junction البحرين the two waters أو or أمضي I go حقبا a long while
18:61 فلما so when بلغا they reached مجمع junction بينهما between them نسيا forgetful حوتهما their fish فاتخذ so it took سبيله its way في in البحر the water سربا slipping away
18:62 فلما so when جاوزا they had passed beyond قال said لفتاه to his boy/youth آتنا give us غداءنا our breakfast لقد truly لقينا we have suffered من from سفرنا our journey هذا this one نصبا fatigue
18:63 قال said أرأيت have you seen إذ when أوينا we rested إلى to الصخرة the rock فإني so I نسيت forgot الحوت the fish وما and not أنسانيه made me forget it إلا only الشيطان the devil أن lest أذكره I remember it واتخذ and it took سبيله its way في in البحر the water عجبا amazingly

Mudskipper - Fish of Awesomeness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyqEacGGC00&feature=related

Peace

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 29, 2012, 10:02:11 AM
Yes, the subject of who Isa actually is.  The issue of Hebrew genealogy is an issue, if for no other reason than the number of posts on this thread that have cited genealogy in the Qur'an and the Bible as evidence. Once someone brings it into the discussion as evidence, than that evidence becomes relevant and up for discussion.  Correct?

And since the Qur'an mentions stories that are also cited in books that were considered scripture at the time of the prophet, then those books and the languages that they were written do have bearing in determining who Isa was.

In which case, a few things need to be considered.  Miriam (mother of Jesus) was a descendant of Aaron in the gospels, too.  Elizabeth, who was her cousin, was married to Zachariah, who was a descendant of Aaron.  Since he was in Aaron's family, he had to marry another descendant of Aaron in order to do service in the temple.  So, it naturally follows that Elizabeth was an Aaronite.  And if Miriam and Elizabeth were cousins, guess what tribe Miriam would have been?  She was an Aaronite according to the gospels.

Also, it is highly unlikely that if the Miriam in Sura 19 were literally the sister of Moses and Aaron, they would have called her the "sister of Aaron".  Moses was a much more prominent figure in both the Torah and the Qur'an.  They logically would have called her a sister of Moses.  But since Miriam the mother of Jesus would have only been a descendant of Aaron (and having a child out of wedlock would have disqualified her from marrying within the Aaronite clan, so the phrase was a strong reproach of her pregnancy), it makes much more sense that calling her that was both allegorical and specific to someone descended from Aaron.

Peace,
Joel

No. The bible has been used here to uphold a revision of common ideas of who Jesus was, because that same bible has been used to SET from scratch what the Qur'an must mean, taking for granted that the Qur'an cannot contradict the bible, therefore if a party is using the bible, why shouldn't the other party use the bible to disprove the bible?

Those who oppose the views put forward as revision of commonly held beliefs regarding certain passages of the Qur'an pretend that they can use the bible as they please, but at the same time forbid those who do not agree with them to use it. What is that? 
Teh bible is just as any other document: it can be used by anybody to study and critically examine it and extract any conclusion that seems plausible and h9olds water, be it in contradiction of any other part of the bible or not. What is says can be used just as we use any other document, and more so than many other documents because it is not a homogeneous or individual or single text by its own assertion. The biblers ressemble those who are more popist than the pope. They have sacralised the bible. That may be quite valid for those who have faith in it, but as a proof is zilch.

And the Qur'an must be subject to hebrew legends? Than we must admit right here that 3isa was crucified. Because if you say the gospel is true then 3isa was crucified.

So who is cherrypicking? Why do you choose to take some things and leave others aside. You use all or you do not use it at all, right? ?Was 3isa crucified yes or no?

If you say that 3isa was not crucified, then you should not use the bible at all for anything whatsover.

Salaam

Quote from: huruf on March 29, 2012, 01:47:02 PM
No. The bible has been used here to uphold a revision of common ideas of who Jesus was, because that same bible has been used to SET from scratch what the Qur'an must mean, taking for granted that the Qur'an cannot contradict the bible, therefore if a party is using the bible, why shouldn't the other party use the bible to disprove the bible?

Those who oppose the views put forward as revision of commonly held beliefs regarding certain passages of the Qur'an pretend that they can use the bible as they please, but at the same time forbid those who do not agree with them to use it. What is that?

Use the bible as you wish, but you cannot take it out of linguistic, cultural, or historical context.  It is called prooftextng.

Quote from: huruf on March 29, 2012, 01:47:02 PMTeh bible is just as any other document: it can be used by anybody to study and critically examine it and extract any conclusion that seems plausible and h9olds water, be it in contradiction of any other part of the bible or not. What is says can be used just as we use any other document, and more so than many other documents because it is not a homogeneous or individual or single text by its own assertion. The biblers ressemble those who are more popist than the pope. They have sacralised the bible. That may be quite valid for those who have faith in it, but as a proof is zilch.

Presuppose as you wish.  Makes no difference to me, bro.

Quote from: huruf on March 29, 2012, 01:47:02 PMAnd the Qur'an must be subject to hebrew legends? Than we must admit right here that 3isa was crucified. Because if you say the gospel is true then 3isa was crucified.

So who is cherrypicking? Why do you choose to take some things and leave others aside. You use all or you do not use it at all, right? ?Was 3isa crucified yes or no?

If you say that 3isa was not crucified, then you should not use the bible at all for anything whatsover.

Salaam

I never said that it was subject to prior scripture, but if you presume to put the two texts in opposition to one another then you must be able to solidly prove with evidence that the current texts are different than the ones the prophet spoke about.  I think we've been down this road, and there's simply no proof for this supposition at all.

And yes, Isa was crucified.  The Qur'an does not say that he wasn't crucified, it says that the claims of the Jews that they crucified him are false.  This is historically justifiable.  First, the Torah calls for capital crimes to be carried out by stoning or burning, not crucifixion.  The Jewish ruling council would never have been able to execute someone they considered a blasphemer by this method.  Crucifixion was the preferred method of the Romans, which they stole from the Carthaginians.  Isa was put to death by the Romans because the Jewish leaders had been stripped by the Romans of their political authority to carry out the sentences for any capital crimes.  And ultimately, as the Qur'an states, it was God who terminated the life of Isa.  Crucifixion took days normally.  For Isa to be dead after a number of hours (which the gospel accounts attest to) was surprising to the Roman soldiers and the Roman officials who had carried out hundreds of crucifixions in Palestine.

Again, as I said in my first response - what's the point of this perspective?  If you are correct, what does this view accomplish?  You claim I am perpetuating traditional views, and am more of a pope than the pope for using the bible, yet you are insisting on the traditional sunni interpretation of the ayats about Isa and the cross.  Why?

Peace,
Joel

I didn't say you particularly were more popist than the pope, I said something referring to people ing eneral who tend to do that.

QuoteUse the bible as you wish, but you cannot take it out of linguistic, cultural, or historical context.  It is called prooftextng.

Whatever you call it, it doesn't matter you have merely proferred an assertion, you have proved nothing. Pazuzu has tried to prove things, but I haven't seen a single conclusive proof of those who say that he has proved nothing and that he has ignored this or that. I have not seen any proof given by yourself that disprooves anything said by Pazuzu, the hebrew is not going to disproove the Qur'an, which is not hebrew. Bring a proof, conclusive proof that 3iosa refers to Jesus who was crucified according to the gospel.

You claim this:

Quotebut if you presume to put the two texts in opposition to one another then you must be able to solidly prove with evidence that the current texts are different than the ones the prophet spoke about

?Are you serious? What was then the Qur'an talking about when it says that Jesus was not crufied nor was he killed? About some imaginary text? Or was it in fact contradicting what "they had" at that time.

Or you pretend that the people, the christians believed that but that the gospels which they had did not say that?

?are you saying that the gospels that we now have are the injil? Prove it.

The injil was given by God. The gospels are narrations which may speak in passages about some things thaat may be revelations and were given, but the gospels themselves it is not something that anybody has that was solely matter given to 3isa by God. So, please, what are those texts which the Christians had and that you s ay that are the same as now? How can you prove that those are the texts the Qur'an is speaking about. If you can prove it, prove it. They are not,. they cannot be, just as the hadith may be things that were said in fact by the Prophet, but nobody can prove the hadiths. And how are you sure they what the Qur'an says "they have" are texts, written literal texts, and not  things committed to memory or the gist of the revelations that they still have amongst all the straw they carried?

Why has the Qur'an to talk about anything at all of what is int he bible if all it is going to do is confirm it? Could have said, I confirm the bible and cut it there. What was the need.

The need is that they are not trustworthy, they lack integrity, they are hadith, that is what they are, that is, heterogeneous material, where the wheat is mixed with the straw and the bad. To suggest that the qur'an confirms all that is to suggest that the Qur'an confirms the hadiths, or that the hadiths can prove the Qur'anor that the Qur'an itself is just some decorative addition, since it doesn't set straight anything, just confirms and does its own little floritures or variations on this or that biblical "original". But the Qur'an says it is not, that it is revealed to set out the truth from the untruth.




Salaam

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 29, 2012, 02:35:24 PM
And yes, Isa was crucified.  The Qur'an does not say that he wasn't crucified, it says that the claims of the Jews that they crucified him are false. 

No, the Qur'an says precisely  ...

4:157 وقولهم and their saying إنا indeed قتلنا we killed المسيح the Messiah عيسى Isa/Jesus ابن son مريم Mary رسول messenger الله The God وما and not قتلوه they killed him وما and not صلبوه they crucified him ولكن and nonetheless شبه it appeared لهم to them وإن and indeed الذين the ones who اختلفوا differed فيه in it لفي surely in شك doubt منه from it ما what/not لهم to them به with it من from علم knowledge إلا only اتباع following الظن the conjecture وما and not قتلوه they killed him يقينا surely

i don't think that god is subject to time like us.
However Quran came after Bible and "knows" what is in it. So Quran can take into account what is in it and can make references to it.

What I know from Quran is that bible is partially perverted by humans under inspiration of Satan.
Studyng Bible can helps us understand these mecanisms.
For example, i accept Pazuzu findings that egypt is not egypt and firaoun is not a "pharaon". But Moses really crossed a "bahr". So bible is not totally false.


If Isa is "Joshua son of (the :brickwall:) Nun" then these hypothesis can be done:
corruption : Miriam, sister of  moise, was made leprous
corruption : Aaron prophet brother of Moise punished and  not allowed to enter the promise land
corruption: Esau, twin brother of Jacob, not mentioned by Quran, never existed.
corruption: Esau, stupid father of stupid gentils.
Corruption: Nun is not a fish and Quran responded methaphorically
Not Corruption: Joshua son of Nun made great things
Corruption: Book of joshua is partially true (what is true and what is not ?).
Corruption; story of hagar, ismael and sarah.

Now, i think  genealogy is a central issue.
in "judaism", blood is more important than faith. Some Jews says that even if a jew denies judaim then he still jew (see "who is jew ?" on wikipedia). It is totally absurd for a sect that claim to be a religion.

Also, genealogy of bible is totally absurd. "Judaism" transmit by mother and genealogy of bible is based on Mens. So where are not even sure that jews prophets are jews.
Genealogy of so called "Injeel" is also absurd. "Jesus" of palestine cannot be a descent of his alleged father "Joseph". It is ridiculous. Zero genes of Joseph transmitted to the "virgin".

But for old Jewish, genealogy is very important for power and for kingship.
So genealogy can be motive of the crime.
Note also that from bible, the levi tribe, from wich is issued Imran family, was the only tribe who had not been given lands (see book of joshua).
Notice also that sometimes, the levi tribe is not even counted in the "twelve" tribes.

From quran, we know that GOD distinguish between human by piety. In Bible, it is the blood who seems important.

i have some funny remarks on this issue:
From Martin luther ("On the Jews and Their Lies"), old jewish considered themselves as married with "god". "Baal" would be a name for God. Baal, according to this book, in "hebrew", would mean spouse (the man) who possess and dominate.

Notice also that quraish is branch of banu kinanah who was a jewish tribe and that quraish idolatred Houbel divinity wich "old scholars" said that is the same as Baal "houa baal".
The hypothesis that Quraish was a jewish sect is, for me, to be studied.
Blood theory was introduced in islam by a hadith of the famous abi horeira who promised califat to Quraish. Blood is also important in the big separation between followers of Muawia and followers of Ali.


salam and sorry for my english.

Quote from: huruf on March 29, 2012, 03:39:12 PMWhatever you call it, it doesn't matter you have merely proferred an assertion, you have proved nothing. Pazuzu has tried to prove things, but I haven't seen a single conclusive proof of those who say that he has proved nothing and that he has ignored this or that. I have not seen any proof given by yourself that disprooves anything said by Pazuzu, the hebrew is not going to disproove the Qur'an, which is not hebrew. Bring a proof, conclusive proof that 3iosa refers to Jesus who was crucified according to the gospel.

A few things to think about.  First, if Isa is actually Esau or Joshua, then the passages about crucifixion make no sense.  There has never been any historical or theological dispute about how Esau or Joshua appeared to die.  Both of them died, according to the Torah, surrounded by their family and not in any sort of conflict with Jews.  There has never been any sort of dispute that this would address.  To say otherwise is to invent a dispute that never existed in order to support this particular view.  As for the other things Pazuzu has said, I don't agree with them, and in general I disagree with is methodology and assumptions.  Such as switching between the Hebrew text and the LXX without justification.  He does it because he picks the reading he likes best.  But again, that is not my concern.

As for Sura 4, let's look at the ayat:

4:154    And We raised the mount above them by the covenant they took, and We said to them: "Enter the passageway by crouching." And We said to them: "Do not transgress the Sabbath;" and We took from them a solemn covenant.

4:155    So, for the breaking of their covenant, and their rejection of the revelations of God, and their killing of the prophets without right, and their saying: "Our hearts are shielded." Indeed, God has stamped upon their hearts because of their rejection; they do not believe, except for a few.

4:156    And for their rejection and their saying about Mary a great falsehood.

4:157    And their saying: "We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, messenger of God!" And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

So, can we agree from the context that these ayat are talking about the Jews?  Let's look at the accusation against them:

1) For, among other things, killing the prophets in 4:155.

2) For saying something about Mary that was a great falsehood.  The Talmud stated that Yeshua was "ben Pandira", or a son of a Roman cenurian named Pandira.  The lie is that Mary was pregnant by a Roman soldier, and he was the father of Jesus.  If Isa is Esau or Joshua, show me the controversy anywhere related to Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron.  Again, there is nothing said about her that warrants a correction by the prophet.

3) For SAYING that they killed Jesus the Messiah in 4:157.  All the ayah says is that they are guilty of saying that they crucified him.  I've already addressed why this was historically impossible.  Now, show me where it says that Jesus was not crucified.  It only says that THEY did not crucify him.  The matter in dispute is not whether or not he died, but who had the ability to take the life of Jesus.  The accusation is that they are guilty of boasting that they were able to take his life, that they were more powerful than one of God's prophets and the messiah.  The ayah is really about the rebellion of the Jews and is an accusation against their actions and claims.  Show me where the ayah says that he was not crucified.  All it says is that they claimed to crucify him, and it only appeared that they were able to crucify him.  Surah 3:55 makes it clear that, despite the appearances, it was God that terminated the life of Jesus, and not the scheming of the Jews.

By all means, show me where I am wrong in this matter.  There's no such controversy for either Esau or Joshua, but there is for Jesus son of Mary the Messiah.  This controversy was settled by God in the Qur'an.

As for your other questions, I think some of the previous threads on this address the subject of the injil, but God willing I will write something about this later.

Peace,
Joel

I don't know what you are getting at.

I was saying that the gospels say that Jesus was crucified, but that the Qur'an says that 3isa did not die crucified. And I do not mean in the aya you quote, the Qur'an's version is that 3isa's death was not crucifixion. That it was the the Jews or the pygmies who did not crucify him is not here nor there. Gospels speak of crucifixion and the Qur'an excludes it, therefore the Qur'an does not confirm previous "scriptures", that is a hard fact.

As to the objection that why would the Qur'an retort to the claim that anybody said 3isa was crucified by them, I do not see that it is incompatible. If the masih 3isa is not the man who is purported to have been crucified, it is still logic that it is given as datum that he was not the man they pretend him to be. Jesus may have been crucified, not 3isa, the masih, son of Maryam. The Qur'an does not locate 3isa, does not speak of Jerusalem, the romans, bethlehem, a carpenter descendant of Dawood. In fact, much as you may unwelcome it, in fact it is far more plausible that old narrations of old prophets or personalities may have been blended into the Jesus narrative in the first century D than that the Qur'an woul refer clearly to the family of 3imran, the familiy, who included, Harron, Musa, Maryam and her son.

Many old legends have blended into christianity. While the cannonical gospels are very short on news about Mary, she is practically a shadow in them, on the whole, and with additions, she became what i perceive as a recreation of Isis of the old egyptian religion. Is the flight of the holy family to Egypt in the oldest version of the gospel in which it is narrated?

You may feel that things without having the traditional biblical set up as default setting d0o not make sense, but I think you are wrong. If I take as the default set up the outline made by Pazuzu I do not see that it is less congruent than the conventional one, and in many counts it is far more congruent and relieves of the strenuous labour of trying to make unmatchable things match.

I do not even need to think that 3isa is Esau or Joshua, and I do not think that anybody has asserted that, rather they have explored the possibility. We will see eventually. Myself, do not know that, but 3isa ibnu Maryam is a fact, a Quranic fact, and Maryam's mother is imra'tu Imran, and there is not doubt about that, that is another Quranic hard fact. Maryam is a contemporary of Harun, brother of Musa, and that is another Quranic hard fact. There are others that have been given by different people and the bulk of them is not negligible. Is the family of a Mary of Nazareth really 'aal Imraan? In view of the Qur'an I cannot sustain that. I think somebody gave a link in one of the threads, may be in this same one, about the village of Nazareth...

Many things in Christianity have been made up of other narratives and blended into a another narrative so many millions of times repeated, that it is unimaginable that so many things in it could be fiction. That fact pushes me to rely ever more on the Qur'an statements in order to get the bare facts.

Salaam

Quote from: huruf on March 29, 2012, 06:12:58 PM
I don't know what you are getting at.

What I'm getting at is that the context of history, previous scripture, and the Qur'an itself do not support the notion of Isa being anyone other than Jesus the Nazarene.

Quote from: huruf on March 29, 2012, 06:12:58 PMI was saying that the gospels say that Jesus was crucified, but that the Qur'an says that 3isa did not die crucified. And I do not mean in the aya you quote, the Qur'an's version is that 3isa's death was not crucifixion. That it was the the Jews or the pygmies who did not crucify him is not here nor there. Gospels speak of crucifixion and the Qur'an excludes it, therefore the Qur'an does not confirm previous "scriptures", that is a hard fact.

Let's look at this consecutively.  According to Sura 4, you will acknowledge that Isa was crucified at least.  The next question is whether or not he actually died.  First, what does the Qur'an say God's response to Isa's crucifixion is?

4:158: "Instead, God had raised him to Himself; and God is Noble, Wise."

This where traditional muslims get the idea that Isa was taken off of the cross and replaced with a look-alike.  But in order to understand this, you have to take 3:55 into consideration:

"For God said: "O Jesus, I will terminate your life, and raise you to Me, and cleanse you of those who have rejected, and make those who have followed you above those who have rejected until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, all of you,so I will judge between you in what it was that you disputed.""

So let's follow the order of events here.  God said to Isa that he would:

1) have his life terminated by God,
2) be raised up to God (either literally or allegorically, doesn't matter)
3) make the disciples above those who have rejected until the day of resurrection.

and then after this comes the general resurrection for everyone.

So this means for Isa to be raised to God in response to the crucifixion (as 4:158 says), his life has to be terminated first.  The most logical response is that Isa did in fact die on the cross.

Historically, there's no way anyone would be put on the cross and come off alive.  Roman law required any soldier to forfeit his own life if a prisoner escaped.  You better believe they made sure he was dead.

But anyway, let's go to point 2 and 3.  God says Isa will be raised, and his disciples would be esteemed above rejectors until this day of resurrection.  What was the day of resurrection?  Was it the third day, like Paul and some of the gospels claim?  No.  The oldest manuscripts of Mark have no sightings of a resurrected Jesus.  It was the inspiration of the Qur'an that was Jesus' resurrection.  Jesus' teaching (and all of the prophets' teaching) was brought back from obscurity.  It is no mistake that the same angel that told Mary that she would have a son is the same angel that delivered the Qur'an to the prophet.

As for the other things you said, there are lots of theories about the bible like that, but most of them lack any real evidence.  They say, "This over here is similar to this over here, so one must be related to the other."  A lot of comparative religion stuff that is out there is based on a pure speculative literary analysis, and nothing historical.  But if you have proof of some of the things you've said about multiple blends of narratives that are based on something tangible, I'll hear it.  But the thing you need to know is I do not consider the bible to be perfect or infallible.  But where history and good scholarship align and agree with the Qur'an and sound reason, then I have no problem considering it to be plausible.

And again, I'm no Christian missionary.  I'm not preaching vicarious atonement or trinity.  I'm just pointing out whre I see the Qur'an, and history, and prior revelation aligning.  Take it or leave it, none of it is necessary to be believed.  In my opinion, all that is essential is a life of belief in God, good works and prayer, and the expectation of judgement.  I'm not saying believe in Jesus.  I believe in God alone.

Peace,
Joel

Peace,
Joel

dear Huruf

3:33 God has selected Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran over the worlds.

Why family of Imran is so important is there is only isa as prophet ?
Where is Moses ?
why do you insist to interpret sister of aaron as contemporary ?

All the things i said (and i think it is really a bulk of facts as you said) began with this assumption:
if Quran said that miriam is sister of aaron then miriam is sister of aaron.

At that moment, i was having in mind this verse
25:73 And those who when they are reminded of the revelations of their Lord, they do not fall on them deaf and blind.

and i was'nt having any knowledge of existence of a biblical Hero who liberated canaan who is called "Yoshua son of nun" and that nun is pointing to Mama in quite all languages.

changing sister in contemporary is the same psychological mecanism that transform "not killed" and "not crucified" by body crucified but not the spirit. That is total conjecture with zero proof.

10:36 Most of them only follow conjecture. While conjecture does not avail against the truth in anything. God is aware of what they do.

if we put away All human sayings and All human conjectures, Quran becomes very clear.
"The isa case is closed"  for me.
Salam

Personally, it doesn't matter to me what family who belonged to and what their inner familial dynamics were...the message seems to be what they did with what they got. As far as the whole crucifixion thing, it's exactly that...fiction. There's no way after reading the verse that someone can get to the conclusion that the person in question died due to being crucified. It's pretty clear that whoever it was, didn't...and died the way everyone does going through the same process of death and resurrection at the end of it all. Prophets aren't exempt.

The cleanse you of the disbelievers is revealing...how can someone be cleansed of the disbelievers? It's referring to the allegations surrounding whoever this person was. They muddied what he did/said, smoke and mirrors etc and we thus have the next line confirming this by saying the followers will be raised over these baddies (because they spread the truth as opposed to the lies). There are no mystical connections/exemptions here...people earn what they deserve which coincidentally is the line after that.

QuoteHistorically, there's no way anyone would be put on the cross and come off alive.  Roman law required any soldier to forfeit his own life if a prisoner escaped.  You better believe they made sure he was dead.

All the more reason to realise whoever it was, wasn't crucified then according to the verse. Made it appear isn't some kind of trick/stunt of a body double mysteriously cloned in at the time this person was dying. The people spreading the allegations think they did, doesn't mean they actually did it...could be that they treated rumours or deliberate lies as, well, gospel. And believed it.

Could entirely be someone else crucified if we take God as Kubrick and this as a movie where Bowman turns into Hal at the end...who they thought was the guy they were after, or was framed by the ring leaders themselves and the general populace had no idea. All the while the real slim shady goes into hiding or exile and dies off perhaps surrounded by people who swear to uphold the truth (seems to be turning into a Dan Brown novel now but no matter). All that is clear is, the person in question...was not crucified and that is the crux of the matter. Or the horcrux if you will.

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 29, 2012, 10:23:02 PM

QuoteWhat I'm getting at is that the context of history, previous scripture, and the Qur'an itself do not support the notion of Isa being anyone other than Jesus the Nazarene.

Understood and completely disagree. The Qur'an does not support such contention.

Quote
Let's look at this consecutively.  According to Sura 4, you will acknowledge that Isa was crucified at least.  The next question is whether or not he actually died.  First, what does the Qur'an say God's response to Isa's crucifixion is?

By no means I acknowledge such a thing. The sura does not say that and I am at a loss how you come to such conclusion. I know that it makes the most plausible case if one chooses to make the gospels nd the Qur'an match, that is if one is bent as default setting that 3Isa and Jesus of Nazaret are the same persona, in that case such explanation is undoubtedly the best, but only under that assumption. We are under no obligation to make that assumption, and not making it we are able to see that in fact it is if Jesus is not 3isa ibny Maryam when everything makes sense without contorting the words of the Qur'an.
It is only the self imposed need to match the Qur'an to the gospels what makes the merits of the explanation you give. If we get rid of that self imposed obligation and let the Qur'an, only the Qur'an set the facts, we see that in fact we do not need that 3isa ibnu Maryam be the same person as a Jesus of Nazareth, whose story is rather obscure in many aspects which are given as facts, like the Nazaret part.

You cling to the little straw that the particular aya which according to you supports crucifixion as a proof that the gospels and the Qur'an talk about the same thing, but forget, that there are a whole series of other fats that contradict they being the same, like the birth of 3isa, how on earth can it be matched with the birth of Jesus?

 

Quote
4:158: "Instead, God had raised him to Himself; and God is Noble, Wise."

This where traditional muslims get the idea that Isa was taken off of the cross and replaced with a look-alike.  But in order to understand this, you have to take 3:55 into consideration:

It is quite obvious by now that nobody here is talking about the "traditional muslims idea" of some other person being substituted for Jesus, so no use bringing it up.

Quote"For God said: "O Jesus, I will terminate your life, and raise you to Me, and cleanse you of those who have rejected, and make those who have followed you above those who have rejected until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, all of you,so I will judge between you in what it was that you disputed.""

This proves nothing of what you contend: so 3isa had detractors and his followers, the same as the followers of other prophets are exalted over his detractors, so he was a prophet protected by God,  the same as when you say

Quote
So let's follow the order of events here.  God said to Isa that he would:
1) have his life terminated by God,
2) be raised up to God (either literally or allegorically, doesn't matter)
3) make the disciples above those who have rejected until the day of resurrection.

and then after this comes the general resurrection for everyone.

How does this prove that 3isa ibnu Maryam is Jesus of Nazaret? Again being raised to God is the normal thing for prophets.

QuoteSo this means for Isa to be raised to God in response to the crucifixion (as 4:158 says), his life has to be terminated first.  The most logical response is that Isa did in fact die on the cross.

?In response to the crucifixion? Nevwer in the Qur'an does it say that 3isa was crucified, so it might be a response to pretending that there was a crucifixion, but no to a crucifixion which is only in the mind of the reader. When in other ayas of the Qur'an the life of 3isa is expounded, there is not even the slightest hint of any crucifixion or attempt at crucifixion. So what you say:

QuoteHistorically, there's no way anyone would be put on the cross and come off alive.  Roman law required any soldier to forfeit his own life if a prisoner escaped.  You better believe they made sure he was dead.

But anyway, let's go to point 2 and 3.  God says Isa will be raised, and his disciples would be esteemed above rejectors until this day of resurrection.  What was the day of resurrection?  Was it the third day, like Paul and some of the gospels claim?  No.  The oldest manuscripts of Mark have no sightings of a resurrected Jesus.  It was the inspiration of the Qur'an that was Jesus' resurrection.  Jesus' teaching (and all of the prophets' teaching) was brought back from obscurity.  It is no mistake that the same angel that told Mary that she would have a son is the same angel that delivered the Qur'an to the prophet.

is beside the point as to the identity of 3isa being that of Jesus of Nazaret.

Quote
As for the other things you said, there are lots of theories about the bible like that, but most of them lack any real evidence.  They say, "This over here is similar to this over here, so one must be related to the other."  A lot of comparative religion stuff that is out there is based on a pure speculative literary analysis, and nothing historical.  But if you have proof of some of the things you've said about multiple blends of narratives that are based on something tangible, I'll hear it.  But the thing you need to know is I do not consider the bible to be perfect or infallible.  But where history and good scholarship align and agree with the Qur'an and sound reason, then I have no problem considering it to be plausible.

Fine, you pretend to make one and the same person the Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels, which in themselves show sufficient variety as to acknowledge that faithfulness to detail is not paramount to them, and 3isa ibnu Maryam, daughter of 3imran based on umproved facts but want that I should proof how myths or truths of the ancients got into the bible.

No I am not going to prove that and I do not give a damn about proving something which one sees everyday happening sees hapenning all the time thorugh history, and you could not prove the opposite either, because simply those things are umprovable and undisprovable, but then do not pretend that blending gospel stuff into the Qur'an narration proves anything at all. It is your blending. Not the Qur'ans.

QuoteAnd again, I'm no Christian missionary.  I'm not preaching vicarious atonement or trinity.  I'm just pointing out whre I see the Qur'an, and history, and prior revelation aligning.  Take it or leave it, none of it is necessary to be believed.  In my opinion, all that is essential is a life of belief in God, good works and prayer, and the expectation of judgement.  I'm not saying believe in Jesus.  I believe in God alone.

Peace,
Joel

Peace,
Joel

No, I do trust your presentation of yourself and your truthfulness, but I feel that in your arguments you still cling to the "solid ground" of bible narrations. You have not disengaged from the need to sustain those parts of them that for you mean something, the need to uphold things that have given you light and truth, because in fact in the gospels there is plenty of light, and as spiritual language there is in the christian imagery a lot of worth because, finally, God does not let any people go completely astray, be those called christians, be any other people on the face of the earth. He is alive and gets to the hearts of His servants even through layers of mud and accretions, He is unmutable.

History, however, is something else. I think it is an error to extract factual history out of the gospels as if they were a historical contrasted and documented document . They had a purpose and they have been used for a purpose and that purpose was not whole contrasted, verified history. They are hadith. There are sublime hadith which might have come straight out of the Qur'an, but we would be fools to make hadith into undisputed history. And it is precisely "muslim" hadith what has given credencials to the gospels regarding Jesus history as the same as 3isa. That also had his purposes and reasons, but, the same case with the Bible, they are not historical nor done for the sake of documenting history. I do not see anybody in this forum trying to prove history with hadith renditions, but it seems that we should show a fearful and devoted regard to some other hadith and say that they are confirmed by the Qur'an. No. Each single hadith, be it gospel, or Ot or attributed to the prophets or sahaba, stands on their own merits, exclusively.

Salaam



Also, if you go back to Pazuzu's exposition I think he did not refer to Josua or Esau the purported borther of Jacob as the Qur'an 3isa, but rather to another prophet.

But that is another question which I have not got into, whether 3isa ibnu Maryam can be identified as any other of the prophets known from the Bible, which by the way is not a question which bothers me much.

Quote from: noshirk on March 30, 2012, 03:21:23 AM
dear Huruf

Quote3:33 God has selected Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran over the worlds.

Why family of Imran is so important is there is only isa as prophet ?
Where is Moses ?

Exactly.

Quotewhy do you insist to interpret sister of aaron as contemporary ?

I do not insist on that, in fact if I have to chose one, I would choose that she is the sister or half sister of Musa and Harun, but if I said "contemporary" it is bearing in mind what has been said in the threads and that at the very least what cannot be denied is that she lived at the time of those two prophets. So that is a minimum conclusive set in the Qur'an for the purpose of what we are discussing, which is whether 3isa is the same as Jesus of Nazareth or not.

QuoteAll the things i said (and i think it is really a bulk of facts as you said) began with this assumption:
if Quran said that miriam is sister of aaron then miriam is sister of aaron.

At that moment, i was having in mind this verse
25:73 And those who when they are reminded of the revelations of their Lord, they do not fall on them deaf and blind.

and i was'nt having any knowledge of existence of a biblical Hero who liberated canaan who is called "Yoshua son of nun" and that nun is pointing to Mama in quite all languages.

changing sister in contemporary is the same psychological mecanism that transform "not killed" and "not crucified" by body crucified but not the spirit. That is total conjecture with zero proof.

10:36 Most of them only follow conjecture. While conjecture does not avail against the truth in anything. God is aware of what they do.

if we put away All human sayings and All human conjectures, Quran becomes very clear.
"The isa case is closed"  for me.
Salam

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 04:37:17 AM
The cleanse you of the disbelievers is revealing...how can someone be cleansed of the disbelievers? It's referring to the allegations surrounding whoever this person was.

Aye.  And what do you think those allegations were?  There are all kinds of allegations in the Talmud that point to a "Yeshua".

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 04:37:17 AM...and we thus have the next line confirming this by saying the followers will be raised over these baddies (because they spread the truth as opposed to the lies).

Ok, and who would these people be who are spreading the truth in opposition to the lies being told about Isa by Jews?  You can say all you want that you don't know who this is, and that's entirely your business, but the most reasonable explanation from history is there.

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 04:37:17 AMThere are no mystical connections/exemptions here...people earn what they deserve which coincidentally is the line after that.

So let me make sure I understand what you are saying here.  You are saying that there's no way that whoever this Isa character is could have actually been crucified, and could have actually died because people earn what they deserve?  If he truly was a prophet and the messiah, there's no way he would meet that kind of end?  Then what about a few verses prior where it clearly states that the Jews killed the prophets?  Clearly, if the sense of justice that you are suggesting is in operation in the world, then those prophets must have been not good people, right?

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 04:37:17 AMCould entirely be someone else crucified if we take God as Kubrick and this as a movie where Bowman turns into Hal at the end...who they thought was the guy they were after, or was framed by the ring leaders themselves and the general populace had no idea. All the while the real slim shady goes into hiding or exile and dies off perhaps surrounded by people who swear to uphold the truth (seems to be turning into a Dan Brown novel now but no matter). All that is clear is, the person in question...was not crucified and that is the crux of the matter. Or the horcrux if you will.

Lol, c'mon.  This is bordering on some of the ridiculous things people put forward like the swoon theory.  You really think that a Roman trained killer is going to fall for someone passing out?  You really think that Isa didn't make enemies based on face-to-face arguments and discussions, so much so that someone would know that this wasn't the guy?  What's more plausible?  (Though God as Kubrick is an interesting idea.  But I hated Lost Highway.)

Here's what I think it comes down to.  We want the good guy to come out the winner.  We want to believe that God gives people what they deserve in this life.  Sometimes he doesn't.  Sometimes prophets are killed, messiahs are crucified and killed, people are oppressed without cause, people extort and make a lot of money using crooked means and they die fat and happy in their comfortable beds.  But at some point, God will make it right - even if not in this generation, even if not in this life.  And that is the point of those verses.  It is a laundry list of accusations towards the Jews for deviating from what they were commanded, killing prophets, slandering the reputation of Mary, and boasting that they took the life of Jesus when it really was a God-ordained instance of one more thing that they will have to answer for because of their cruelty and hard-heartedness.  If I boast that I killed some guy, and in reality I didn't, then what is the injustice?  It just makes me an idiot who can't tell one person from another or able to recognize when someone is dead.  This view seems out of place given the other things are intentional acts of injustice, such as disobedience to God, slandering a righteous woman, killing prophets, etc.

But whatever.  I had resigned myself to not commenting on threads related to Isa for this reason, and my only reason for responding to this one was to point out that some of the ideas thrown out were not nearly as plausible as Isa=Jesus.  To each his own.   :peace:

Peace,
Joel

QuoteAye.  And what do you think those allegations were?  There are all kinds of allegations in the Talmud that point to a "Yeshua".

And there could be all kinds of allegations that point to someone else some time somewhere. Like huruf noted, could be all mixed up as it is.

QuoteOk, and who would these people be who are spreading the truth in opposition to the lies being told about Isa by Jews?  You can say all you want that you don't know who this is, and that's entirely your business, but the most reasonable explanation from history is there.

Most reasonable? It's debatable.

QuoteSo let me make sure I understand what you are saying here.  You are saying that there's no way that whoever this Isa character is could have actually been crucified, and could have actually died because people earn what they deserve?  If he truly was a prophet and the messiah, there's no way he would meet that kind of end?  Then what about a few verses prior where it clearly states that the Jews killed the prophets?  Clearly, if the sense of justice that you are suggesting is in operation in the world, then those prophets must have been not good people, right?

No. That is not what I'm saying. Jesus. I'm saying the verse says very clearly whoever it was, was NOT crucified or killed by them. I'm saying that everyone dies and goes through the same process (death and what comes after). That is what I'm saying. Hence the judgements/resurrection etc for all. That's what I'm saying. There's nothing there about him being a prophet thus he wasn't crucified, neither in the verse neither in what I said.

QuoteLol, c'mon.  This is bordering on some of the ridiculous things people put forward like the swoon theory.  You really think that a Roman trained killer is going to fall for someone passing out?  You really think that Isa didn't make enemies based on face-to-face arguments and discussions, so much so that someone would know that this wasn't the guy?  What's more plausible?  (Though God as Kubrick is an interesting idea.  But I hated Lost Highway.)

Exactly why it's a godawful script. And no, it's not necessary that everyone knew, some might have of course but as we see even now, truth sometimes bides it's time due to whatever reasons. If someone screamed well no they didn't really, that wasn't the guy, you murderers you made a mistake, he'd be sleeping with the fishies next.  David Lynch? Lost Highway was awesome...?

QuoteHere's what I think it comes down to.  We want the good guy to come out the winner.  We want to believe that God gives people what they deserve in this life.  Sometimes he doesn't.  Sometimes prophets are killed, messiahs are crucified and killed, people are oppressed without cause, people extort and make a lot of money using crooked means and they die fat and happy in their comfortable beds.  But at some point, God will make it right - even if not in this generation, even if not in this life.  And that is the point of those verses.  It is a laundry list of accusations towards the Jews for deviating from what they were commanded, killing prophets, slandering the reputation of Mary, and boasting that they took the life of Jesus when it really was a God-ordained instance of one more thing that they will have to answer for because of their cruelty and hard-heartedness.  If I boast that I killed some guy, and in reality I didn't, then what is the injustice?  It just makes me an idiot who can't tell one person from another or able to recognize when someone is dead.  This view seems out of place given the other things are intentional acts of injustice, such as disobedience to God, slandering a righteous woman, killing prophets, etc.

Sure, of all people I don't believe at all that being a prophet means you are exempt from tests considered good/bad or whatever. I do think however that if Jesus was Isa, for one he wasn't crucified because the verse clearly says so...and plenty of stuff got mixed up during time as to the real persona of this prophet of God and that is why it's so murky at this point using whatever historical sources.

QuoteBut whatever.  I had resigned myself to not commenting on threads related to Isa for this reason, and my only reason for responding to this one was to point out that some of the ideas thrown out were not nearly as plausible as Isa=Jesus.  To each his own.

Personally, I don't think you shouldn't respond. I don't entirely agree with the ideas myself.

peace

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 09:06:23 AM
David Lynch? Lost Highway was awesome...?

Lol, I got the two mixed up.  There's that scene in Lost Highway where Bill Pullman switcheroos with the kid who was the mechanic.

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 09:06:23 AMI do think however that if Jesus was Isa, for one he wasn't crucified because the verse clearly says so...and plenty of stuff got mixed up during time as to the real persona of this prophet of God and that is why it's so murky at this point using whatever historical sources.

While I will agree that there is definitely some mud that needs to be cleared off, I don't think it is impossible.  For instance, referencing my earlier comments that the ayah refers to the notion that the Jews boasted and said they killed Isa, when in fact it was the Romans.  Look at this quote from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews:

"BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea."

Basically, Pilate brings the Roman standards into Jerusalem.  A host of Jews confront him over this, and he threatens to kill them.  Uncharacteristic of the historic Jewish response (such as Masada), these Jews bare their necks in an act of passive resistance.  Benjamin Urrutia has proposed that the leader of this group of Jews was actually Jesus. 

Matthew 5:38 ?You have heard that it was said, ?Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.? 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Josephus goes on to say:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Now, this passage of Josephus is clearly interpolated.  I have underlined the passages that do not fit and were probably later added by some idiot Christian.  Urrutia's assertion is that the opening phrase "Now there was about this time..." possibly ties this event with Pilate and the Roman standards to Pilate condemning him to the cross.  No doubt that Pilate nursed some anger towards whoever was the ringleader of this protest that was able to get one over on him.

I'm not saying this is proof.  I'm suggesting the plausibility that this event does not contradict what we have in the Qur'an.  You have Jews suggesting Jesus for crucifixion, possibly fingering him as the ringleader of the protests in order to get some favor from Rome, but not actually the ones who put him to death.  Hence the need of the Qur'an to correct the boasting of the Jews that they put him to death.  Rome ultimately held the power of life and death in Palestine, as Josephus attests.

Again, just an example of how it might not require that much work to get to the bottom of the matter.  But for those who have no concern for these matters, it isn't anything worth discussing to the point of arguing.  :)

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 09:06:23 AMPersonally, I don't think you shouldn't respond. I don't entirely agree with the ideas myself.

peace

It tends to become a hot-button issue and isn't conducive for people getting along.  So, I tend to keep away.

Peace.

Maverick, that a debate or an argument may be hot, it doesn't mean people do not get along or that there is bad blood. For myself I do nothave anething against you at all, quite the opposite, but on the other hnd it doesn't make sense that one should hide or not express some view because one doesn't want to displease somebody else. That is what forums are for, right? So yes, keep posting whatever you want to post, there is no harm in it, and things keep coming up which otherwise would not.

Salaam

Peace huruf,

I certainly hope my response implied that I think these discussions lead to negative feelings among us.  I tend to stay out of them for the sake of balance.  There's room for debate and disagreement in a community, even heated debate.  But there also needs to be conversations that are more positive and more uplifting.  There also needs to be conversations where we talk about the things that make us who we are personally, and not just about ideas.  I think that is how community is built.  Discussions about Isa tend to involve more disagreement than agreement, and I think I have already hit my quota for disagreement about it.  ;)  So, I've tried to stick to more of the threads where I can stay away from debate.  It isn't because I'm withholding what I think, I just see the need for balance.  This forum is the closest thing I have to a masjid I can attend, and I consider all of you my brothers and sisters.  How would you feel about a person who always came into the masjid and ended up arguing over the same things? That kind of person would be showing that they care more about their pet idea than their brothers and sisters.  My hope is that I do not prove to be a person who brings more negativity than positivity.  You guys have always been a great help to me, and I try to return the favor when I can.  Sometimes that means making the decision to stay out of a conversation that might not go well.

For my part, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you huruf.  And while I may not agree with some of the things that Pazuzu and others say, I cannot deny the amount of work and research they have done to arrive at their conclusions.  For that, they have my respect as well.  :handshake:

Peace,
Joel

is jesus of palestine a prophet ?
let's explore this hypothesis


he was waited as a man who will liberate jews. He didn't liberate anything

Jesus was waited as liberator, then became super-victim and now he is waited again as liberator.

As super-victim to uphold human kind suffering he failed also since suffering continued.

nothing in history shows that christians had been helped by GOD. They were persecuted until constantin, in fourt century, decided the contrary.
No civilisation raised in christiannity until christians rejected their church with Martin luther.

genealogy of jesus of palestine (through joseph) is a stupidity.

His birth was decided 25th december, day of rebirth of sun and sunday is sun-day.
This was old religion of Constantin.
Church of Jesus of Palestine moved directly to Rome, Capital of ennemy of jews from whom he was supposed to liberate.

is all this is normal ?

All chritian history seem to be an invention of romans, probably initially to divide jews, using old jews history, probably helped by some jews.

so what kind of indication of evidence have we that GOD could be behind the story of the crucified guy called Jesus of nazareth, if such a guy existed?
Where are the proofs ?

salam & peace

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 04:37:17 AMAs far as the whole crucifixion thing, it's exactly that...fiction. There's no way after reading the verse that someone can get to the conclusion that the person in question died due to being crucified. It's pretty clear that whoever it was, didn't..... All the more reason to realise whoever it was, wasn't crucified then according to the verse.........All that is clear is, the person in question...was not crucified and that is the crux of the matter...

Huruf had said something similar in Reply # 143 "I was saying that the gospels say that Jesus was crucified, but that the Qur'an says that 3isa did not die crucified."

1) This is an excellent example of eisegesis, that is: reading into the text what is not there. For the verse clearly says: "wama salaboohu..and not they crucified him". How do you get from "they did not crucify him" to "He (3isa/Jesus) was not crucified"?? If I tell you "so and so (they) did not shoot the mayor" does that mean the mayor was not shot?? This is a very bad non sequitur. That's the nature of eisegesis, conclusions never follow from the premise. Whatever this may be, it most certainly is not exegesis!

2) A challenge for positive exegesis:

The assumption which has been smuggled in, by those who have used 4:157 to say Christ was NOT crucified, is that the unnamed subject in 4:157, "they" (hum in Arabic), is a specific, historical group; that is to say, that the text ought to be read as an historical narrative, where the literal actors, "they", are the subject. From this misplaced assumption (which is the result of cutting up the Quran and prooftexting), it is "deduced" that what is being denied is an historical event; as we will see this becomes untenable, once proper exegesis is done, and the passage is read in its context. 

So here's my simple request: Please tell me who "they" are, at 4:157??

Here's a hint: In order to find out this answer, you will need to read back, starting at 4:157, all the way until 4:153. This is because the subject continues to be "they" until 4:153 where "they" are identified. In other words follow the "hum(s)".

Now once you realize who "they" are, you will need to consistently walk through the text again, and I promise you, it will not be long until you abandon the "historical narrative" approach.

I understand if you come from an Islamic background, 1000 years of tradition can be hard to break, but if you believe in the Quran, you must allow the text to speak for itself, without reading into it your traditional worldview and theology.

Quote from: noshirk on March 30, 2012, 11:47:47 AM
he was waited as a man who will liberate jews. He didn't liberate anything

Who said he would liberate the Jews?  Jesus himself said he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.  He said that after him, no stone would be left standing upon another at Herod's temple.  He said that since they missed the hour of their visitation, that they would be left desolate.  Where are you getting this from?

Quote from: noshirk on March 30, 2012, 11:47:47 AMnothing in history shows that christians had been helped by GOD. They were persecuted until constantin, in fourt century, decided the contrary.
No civilisation raised in christiannity until christians rejected their church with Martin luther.

So to go from being labeled as an enemy of the empire to becoming the religion of the empire doesn't show some kind of aid?  Jesus never taught starting a new civilization.  If you believe otherwise, show me where he said this.

Quote from: noshirk on March 30, 2012, 11:47:47 AMgenealogy of jesus of palestine (through joseph) is a stupidity.

It isn't historical, no.  It is, though, a theological statement.

Quote from: noshirk on March 30, 2012, 11:47:47 AMHis birth was decided 25th december, day of rebirth of sun and sunday is sun-day.
This was old religion of Constantin.
Church of Jesus of Palestine moved directly to Rome, Capital of ennemy of jews from whom he was supposed to liberate.

This has more to do with Christianity than Jesus.  It really isn't relevant to what we are talking about.

Quote from: noshirk on March 30, 2012, 11:47:47 AMAll chritian history seem to be an invention of romans, probably initially to divide jews, using old jews history, probably helped by some jews.

While it is said that history is written by the winners, you do have to have some sort of proof about what you are saying.  The romans did not need to divide Jews, seeing that they had already conquered Palestine and the Jewish community at the time of Jesus was already divided among several political and religious factions. In fact, Rome's presence in Palestine was INVITED there by Jews to settle a political dispute.  You can't just say, "I think history is garbage, an invention, so I can completely ignore it," without something tangible to show for it.  I'm not saying you are wrong, but if this is what you think, then show some evidence that this is the case.

Peace,
Joel

Quote from: Hoppean on March 30, 2012, 12:24:42 PM
Huruf had said something similar in Reply # 143 "I was saying that the gospels say that Jesus was crucified, but that the Qur'an says that 3isa did not die crucified."

1) This is an excellent example of eisegesis, that is: reading into the text what is not there. For the verse clearly says: "wama salaboohu..and not they crucified him". How do you get from "they did not crucify him" to "He (3isa/Jesus) was not crucified"?? If I tell you "so and so (they) did not shoot the mayor" does that mean the mayor was not shot?? This is a very bad non sequitur. That's the nature of eisegesis, conclusions never follow from the premise. Whatever this may be, it most certainly is not exegesis!

2) A challenge for positive exegesis:

The assumption which has been smuggled in, by those who have used 4:157 to say Christ was NOT crucified, is that the unnamed subject in 4:157, "they" (hum in Arabic), is a specific, historical group; that is to say, that the text ought to be read as an historical narrative, where the literal actors, "they", are the subject. From this misplaced assumption (which is the result of cutting up the Quran and prooftexting), it is "deduced" that what is being denied is an historical event; as we will see this becomes untenable, once proper exegesis is done, and the passage is read in its context. 

So here's my simple request: Please tell me who "they" are, at 4:157??

Here's a hint: In order to find out this answer, you will need to read back, starting at 4:157, all the way until 4:153. This is because the subject continues to be "they" until 4:153 where "they" are identified. In other words follow the "hum(s)".

Now once you realize who "they" are, you will need to consistently walk through the text again, and I promise you, it will not be long until you abandon the "historical narrative" approach.

I understand if you come from an Islamic background, 1000 years of tradition can be hard to break, but if you believe in the Quran, you must allow the text to speak for itself, without reading into it your traditional worldview and theology.

If you have read my messages, I wonder why you recreate yourself on the aya you mention where I have made clear several times that 3isa was not crucified, not because of that aya, but because of all that is said about his life and dead in the complete Qur'an. 

So to puncture your baloon, just quote somewhere where the Qur'an says that 3isa was crucified, or killed violently or any other hint that He didn't die a natural death or that he suffered any attempt against his life.

If you do that with my messages, and even invent for me a past, thank you, I do not want to know what you would do with the scriptures.

Salaam

Quote from: huruf on March 30, 2012, 12:50:10 PM
If you have read my messages, I wonder why you recreate yourself on the aya you mention where I have made clear several times that 3isa was not crucified, not because of that aya, but because of all that is said about his life and dead in the complete Qur'an. 

So to puncture your baloon, just quote somewhere where the Qur'an says that 3isa was crucified, or killed violently or any other hint that He didn't die a natural death or that he suffered any attempt against his life.

If you do that with my messages, and even invent for me a past, thank you, I do not want to know what you would do with the scriptures.

Salaam

1) You misquoted me, since my post was primarily addressed to "savage carrot" (which you conveniently left out). I only mentioned that you too, made the exact same eisegetical mistake.

2) You are not even able to grasp the argument that has been brought against your position: That no matter who you think "3isa" was, the verse (4:157) does not say what you claim it does!! It says "ma salabahum....not they crucified him", but you seem to think that this means "3isa was not crucified". Do you know what a non sequitur is?

3) So i guess you refuse to tell us who "they/hum" are in 4:157?

4) "Invent for you a past"?? Did I misquote you? Show me where and I will publicly retract it.

You clearly state: Reply 143 of this thread, posted Yesterday at 03:12:58 pm, second paragraph: "I was saying that the gospels say that Jesus was crucified, but that the Qur'an says that 3isa did not die crucified. And I do not mean in the aya you quote, the Qur'an's version is that 3isa's death was not crucifixion..."

5) By asking me to bring a text which states "3isa" was crucified, you betray your dishonesty. It is you and others who claim that the Bible and the Quran contradict each other, on this issue; the burden is therefore on you, to show where the contradiction is, but by refusing to even attempt to exegete the passage in question, you demonstrate to all your bad will.

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 30, 2012, 09:44:44 AM
Lol, I got the two mixed up.  There's that scene in Lost Highway where Bill Pullman switcheroos with the kid who was the mechanic.

Yep. I actually loved the imagery and atmosphere, the soundtrack even...saw it in my teens, stayed with me.

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 30, 2012, 09:44:44 AMI'm not saying this is proof.  I'm suggesting the plausibility that this event does not contradict what we have in the Qur'an.  You have Jews suggesting Jesus for crucifixion, possibly fingering him as the ringleader of the protests in order to get some favor from Rome, but not actually the ones who put him to death.  Hence the need of the Qur'an to correct the boasting of the Jews that they put him to death.  Rome ultimately held the power of life and death in Palestine, as Josephus attests.

Again, just an example of how it might not require that much work to get to the bottom of the matter.  But for those who have no concern for these matters, it isn't anything worth discussing to the point of arguing.  :)

Basically, you're saying he was still killed/crucified by someone/the Romans but just not by the Jews. I would have to disagree because if that was the case, why would it say it appeared to them that they had...if they were boasting about it believing that they had, what bloody difference does it make whether they killed him or the Romans did? Did it bring them down a notch to have the record set straight what, 500 years later saying ohoho nah you didn't, let me just take that trophy off your mantelpiece now and hand it over to the Romans? Oh wait. Were the Jews going around proud of their achievement for ages after? If he was still indeed crucified and killed by the Romans, the quran would have had it clearly mentioned, except it tells us that emphatically that he wasn't crucified or killed by 'them', he died like all prophets do and that He'll clear up the misconceptions...to add well, he still was crucified and killed by someone else...if it works for you, okay.

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 30, 2012, 09:44:44 AMIt tends to become a hot-button issue and isn't conducive for people getting along.  So, I tend to keep away.

S'all good.

Quote from: Hoppean on March 30, 2012, 12:24:42 PM
I understand if you come from an Islamic background, 1000 years of tradition can be hard to break, but if you believe in the Quran, you must allow the text to speak for itself, without reading into it your traditional worldview and theology.

Thx 4 th3 advice n same 2 u.

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 01:15:05 PM
Yep. I actually loved the imagery and atmosphere, the soundtrack even...saw it in my teens, stayed with me.

My college roommate and I tried putting quotes from Spaceballs on top of the lines that Bill Pullman spoke.  Hilarity ensued.

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 01:15:05 PMBasically, you're saying he was still killed/crucified by someone/the Romans but just not by the Jews. I would have to disagree because if that was the case, why would it say it appeared to them that they had...if they were boasting about it believing that they had, what bloody difference does it make whether they killed him or the Romans did? Did it bring them down a notch to have the record set straight what, 500 years later saying ohoho nah you didn't, let me just take that trophy off your mantelpiece now and hand it over to the Romans? Oh wait. Were the Jews going around proud of their achievement for ages after? If he was still indeed crucified and killed by the Romans, the quran would have had it clearly mentioned, except it tells us that emphatically that he wasn't crucified or killed by 'them', he died like all prophets do and that He'll clear up the misconceptions...to add well, he still was crucified and killed by someone else...if it works for you, okay.

Think of these verses as a list of charges presented against the Jews, particularly Jews that the prophet would have had contact with. God tells the prophet that Isa is al Masih.  Any hearer of this who was Jewish would have went through the roof.  "He was no Messiah!  He was a bastard son of a Roman soldier, his mother was a whore, and we crucified him!  Were he really who he said he was, we would not have been able to scheme against him!"

Evidence that religious Jews started their verbal offensive early, and kept up the polemics against Jesus and Mary for centuries:

Toledot Yeshu

http://www.princeton.edu/~judaic/toledotyeshu.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~judaic/toledotyeshu.html)

But yes, as you said, Isa will clear up the misconceptions when it is all said and done, and in the meantime it makes for a good discussion.

Peace,
Joel

Quote from: MMMy college roommate and I tried putting quotes from Spaceballs on top of the lines that Bill Pullman spoke.  Hilarity ensued.

That sounds awesome! Wish there was YT back in the day instead of IRC.

Quote from: MMThink of these verses as a list of charges presented against the Jews, particularly Jews that the prophet would have had contact with. God tells the prophet that Isa is al Masih.  Any hearer of this who was Jewish would have went through the roof.  "He was no Messiah!  He was a bastard son of a Roman soldier, his mother was a whore, and we crucified him!  Were he really who he said he was, we would not have been able to scheme against him!"

Evidence that religious Jews started their verbal offensive early, and kept up the polemics against Jesus and Mary for centuries:

Toledot Yeshu

http://www.princeton.edu/~judaic/toledotyeshu.html

Alright...? That still doesn't explain why God's exonerating them from the killing/crucifixion of a prophet if like you say, they apparently had a 'hand' in it. Allegedly, they were instrumental in pointing the finger to Jesus resulting in his crucifixion/death so um, quite honestly, that would make them guilty of being involved, at the very least in part, to his crucifixion/death. This doesn't bode well when we have the statement, they didn't crucify nor kill him. If they had nothing whatsoever to do with his crucifixion/death, maybe one could still get away with 'well he was still crucified/killed, just not by the Jews but the Romans."

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 01:50:24 PM
Alright...? That still doesn't explain why God's exonerating them from the killing/crucifixion of a prophet if like you say, they apparently had a 'hand' in it. Allegedly, they were instrumental in pointing the finger to Jesus resulting in his crucifixion/death so um, quite honestly, that would make them guilty of being involved, at the very least in part, to his crucifixion/death. This doesn't bode well when we have the statement, they didn't crucify nor kill him. If they had nothing whatsoever to do with his crucifixion/death, maybe one could still get away with 'well he was still crucified/killed, just not by the Jews but the Romans."

I'm not saying God exonerated them.  God is telling them that the One with power in this situation is God.  They can't claim to have the upper hand over Isa as proof that they were right.  Ultimately God terminated his life.  Hence the surprise that he died after a few hours and not the days it normally took for someone to slowly die on the cross.  This was an act of mercy for Isa.  If the Jews were guilty of anything other than their folly at thinking they had gotten the other hand, then Isa would have been listed among the prophets that were killed in the earlier ayat.  Jesus himself said that the culmination of guilt for bloodshed went from Abel to the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah.  John the Baptist was killed by Herod, Jesus by the Romans.

Isa's vindication came after his death at the destruction of the temple, which Jesus said would happen after the "abomination of desolation", which was his crucifixion.  It also came at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 at the hands of the Roman General Titus.  It also came at the words of the prophet which vindicated Isa's messiahship, his conception, and the reputation of his mother.  All of these things raised him in esteem before God and among God's people.  If we take sura 3 as a related ayah, then the termination of his life has to happen first.

Given Christian missionaries pushing the issue over Jesus, as well as some Muslims' beliefs about Jesus justifying actions intended to bring about the apocalypse, I can understand the reluctance over considering this view plausible.  My dad is a pastor and I hear, "Where do you stand with Jesus?" fairly often.  I tell him that so long as I'm ok with God based on what I do, it doesn't matter what I believe about Jesus.  Ultimately, this is not an essential item, IMHO.  My view is only valid if the ayat from suras 4 and 3 can be considered to be parts of the same description of events related to the crucifixion, and that ultimately is a matter of opinion, I guess.  If there's good evidence that they are not connected, then there's not much basis for what I'm saying.  But given 4:158 beginning with, "Instead,..." connecting God's response of raising him to the allegations of the Jews that they were responsible for his death, and 3:55 showing God's plan for Isa to be the termination of his life before his raising, I suspect they are connected as parts of the same chain of events.

Peace,
Joel

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 30, 2012, 02:41:38 PM
I'm not saying God exonerated them.  God is telling them that the One with power in this situation is God.  They can't claim to have the upper hand over Isa as proof that they were right.  Ultimately God terminated his life.  Hence the surprise that he died after a few hours and not the days it normally took for someone to slowly die on the cross.  This was an act of mercy for Isa.  If the Jews were guilty of anything other than their folly at thinking they had gotten the other hand, then Isa would have been listed among the prophets that were killed in the earlier ayat.  Jesus himself said that the culmination of guilt for bloodshed went from Abel to the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah.  John the Baptist was killed by Herod, Jesus by the Romans.

Isa's vindication came after his death at the destruction of the temple, which Jesus said would happen after the "abomination of desolation", which was his crucifixion.  It also came at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 at the hands of the Roman General Titus.  It also came at the words of the prophet which vindicated Isa's messiahship, his conception, and the reputation of his mother.  All of these things raised him in esteem before God and among God's people.  If we take sura 3 as a related ayah, then the termination of his life has to happen first.

Great post Joel! This is exactly why the verese is not a "historical corrective narrative", but rather part of a longer condemnation passage which begins at 4:153, where the identity of the subject, of all these condemnations, is revealed; 4:153 begins with "Yasaluka ahlu alkitabi an tunazzila AAalayhim kitaban mina alssamai........The people of the book ask you (singular in the arabic) to send down a book from the heavens...faqad saaloo moosa akbara min thalika....certainly they asked Moses for greater than this". Then the list of their offenses begins with Moses, the calf etc.

Now, if we apply the "historical narrative" approach we are forced to conclude that the people of the book, who are asking the messenger for a book from heaven, are the same ones who were asking Moses to see God manifestly, and worshipped the calf etc... all the way until they thought they had crucified Christ. So apparently the rabbinic Jews of 7th Century Arabia, have actually been alive since the time of exodus!!

Clearly what's in view here, is a condemnation of this particular Jewish mindset and attitude. Maybe this is why most orthodox muslim translators I have seen, choose to interpolate "qawlihim, literally their word/saying" at the beginning of 4:157 as "their boast" (See Ali, Asad, Hilai-Khan) Because implicitly they realize that what's at stake is not an academic argument about a historical event, but rather that the Jewish boast was their reason for rejecting his messiahship. After all they didn't just put him to death, but they did so in the most humiliating way possible, in that age.

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 30, 2012, 02:41:38 PMBut given 4:158 beginning with, "Instead,..." connecting God's response of raising him to the allegations of the Jews that they were responsible for his death, and 3:55 showing God's plan for Isa to be the termination of his life before his raising, I suspect they are connected as parts of the same chain of events.

In fact Joel, it's actually more forceful than "instead". 4:158 begins with "bel" which means "to the contrary, nay", the word is desgined to negate what came before it, namely: The Jewish boast that they had killed him (and humiliated him in the process). Again, not historically, since that would make the entire context ridiculous, because obviously the 7th century Jews didn't kill or crucify Jesus! Rather, as you said above, it takes the power of their boast away from them, and proclaims God's sovereignty in exalting Christ, by the very means which Jews believed he was being abased.

Curiously, the islamic "interpretation" provides no answer to the Jewish boast; other than an empty academic error on their part, since as it turns out they got the wrong guy. At any rate, to my mind it's clear that the Quran far from "rejecting the crucifixion", boldly asserts it, by making an "historical corrective" interpretation absurd and untenable both contextually and exegetically. That's why I asked for anyone who believes this "historical corrective interpretation" to identify who the subject "they" refers to, at 4:157, because it's exegetically impossible to do so without referring to 4:153, which eliminates their very interpretation.

Peace

QuoteBasically, you're saying he was still killed/crucified by someone/the Romans but just not by the Jews. I would have to disagree because if that was the case, why would it say it appeared to them that they had

Dear Carrot:

There is a problem with rendering the phrase "shubbiha lahum" as "it appeared to them that they had". What does it mean when we say "it APPEARED to them that they had (crucified him)". This brings to mind 2 possibilities:

1- The fairie tale that the Muslims believe in, which says that on the "Eve of the Crucifixion", God twisted the facial features of Judas Iscariot, made him resemble Jesus, and so the Jews crucified Judas instead, but due to a trick played on them by God, it APPEARED to them that they crucified the real "Jesus".

2- That they put him (the REAL "JESUS") on the cross with the intention of executing him, but he was actually still alive when they brought him down. (I guess the Romans must have been too dim-witted to check his pulse). So the consequence of this is that "Jesus" lived on, and went around preaching for a time, with 2 big holes in his wrists and 2 bigger holes in his ankles. (The idea here is that he was not technically "crucified" because he did not actually DIE on the cross).

Is there a 3rd possibility that I'm missing?

The way I see it is that the subject article of the word "shubbiha" (the ه letter at the end of the word) does NOT refer to Isa, but to the WHOLE MATTER of the crucifixion ITSELF. it is reffering to the EVENT, not the victim of the event. I think the most accurate rendering, in Arabic, woyld be as such:

{They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they were confused in the matter}

My hunch is that Paul was at the origin of this confusion. And his mysterious trip to Arabia, where he spent 3 years BEFORE he started preaching Christianity, contains the key to unlocking this puzzle.

Peace...

Quote from: Hoppean on March 30, 2012, 01:13:14 PM
1) You misquoted me, since my post was primarily addressed to "savage carrot" (which you conveniently left out). I only mentioned that you too, made the exact same eisegetical mistake.

2) You are not even able to grasp the argument that has been brought against your position: That no matter who you think "3isa" was, the verse (4:157) does not say what you claim it does!! It says "ma salabahum....not they crucified him", but you seem to think that this means "3isa was not crucified". Do you know what a non sequitur is?

3) So i guess you refuse to tell us who "they/hum" are in 4:157?

4) "Invent for you a past"?? Did I misquote you? Show me where and I will publicly retract it.

You clearly state: Reply 143 of this thread, posted Yesterday at 03:12:58 pm, second paragraph: "I was saying that the gospels say that Jesus was crucified, but that the Qur'an says that 3isa did not die crucified. And I do not mean in the aya you quote, the Qur'an's version is that 3isa's death was not crucifixion..."

5) By asking me to bring a text which states "3isa" was crucified, you betray your dishonesty. It is you and others who claim that the Bible and the Quran contradict each other, on this issue; the burden is therefore on you, to show where the contradiction is, but by refusing to even attempt to exegete the passage in question, you demonstrate to all your bad will.

You really are a nice man.

Salaam

Quote from: MMI'm not saying God exonerated them.  God is telling them that the One with power in this situation is God.  They can't claim to have the upper hand over Isa as proof that they were right.  Ultimately God terminated his life.  Hence the surprise that he died after a few hours and not the days it normally took for someone to slowly die on the cross.  This was an act of mercy for Isa.  If the Jews were guilty of anything other than their folly at thinking they had gotten the other hand, then Isa would have been listed among the prophets that were killed in the earlier ayat.  Jesus himself said that the culmination of guilt for bloodshed went from Abel to the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah.  John the Baptist was killed by Herod, Jesus by the Romans.

To use your own words, lol c'mon! Really? You're saying that God was telling us/them hey look, I took his life (like I take the life of everyone but this may be news to you people) and even though you handed the Romans the gun, you guys didn't crucify/kill him. Right...

The rest is something that's not in the quran so I personally can't say whether he died after a few hours or many hours, not that it makes any difference because according to alleged sources, the Jews were guilty of killing him, as were the Romans...apparently. The upper hand you're talking about is someone manipulating events that resulted in the death of the victim, but are empty boasts because they didn't end his life, God did. Seriously? So everyone that's ever died by the hands (literal or otherwise) of someone else, hasn't really died because of them and they shouldn't/can't claim that they did because God pulled the 'trigger'.

Quote from: MMIsa's vindication came after his death at the destruction of the temple, which Jesus said would happen after the "abomination of desolation", which was his crucifixion.  It also came at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 at the hands of the Roman General Titus.  It also came at the words of the prophet which vindicated Isa's messiahship, his conception, and the reputation of his mother.  All of these things raised him in esteem before God and among God's people.  If we take sura 3 as a related ayah, then the termination of his life has to happen first.

If we take the view that Jesus was Isa, 4:157 is insurmountable and either one or the other account must be taken.

Quote from: MMBut given 4:158 beginning with, "Instead,..." connecting God's response of raising him to the allegations of the Jews that they were responsible for his death, and 3:55 showing God's plan for Isa to be the termination of his life before his raising, I suspect they are connected as parts of the same chain of events.

Obviously everyone's life is terminated before they die, Isa was raised to God after he died, surely he didn't raise him to Himself before terminating his life... The rather is actually better translated as nay in that verse, as you can tell when doing a concordance and reading up on it's function. Even if you put rather in, what difference does it make besides telling us 'instead he died and I raised him to myself'...it's actually making the case even stronger, saying they didn't kill/crucify him instead he died and I raised him to myself. Once again, whether the Romans pulled the trigger on the gun handed to them by the Jews, they were both responsible. You have to stick to one account here, either the Jews are totally not responsible for Jesus' death, or they are.

Hey Pazuzu,

Quote from: PazuzuThere is a problem with rendering the phrase "shubbiha lahum" as "it appeared to them that they had". What does it mean when we say "it APPEARED to them that they had (crucified him)". This brings to mind 2 possibilities:

1- The fairie tale that the Muslims believe in, which says that on the "Eve of the Crucifixion", God twisted the facial features of Judas Iscariot, made him resemble Jesus, and so the Jews crucified Judas instead, but due to a trick played on them by God, it APPEARED to them that they crucified the real "Jesus".

2- That they put him (the REAL "JESUS") on the cross with the intention of executing him, but he was actually still alive when they brought him down. (I guess the Romans must have been too dim-witted to check his pulse). So the consequence of this is that "Jesus" lived on, and went around preaching for a time, with 2 big holes in his wrists and 2 bigger holes in his ankles. (The idea here is that he was not technically "crucified" because he did not actually DIE on the cross).

Is there a 3rd possibility that I'm missing?

Exactly. Unless we take the whole 'no one who's ever died by the hands of someone literally or manipulatively is responsible for their death, only God is', afraid there is no 3rd option.

Quote from: pazuzuThe way I see it is that the subject article of the word "shubbiha" (the ه letter at the end of the word) does NOT refer to Isa, but to the WHOLE MATTER of the crucifixion ITSELF. it is reffering to the EVENT, not the victim of the event. I think the most accurate rendering, in Arabic, woyld be as such:

{They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they were confused in the matter}

I actually completely agree with you. I've read this rendering before and it makes the most sense.

Quote from: PazuzuMy hunch is that Paul was at the origin of this confusion. And his mysterious trip to Arabia, where he spent 3 years BEFORE he started preaching Christianity, contains the key to unlocking this puzzle.

Could be, I sense an article coming up with pictures...just don't put up any more stuffed animals :p

Quote from: noshirk on March 30, 2012, 11:47:47 AM
is jesus of palestine a prophet ?
let's explore this hypothesis

he was waited as a man who will liberate jews. He didn't liberate anything
Jesus was waited as liberator, then became super-victim and now he is waited again as liberator.

The messiah as 'liberator' is a preconceived notion by the jews during that time..
There were no reference in the bible that the messiah WILL BE a liberator from Roman occupation..

It's the same empty belief that sunnis/shiites today have on "Imam Mahdi".. it's a belief which themselves invented..

Quote
As super-victim to uphold human kind suffering he failed also since suffering continued.

Again no reference, this is another 'idea' which develop later on...

Quotenothing in history shows that christians had been helped by GOD. They were persecuted until constantin, in fourt century, decided the contrary.

There are story of "Those who were in the caves".. in the Quran..
And God's help came in myriad of ways, most of the time 'very subtle'..

Quote
No civilisation raised in christiannity until christians rejected their church with Martin luther.

What do you mean by 'Christianity'?

Quote
genealogy of jesus of palestine (through joseph) is a stupidity.

Perhaps, but you cannot prove that he isn't either...

QuoteHis birth was decided 25th december, day of rebirth of sun and sunday is sun-day.
This was old religion of Constantin.

An old trick to make the "Winter Solice" event continues on.. with different meanings..
The same trick also being applied on the "Hajj Ritual" around the Kabba as we witness today..

Quote
Church of Jesus of Palestine moved directly to Rome, Capital of ennemy of jews from whom he was supposed to liberate.

Nope it's not moved directly... but it's a political issues... the conflict between western and eastern roman empire played many parts in it.. 300 years after Jesus died...
And Constantinople (Today it's called Istanbul) continues to be the 'capital of eastern church' until it's being sacked by Rome (western church) and then later on by the Turks which sealed it's fate.

Quoteis all this is normal ?

Yes it is...

Quote
All chritian history seem to be an invention of romans, probably initially to divide jews, using old jews history, probably helped by some jews.

Not all, some element of history contains truth and some others are invented / twisted by the Rabbanical Judaism too..

Quote
so what kind of indication of evidence have we that GOD could be behind the story of the crucified guy called Jesus of nazareth, if such a guy existed?
Where are the proofs ?

No scientific evidence, as there are no scientific evidence of the story of Abraham, Moses, Muhammad either..


Salam / Peace

Quote from: Pazuzu on March 30, 2012, 05:00:17 PM
There is a problem with rendering the phrase "shubbiha lahum" as "it appeared to them that they had". What does it mean when we say "it APPEARED to them that they had (crucified him)". This brings to mind 2 possibilities:

1- The fairie tale that the Muslims believe in, which says that on the "Eve of the Crucifixion", God twisted the facial features of Judas Iscariot, made him resemble Jesus, and so the Jews crucified Judas instead, but due to a trick played on them by God, it APPEARED to them that they crucified the real "Jesus".

2- That they put him (the REAL "JESUS") on the cross with the intention of executing him, but he was actually still alive when they brought him down. (I guess the Romans must have been too dim-witted to check his pulse). So the consequence of this is that "Jesus" lived on, and went around preaching for a time, with 2 big holes in his wrists and 2 bigger holes in his ankles. (The idea here is that he was not technically "crucified" because he did not actually DIE on the cross).

Is there a 3rd possibility that I'm missing?

That the crucifixion didn't involve any making of 'holes'... yet tied up by rope...

Quote from: Pazuzu on March 30, 2012, 05:00:17 PM

My hunch is that Paul was at the origin of this confusion. And his mysterious trip to Arabia, where he spent 3 years BEFORE he started preaching Christianity, contains the key to unlocking this puzzle.

Great so Jesus is a Yemenite as well....
All road lead to Yemen.. for your case..
And blame it all on Paul...

Salam / Peace

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 07:42:39 PM
To use your own words, lol c'mon! Really? You're saying that God was telling us/them hey look, I took his life (like I take the life of everyone but this may be news to you people) and even though you handed the Romans the gun, you guys didn't crucify/kill him. Right...

This is exactly what I'm saying that the prophet said to the Jews he was speaking to.  The irony is that the same dynamics played out with Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ", where Jewish groups petitioned for the lines of the crowd "His blood be upon us, and upon our children!" to either remain out of the subtitles or be left out altogether.  In one instance they were claiming responsibility in order to mock the prophet's claim of Jesus' Messiahhood and his conception, in the other, they were completely disavowing responsibility for fear of reprisal.  As Hoppean said, the question is not one of historical revision, but claims of responsibility in the context of the prophet's audience.

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 07:42:39 PMSo everyone that's ever died by the hands (literal or otherwise) of someone else, hasn't really died because of them and they shouldn't/can't claim that they did because God pulled the 'trigger'.

I think we can agree that the circumstances and the events involving the Messiah are not comparable to most other situations.

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 30, 2012, 07:42:39 PMOnce again, whether the Romans pulled the trigger on the gun handed to them by the Jews, they were both responsible. You have to stick to one account here, either the Jews are totally not responsible for Jesus' death, or they are.

In legal terms, there is often a big difference in being an accessory to murder, and murder itself in terms of the share of guilt and the penalty given.

Quote from: Pazuzu on March 30, 2012, 05:00:17 PM
My hunch is that Paul was at the origin of this confusion. And his mysterious trip to Arabia, where he spent 3 years BEFORE he started preaching Christianity, contains the key to unlocking this puzzle.

Peace...

Not possible.  Paul was not Jewish.  And while his account is that he immediately went into the desert, the record of his companion Luke was that after Damascus, he immediately began preaching.  Given Paul's tendency for BS in his epistles, I favor the narrative from Acts.

Peace all,
Joel

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 31, 2012, 05:15:35 AM
This is exactly what I'm saying that the prophet said to the Jews he was speaking to.  The irony is that the same dynamics played out with Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ", where Jewish groups petitioned for the lines of the crowd "His blood be upon us, and upon our children!" to either remain out of the subtitles or be left out altogether.  In one instance they were claiming responsibility in order to mock the prophet's claim of Jesus' Messiahhood and his conception, in the other, they were completely disavowing responsibility for fear of reprisal.  As Hoppean said, the question is not one of historical revision, but claims of responsibility in the context of the prophet's audience.

You claim that they were responsible for handing the Romans the gun, that makes them guilty of involvement. Who is more guilty or less guilty is irrelevant. Whether they want to disavow themselves or partake in the glee is irrelevant.

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 31, 2012, 05:15:35 AMI think we can agree that the circumstances and the events involving the Messiah are not comparable to most other situations.

Normal rules of death and judgement for all as stated in the quran are not involved because he was a Messiah...? No I don't agree.

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 31, 2012, 05:15:35 AMIn legal terms, there is often a big difference in being an accessory to murder, and murder itself in terms of the share of guilt and the penalty given.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 31, 2012, 06:36:24 AM
You claim that they were responsible for handing the Romans the gun, that makes them guilty of involvement. Who is more guilty or less guilty is irrelevant. Whether they want to disavow themselves or partake in the glee is irrelevant.[\quote]

No, the gun belonged to the Romans, if we are going to be specific.  And I'd say partaking in the glee is very relevant, because that is related to the content of the ayat.

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 31, 2012, 06:36:24 AMNormal rules of death and judgement for all as stated in the quran are not involved because he was a Messiah...? No I don't agree.

Why?  Clearly, given the fact that God specifically told Isa in 3:55 that he would terminate his life makes it a special circumstance, given that he would have already known who is responsible for terminating the life of each person.  Otherwise, why would he have re-stated the obvious?

Quote from: Jafar on March 31, 2012, 02:43:58 AM
No scientific evidence, as there are no scientific evidence of the story of Abraham, Moses, Muhammad either..

There is scientific evidence of existence of a book called Quran.
Quran call himself proof. Accept it or not accept it is another question.
This proof lead me to reject totally the story of the crucified guy and specially the Gospel of Matt, Mark and Luke

Quote from: Jafar on March 25, 2012, 02:15:54 PM
Having said that; I enjoy reading the Gospel especially Matt, Mark and Luke. I agree with a lot of what Iashua said.

Quote from: Jafar on March 25, 2012, 02:15:54 PM
Whether Iashua really did exist or not it doesn't matter to me as his teaching as recorded in the gospel has certainly inspired me.

and in  reponse to

QuoteQuote from: Maha on March 20, 2012, 02:04:30 PM
    I think most people just inherit their religion from their family. Would be much better if everyone was to choose his religion at the age of 21.

Quote from: Jafar on March 20, 2012, 11:05:06 PM
Or not choosing any or choose to join multiple or ALL religions...

i think  that  discussion will be very difficult with Jaafar.
salam & peace

I am at a loss as to why so much stock is put on the few words of the salabuhu or not salabuhu. The whole narrative of the Qur'an over 3isa is totally disimilar of the narrative of the Gospels over Jesus. Jesus is never called or confused with a Prophet, the Qur'an sets 3isa as one of the prohets.

If the trick had not been played of saying 3isa is Jesus, and the injil is the gospels, nothing else would have tied those two names.

So who was the first who said 3isa is Jesus?

Salaam

More exegetical errors in 4:157-158

As we have already seen those who accept a "historical corrective narrative" of 4:157 make two extremely important eisegetical errors, even within that one verse:

1) They, either misread or, pretend that the phrase: "ma salaboohu/not they crucified him", means "he/3isa was not crucified". This is a clear non sequitur, for the 2nd statement does not follow from the 1st. Saying: "They did not shoot the mayor" does not mean "The mayor/he was not shot". This can hardly be controversial!

2) They refuse to let the Quran exegetically define who "they/hum" are at 4:157, instead they prefer to read their own notions in to the passage. This is obvious since were they to allow the Quran to speak for itself, it would reduce their interpretation to absurdity. With the result that: The "people of the book/Jews" of Arabia, at the time of the revelation of the Quran (7th century), would be the ones who attempted to crucify "3isa", not to mention were present with Moses, and worshipped the calf!!

Now we shall see two more eisegetical errors from 4:157-158, and in the process, the perils of prooftexting:

1) 4:157 begins with: "Waqawlihim inna qatalna almaseeha AAeesa ibna maryama rasoola Allahi.....And their word/saying truly we killed the Messiah 3isa son of Mary, God's messenger". So the question is very simple: Did "they" say this, or didn't they? If you adopt a "historical corrective narrative" interpretation, then surely "they" must have said these words, literally. This leaves us in the odd position of claiming that those who were trying to crucify and kill 3isa, referred to him as both "the Messiah and God's messenger". So they truly believed 3isa to be their promised Messiah, and to be sent by God, but decided to "attempt" to muder him in the most humiliating way possible?? Let us see if anyone wishes to adopt this absurdity.

Therefore, what is left but to reject this "historical" reading, and to realize these word are meant to figure sarcasm and unbelief? Perhaps that's why so many Islamic translators/commentators understand this to be a "boast", to reflect an attitude of arrogance. So then the error in the interpretation becomes painfully obvious, for if this part of the verse does not pass the test of "historical correction" then, why two words later, do they suddenly change their interpretive framework?? And assume that "wa ma qataloohu wa ma salaboohu/and not they killed him and not they crucified him" are to be understood as a "historical correction" and not as a refutation of the same "boast" we read before. This is nothing more than the fallacy of special pleading.

2) The second error is equally egregious, we read at the end of 4:57 and the beginning of 4:158 "...wama qataloohu yaqeenan bal rafa3ahu Allahu ilayhi.../and not they killed him for a surety, nay, to the contrary, God exalted/raised/elevated him to himself." Here's another simple question: How is being exalted by God a negation of being killed? For here there can be no doubt that "bel", at the beginning of 4:158, is meant to negate what came before it. So are being killed and being exalted by God, mutually exclusive concepts?? In fact they are not, for one can be exalted by being killed, as a martyr!

Again, this is perhaps why so many Islamic commentators insist the 3isa was "raised up (alive)". For it was necessary for them to negate and contrast "and not they killed him.." with being alive, which makes sense from their own point of view. Unfortunately that is precisely their error! The text simply says "rafa3ahu/he exalted/raised him"; thus in order to make their "interpretation" work, they must add ideas to the text, which are not there. This is the very definition of eisegesis! They assume their "interpretation" is correct, and manipulate the text in whatever way is necessary to make it fit.

One interesting final note:

1) Muhammad Asad comments on 4:158 (note:172) saying:"The expression "God exalted him unto Himself" in the above verse denotes the elevation of Jesus to the realm of God's special grace - a blessing in which all prophets partake, as is evident from 19:57, where the verb rafa nahu ("We exalted him") is used with regard to the Prophet Idris. (See also Muhammad ?Abduh in Manar III, 316 f., and VI, 20f.) The "nay" (bal) at the beginning of the sentence is meant to stress the contrast between the belief of the Jews that they had put Jesus to a shameful death on the cross and the fact of God's having "exalted him unto Himself".

Conclusion:

Thus from an exegetical point of view, the errors listed above render completely untenable the "traditional Islamic interpretation" of these texts, and are, frankly, impossible; if the text is to have any meaning at all. For if one were to adopt their methodology, then scripture could quite literally mean anything at all, without anyway to decide if any "interpretation" were true or false. One could simply read into any passage whatever one desires, and who can say that it's wrong?? After all, we need not appeal to literary or historical context to support our interpretation. It's possible that the Quran could have had no meaning to the people who first heard it, but was just a collection of random sounds! So that words like "Injeel" "3isa" "Taurat" were just incomprehensible gibberish, which had no histroical meaning whatsoever. That is the necessary consequence of abandoning exgesis!

To Hoppean

i think that, in your exegetical interpretation of 4-157, you forgot to exegetical interpret the last part of the verse:

4:157 And their saying: "We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, messenger of God!" And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

Please, let me understand your conjectures:
Jesus Killed or not ? Died or not ? if not Died when then died ? If Killed, When and how and by whom killed ? Why God allowed to "they" to kill jesus and not to the other "they" and what is the theological difference ? Who are the Shubbiha lahom ? Who are who dispute about him, that don't follow conjecture and that have knowledge ?

in my exegetical interpretation of last part of verse, the simple fact of disputing about a killed or crucified guy make the disputor in doubt, with no knowledge except following conjecture.

salam & peace

Quote from: MMNo, the gun belonged to the Romans, if we are going to be specific.  And I'd say partaking in the glee is very relevant, because that is related to the content of the ayat.

Quote from: MM"You have Jews suggesting Jesus for crucifixion, possibly fingering him as the ringleader of the protests in order to get some favor from Rome, but not actually the ones who put him to death.

Like I said, they handed the gun over and the Romans fired in your version. But apparently, they didn't even do that...because 'God pulled the trigger after all', not the Jews or the Romans.

Quote from: MMWhy?  Clearly, given the fact that God specifically told Isa in 3:55 that he would terminate his life makes it a special circumstance, given that he would have already known who is responsible for terminating the life of each person.  Otherwise, why would he have re-stated the obvious?

So here we have someone strung up on a crucifix being crucified, run through with pilums whatnot and God tells him yeah doesn't look too good, definitely not a flesh wound, so um, time to die/raise you up to me, you did good, son (no pun)...obviously he died because of what had been done to him or in other words, God terminated his life! People die in accidents, people die sitting and reading newspapers, their lives are terminated by God too! If God wanted, he could've saved 'Jesus', if God wanted 'Jesus' to live, he wouldn't have died at the time...but clearly, in your version of events, Jesus was crucified/killed which obviously would've killed him but God killed him before the Romans did even though the Romans killed him they didn't kill him but he did get killed in apparently the same progression of events that involved The Jews (tm) and the crucifixion/killing...is this some kind of really bad soap opera? The alt ending to Lost? What, did 'Jesus' have some natural lifespan that God cut short to make it a 'special circumstance'? Who decides that if not for God, anytime one is killed, that's your lifespan, unless we have some more nuggets about how God 'really' operates...it's safe to say, this is ludicrous.

Restating the obvious to you because of where you are coming from, what you think the circumstances must be. I read it and see it as as a statement that Isa wasn't crucified or killed, no, he died. Not because of the crucifixion or because 'they' killed him. Which means it had to be an entirely different set of circumstances in which he died, and that he died but not by 'them'. This is clearing a misconception. Putting in but he did! he did die by crucifixion, but God had mercy on him and he died a few hours earlier rather than later is asking for a lolwut.

Reading into the verses what those circumstances have to be is a futile exercise since it's not mentioned, but what is clearly mentioned is that he was certainly neither crucified nor killed by 'them' hence any circumstance that involves 'them' and crucifixion/killing is out. 'Jesus'' crucifixion/killing involves 'them', thus it's out. Unless you have no involvement of 'them', unless you have a situation where only the Romans and their expert spy ring infiltrated the sturdy disciple ranks with their handy disguise kits, identified the ringleader and nabbed him by his flowy beard and dragged him off to crucifixion central entirely with no help/advice/gentle nudges/surreptitious winks of the Jews...there is no case. That is if the Romans really actually did crucify/kill him *twilight zone theme*

Tl;dr:

-About the crucifixion/killing... No, Jesus wasn't crucified/killed by the Jews but by the Romans.
-Okay, but this verse here says...No, no wasn't 'them', the Romans crucified/killed him, I'm telling you.
-Alright, so the Romans crucified/killed him...What, no, no God killed him.
-But look here you just said...This was the plan all along, God needed Jesus to die because he had to be raised up you see.
-So, the Romans...Nope, God.
-But the Jews...Not at all. God.
-Jesus had to die to be raised, we know that one has to die to...You don't know the inner workings, you see this was to make sure the Jews couldn't boast that they killed him, that would let them get the upper hand.
-The verse says that 'they' weren't involved in crucifying/killing him!...Well, they were but they didn't crucify/kill him, the Romans did.
-I sense a Deja Vu moment...Look, let's just agree it was a special circumstance where God decided to kill.
-What on...!?1...He was a Messiah after all.
-The verse doesn't talk about that! Yes but clearly it was, God stepped in and terminated life.
-Doesn't he do that anyways? Sure but because this was special, it was extra special.
-Remind me never to order the specials again.

Quote from: hurufSo who was the first who said 3isa is Jesus?

Probably those who wanted to either do an early version of the 'multi-faith/we are more similar than you think' approach, or to use an opportunity to manipulate events, deliberate or otherwise. Who knows and really, what difference does it make, it's not like those who believe it now are going to change their minds regardless of where it started from or by whom. And no way of really knowing if whoever it was, actually was the firestarter...even if someone does manage to track down some mention somewhere in the dank and musty past.

Quote from Carrot:

QuoteCould be, I sense an article coming up with pictures...just don't put up any more stuffed animals :p

How sharp and perceptive of you!  No more articles with pictures for me...


Quote from Maverick

QuoteNot possible.  Paul was not Jewish.  And while his account is that he immediately went into the desert, the record of his companion Luke was that after Damascus, he immediately began preaching.  Given Paul's tendency for BS in his epistles, I favor the narrative from Acts.

Paul didn't say, in his letters, that he went into THE DESERT. He clearly said "TO ARABIA".

Here are Paul's own words:

But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me from my mother?s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I didn?t immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia. Then I returned to Damascus.Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem...  (Galatians 1: 15-18)

These events happened AFTER Paul's initial visit to Damascus, where he met with a prominent Jewish Rabbi by the name of Ananias.  Geographically, the term "Arabia", denotes the entire region of the Pennisula, starting from the southern border of the Syrian desert, all the way to the coast of Yemen on the Arabian Sea. Paul did not specifiy where exactly he went, but it surely couldn't have been some wilderness place, where he could reside as a hermit and "prepare himself spiritually" for his new mission. He must have visited an important urban center.

It seems that Paul picked up a lot of lore during his stay in Arabia. This is made evident again in Galatians, where he places Mount Sinai in Arabia:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to abondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. (Gal. 4 :22-25).

This is very interesting, isn't it? Paul is saying that Hagar, the alledged bondmaiden of Abraham, is an allegory to the "bond of flesh" and to Mount Sinai itself, which is somewhere in Arabia. What they call the "Sinai Pennisula",  which is part of Egypt today, was never a part of Arabia. In fact there is zero evidence that this pennisula was ever called "Sinai" before the 4th Century A.D.

Where did Paul get the notion that Mount Sinai was in Arabia, if not for the lore that he picked up from there? If you have been following all my posts, I have presented evidence that the stories of the Old Testament where actually ancient legends of Yemen, which were passed down through the generations, sung in their folk ballads (Zubur / Psalms), and finally recorded by scribes starting around 600 B.C, and that the events of these stories/legends were projected onto Palestine and Egypt by means of a forgery.

This could only mean that Paul travelled deep into the Arabian Pennisula, most probably beyond where the city of Makkah lies today, and must have gotten a copy of the "Injeel of the Nasara", or some other writings concerning Isa, a prophet sent to the Bani Israel not long after Mose's time. This Isa was born under a date tree, sometime in the early autumn  (September), when dates are ripe. It was only after he returned from Arabia that Paul began preaching the new creed.


Quote from Huruf

QuoteSo who was the first who said 3isa is Jesus?

Something tells me it was Ananias of Damascus (Paul's teacher) who spliced the two personnalities together.

Quote from Jafar

QuoteGreat so Jesus is a Yemenite as well....
All road lead to Yemen.. for your case..

Between Jerusalem (which didnt even exist on the map before 600 BC) and Yemen (the source of all Semitic migrations and most probably the craddle of humankind), I choose the latter.

Peace...

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 31, 2012, 04:49:37 PM
So here we have someone strung up on a crucifix being crucified, run through with pilums whatnot and God tells him yeah doesn't look too good, definitely not a flesh wound, so um, time to die/raise you up to me, you did good, son (no pun)...obviously he died because of what had been done to him or in other words, God terminated his life! People die in accidents, people die sitting and reading newspapers, their lives are terminated by God too! If God wanted, he could've saved 'Jesus', if God wanted 'Jesus' to live, he wouldn't have died at the time...but clearly, in your version of events, Jesus was crucified/killed which obviously would've killed him but God killed him before the Romans did even though the Romans killed him they didn't kill him but he did get killed in apparently the same progression of events that involved The Jews (tm) and the crucifixion/killing...is this some kind of really bad soap opera? The alt ending to Lost? What, did 'Jesus' have some natural lifespan that God cut short to make it a 'special circumstance'? Who decides that if not for God, anytime one is killed, that's your lifespan, unless we have some more nuggets about how God 'really' operates...it's safe to say, this is ludicrous.

Restating the obvious to you because of where you are coming from, what you think the circumstances must be. I read it and see it as as a statement that Isa wasn't crucified or killed, no, he died. Not because of the crucifixion or because 'they' killed him. Which means it had to be an entirely different set of circumstances in which he died, and that he died but not by 'them'. This is clearing a misconception. Putting in but he did! he did die by crucifixion, but God had mercy on him and he died a few hours earlier rather than later is asking for a lolwut.

Reading into the verses what those circumstances have to be is a futile exercise since it's not mentioned, but what is clearly mentioned is that he was certainly neither crucified nor killed by 'them' hence any circumstance that involves 'them' and crucifixion/killing is out. 'Jesus'' crucifixion/killing involves 'them', thus it's out. Unless you have no involvement of 'them', unless you have a situation where only the Romans and their expert spy ring infiltrated the sturdy disciple ranks with their handy disguise kits, identified the ringleader and nabbed him by his flowy beard and dragged him off to crucifixion central entirely with no help/advice/gentle nudges/surreptitious winks of the Jews...there is no case. That is if the Romans really actually did crucify/kill him *twilight zone theme*

I don't know if you are confused by my outline of the events, or parodying them.  At any rate, here's the big picture of how I see things.

According to 3:55, God tells Jesus that the day is coming that God will terminate his life, raise him (in esteem i.e. vindicate his mission and reputation -or- bodily resurrect him, makes no difference to me), cleanse him of the rejectors, and cause his followers to to be above those who reject until the day of resurrection.  As I stated earlier, if there is no special significance to God telling Jesus this, then it is pretty damn redundant of him, no?  When you look at the basic events of the life of Jesus, you can see why God had to tell him this.  His mission was essentially one that could end no other way than an ugly death.  He's heading to the most painful and dishonorable death possible at the time, he's heading to a death that calls into question the entire Jewish understanding of God and God's justice.  So God is telling him that all of this is foreordained as a part of God's plan for the time so he would be able to bear it.  Jesus' life is terminated as a part of God's plan, and he is raised in esteem (in my opinion) by the testimony and actions of his disciples after his death, he is cleansed of those who reject through his vindication seen in the destruction of the temple and the sacking of Jerusalem.

HOW God's plan for Jesus' death is carried out is through the betrayal of the Jews, and his murder by the Romans.  Surely you can see the notion that human events are sometimes conduits of Divine agency, no?

Fast forward to the time of the prophet.  Some Jews, hearing that the prophet affirms Jesus as Messiah and the virgin birth, go nuts.  "He's a fraud, a bastard, and his mother's a whore!  Were he the Messiah, we would not have been able to kill him!"  The prophet's answer is to give them a laundry list of the crimes committed by the Jewish people going back to the murdered prophets moving through history to the current time where his hearers were impugning the purity of Miriam and claiming that the Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death proves that he was not the Messiah.  His response is clear: you all are mistaken and confused, you did not kill him.  You thought you did, but in actuality this was a part of God's plan for vindicating the Messiah.

History fills in the gaps of what the prophet did not need to say.  These things would have been known by both Jews and Christians at the time of the prophet.  Why state what would have been obvious at the time?  Saying that it isn't that obvious to you is irrelevant.  It would have been obvious to the prophet's audience.

But the reluctance to even concede plausibility to what I'm saying isn't nearly as troubling as the assertion that Jesus is not Isa.  Perhaps none of you realize the implications of this as much as I do.  If Jesus is not Isa, the two prominent Miriams of the Judeo-Christian tradition are smashed into one person, the crucifixion did not happen, there was some other cat that was the center of a controversy involving Jews and the title Messiah, etc, then we have a big problem of a major revision of history.  It would mean that the Qur'an is the biggest hijacker of a religious culture next to the Book of Mormon.  To argue that a prophet at least 700-800 years removed from the actual events calls out a group of people as perpetuating the biggest historical and religious fraud in history is in fact the same method of argumentation as the Latter Day Saints!  If what is being said here is true, then the Qur'an is to Abrahamic Monotheism what the Book of Mormon is to the Bible.  I really, really hope you all understand what I'm saying here.

Quote from: savage_carrot on March 31, 2012, 04:49:37 PMTl;dr:

Lol.  Redditor.

Quote from: Pazuzu on March 31, 2012, 06:35:51 PM
Paul didn't say, in his letters, that he went into THE DESERT. He clearly said "TO ARABIA".

I live in Indiana.  To me, if the ground can't grow corn, or wheat, or soybeans, then it is a desert.  ;)

Paul was a fraud.  I don't care what he said in his personal letter sent to Galatia.  He said that to defend his self-designation as an apostle.  If he received his instruction from anyone other than Jesus himself, then his claim as an apostle is suspect at best.  That's why he said it.  The Book of Acts however, contradicts what he said:

Acts 9:17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21 All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.

Peace,
Joel

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 31, 2012, 08:57:50 PMIt would mean that the Qur'an is the biggest hijacker of a religious culture next to the Book of Mormon.  To argue that a prophet at least 700-800 years removed from the actual events calls out a group of people as perpetuating the biggest historical and religious fraud in history is in fact the same method of argumentation as the Latter Day Saints!  If what is being said here is true, then the Qur'an is to Abrahamic Monotheism what the Book of Mormon is to the Bible.  I really, really hope you all understand what I'm saying here.

Joel, I'm sure you know that this is precisely the argument made by many educated Christians, who have studied Islam. However, the underlying reason for this is even more disturbing: The method of interpretation used to deny the crucifixion at 4:157, is the same one that Islamic interpreters/commentators have been using for a thousand years. The result has been, to say the least, embarrassing. Take the traditional Islamic view of the Christian Trinity: The commentators are unanimous in their inability to define it accurately, commonly stating that it is God, Jesus and Mary!! The consequence is that the Muslim masses cannot even tell you what the Trinity is, let alone tell you the difference between eastern and western triadology. As one Christian apologist has said: "even if the trinity is wrong, God at least knew what it was in 7th century".

So how is the Quran to be defended from these calumnies?? It certainly won't be by using the same, old anti exegetical method that we see on this thread. Sadly, I don't think many care that Islamic commentators, throughout history, have misrepresented what the trinity is, precisely because they used the same "methodology" of interpreting scripture, as has been demonstrated on this thread. They would rather keep their traditions and let the Quran look ridiculous!

Peace all, :pr

4:157  That they said, "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:-
4:158  Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

If only there were teachings in Islam about spirituality? But sadly, I never heard about spirituality in Islamic classes that I attended when I was at school years ago, not then and not today. What was taught whenever Jesus/Isa was mentioned, they say, he belong to the Christian.

But I'm sure MaverickMonotheist and others with Christian background will understand what I'm going to say. With the creation of Jesus; I'm using the name here for the sake of popularity, to me it doesn't matter which name anyone used, but the Truth and the Signs about Jesus is the creation of mankind, similar to the creation of the first man, Adam. That is, we are Spiritual Beings, we are in Truth, Spirit from God, just like this man who was crucified on the cross. From the Gospel, Jesus said, .."I am in the blood and the blood is in me..".

In this man case, God Himself raised him up, the Spiritual Being, when he was crucified. What was left on the cross was the body, the flesh and blood. With certainty, that body looks like/appears to be the man who was crucified and raised up. Did they killed the man who is in Truth a Spiritual Being, the Spirit from God, the Spirit blown into the womb, just like you and me? And the Romans made up the story about his resurrection within three days.

In our case, when we die, the Angels will raise us up to meet with God. These are explained in all the verses of the Book about our moment of death. The body that will be buried, "will definitely appear like us". For those who still insist on believing that the body in the ground is us; the skin, the feet, the hand will be the witness, the whole empty body will be resurrected and stand beside those who did not believe we are in Truth spiritual beings, the Spirit from God.

Those who believed, the Spirit of Truth, which will dwell within us when we live on earth, will be our witness because our generations don't have any prophets to be our witness, we only have God and the Book of Truth. Therefore, seek and learn the Truth from God alone, the Councillor and the Comforter. Not from Paul or Kamal Salibi.

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 A Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God: glory be to Him: above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

Was there any other religion God was referring to from the above verse? Or was God referring to the Trinity created by the Romans; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit? If the answer is yes, then this Mary and her son existed during the Romans domination of the Jews and Jerusalem, not during Moses and Aaron. Another thing, God was calling to the People of the Book. Was there a People of the Book before Moses and Aaron?

May God bless us and guide us all on the Straight Path to the Truth. :pr
tauhid101

God, by his own assertion has and had sent messengers to all peoples, any who received a message is people othe book. The exclusive allocation of that denomination to Jews and Christians is not warranted by the Qur'an. There were religions and spiritual revelations and aspirations by many, we could say most of the peoples at all times. Restrict the dealing of God with humanity to the Israelites and Christians is a monumental fraud.

The Qur'an does not do that.

Salaam

Quote from: MMI don't know if you are confused by my outline of the events, or parodying them.  At any rate, here's the big picture of how I see things.

My talents are always under appreciated, no matter. Overlook and repeat clearly works for you.

Quote from: MMLol.  Redditor.

Incorrect, not that it makes any difference.

Quote from: MM
As I stated earlier, if there is no special significance to God telling Jesus this, then it is pretty damn redundant of him, no?

No. Let me know when you really actually want to respond to the issues in your version of events.

Quote from: MM
His mission was essentially one that could end no other way than an ugly death.

One could say that for Moses, Abraham, Mohammad, the whole Lot.

Quote from: MMHe's heading to the most painful and dishonorable death possible at the time, he's heading to a death that calls into question the entire Jewish understanding of God and God's justice.  So God is telling him that all of this is foreordained as a part of God's plan for the time so he would be able to bear it.  Jesus' life is terminated as a part of God's plan, and he is raised in esteem (in my opinion) by the testimony and actions of his disciples after his death, he is cleansed of those who reject through his vindication seen in the destruction of the temple and the sacking of Jerusalem.

Conjecture using a pre-made model/version of how it must've happened. In this case, because a misconception is being cleared of his death, it is brought up. It's crystal.

Quote from: MMHOW God's plan for Jesus' death is carried out is through the betrayal of the Jews, and his murder by the Romans.  Surely you can see the notion that human events are sometimes conduits of Divine agency, no?

I can surely see that no amount if 'good' or 'bad' debate will change this assumption and force fitting of events onto the verses of the quran, no matter how it refuses to fit.

Quote from: MMFast forward to the time of the prophet.  Some Jews, hearing that the prophet affirms Jesus as Messiah and the virgin birth, go nuts.  "He's a fraud, a bastard, and his mother's a whore!  Were he the Messiah, we would not have been able to kill him!"  The prophet's answer is to give them a laundry list of the crimes committed by the Jewish people going back to the murdered prophets moving through history to the current time where his hearers were impugning the purity of Miriam and claiming that the Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death proves that he was not the Messiah.  His response is clear: you all are mistaken and confused, you did not kill him.  You thought you did, but in actuality this was a part of God's plan for vindicating the Messiah.

And apparently The Jews would've said, not unlike Keanu: Woah, we killed him but we didn't, the Romans killed him but they didn't, God killed him yet we were involved in crucifying and killing him. Yeah, that works, brilliant vindication that. He's killed in either case after being crucified/killed but due to 'special circumstances' which apparently are the same for everyone across the board but somehow mysteriously different in this one, the light would've dawned on these guys. Right, right.

Quote from: MMHistory fills in the gaps of what the prophet did not need to say.  These things would have been known by both Jews and Christians at the time of the prophet.  Why state what would have been obvious at the time?  Saying that it isn't that obvious to you is irrelevant.  It would have been obvious to the prophet's audience.

Lol yeah, your explanation of what was obvious to them is very obvious. Instead the quran tells us they were confused in the matter, that they certainly didn't. It clears up the misconceptions. Refer back to the Tl version.

Quote from: MMBut the reluctance to even concede plausibility to what I'm saying isn't nearly as troubling as the assertion that Jesus is not Isa.  Perhaps none of you realize the implications of this as much as I do.  If Jesus is not Isa, the two prominent Miriams of the Judeo-Christian tradition are smashed into one person, the crucifixion did not happen, there was some other cat that was the center of a controversy involving Jews and the title Messiah, etc, then we have a big problem of a major revision of history.  It would mean that the Qur'an is the biggest hijacker of a religious culture next to the Book of Mormon.  To argue that a prophet at least 700-800 years removed from the actual events calls out a group of people as perpetuating the biggest historical and religious fraud in history is in fact the same method of argumentation as the Latter Day Saints!  If what is being said here is true, then the Qur'an is to Abrahamic Monotheism what the Book of Mormon is to the Bible.  I really, really hope you all understand what I'm saying here.

Here we have the real reason as to why we must believe in this version of events because if we don't, life as we know it is turned upside down, the quran is a bad plagiarisation and not worth much as far as taking it's claims as accurate go. We've been down this road with traditionalists in many different ways.

Quote from: huruf on April 01, 2012, 02:51:02 AM
God, by his own assertion has and had sent messengers to all peoples, any who received a message is people othe book. The exclusive allocation of that denomination to Jews and Christians is not warranted by the Qur'an. There were religions and spiritual revelations and aspirations by many, we could say most of the peoples at all times. Restrict the dealing of God with humanity to the Israelites and Christians is a monumental fraud.

The Qur'an does not do that.

Salaam

+1 People need to ditch this shortsighted worldview.

Quote from: savage_carrot on April 01, 2012, 03:22:10 AM
Here we have the real reason as to why we must believe in this version of events because if we don't, life as we know it is turned upside down, the quran is a bad plagiarisation and not worth much as far as taking it's claims as accurate go. We've been down this road with traditionalists in many different ways.

Which traditionalists?  If you are referring to traditional Islam, then this goes back to the caveats of accepting this position that I mentioned earlier.  It is an unfounded fear that it gets too close to both the sunni and christian position.  So to make sure we don't do that, we have to make sure we say things like Isa is not Jesus, he's someone else that we have no idea who he is.  And this reactionary interpretation is nothing less than a revision of history.

Seriously, explain to me from the text why it is logically allowable from the verses from Sura 4 to take its rebuttal of the claim that the Jews killed him a step further and say he was not crucified and did not die at all?

Quote from: savage_carrot on April 01, 2012, 03:35:58 AM
+1 People need to ditch this shortsighted worldview.

No one said anything about, for example, trying to weave the prophets of Ad and Thamud into the Judeo-Christian narrative.  This is a non sequitur.  What we are discussing is an interpretation of the events that it tantamount to nothing more than historical revision and cultural/religious thievery.

Quote from: MMWhich traditionalists?  If you are referring to traditional Islam, then this goes back to the caveats of accepting this position that I mentioned earlier.  It is an unfounded fear that it gets too close to both the sunni and christian position.  So to make sure we don't do that, we have to make sure we say things like Isa is not Jesus, he's someone else that we have no idea who he is.  And this reactionary interpretation is nothing less than a revision of history.

It's never been my fear what gets close to what tbh. I don't think like some others who have ready scripts for spam posting threads aggressively and refuse to budge no matter what aka those with agenda's. All that matters to me is whatever someone says is logical and in line with what the quran says. 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.

Quote from: MMSeriously, explain to me from the text why it is logically allowable from the verses from Sura 4 to take its rebuttal of the claim that the Jews killed him a step further and say he was not crucified and did not die at all?

Because of 19:15? Seriously, I'm kinda at a loss as to why one would only take a few verses and overlook the rest of the quran? He had to die, like everyone else, it's a fact that's mentioned in the quran, it's a fact that raising up to God has to mean death is involved. Unless someone out there is claiming he's in cryogenic stasis with God and will come back as Captain Palestine someday to die for us all over again, oh wait. Already been done, and these types don't give a damn about logic anyways. Even Elvis is apparently alive and well. How is your version saving us from the crazies? Some believe Jesus is coming back too and never died? There's nothing to stop anyone from believing as they choose, not your version and not the quran's, even if everything is neatly explained...which it is in the latter.

Quote from: MMNo one said anything about, for example, trying to weave the prophets of Ad and Thamud into the Judeo-Christian narrative.  This is a non sequitur.  What we are discussing is an interpretation of the events that it tantamount to nothing more than historical revision and cultural/religious thievery.

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.

There is a lot of merit to spiritual christianity, and I embrace it wholeheartedly, the mathal of the child of God, the human, being crucified, nailed on the cross of suffering, humiliation, ridicule, vilification, the looser in the eyes of the world...  think of Palestine today ?when is its passion, its calvary, its defamation going to end?

The mathal which spiritual christianity tells us that eventually it will be ressurrected, that there is no wound, no suffering that God will not redeem.

Does that require that a particular person on a particular date be nailed on othe cross or tied or whatever, because if that person is not, the millions of other who may have suffered that fate do not matter at all? There are only some persons which suffering is worth redemption?

I think spiritual christianity rejects that, but seems that many material christianity upholders need of a specific person being nailed or tied or whatever figure it is.

In that sense spiritual christianity uses the figure of Jesus-christ the same as previous acriptures used that of Horus or Osiris, as mathal, as symbols, as an spiritual language.

In this sense the truth of christianity is not tied to a particular event being actual or not, but it is tied to the ability of human empaty to fill with the suffering of others and inpire to the hope af redemption, no matter how desperate a situation may be.

There is also the esoterical meaning of the cross, like in astrology, where the grand cross is the hardest destiny, which doesn not leave much room to the person, who in fact is nailed to a very crossed fate.

As far as trying to extract from the Qur'an a confirmation of the crucifixion of whoever, no problem, there are hundreds or thousands of ayas which do not deny such crucifixion, like the whole Fatiha. The whole Fatiha does not say that Jesus or 3isa, or Musa, or Maryam was not crucified, so we can trustedly believe that they were crucified. Everybody was crucified.

Salaam

Quote from: hurufAs far as trying to extract from the Qur'an a confirmation of the crucifixion of whoever, no problem, there are hundreds or thousands of ayas which do not deny such crucifixion, like the whole Fatiha. The whole Fatiha does not say that Jesus or 3isa, or Musa, or Maryam was not crucified, so we can trustedly believe that they were crucified. Everybody was crucified.

Well played huruf, well played indeed ;)

Quote from: tauhid101 on April 01, 2012, 01:59:27 AM
4:157  That they said, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"

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

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

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.

Quote from: savage_carrot on April 01, 2012, 09:37:35 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.

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, 09:37:35 AMBecause of 19:15?

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, 09:37:35 AMIt 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.

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, 05:40:49 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?

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, 06:20:11 PM
It stands on it's own, on God's authority. Nothing else matters, or need apply.

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

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 diff?rence 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, P???ENE means that which is inside or in the
interior. PA?E 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

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on April 01, 2012, 08:58:59 PM
Ok, then instead of saying history doesn't matter, focus on the bad use of history by traditionalists in comparison to Qur'an.

QuoteFor example, in the verses we've been discussing,

That is it, you keep discussing those verses, which is obvious are a matter of you interpetation and inserting of the events of the gospels into it, but refuse that we are even discussing the whole Qur'an. You do not seem to want to get away from those verses and take all other verses from Qur'an. It seems that we have to say yes or yes to those verses some of you are discussing and never for any reason take any other part of the Qur'an.

As said previously, two lists, one with facts and data from the Qur'an regarding 3isa, one with the facts and data from the Gospels or other christian sources regarding Jesus. See the matches and dismatches.

QuoteSo 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.

QuoteIf 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.

Again that 3isa and Jesus are the same person is takeng as a given  but that is what we are discussing.

QuoteI 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. 

The Qur'an alone is sufficient proof of what it says, and that has been shown by Pazuzu and others, but between that and forbidding those who do not agree with somebody else to use other material, not to uphold the qur'an but rather to make sense of some things straneous the Qur'an.

Quote
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.

True, that has been said many times, and it does not make it tru. By thgeir own admission neither the books of the bible that are called the tora nor the gospels, are the same as the tawrat and the injil mentionned in the Qur'an.

The tora and the gospels are not texts revealed by God, but narrations and renditions by people of thing that purportedly happened and some speeches attributed to God, or in the gospels to Jesus. THAT MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT THE TAWRAT AND INJIL, which are supposed to be revealed by God and therefore not narrated by anybody after the fact.

Of course that poses no problems morally or spiritually to anybody, because all of us, within our capacity can feel if something brings light and is morally and espiritually upbring or not.

In that sense the texts are useful as they are, but what the cannot in any way do, is bound the Qur'an and exact from the Qur'an for them a guarantee that the Qur'an does not give.

QuoteAll 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.

Sure, and the Qur'an and what it says, lends to the idea that in fact there is a lot of merit to what Pazuzu hs been saying, that the events narrated in the Qur'an refer to Arabia, and not to Palestine.

Quote
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

It is important to make the part of spirituallity, morality, and the anecdotical part. History, everywhere is full of traps. Fortunatelly we do not need history in order to believe. God is here and now, and His rahma pervades everything. There are important things and less important things. The fivine rahma here and now  is more important than other things.

I am sure, maverick, you are an honest searcher. The searching that you do is also important, it is part of our human destiny. I am sure it will bring fruit to you and to others. Do continue, by all means, but do not get upset, although we all get upset many times. However, God gives us these things for comfort, not for distress.

May best regards and wishes, and I understand your feelings, I think, at least some part of them, very well. Many of us have gone trough that, or something akin, and that is why I think that Christianity, spiritual christianity has a lot to offer and carries important truths, but it is a very tall order and not everyone is up to it.

Salaam

Let's continue with funny things about Joshua bin nun , Jesus and fishes

http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/forum/_Chevron_the_Christian_Fish-11-218-0-0/

and

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Aleph-Bet/Nun/nun.html

and principally this

http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~stroumsa/Fish.pdf

please read , it is amazing.

Quote from: MMOk, 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.

Like I said, it's not exactly news that 'extant' history may be incorrect. We have a very extant piece of history that claims Isa wasn't (not that God claims Isa was Jesus) but it wasn't at the same time you say? 'At the same time' we have little to no evidence that 'Jesus' as known today even existed...plenty of discussion on that. Some say a Bishop forged entries in Josephus' work, some even doubt crucifixion means crucifixion. Most of these 'extant' sources are not even at the same time anyways, so many parallels between this and the hadith controversies.

Quote from: MMIf 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.

Are you alright? The verse was presented to state that Jesus had to die, thus in response to your specific quote of people claiming he never died. He was a man that would die like any other. Not the first time you've taken my words to mean things I doubt I could even get them to.

QuoteIf 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.

Solidly historical documentation is debatable as you well know. Many things get revised with time, it's not the end of the world. This refusal to budge from something considered 'solid/not to be questioned' is a very well known issue in plenty of circles, inclusive of history. Certain parts of history don't hold a monopoly on other parts. Not meant to say? Surely you don't decide what it should and shouldn't say for 'it's own ends'. And no, it commits no theft...that is another one of your wild extrapolations.

QuoteI 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.

What are you on about? Even after I've clearly said and have maintained that in my posts: I don't give a crap what you say as long as it's logical and in line with the quran. You may stop your sad attempt at attributing hypocritical motives and take a good hard look at what you're writing. It's debatable what the Torah and Gospel is. There's been plenty of discussion on it. What I've read of them, I've a hard time reconciling the author of the quran to that stuff. There is a markedly different feel to the narrative. Far as the content, hits and misses.

QuoteAll 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.

Once again, different approaches. In your case, we need extra quranic material to understand the quran. In my case, I don't. I additionally consider the quran as universal and not constrained to any time period.

QuoteGentlemen, 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.

Your choice. I would however suggest that the opinion: if the quran revises alleged history then it's a deal breaker...be the focus. It would clarify the issues that are created if the quran dares step out of line compared to any other text, historical or otherwise. Perhaps a new thread.

Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on April 01, 2012, 07:42:16 AM

Seriously, explain to me from the text why it is logically allowable from the verses from Sura 4 to take its rebuttal of the claim that the Jews killed him a step further and say he was not crucified and did not die at all?

That logic just doesn't work--at all. According to your logic, based off just ONE verse of which there is no evidence supporting your position, only conjecture, what does the quran say about conjecture? No matter, let's look at 3:144. Now we can clearly determine that Muhammad was an immortal, right? It doesn't say that he died in THAT verse. This is the fallacy of burden of proof. You don't prove a NEGATIVE.  You and the supporter of your view keep spouting this you're just following 'traditional islam' nonsense, yet, you are repeatedly forcing interpretations into the Quranic text based on other sources, based on your own preconceptions, based on other sources. Hypocritical much? Yeah I can insinuate whatever the heck I want about whomever I want, because that's such an honest debater I am, you know!  ::)

Furthermore, check out 41:37, do you see anywhere that The quran shows us that Allah doesn't equate to a moon god? No? Well OBVIOUSLY allah means a moon god, based on some these other sources (yes there are loads of archaeological evidence supporting this, surely you can't explain that?!) This is how ridiculous your argument sounds.

QuoteLol.  Redditor.

loln00b  tldr and other memes precede Reddit ;) Learn to internet, damn you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0DTT3u2JZ8

Jesus's Body might have been Crucified, but his soul was not. This Notion comes from the fact that God Almighty "lifted" jesus (i.e his soul) beforehand (4:158). Jesus himself states in the Quran that God terminated his life (5:117), so he obviously dead, but it was not the Jews who killed him; Jesus's death/crucifiction was made to LOOK LIKE he was in that state (4:157) , but in reality, it is God ALmighty who terminated his life beforehand by lifting his soul (4:158), and leaving his body. (consider people in a vegetative state/brain dead, are they dead, or are they alive? Can you kill them or are they already dead? Do they have souls? or are they soul-less?

Was Jesus Crucified? (A Quranic Perspective)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=judYydh6TJ4

conjecture? or does this article below have any evidence of truth?

http://www.irthsumer.com/site/PDF/ChristAmalgam.pdf

 Some people hate Jesus.

The spirit of this thread is the semitic counterpart of Ku klux klan teachings... Jesus wasn't nor the Messiah neither a prophet (didn't exist, son of a prostitute or another new invention) is like the klan's people claiming that jews aren't real hebrews and they aren't God's elected people.

Quran was given just after jews rejected Jesus and completed their Gemarah (Jerusalem and Babylon) and after Trinitiarian Christianism defeated in Europe Unitarian Christianism (adopted mainly by germanic people like the goths). God gave Quran in order to confirm real judaism and real christianism and not to claim, as somebody do in this thread, that jews have no conexion with biblical hebrews and king David and Jesus was nobody... oh maaaan   :bravo: ... muslims (quran alone or not) saying at the same time all the lies of Talmud and Ku Klux Klan together.  :nope: :jedi:

Reality surpass fiction movies.

Good link about Rabbi Kaduri.  :handshake:

Jesus wasn't God (even the Gospels say it) but all this talmudic style hate...

Youssef 4342, your point is good but this people react in a bad way to the Word of God incarnated and crucified. They prefer papers and books to life.

Shalom/Pax/Salam

Peace,

Jesus 4 life :rotfl:

God bless you