Isa is not Jesus, and Isa and Jesus are both a mystery !

[Pazuzu]

Salam, easternqibla:

Other names in the Quran are from Greek (e.g. Iblis from Diabolis= devil,

This statement is untrue.  The Quran does not have non-Arabic terms. The word   "Iblees" is a 100% Arabic word derived from the root-verb    ba-la-sa        إبليس - بلس, which means "to despair". It describes the psychological state of being of someone who has lost his proofs or arguments, and his lies have all been exposed, and so he despairs because he has no more card to play, and no place to hide.

The derivatives of the word appear several times in the Quran.  (Mublisoon - Yublis - Iblees).

The relation between ba-la-sa / iblees is comparable to that of  ka-la-la / ikleel  or  ba-ra-qa / ibreeq . This is genuine Arabic linguistic structure, and has nothing to do with Greek whatsoever.

Just to clear a misconception.

Peace...

[huruf]

Peace, peace, peace.

"The Qur'an stands wholy by itself": not true, it is necessary to consider how the people hearing Muhammad would have understood it.

I do not see why and I can see perfectly why not. I can read the
qur'an now and make perfect sense. Those who heard it contemporaneous to the Prophet are dead. They can tell me nothing. Anything anybody said he said is hearsay. Why should I go to hearsay when I have the Qur'an itself?

I'm afraid that Isa is the regular Jesus of Christianity with Jesus being crucified under Pontius Pilate etc. That is why I am convinced that honestly I can adhere to my Eastern Orthodox Christian beliefs and still accept the Quran. I am in this forum to test this assumption, and am open to change.

You do not need to be afraid of that. It is not true. The Qur'an completely denies it.

Salaam 

[Bender]

Salam, easternqibla:

This statement is untrue.  The Quran does not have non-Arabic terms.

Salaam,

[easternqibla]

Salam, easternqibla:

This statement is untrue.  The Quran does not have non-Arabic terms. The word   "Iblees" is a 100% Arabic word derived from the root-verb    ba-la-sa        إبليس - بلس, which means "to despair".

I thought that in Semitic languages nouns and proper names do not end in 's', hence perhaps my misunderstanding of Iblis (thought Ilyus is clearly from the Greek Elias form of Eliyahu). Yet the Quran does have non-Arabic terms, e.g. 'Romans' ... NOTE: this does not stop it being an Arabic Quran. Christian polemics which look for instances of words of non-Arabic origin in the Quran merely show that those words were being used by the Arabs at that time. That is all.

I was pointing out regarding Isa and Yeshua. The initial 'Y' goes missing in the Quran, like in the name Ishmael (Hebrew Yishmael: note that the Arabs claim descent from Ismael so his name cannot be Arabic).

The difference in name in the Quran does not imply we can differentiate between the Jesus Christians and Jews talk about and Isa in the Quran.


Richard

[easternqibla]

"The Qur'an stands wholy by itself": not true, it is necessary to consider how the people hearing Muhammad would have understood it.

I do not see why and I can see perfectly why not. I can read the
qur'an now and make perfect sense. Those who heard it contemporaneous to the Prophet are dead. They can tell me nothing. Anything anybody said he said is hearsay. Why should I go to hearsay when I have the Qur'an itself?

The Quran clearly states,

10:94. If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.

"ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee": in context, these words are indeed spoken about Moses and his brother taking Israel over the sea. We Christians can indeed confirm that the Miriam who was with them was not the virgin mother of Isa/Jesus .

The Quran cannot stand alone, and this verse shows it. If you think you are interpreting the 'Quran alone' then you forget include which unchallenged assumptions you are bringing with you before you even start reading it.

Peace - what are your strong emotions which cause you to want to place Isa in about 1500BC (or perhaps Moses in about 30AD?!?)

Richard

[MaverickMonotheist]

Salaam,

1) The Qur'an does have loan words in it.  Injil, Taurat, Jahannam.  Names from prior revelation are carried over phonetically and not according to meaning in order to ensure there is no question as to whom or what is being referred to.

2) The presence of loan words does not diminish the authority of the Qur'an.  It is the criterion over prior revelation, not vice versa.

3) The Qur'an does not stand alone on a few points where some other evidence can make it clear.  But aside from these, a person who follows only the Qur'an as they understand it where it is clear will, insha'Allah, be a more moral and rightly-guided person than someone who follows prior revelation without a sound understanding of the social/cultural/linguistic background of the Torah and Gospel.

[huruf]

I do not see why and I can see perfectly why not. I can read the
qur'an now and make perfect sense. Those who heard it contemporaneous to the Prophet are dead. They can tell me nothing. Anything anybody said he said is hearsay. Why should I go to hearsay when I have the Qur'an itself?



The Quran clearly states,

"ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee": in context, these words are indeed spoken about Moses and his brother taking Israel over the sea. We Christians can indeed confirm that the Miriam who was with them was not the virgin mother of Isa/Jesus .

The Quran cannot stand alone, and this verse shows it. If you think you are interpreting the 'Quran alone' then you forget include which unchallenged assumptions you are bringing with you before you even start reading it.

Peace - what are your strong emotions which cause you to want to place Isa in about 1500BC (or perhaps Moses in about 30AD?!?)

Richard

What has aya 10.94 to do with asking me now people of the VII century anything about the Qur'an?

First, as I say, I cannot ask them, they are not reading any more and they are not alive any more. What you ask me to do is to read myself whatever anybody might have written on whatever anybody might or might not have said more than 1300 years ago. If I could do that I would ask the Prophet, saws, but he es dead as well and what he left that I can read with gurantee is the Qur'an and just the Qur'an. That is, the Qur'an I accpet as authentic, and the Qur'an, which I accept as authentic does not authenticate any other hadith.

Also the aya you mention does it really mean that the Prophet should ask anybody then that was purportedly of the bani Israel to ascertain anything? the same aya says that what is descending of him is pure truth from God. No need to ask anybody, but it is said to him so that He can revisit how those people fell into schism after the revelation was made to Musa, so if anything, the aya you quote is not to do what those people did after everything was clear to them. But what you recommend is that I muddle the Qur0an trying to make it fit all the fancies piled up on it purportedly by the people who listened to the Prophet. Why do that, when the Qur'an is what was revealed to the Prophet. Also youy seem to take for granted that everybody has doubts about the Qur'an and that asking people who are dead will solve those doubts.

?what are your strong emotions which cause you to want to place faith on people you do not know anything about and to want me to doubt things just so that I can ask dead people to solve those doubts that I do not have and which they being dead for centuries have not been able to solve wither for anybody before me.

As to your question regarding 3isa, you see for yourself what you do with your thousands of years. I do not do anything with them. I do not have to. The Qur'an does not give dates, but from the Qur'an it is aboslutely clear without a shadow of a doubt that 3isa was the son of Maryam, who was the daughter of THE wife of 3imran. So 3imran is a determinate person mentioned in the Qur'an, his wife only that one such person, unless he had other wives before that one, but the woman who was the mother of 3isa, was Maryam, daughter of the wife of 3imran and therefore daughter of 3Imran. So, if you know the time when 3imran lived, you will know when her daughter lived. I have not given any time nor the Qur'an does, so see for yourself what you do with your years. I do not need to. You want to prove that a prophet 3isa, who was son of Maryam, daughter of 3imran lived at whatever time, do it. Maryam was also sister of Harun. You watn to proove when Harun lived, proove it.

Salaam

[easternqibla]

Salaam,

2) The presence of loan words does not diminish the authority of the Qur'an.  It is the criterion over prior revelation, not vice versa.

3) The Qur'an does not stand alone on a few points where some other evidence can make it clear.  ...

MaverickMonotheist - Peace    I agree with you. I did not bring up the existence of loan words to attack the authority of the Quran. I can accept the authority of the Quran anyway! It is the fact the people were assuming that the Quranic name Isa being different from Yeshua/Jesus implied that he was a separate person.

Point 3 - I, along with others (see http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602327.msg296959#msg296959), are providing the 'other evidence' regarding the true identity of Isa being Jesus as known to both Jews and Christians (those living both before and after blessed Muhammad) as living in the Roman Empire about 2000 years ago.


Richard
PS. The later comments in point 3 seem deliberately written to invoke a comparison. All that would happen is that I would point out examples of bad Muslims and good Christians, and you would point out examples of bad Christians and good Muslims. 

[easternqibla]

Salam Richard
no problem
you are right probably Jesus he didn't receive 'a book'

003:048

"And God will teach him The Book (al-kitaba) and The Wisdom (l-hikmata), and The Torah (l-tawrata) and The Injeel (l-injeel)"
The ?al-Kitab?  is strongly equated with the Torah and the Injeel with ?Wisdom?.

I was reading a book preserved fully only in Ethiopic (like some many others). It started like this:

1 The book which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all me

EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLES
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apostolorum.html

This could well imply that Allah revealed the Quran with language used by the existing Christian communities - hence 'The book' as well as the 'Gospel' ('Wisdom' could well therefore refer to one of the wisdom books around).

Although personally I don't think Jesus did give a book, but so to speak, by teaching the apostles and they writing it down as Book and Gospel and he being the source of these implies it can be said that Jesus brought books.

Just an interesting quotation to bring possible light to this question.

Richard

[Bigmo]

Salaam,

1) The Qur'an does have loan words in it.  Injil, Taurat, Jahannam.  Names from prior revelation are carried over phonetically and not according to meaning in order to ensure there is no question as to whom or what is being referred to.

2) The presence of loan words does not diminish the authority of the Qur'an.  It is the criterion over prior revelation, not vice versa.

3) The Qur'an does not stand alone on a few points where some other evidence can make it clear.  But aside from these, a person who follows only the Qur'an as they understand it where it is clear will, insha'Allah, be a more moral and rightly-guided person than someone who follows prior revelation without a sound understanding of the social/cultural/linguistic background of the Torah and Gospel.

Excellent point.