Sister of Aaron
-
Thank you for showing me this. By the way it was not my intention to insist upon anything,
It's OK. My reply was not directed at you. It was directed at those "scholars" who corrupt the meaning of the Quran (wether on purpose, or by mistake) while translating it. Sadly, It is people like yourself, who are not familiar with Arabic, that become the victims of this trickery. In fact, even Arabs read the Quran like zombies, without paying attention to what it says (becasue their "scholars" have deceived them into believing that understanding it is not as important as reciting it rhythmically). It's a sad plight, really.
Thank you for showing me this
You are welcome.
I didn't mention your name to "call you out" or anything of that sort.
I know. My anger was directed at those who have made understanding and interpreting the Quran as their exclusive and "God-given" right, and claimed that us "laymen" are incapable of understanding it.
The Quran mentions Isa (Esau) the son of Maryam. Jesus, son of Joseph the carpenter, is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Quran.
Jewish and Christian scholars have long been criticizing the Quran as being innacurate, and Muhamad as being a false "nabi", because he mixed up Miriam, duaghter of Amran, with Mary, mother of Jesus. The MUslims "scholars" thought that they were defending the Quran, when they twisted the meaning of the expression "sister of Aaron" as meaning "descendant of Aaron" or "the like of Aaron (in piety)". None of them had the courage to stand up and say the truth That there is no mix up. That is is the Jews and Christians who are mixed up.
that Isa was NOT Jesus.
Sorry, what is a nabiyya?
The word "Nabi" is Arabic for "Warner/prophet/one who bears news (naba'a). Nabiyya is simply the feminine form of Nabi. The word can also mean "one who is righteous".
Could the drumming and singing be because she was happy that they had escaped the pharaoh?
Yes, but that's not the point. There are mocking undertones to the way they described her behavior here.
Is the slander from 4156 directed at Maryam about her supposedly not being chaste?
The QUran is saying that the slander and falsehoods were perpetrated by the Israelite Clergy who wrote the historical accounts of the Israelites.. This was ages before Jesus!!! It has nothing to do with the alledged "Mary, mother of Jesus". All you have to do to confirm this is to open a copy of the Old Testament and see what they wrote about Miriam, sister of Aaron.
I am assuming that you included exodus 1519-20 as an example of their slander
Exactly.
When Maryam came back to her people with the child, they were simply surprised as to the fact of how she could have violated their ritualistic ways and bore the child at such a time. The remarks that they made against Maryam's mother "that she wan NOT unchaste" were not really slander. They were simply surprised at what Maryam had done. THese were her own people who were wondering at the fact.
The "slander and falsehoods" that the Quran speaks of were perpetrated by the Israelite clergy. THis is in line with the context of the Quranis verses which come before 4156. (read the verses before and after).
The "Maryam" that the Quran was defending against the slander was NOT the mother of Jesus. She was the mother of Eesa.
-
Was actually reading your last posts, and I haven't finished reading everything you wrote, but I got a good grasp of what you are saying about Paul...or Saul
I'm taking a course right now called "clash of cultures"
www.barriewilson.com (that's the professor)
And he has shown us as well what I have seen you saying, that Paul...not only never ever even met Jesus nor was one of his disciples, but was actually hated by Peter and James, who referred to him as a false teacher. My professor also pointed out that if Jesus said "I have come to fulfill the Torah and not abolish it," Then to drink his blood (the eucharist) par the instructions of Jesus is a lie. Well he didn't say it was a lie point blank, but I mean it is inescapable what he is implying.
Also, the story of the baptism of Jesus is interesting...why does a man without sin require baptism? And what were his real last words, were they "Father, in you I place my soul" or something along those lines or were they "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
And apparently he mocks the Pharisees for not killing their disobedient children? (Correct me if I'm wrong with my understanding, but there is a verse I'm not sure in which gospel where he says something along the lines of "You have a fine way of ignoring/twisting (not sure what the word was) commands.) And then he quotes Moses apparently saying kill disobedient children. That doesn't sound like the Paulian Jesus...
-
Right, I do recall now them mentioning her mother and father and saying they were not unchaste when they act surprised.
Can I ask you a question, is there a dialect of Arabic or a "type" of Arabic that you would recommend studying to understand the Qu'ran? I have heard many things about different dialects of Arabic.
-
salam pazuzu, very interesting reading, thank you and I will be studying all of that much more closely!
AK, you will need to study Classical Arabic which Quran is written in. Spoken Arabic nowdays is called Modern Standard Arabic and has many dialects. An excellent site, although not free, is www.arabacademy.com
-
salam pazuzu, very interesting reading, thank you and I will be studying all of that much more closely!
AK, you will need to study Classical Arabic which Quran is written in. Spoken Arabic nowdays is called Modern Standard Arabic and has many dialects. An excellent site, although not free, is www.arabacademy.com
Thank you, I had a feeling it was Classical Arabic but wasn't sure. I've heard that Iraqi Arabic is the closest to Classical Arabic. Can anyone comment?
-
Thank you, I had a feeling it was Classical Arabic but wasn't sure. I've heard that Iraqi Arabic is the closest to Classical Arabic. Can anyone comment?
Why would teh Iraqi dialect be the closest one? The way I see it, the closest dialect would have to be in the geographic region where the Muhamad and his people lived 14 centuries ago. My guess is that the bedouins of South West Saudi Arabia have teh closest dialect.
Let me give you an example of how teh classical Arabic meanings differ from the Arabic dialects adopted today
The word "walad" in the Quran, means "child". A child can be either male or female. The Quran discusses imheritance laws in detail, and mentions "children" as the heirs (i.e males and females). Becasue of the male chauvanist Arab culture however, the word "walad" has come to mean strictly "male child" in the modern Arabic dialects. In fact, if you ask any Arab father how many children he has, 99% of them will answer (for example) "I have one "walad" and 3 "banat" (meaning i have one boy and 3 girls). BEcause it has been infused in their culture that walad = male (strictly).
Now you might assume this is trivial. but the truth is, the Sunnis have corrupted the inheritence laws in the Quran because of this sexist interpretation.So even the modern dialects of the same geographical region where the Quran was revealed cannot be trusted 100%. Your best bet would be to look up the classical Arabic lexicons like "Lissan al-Arab" , "Lane's Lexicon", etc...
Interesting points about using corruption rather than physical elimination of this revolutionary movement.
This is evident even today, in regards to the methods used by intelligence agencies and their ilk to destroy revolutionary movements
So very true. Here is the story of what Paul did
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?
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?
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?.
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?. (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.?
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 priest 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?
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 Israelites 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?
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?, or 'Membrana' (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?
? 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.?
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.?
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.??
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
-
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?).
-
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.
Dear AK85
Remember this
In order for a false belief, a lie, to become rampant and gradually accepted by the masses, it must be enforced by the state.
This is how Roman authority enforced the lie that is Christianity, when Constantine himself adopted Paul's creed.In the exact same fashion, the criminal Umayyad rulers of the Arab empire, hijacked the true Islam found in the Quran, and replaced it with Hadith narrations falsely attributed to Muhamad.
History repeats itself. Religion has always been, and will continue to be an opium for the masses. A diabolical lie invented by the unhloy triangle of Rulers-Clergy-Rich Elite, to enslave mankind.
Peace.
-
-
Of course, this brings to mind Goebbels I think he said something along the lines of if you repeat a lie enough and enforce it over time people will accept it as truth.
Yes, its a very good article. I was not able to read the whole thing (It's 700 am where I am, I have been up all night actually and worked pretty much most of the day yesterday) so I was not able to read the whole thing. However I caught the parts about the diabolical genius Ananonias deciding that corruption would be a much more effective way to corrupt Jesus' revolution.
I took a human rights and equity course we read that in Canada as opposed to America (were violent expansion/dispossession seemed to be more frequently used, though of course not the only method), the methods the early European colonialists used in Canada were sneakier for example the conscious propagation of cheap or even free alcohol to destabilize Aboriginal society. Of course distributing alcohol is not the exact same as corrupting the revolutionary political teachings of Jesus through opposite teachings but it had the same result; a corruption and dismemberment of something that was a threat.
-
@Pazuzu
qoute<Translating "Ohkt" Haroon as "Descendant of Aaron" - as RK did - is a blatant corruption of the meaning.>
Well your approaches like the others who use such a language demonstrate your arrogance regarding the finding the truth and increasing your knowledge??What make you think that you?re right? Has God stamped on your interpretation/understanding is correct?
qoute<The Quran tells us that Maryam was the "sister" of Aaron, this means that either she was literally his sister, or, at least, that they were contemporaries. The Quran would NOT call her "Sister of Aaron" if she came 1000 years after Aaron. PLease use common sense, and don't blindly follow traditional interpretations.>
the same Quran tells us that mother of Maryam wanted to have a boy but God?s plan for her was to have a girl?..It teaches us that Maryam did not have a brother or at least before her or if she had what was the reason that her mother was so desperate to have a boy to dedicate him to the synagogues or place of worship in service of God? Why there is not a single verse in the Quran telling us that her mother?s wish somehow became true later on if she got pregnant? And finally why Maryam was called ?Okhte Harun? in the Quran when we?re taught somehow she did not have a brother? Is it a coincidence that God teaches us that first mother of Maryam wanted a boy, meaning no brother and then call her ?okhte Harun? in order to guide those who pay attention to the other verses and accept it as a whole or just want to show off their understanding is better that the others?
The wife of Amram said, "My Lord, I have dedicated (the baby) in my belly to You, totally, so accept from me. You are Hearer, Omniscient."
When she gave birth to her, she said, "My Lord, I have given birth to a girl" - GOD was fully aware of what she bore - "The male is not the same as the female. I have named her Mary, and I invoke Your protection for her and her descendants from the rejected devil."Peace
-
@Pazuzu
qoute<Translating "Ohkt" Haroon as "Descendant of Aaron" - as RK did - is a blatant corruption of the meaning.>
Well your approaches like the others who use such a language demonstrate your arrogance regarding the finding the truth and increasing your knowledge??What make you think that you?re right? Has God stamped on your interpretation/understanding is correct?
qoute<The Quran tells us that Maryam was the "sister" of Aaron, this means that either she was literally his sister, or, at least, that they were contemporaries. The Quran would NOT call her "Sister of Aaron" if she came 1000 years after Aaron. PLease use common sense, and don't blindly follow traditional interpretations.>
AsanaAnd interestingly
And finally why Maryam was called ?Okhte Harun? in the Quran when we?re taught somehow she did not have a brother?
The people of her time and place knew her with absolute certainity than any one of us. Allah is quoting them
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/019.%20Maryam%20Siddiqa/19.27.gif
Thereby she came along with him to her nation/people in the state she was physically carrying him.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/019.%20Maryam%20Siddiqa/19.27a.gif
They said, "O Maryam, of course you have come exposing an unexpected/strange thing;
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/019.%20Maryam%20Siddiqa/19.28.gif
O you the sister of Haruen, your father was not a bad man and nor your mother was debauch". .Chapter 19 Syeda Maryam Siddiqa-Allah is pleased with her
-
And Allah gave this information about her;
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/066.%20At%20Tahrim/66.12.gif
And Maryan, daughter of Imran,She is the ONLY lady who has been referred by the name of her father; since she was never married. With eyes down, our respects to her. In Grand Qur'aan, Married women are always referred by the name of man whose wife were they without indicating their personal names.
Chapter 66
-
@ Mazhar
quote<The people of her time and place knew her with absolute certainity than any one of us. Allah is quoting them>
Dr Khalifa?s translation is correct ?.Since she did not have a brother therefore descendant of the Harun perfectly matches there.
peace
-
I have a question, is 384 referring to the Prophets listed in a chronological order? If so, why does it say prophets(plural) after Isa (which is translated as Jesus) instead of Prophet? Wasn't Muhammad the only Prophet after Jesus, then why would it say Prophets in plural?
al-Imran (The Family of Imran, The House of Imran) 384
384
Transliteration Qul amanna biAllahi wama onzila AAalayna wama onzila AAala ibraheema wa-ismaAAeela wa-ishaqa wayaAAqooba waal-asbati wama ootiya moosa waAAeesa waalnnabiyyoona min rabbihim la nufarriqu bayna ahadin minhum wanahnu lahu muslimoona
Literal Say "We believed with God, and what descended on us, and what descended on Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the grandchildren , and what Moses and Jesus and the prophets were given/brought from their Lord, we do not separate/distinguish/differentiate between any from them, and we are for Him submitters/surrenderers/Moslems."
Yusuf Ali Say "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)."
Pickthal Say (O Muhammad) We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
Arberry Say 'We believe in God, and that which has been sent down on us, and sent down on Abraham and Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, and in that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them, and to Him we surrender.'
Shakir Say We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.
Sarwar (Muhammad), say, "We believe in God and in that which has been revealed to us and in that which was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants. We believe in that which was given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction between them and we have submitted ourselves to the will of God"
Khalifa Say, "We believe in GOD, and in what was sent down to us, and in what was sent down to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Patriarchs, and in what was given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them. To Him alone we are submitters."
Hilali/Khan Say (O Muhammad SAW) "We believe in Allah and in what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Yaqoob (Jacob) and Al-Asbat (the twelve sons of Yaqoob (Jacob)) and what was given to Moosa (Moses), Iesa (Jesus) and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between one another among them and to Him (Allah) we have submitted (in Islam)."
H/K/Saheeh Say, "We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims to Him."
Malik O Prophet, say "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants; and in that which was given to Moses, Jesus and other Prophets from their Lord; we do not discriminate between any one of them, and to Allah do we submit in Islam."
QXP Say, "We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Prophets of the Israelite Tribes, and that which was given to Moses, Jesus and other Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them (See (2253), (1755)). Unto Him we have surrendered."
Maulana Ali Say We believe in Allah and that which is revealed to us, and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit.
Free Minds Say "We believe in God and what was sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Patriarchs, and what was given to Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We do not make any distinction between them, and to Him we surrender."
Qaribullah Say 'We believe in Allah and in what is sent down to us and in that which was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes, and in that which was given to (Prophets) Moses and Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them. To Him we are submitters (Muslims). '
George Sale Say, we believe in God, and that which hath been sent down unto us, and that which was sent down unto Abraham, and Ismael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which was delivered to Moses, and Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them; and to him are we resigned.
JM Rodwell SAY We believe in God, and in what hath been sent down to us, and what hath been sent down to Abraham, and Ismael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and in what was given to Moses, and Jesus, and the Prophets, from their Lord. We make no difference be
Asad Say "We believe in God, and in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, and that which has been bestowed upon Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and their descendants, and that which has been vouchsafed by their Sustainer unto Moses and Jesus and all the prophets we make no distinction between any of them. And unto Him do we surrender ourselves."
-
I have a question, is 384 referring to the Prophets listed in a chronological order? If so, why does it say prophets(plural) after Isa (which is translated as Jesus) instead of Prophet? Wasn't Muhammad the only Prophet after Jesus, then why would it say Prophets in plural?
al-Imran (The Family of Imran, The House of Imran) 384
Yusuf Ali Say "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)."
It doesnt say 'after', it says prophets. David was also given a Book but is not mentioned there at all. Moses had something 'revealed' to him but is not in the list which stops at 'tribes'. It is talking about ALL messengers and prophets even though not all are mentioned there. It is saying we should make no distinction among them then after that it says to Allah we bow in Islam, that does not mean we bow to Allah last and make no distinction among the prophets before bowing to Allah. -
It doesnt say 'after', it says prophets. David was also given a Book but is not mentioned there at all. Moses had something 'revealed' to him but is not in the list which stops at 'tribes'. It is talking about ALL messengers and prophets even though not all are mentioned there. It is saying we should make no distinction among them then after that it says to Allah we bow in Islam, that does not mean we bow to Allah last and make no distinction among the prophets before bowing to Allah.
Correct. "After" is this
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/061.%20As%20Saff/Temp%2001%2061.06b.gif
and I am the Announcer of glad news of only one Messenger who will corporeally come after me, his name is http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00005.%20Hamad%20Ha%20Meem%20Dal/17.gif"
by substituting plural word "Messengers" to a singular "only One Messenger" after him. Respects and salutation is upon Easa alai'his'slaam who was the first Announcer/ of end of arrival of the Elevated and Chosen Persons and Messengers on the physical and corporeal appearance of one whose name he knew at that point in time as "Ahmad-The Praiser" and who on birth/sent for physically joining the humanity is named and introduced as Muhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam-the one who is praised all the time without interruption; and along with him was sent the "An-Noor-Visible Light-Giver and guarantor of continuity of life The Grand Qur'aan" in the Sky of the Earth-7157]Sura As Saff 61
-
It doesnt say 'after', it says prophets. David was also given a Book but is not mentioned there at all. Moses had something 'revealed' to him but is not in the list which stops at 'tribes'. It is talking about ALL messengers and prophets even though not all are mentioned there. It is saying we should make no distinction among them then after that it says to Allah we bow in Islam, that does not mean we bow to Allah last and make no distinction among the prophets before bowing to Allah.
Peace
Ok, but the ones that are mentioned are mentioned in chronological order, yes or no? And if yes, then why does it say prophets after Isa instead of simply Prophet (The Prophet Muhammad) if Isa is Jesus?
-
It doesnt say 'after', it says prophets. David was also given a Book but is not mentioned there at all. Moses had something 'revealed' to him but is not in the list which stops at 'tribes'. It is talking about ALL messengers and prophets even though not all are mentioned there. It is saying we should make no distinction among them then after that it says to Allah we bow in Islam, that does not mean we bow to Allah last and make no distinction among the prophets before bowing to Allah.
Well it says "what they were given" so that could point to a book. However look at 616 Isa is speaking clearly of a Messenger who will come after him. However is this him speaking of a Messenger as in only one more Messenger coming, or speaking of a paritcular Messenger who will come amongst the other Messengers?
-
Transliteration Ya okhta haroona ma kana abooki imraa saw-in wama kanat ommuki baghiyyan
Literal You Aaron's sister, your father was not (a) human/man of bad/evil , and your mother was not an fornicatress/adulteress/prostitute.
Yusuf Ali "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"
Pickthal O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot.
Arberry Sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother a woman unchaste.'
Shakir O sister of Haroun! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman.
Sarwar Aaron's sister, your father was not a bad man nor was your mother unchaste".
Khalifa "O descendant of Aaron, your father was not a bad man, nor was your mother unchaste."
Hilali/Khan "O sister (i.e. the like) of Haroon (Aaron) (not the brother of Moosa (Moses), but he was another pious man at the time of
Maryam (Mary))! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman."
H/K/Saheeh O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste."
Malik O sister (a woman from the noble family) of Haroon! Your father was not a bad man nor your mother an unchaste woman."
QXP "O Sister of Aaron! Your father was not a bad man, nor was your mother a loose woman, nor did she ever oppose the system."
Maulana Ali O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother an unchaste woman!
Free Minds "O sister of Aaron, your father was not a bad man, and your mother was never unchaste!"
Qaribullah O sister of Aaron, your father was never an evil man, nor was your mother unchaste. '
George Sale O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a bad man, neither was thy mother a harlot.
JM Rodwell O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of wickedness, nor unchaste thy mother."
Asad O sister of Aaron!u Thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother a loose woman!"
Which is the word that is translated as either sister or descendant, is it okhta?
What are members opinions of Khalifa's translations, no translation is perfect of course. I remember however that a staunchly Sunni webmaster admitted saying that Khalifa's translations are good, with one example he used being that Khalifa was one of the few people to translate correctly a verse which says "when the sky disintegrates and turns Rosy painted" and few other if any other translations says this. (http//www.answering-christianity.com/galaxy_explosion.htm) Of course for emphasis I'm not implying that Khalifa's translations are perfect, nor that I believe in Khalifa's translations or anyone's translations just because this Sunni webmaster is saying so.
I remember in a thread someone, I think it was Pazuzu bringing up that this could not be Jesus because Maryam was not the sister of Aaron. Also someone remarked that Isa is not the translation of Jesus. So once again I return with the question, what is the word that is used to translate "sister." We have seen that consensus in translation is not always accurate, for example with the verse that apparently talks about abrogating verses. In this instance, Khalifa seems to be one of the few who translated some of that verse anyway (I can't remember if he translated naskha as abrogate or copy, but he did translate ayatun as miracles) accurately anyway. This brings to mind "if a million people believe something foolish, it does not make it any less foolish." So does it mean descendant, or sister but not literally his biological sister, or literally sister of another Aaron at the time of Maryam like Hilali/Khan suggest?
As for Jesus not meaning Isa, well I've learned actually that Jesus is a Greek corruption apparently of his name...and that his name was actually Yeshu/Yeshua which would actually apparently translate to Joshua and not Jesus. So is Isa the Arabic version of Yeshu/Yeshua?
Qumran's two Messiahs
The Dead Sea scrolls were part of a library, a simple fact that is easy to ignore. But it means that there is not one, single messianology to be found in the texts from Qumran. Instead, we must accept that there are several theories about the Messiah. In the War scroll the Messiah is a prophet and takes no part in the war between the 'children of light' against the 'children of darkness' (see above), although the Messiah can be identified with the 'prince of the community'. In other texts, the Messiah is a war leader (e.g., 4QFlorilegium and 4Q45. These are clearly conflicting messianologies.
Several texts are considered to be written by members of the sect the Damascus document for example, and the Messianic rule. In these texts, we may expect to find the sect's own messianology. The distinguishing characteristic is that the Qumranites expected the coming of not one, but two Messiahs. This must have been an attempt to make sense of such contradictory messianic images as we have encountered up till now.
The root of this idea may be the lines of Zechariah that we already studied above
'Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord. It is he who will build the temple of the Lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.'
This refers to prince Zerubbabel and the high-priest Joshua, but it is certain that it was understood in a messianic sense in the early Hasmonaean period. For example, the author of the Testaments of the twelve patriarchs expected a priestly and a kingly ruler
My children, be obedient to Levi and to Judah. Do not exalt yourselves about these two tribes because from them will arise the Savior from God. For the Lord will raise up from Levi someone as a high-priest and from Judah someone as king. He will save all the gentiles and the tribe of Israel.
To me , God has given the kingship, and to him , the priesthood. And He has subjected the kingship to the priesthood. To me He gave earthly matters and to Levi heavenly matters. As heaven is superior to the earth, so is God's priesthood superior to the kingdom on earth.
The word 'Messiah' is not used, however. This step was taken by the sect at Qumran. Its members were looking forward to a 'Messiah of Israel' and a 'Messiah of David', who resemble the kingly and priestly descendants of Judah and Levi in the Testaments of the twelve patriarchs.
The first text we must study is the Damascus document, which is, as so often at Qumran, a combination of texts. Its first part is a kind of theological history which proves that the sect is the true Israel and that God will reward the faithful; then follows a kind of law; and a brief penal code is added as an appendix. Our first quote does not mention the Messiah, but must without any doubt be interpreted in a messianic fashion, because it alludes to Balaam's prophecy.
And the star is the seeker of the law, who came to Damascus; as it is written A star has journeyed out of Jacob and a scepter is risen out of Israel. The scepter is the Prince of the whole congregation, and at his coming he will break down all the sons of Seth.
This is a very interesting text, because it not only mentions two Messiahs, but also shows that one of them is a military leader and the other a sage. Moreover, the expression 'seeker of the law' usually signifies the Teacher of righteousness (the founder of the sect); the fact that this title is now used to describe one of the Messiahs suggests that the members of the Qumran sect believed that he would one day return. We will discuss this idea below.
In this first quote, the word 'Messiah' is not used. But the Damascus document is sometimes more explicit.during the time of ungodliness until the appearance of the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel
This is the exact statement of the ordinances in which they walk until the Messiah of Aaron and Israel appears and expiates their iniquity.
Those who heed Him are the poor of the flock; they will be saved at the time of visitation. But others will be delivered up to the sword at the coming of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel.
(Similar ideas can be found in 19.33-20.1)
At least one text adds a third actor in the messianic age the prophet. He is mentioned in the Manual of discipline. This text is also interesting because it uses the plural 'Messiahs of Aaron and Israel' instead of the singular 'Messiah of Aaron and Israel' of the Damascus document this proves that there were indeed two (or three) Messiahs.
And they shall not depart from any counsel of the law to walk in all the stubbornness of their heart, but they shall be governed by the first ordinances in which the members of the community began their instruction, until the coming of the prophet and the anointed ones of Aaron and Israel
Just like the kingly Messiah of Israel and the priestly Messiah of Aaron, the prophet is a messianic type, and it is possible to believe that the Qumran library also contained a messianology that assumed that there would be three Messiahs. After all, kings, priests and prophets were the only one that could be anointed (above).
The most interesting text, however, can be found in the Messianic rule (also called Rule of the congregation). It describes the table arrangement during a sacred, messianic meal. The interesting point is the hierarchy between the two Messiahs.
This is the sitting of the men of renown called to the assembly for the council of the community when God will have begotten the Messiah among them. The Priest shall enter at the head of all the congregation of Israel, then are all the chiefs of the sons of Aaron, the priests, called to the assembly, men of renown. And they shall sit before him, each according to his rank.
Afterwards, the Messiah of Israel shall enter. The chiefs of the tribes of Israel shall sit before him, each according to his rank, according to their position in the camps and during their marches; then all the heads of family of the congregation, together with the wise men of the congregation, shall sit before them, each according to his rank.
And when they gather for the community table, or to drink wine, and arrange the community table and mix the wine to drink, let no man stretch out his hand over the first-fruits of bread and wine before the Priest. For it is he who shall bless the first-fruits of bread and wine, and shall first stretch out his hand over the bread. And afterwards, the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hands over the bread. And afterwards, all the congregation of the community shall bless, each according to his rank.
Probably, the idea of a dual Messiahship did not disappear with the sect (which came to an end during the war between the Jews and Romans of 66-70). It is possible, but certainly not proven, that Simon ben Kosiba was recognized as the Messiah of Israel and his collaborator Eleazar of Mode'in as the Messiah of Aaron.
http//www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_14.html
-
Yeah, I was learning about this in my class on early Christianity. About the two messiahs, a political and a war messiah.
Anyways I have a question, when the Qu'ran says the reaction of those to Mary and her child is something along the lines of this is a strange thing, your parents were not known for this...are they implying she isn't married? It would not be strange, if a married person came with a child right? Especially since I think Jews are encouraged to multiply, they would probably be happy that a newly married couple has a child.
-
Yeah, I was learning about this in my class on early Christianity. About the two messiahs, a political and a war messiah.
Anyways I have a question, when the Qu'ran says the reaction of those to Mary and her child is something along the lines of this is a strange thing, your parents were not known for this...are they implying she isn't married? It would not be strange, if a married person came with a child right? Especially since I think Jews are encouraged to multiply, they would probably be happy that a newly married couple has a child.
She was not married at the time which is why they asked that question. I think they meant fornification. The Talmud claims Mary was a prostitute and thats how she conceived Jesus. The Koran refutes that.