Isa ibn Maryam
-
And some out of their forefathers and some from their posterity and some from their brothers were given uniqueness/individual distinction/guided. And We chose them and We guided them on the Straight Path.
You can't be serious with this one, guy... First of all, like I said, a person can't have "forefathers" without having a "father"; that's completely illogical. When the concept of a forefather is mentioned in semetic scripture (i.e. Torah, Qur'aan, etc.), it is ALWAYS referring to the father's bloodline. That's why Jesus is rejected by Jews as being the maschiach, because Christians claim that he had no father. Without a father, one can have no forefathers... Also, the passage doesn't use the word SOME to describe the people, it says that God guided their fathers, children, and siblings. That means ALL of them, not some... So, again, who was Jesus' father, since he was clearly mentioned in this passage?
I think you should check out this website. It gives a very detailed view on this matter, from an Islaamic viewpoint
http//aaiil.info/misconceptions/jesus/argqh.htm -
Peace Afridi,
If you remove your 19 glasses only then you will be able to see the tryth.
What a ridiculous comment, considering the fact that RASHAD KHALIFA BELIEVED IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH... Maybe you need to remove YOUR "19 glasses", buddy... )
What's your take on this passage
God originates the creation, the REPRODUCES IT, then to Him you will be returned. (3011)
How does He reproduce the creation (Adam, humanity)? You believe it's through virgin births?
O people, We have created you from the male and female... (4913)
Is this passage talking about everybody EXCEPT JESUS?! The scriptures repeatedly state that men are formed from sperm being mixed (or normal human reproduction). This is talking about all men, not all men except Jesus; this is God's system of creation. Or are you saying that God's system is changeable?
This is God's eternal system, and you will find that God's system is unchangeable. (3362)
Why do you think the law of God applies to everyone in humanity EXCEPT JESUS?! This is idol worship, and everything in creation is subject to God's law. There are no exceptions...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Afridi,
What a ridiculous comment, considering the fact that RASHAD KHALIFA BELIEVED IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH... Maybe you need to remove YOUR "19 glasses", buddy...
laugh
She's a female, BTW.
-
I felt tempted to post two things. One, a post by a member on another forum I visit. And the other being Thomas Jefferson's view of the birth of Jesus.
#1. Original post for your viewing pleasure here https//www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=119399&postcount=15 Occasionally I get a little tired with the way both the christians and atheists here treat or rather mistreat the poor old bloody bible. SOoo I figured it was about time for another jackketch 'bible 101' Lets get some stuff straight before we start. I'm not trying to write a work of scholarship. You want indepth discussions of Late Chaldean Eschatology -and its influence on the price of Pumpernickel bread in Silesia in the C15' then you can stop reading now. If I wanted to write a phd, i'd go back to Canterbury. Neither am I wanting to push any doctrinal line. I save no souls. Nor will I drown you in excruciating complete quotes and sources la Digi. (if you want sources its all out there in the amazing magical Kingdom Of Google). I do ask however If you're christian then please try forgetting everything you have ever been taught while reading this. Yes i know from personal experience how difficult that is, but please... If you're a bible sceptic then please try forgetting everything christians (who in general should not be allowed anywhere near the damn book) have ever told you the bible says. I thought we'd tackle a really controversial bit, the 'Annunciation'...or rather that bit in LUKE chapter 1, when a nice jewish girl gets pwned by God. I'm using the ASV bible , simply because i'd rather chew my own leg off than use the NIV (yes people, it IS that bad a translation!) Remember please, this post is all about treating the bible for what is, namely a collection of historical documents translated into modern language. We are going to try and understand what the author was trying to say, to understand it as he meant it. All you need to ride this train is some common sense, an IQ that allows you to wank and turn the pages of the mag at the same time and, if you feel the need ,the power of Google. Quote 26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee. 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary for thou hast found favor with God. 31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David 33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. Right, Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth . Lets forget the calendar bit (it is infact important and the 6 months bit is there for a reason but life is too short). PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take any mental image like this you may have and put it in the round filing cabinet marked 'TRASH'. NO supernatural here. The bible itself tells us that Gabriel was a 'man' or 'like unto a man' ( Daniel ch 8 v15 and ch 9 v 20). All the word 'angel' means is a man sent with a message from god. ( although it may also have meant an elder of the some jewish sect or such). No one is quite sure where Nazareth was or if that was the correct spelling or if it was a totally different town in the original. The only thing , most scholars agree on, is that it sure isn't the Nazareth we know today. to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary Great scholarly and not so scholarly reams have been written on the subject of Mary's virginity. The long and short of it is the word back then simply meant 'maid' , ie said something about her marital state and not the state of her hymen. Society then as now liked to believe that the two went hand in hand *cough* *snigger* *cough*. Also it is worth considering that the whole virginity thing may very well be later attempt by christians to doctor the story so it seemed to fit with OT prophecy. Something they did all too often. The really really important part is the fact that Joseph was of royal blood. But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be. So why was Mary so 'troubled'? We now know it wasn't because some winged ber Aryan was floating 4 foot off the ground in front of her. LOSE THOSE IMAGES, people! Whoever Gabriel was, he spoke to her in the name of god and not only that he told her that god wanted her for a sunbeam or whatever. Some stranger with wild eyes, 'on a mission from god' turns up on your doorstep and says 'god wants you to do something' then you'd probably be 'greatly troubled' too? Lets not read more into this than is on the page, yeah? And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. uhm just how young was Mary??! Did angel of the Lord need to do a quick 'birds and bees' bit? Scholars tend to think she was about 13.But that may just be some wishful thinking. You'll note that every bible pic ever portrays her not only as a member of the Master Race but also well above the age of consent. DITCH THOSE MENTAL IMAGES , people please. They are the biggest handicap to doing the account justice. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David 33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. This is the important part of the whole thing. Not whether or not Mary been shagging Joseph out of wedlock. This is the crucial bit, the point the author was trying to get across. Jesus was going to be King of Israel and had a rightful claim on the throne. Amazing how time and time again christians miss that simple point or even worse read it and think what Gabriel actually said was that Jesus was going to be the Saviour Of The World and Be some kind of half man/half God thang. And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. So was Mary lying? Well considering at the very least her admitting to having had sex before marriage would have got her been beaten and driven out, if not stoned to death, one could forgive her fibbing. Christians like to imagine that Mary being 'blessed by God' and having 'found favour with God' was somehow incapable of lying. But they forget that throughout the OT that those beloved by god tended to be 'morally challenged'. King David himself was a liar, an adulterer, a murderer and a bad father and god LOVED him. But again so many people misread the passage. Its just our dirty minds. We don't need to question Mary's virginity at that point Gabriel is talking about something that will happen, not something that has already happened. There is good reason a bit later one to question her fidelity to Joseph but thats something for another 101. Although the line of this bit does kind of give those who know a bit about ancient religions a clue. So what have we got? A supernatural being coming down to earth to tell a sinless maiden that she is pregnant and that her son will be our own personal saviour? Nope. You can believe that if you want, thats your right. But lets not claim the passage says its so. ALL the passage says is that a man/prophet/preacher/scary loon you'd cross the street to avoid, turned up on Mary's door step one day and told her she WOULD have a child who would go on to be the rightful King of Israel. No more than that. And once you know a little of the historical background (like Herod was not the rightful king) then it all seems quite credible.#2. An excerpt from The Jefferson Bible available here http//www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/ . Which is basically the KJV bible without the water walking zombie named Jesus Christ.
AND it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS.
9 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
10 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom and the grace of God was upon him.Enjoy. -
You can't be serious with this one, guy...   First of all, like I said, a person can't have "forefathers" without having a "father"; that's completely illogical. When the concept of a forefather is mentioned in semetic scripture (i.e. Torah, Qur'aan, etc.), it is ALWAYS referring to the father's bloodline. That's why Jesus is rejected by Jews as being the maschiach, because Christians claim that he had no father. Without a father, one can have no forefathers... Also, the passage doesn't use the word SOME to describe the people, it says that God guided their fathers, children, and siblings. That means ALL of them, not some... So, again, who was Jesus' father, since he was clearly mentioned in this passage?
I think you should check out this website. It gives a very detailed view on this matter, from an Islaamic viewpoint
http//aaiil.info/misconceptions/jesus/argqh.htmFather and grand and grand grand father of the mother is also the forefather of son. Syeda Maryam had a father, she was daughter of Imran. What is the relationship with Imran of Easa Elahissalam?
-
I felt tempted to post two things. One, a post by a member on another forum I visit. And the other being Thomas Jefferson's view of the birth of Jesus.
#1. Original post for your viewing pleasure here https//www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=119399&postcount=15#2. An excerpt from The Jefferson Bible available here http//www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/ . Which is basically the KJV bible without the water walking zombie named Jesus Christ.
Enjoy. Was that first part by James Tabor or something/ It sounds like someone trying to advocate the Pantera story. I don't buy it, though, obviously. In the Hebrew Bible you have (off the top of my head) three 'supernatural beings' promising a miraculous birth for the sake of salvation. Shimshon and Shamuel and Issaq. -
Was that first part by James Tabor or something/ It sounds like someone trying to advocate the Pantera story. I don't buy it, though, obviously. In the Hebrew Bible you have (off the top of my head) three 'supernatural beings' promising a miraculous birth for the sake of salvation. Shimshon and Shamuel and Issaq.
I'm pretty sure the dude isn't James Tabor. I'll ask him though.
And I just looked up the Pantera story on here http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera
Funily enough, the two accounts I see on there, the first is written by "Celsus, an anti-Christian Greek philosopher" and the other comes from "Tosefta, a secondary collection of Jewish oral law." I'm going to presume that both parties have private ends that could easily be met by (de)faming Mary of adultery.
Here is the original thread, and here is another post by him regarding John's Revelations that makes a lot of sense to me.
And here is a thread on FM regarding nasara/nazarenes/birthplace of Jesus.
-
Peace Afridi,
What a ridiculous comment, considering the fact that RASHAD KHALIFA BELIEVED IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH... Maybe you need to remove YOUR "19 glasses", buddy... )
What's your take on this passage
God originates the creation, the REPRODUCES IT, then to Him you will be returned. (3011)
How does He reproduce the creation (Adam, humanity)? You believe it's through virgin births?
O people, We have created you from the male and female... (4913)
Is this passage talking about everybody EXCEPT JESUS?! The scriptures repeatedly state that men are formed from sperm being mixed (or normal human reproduction). This is talking about all men, not all men except Jesus; this is God's system of creation. Or are you saying that God's system is changeable?
This is God's eternal system, and you will find that God's system is unchangeable. (3362)
Why do you think the law of God applies to everyone in humanity EXCEPT JESUS?! This is idol worship, and everything in creation is subject to God's law. There are no exceptions...
Peace,
Ahmad
I am not talking abt your rashad Khalifa
sorry dud you are always confused ;D
peace
-
I am not talking abt your rashad Khalifa
sorry dud you are always confused ;D
Regardless of the comment about Rashad Khalifa, whether you were talking about him or not, what is your opinion on the rest of the post? Do you believe that God's eternal system applies/d to everyone EXCEPT JESUS?
-
Regardless of the comment about Rashad Khalifa, whether you were talking about him or not, what is your opinion on the rest of the post? Do you believe that God's eternal system applies/d to everyone EXCEPT JESUS?
Easa alahissalam is NOT the only exception; he is exception only amongst human beings. Other livings are also composed of pair, as an eternal principle. But see the Bees. A male is born without a male participation. But female bee is born only by combination of male and female. Allah is NOT bound by cause and effect relationship; He creates in whatever manner He likes/wills.
-
Are you talking about yourself rotfl
??
-
People see the Virgin Birth as an extreme miracle but yet under-estimate other incredible conceptions like that of Sarah. She is menopaused, meaning there are no ovarian follicles. So what happened? According to God's laws she too must not have a child.
Other than miraclous conception, heck many things in the Quran defy the laws of physics.
The question is why?
To be a sign unto the latter generations as a reminder.
Imagine there were no miracles in the past, all the latter generation would have disbelieved.
Even in the Torah it explains why God kept punishing Pharaoh while hardening his heart. It was to display His signs to the Israelites that they may warn about the power of God to their descendants.
Guys, Moses threw the staff and it turned into a snake! and you are amazed of the virgin birth? hmm
-
Easa alahissalam is NOT the only exception; he is exception only amongst human beings. Other livings are also composed of pair, as an eternal principle. But see the Bees. A male is born without a male participation. But female bee is born only by combination of male and female. Allah is NOT bound by cause and effect relationship; He creates in whatever manner He likes/wills.
This is an illogical argument. If Jesus was a HUMAN BEING, which the Qur'aan clearly states that he was, then why is his birth comparable to that of bees?! By the scriptures alleging that Jesus was human, just like all other humans, it's saying that he was born just like all other humans... Like I said, the only thing "miraculous" about Jesus' conception is that it was preannounced by angels. It was no different than the birth of Isaac, who's birth was also foretold to Abraham before it happened. Natural human childbirth, regardless of external factors, are all cause by the unification of a MALE and a FEMALE. This is God's system, and it is unchangeable. That's why there is no record of this ("emaculate conception" ever happening BEFORE OR AFTER Jesus, at least not in the scriptures or in historical formats.
It is mentioned in the early pagan writings, in which some of their gods were born of virgin women and had life stories IDENTICAL to the Christian story of Jesus. If you wanna believe those, then that's your perrogative; but I doubt those stories are true, since they're angled towards sun worship. The Biblical story of Jesus was simply modeled after those past pagan stories...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598463.0
-
Peace Rami,
People see the Virgin Birth as an extreme miracle but yet under-estimate other incredible conceptions like that of Sarah. She is menopaused, meaning there are no ovarian follicles. So what happened? According to God's laws she too must not have a child.
Other than miraclous conception, heck many things in the Quran defy the laws of physics.
The question is why?
To be a sign unto the latter generations as a reminder.
Imagine there were no miracles in the past, all the latter generation would have disbelieved.
The problem with your argument is that NONE of the births recorded in the scriptures have been recognized as signs to the people. Why? Because nobody can verify an emaculate conception. It's all hearsay. Isaac's birth didn't serve as a sign to future generations; he was born to become the father of the Israelite tribes... In the case of Sarah, there's no evidence that she actually went through post menopause; rather it was probably peri-menopause. All it took was for Abraham's sperm to be present during one of her rare ovulation periods, and there was a chance (slight of course) that she would've become pregnant. Menopause is just the instance when the body has stopped ovulating for 12 consecutive months. This doesn't, however, prove that the woman can't have children; it just makes those chances very rare and unlikely. Again, this is not against the laws of nature, since God's system is eternal and unchangeable...
In the case of Jesus, what would be the point of using HEARSAY as a sign for future generations? As mentioned, nobody can actually confirm an emaculate conception, except the mother, and Maryam never stated in her defense that she was a "virgin". So, where did you get this conclusion from? The Biblical new testament, which has already been proven to be false and fabricated?
Did anybody else see (and verify) an angel being in Maryam's presence to give her an emaculate conception of a miraculous child? NO; in fact, the Qur'aan says that the angel was sent human in all respects. So, even if somebody did see the angel, they wouldn't have known it was an angel... Did Maryam ever tell anyone, "Hey guys, I'm still a virgin. An angel put this baby here..."? NO, this is never mentioned at all. She didn't have a defense when the people asked her about the baby, because she knew she'd had intercourse and was capable of getting pregnant and having a child. That's why she just pointed to the infant... Did Jesus ever say to anybody during his ministry, "I'm a prophet of God, performing great works, born of a virgin woman..."? NO, Jesus never claimed to have been born of a virgin either... So, how was this to serve as a sign to the people, if nobody could confirm it?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
My friend you can't confirm anything from the miracles of the Quran.
It is just faith.
Prove to me that Moses split the sea.
None of the signs of the Quran was seen by us. It is a text.
I am just stating what this text actually says.
That doesn't mean it's unconfirmable, which is a completely different concept, especially when it comes to future generations. The scripture says that THOUSANDS of Israelites witnessed the parting of the sea. Even though the eye witnesses are gone now, it doesn't change the fact that there were people who could confirm the events, and these experiences were most likely passed down from generation to generation, even outside of the Torah writings. That's one basic way they were confirmed back then, and because of this, these same instances mentioned in the Qur'aan can be confirmed by comparing them to the incidents recorded in the Torah... It's not the same concept as the virgin birth, something that could NEVER have been confirmed by anyone. There was no way anyone could ever verify this claim unless they were with Maryam 24/7, ever moment of every day. And even then, they wouldn't know what's happening inside her body; this is complete hearsay, and it can't serve as a sign for anyone...
-
Just because a scripture states it has been witnessed by a nation doesn't make it true.
You still can't confirm anything.
Its all just speculation and pure faith.
They are many mythologies around the world, why do you believe in the hebrew mythology?
Why not the greek mythology?
Do you have any evidence for the Biblical stories?
Archaeologically, the Bible and the Quran are bogus fairytales.
What about the Sumerians??
Where was the God of Israel then?
What about the Egyptians?
What is so special with the hebrew fairytales...they are as scientifically fictional as any other mythology.
peace
-
Peace Rami,
You can't compare the mythical stories of ancient societies to the Hebrew history recorded in the Torah. First of all, the acts were witnessed by THOUSANDS of people, and they were confirmed by all the people of the time, even generations later. Therefore, if one person came up claiming that God spoke to thousands of people, which the Torah alleges, others would say, "Why didn't my parents tell me anything about this?" If the acts were so miraculous, then people would speak upon them for generations, telling their children and their children's children; in other words, the stories wouldn't be easily forgotten. This is one of the main reasons why the oral Torah (i.e. the Mischna) was preserved for so long, even before it was written down in the second century. Those stories, including the ones that are NOT mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Bible, were preserved for thousands of years, word for word, being exact among hundreds of thousands of people DOWN TO THE LETTER. This is not coincidental, it's because these events actually happened, and the stories were passed down WORD FOR WORD through the generations of Jews and Hebrews...
Later on, the Qur'aan confirmed these Hebrew stories, which you call "myths"...
It pretty much boils down to original composition and structure, especially in relation to religion. Islaam is based on the foundations of Judaism, which is why the Qur'aan confirms the Torah. Nazarenism is also based on the traditions of ancient Judaism, which is why the Enjeel confirms the Torah, and this is also true in light of the fact that Jesus was a Jew and he taught Judaism and adherence to the Torah... So, based on this concept, Judaism is the structural foundation of all of the Abrahamic faiths. If Judaism is wrong, then Islaam and Nazarenism are also wrong; there's no denying this. If the Torah is wrong, then both the Qur'aan and the Enjeel are also wrong, since both of them claim to verify the Torah. If the Jewish prophets spoke falsely, then Muhammad was a false prophet for confirming their teachings... Considering this, do you really want to debate the authenticity of Torah and Judaism? How can the Qur'aan and Islaam stand without these?
Peace,
Ahmad