Virgin Birth and Messiah Usage
-
I think I saw how the virgin birth as understood from christians is not taken as fact by the Qur'an.. if that is so, it would be a great boon for me as it is one of my stumbling blocks.
Stumbling blocks??? stumbling blocks to what??
Secondly, how is it meant as Messiah? Does the Qur'an mean Isa was the messiah as the Jews mean it, the Moshiach? Or more general, as in an annointed one?
Thanks in advance.
Messiach (Hebrew) is a synonym of "annointed one" a.k.a KRISTOS (Greek)..
I don't see the difference here and there should not be any...Reference to Cyrus The Christ / Koresh Ha Mossiach in The Great Isaiah Book (Part of TANAKH/ Bible)
(Isaiah 451-3)
Thus says YHVH to His MOSSIACH, to KORESH (Cyrus), whom He has taken by His right hand to subdue nations before Him and strip the loins of kings, to force gateways before Him that their gates be closed no more "I will go before you levelling the heights. I will shatter the bronze gateways, smash the iron bars. I will give you the hidden treasures, the secret hoards, that you may know that I am YHVH".Salam / Peace
-
Peace,
The title "al-masih" is used in the Qur'aan in reference to Jesus, but this doesn't mean Jesus was the only maschiach; the Tanakh includes others who also held this title... Didn't you already make another thread on the virgin birth, which is still ongoing? What is your view on it?
-
I don't see why a virgin birth would be a stumbling block. Anymore than Jesus making birds out of clay, or Yahya being born to old parents. Whether you interpret it literally or metaphorically these kinds of flourishes are part of the religion.
The Messiah thing I can relate to. Even when I was intending to convert to Judaism I rejected the Jewish concept of Messiah.
I don't think you can fairly say that it's just a title like the one given to Cyrus or the unnamed priestly figure in the Book of Daniel. It's clearly a unique title. I think you inevitably have to give Jesus his due. The expansion of religion from the Jews to the gentiles started with Jesus. Maimonides says that Jesus and Mohammed are heretics, but that the real Messiah will somehow benefit from their iconoclasm among the gentiles. That's silly to say that non-prophets could somehow manage to break this barrier of faith in the name of God yet despite their success not be 'sent' by God.
I think you have to conclude that Jesus was indeed a kind of saviour. Just not the kinds Jews, Christians and sectarian Muslims make him out to be.
-
Peace Cushan,
I don't see why a virgin birth would be a stumbling block. Anymore than Jesus making birds out of clay, or Yahya being born to old parents. Whether you interpret it literally or metaphorically these kinds of flourishes are part of the religion.
The idea of John being born of old parents is not, in itself, miraculous or extraordinary. It happens, although rarely, all over the world. This is more evidence that G-d does complete signs for us, but they don't conflict with His unchangeable system, i.e. the laws of nature... Regarding Jesus shaping birds from clay and bringing them to life, I think this is metaphorical, not literal. In fact, a lot of the things written in the Qur'aan with reference to Jesus are interpreted as being metaphorical (i.e. healing the blind and deaf, raising the dead, healing the sick, etc.), whether we regard them as so or not...
In contrast, a human virgin birth is completely against the laws of nature, which G-d even lays out in the Qur'aan, describing His system as "unchangeable". And since G-d identifies Jesus as fully human, just like all other humans, then it's most reasonable to conclude that he was conceived and born just like all other humans were, through the union of two human parents.
The Messiah thing I can relate to. Even when I was intending to convert to Judaism I rejected the Jewish concept of Messiah.
What's wrong with the Jewish concept of the annointed one ("moshiach"?
I don't think you can fairly say that it's just a title like the one given to Cyrus or the unnamed priestly figure in the Book of Daniel. It's clearly a unique title. I think you inevitably have to give Jesus his due. The expansion of religion from the Jews to the gentiles started with Jesus. Maimonides says that Jesus and Mohammed are heretics, but that the real Messiah will somehow benefit from their iconoclasm among the gentiles. That's silly to say that non-prophets could somehow manage to break this barrier of faith in the name of God yet despite their success not be 'sent' by God.
I disagree. In a sense, everyone and everything is "sent by G-d", regardless of if we accept it. I don't believe that Muhammad and Jesus were heretics, but I don't think either of them was the foretold Jewish moshiach as outlined throughout the Tanakh. Instead, I think Jesus was probably A moshiach (not "THE", just like Cyrus, and he sought to usher in the Rabbinical Jewish view of the messianic age. There's no proof to support the claim, made by many, that the moshiach must be a prophet or even a Jew. In itself, being a "moshiach" is nothing more than a title, one that many others have also held, including the Jewish moshiach's predecessors (i.e. Saul, David, Solomon, etc.). In the light of "salvation" and redemption, Jesus is no different than them...
The expansion of the religion from Jews to Gentiles was NOT caused by Jesus, since Jesus actually taught AGAINST preaching to Gentiles. Jews always had converts, but these people were no longer considered Gentiles, they were considered Jews. Christians preached to Gentiles, but they did so at the expense of teaching polytheistic doctrines. If anything, the person who had the greatest influence in leading Gentiles to the trueness of monotheism, it was Muhammad, not Jesus. The Qur'aan also mentions other prophets who preached to Gentile nations and led them to the worship of G-d alone.
I think you have to conclude that Jesus was indeed a kind of saviour. Just not the kinds Jews, Christians and sectarian Muslims make him out to be.
Jews and Muslims don't take Jesus to be a "savior" at all, only Christians do. And even if (hypothetically) he was some kind of savior, what was he saving people from?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
The idea of John being born of old parents is not, in itself, miraculous or extraordinary. It happens, although rarely, all over the world. This is more evidence that G-d does complete signs for us, but they don't conflict with His unchangeable system, i.e. the laws of nature... Regarding Jesus shaping birds from clay and bringing them to life, I think this is metaphorical, not literal. In fact, a lot of the things written in the Qur'aan with reference to Jesus are interpreted as being metaphorical (i.e. healing the blind and deaf, raising the dead, healing the sick, etc.), whether we regard them as so or not...
The question of metaphor or whether God only functions within natural laws is definitely beyond my scope. But I don't see why the Quran would be so deliberately abstruse as to parallel an acceptable miracle of conception with a possible metaphorically miraculous conception.
What's wrong with the Jewish concept of the annointed one ("moshiach"?
I just don't feel like it's supported in the Bible. The eschaton Messiah, that is. The Son of Man, Shiloh figure is not different from the Quranic 'Caller' of Surah Qaf. And just yesterday I read an interesting article that questioned the occulation of Elijah in a convincing way.
Instead, I think Jesus was probably A moshiach (not "THE", just like Cyrus, and he sought to usher in the Rabbinical Jewish view of the messianic age.
The problem with that is that the Quran reserves this title for Jesus. There's nothing there to qualify the Judeo-Christian understanding of the honorific.
The expansion of the religion from Jews to Gentiles was NOT caused by Jesus, since Jesus actually taught AGAINST preaching to Gentiles.
I have to disagree. I don't know if Jesus completely discouraged proselytizing (only the 'back from the dead Jesus' commands it in the Christian Bible) but certainly Christianity broke that barrier, i.e. a sign to all peoples.
Jews and Muslims don't take Jesus to be a "savior" at all, only Christians do. And even if (hypothetically) he was some kind of savior, what was he saving people from?
It's like Mainmonides saying the 'true' Messiah will benefit from Jesus and Mohammed. Before Christianity the religion of the Jews was an isolated tribal belief. Judaism survived the diaspora as a result of being made a legitimate relic in the eyes of Christian and Muslim gentiles. Islam rode the heels of nascent Christianity challenging its dogma, but benefiting from the fact that the God of Abraham was now regarded as the de facto True God.
-
The question of metaphor or whether God only functions within natural laws is definitely beyond my scope. But I don't see why the Quran would be so deliberately abstruse as to parallel an acceptable miracle of conception with a possible metaphorically miraculous conception.
There's no "miracle" mentioned here. The Qur'aan never said that Mary was a virgin, and it never said that Jesus had a miraculous, extraordinary conception. These are both Christian concepts, not Islaamic.
I just don't feel like it's supported in the Bible. The eschaton Messiah, that is. The Son of Man, Shiloh figure is not different from the Quranic 'Caller' of Surah Qaf. And just yesterday I read an interesting article that questioned the occulation of Elijah in a convincing way.
Your argument is baseless... First of all, the entire concept of the Jewish moshiach comes directly from the Tanakh (some parts are also mentioned in the Oral Torah, but the concepts are the same). So, how can their views not be supported by the Bible they took it from? Do you know what the Jewish concept of the moshiach involves? Obviously you don't, since if you did, you'd know that the annointing of Jesus is completely unsupported in the scriptures...
The problem with that is that the Quran reserves this title for Jesus. There's nothing there to qualify the Judeo-Christian understanding of the honorific.
The Qur'aan doesn't give a direct description of the moshiach at all. It only uses this title in reference to Jesus because of the Nazarene view regarding him. And it doesn't say anything about the numerous other people who were called 'annointed' throughout the Tanakh... So, how can you consider this a strong argument? Just because the Qur'aan doesn't refer to the countless annointed people throught Jewish history, but it calls Jesus "al-masih", that means Jesus was the only one?
I have to disagree. I don't know if Jesus completely discouraged proselytizing (only the 'back from the dead Jesus' commands it in the Christian Bible) but certainly Christianity broke that barrier, i.e. a sign to all peoples.
Jesus didn't teach against proselytizing, he spoke against preaching to the gentiles (see Matthew 105; 1524). He said his mission and message was for the JEWS ONLY... Christianity broke that barrier because they integrated their religion with that of the pagan Romans. They declared that Mithras was their god, they just renamed him "Jesus"...
It's like Mainmonides saying the 'true' Messiah will benefit from Jesus and Mohammed. Before Christianity the religion of the Jews was an isolated tribal belief. Judaism survived the diaspora as a result of being made a legitimate relic in the eyes of Christian and Muslim gentiles. Islam rode the heels of nascent Christianity challenging its dogma, but benefiting from the fact that the God of Abraham was now regarded as the de facto True God.
The Jews had converts long before Christianity. Their belief was only "tribal" because the surrounding nations were polytheistic.
-
There's no "miracle" mentioned here. The Qur'aan never said that Mary was a virgin, and it never said that Jesus had a miraculous, extraordinary conception. These are both Christian concepts, not Islaamic.
Eh, I have to agree with the traditionalists here. Indeed it's a Christian concept that the Quran does nothing to refute. If there was no miracle with the conception of Isaac, Yahya, and Jesus I don't see why the announcements would be made by angels. It just seems unnecssarily esoteric to say that it's not meant as a miracle.
Your argument is baseless... First of all, the entire concept of the Jewish moshiach comes directly from the Tanakh (some parts are also mentioned in the Oral Torah, but the concepts are the same). So, how can their views not be supported by the Bible they took it from? Do you know what the Jewish concept of the moshiach involves? Obviously you don't, since if you did, you'd know that the annointing of Jesus is completely unsupported in the scriptures...
I'm not sure what you're saying here, really. But while there's 'Chosen One' elements in the Hebrew Bible (Elijah, Son of Man) the Jewish concept is very embellished. Maimonides' criteria for Messiah includes 'needs' of the people that didn't even exist at the time of Jesus (rebuilding the temple, etc). Much like the Quran, the end of times scenerio involves chaos only, followed by Judgement. Jewish tradition itself is not even clear on the leadership role within Judaism. Priestly as commanded at Sinai or monarchy as derived in the time of Samuel?
The Qur'aan doesn't give a direct description of the moshiach at all. It only uses this title in reference to Jesus because of the Nazarene view regarding him. And it doesn't say anything about the numerous other people who were called 'annointed' throughout the Tanakh... So, how can you consider this a strong argument? Just because the Qur'aan doesn't refer to the countless annointed people throught Jewish history, but it calls Jesus "al-masih", that means Jesus was the only one?
Yes, kind of. Saying otherwise opens a floodgate of what else the Quran glances over. How much of the Bible would in turn qualify the Quran? The Bible reserves annointment for Priests and Kings and Prophets. Since no other figure in the Quran is called Messiah, does that uniquely identify Jesus as a Priest or King? Again, the alternative is abstruse to the point of redundancy.
Jesus didn't teach against proselytizing, he spoke against preaching to the gentiles (see Matthew 105; 1524). He said his mission and message was for the JEWS ONLY... Christianity broke that barrier because they integrated their religion with that of the pagan Romans. They declared that Mithras was their god, they just renamed him "Jesus"...
The Quran disagrees. At least some Christians were gentiles and monotheists, if only the Apostles (and if you're going to quote from the New Testament as an authority you have to include the verses on proselytizing). Obviously, you have the Ebonites, the Arians. But that's beside the point. Before Christianity, you have Judaism alone. After, you have a ripple effect leading to the God of Abraham being seen as a universal deity. I don't think it's an idle coincidence that 'Jews, Christians, and Converts' are acknowledged in that order within the Quran.
The Jews had converts long before Christianity. Their belief was only "tribal" because the surrounding nations were polytheistic.
You even have forced conversions during the Maccabes, but it was still an nationalist, ethnocentric religion. The 'minor' prophets are definitely more universal in their views, and before Jesus Roman society had adopted a lot of semi-Jewish practices, but the anomaly of Jesus (as opposed to Bar Kochba) allowed gentile dominated religions like Manicheism and Islam to even be theologically feasible.