Sister of Aaron
-
The mother of Esau and Jacob was Rebekah, not Maryam. Father was Isaac
Dear Aysha
I never claimed that the mother of Esau and Jacob was Maryam. The point I was trying to make was that the name "Isa" which appears in the Quran is simply the Arabic form of "Esau". "Esau" is a Hebrew name. Just as "Ibraheem" is the Arabic version of the Hebrew "Abram". Of course the Esau who was the brother of Jacob was not the son of Maryam. THat's a different Esau. This just goes to show you that the name "Esau" was a very common Hebrew name.
The letter "" which is called "Alif Maqsoura" in Arabic, doesn't exist in the original Hebrew language. Instead, it is replaced by what is similar to the letter "". Doctor Kamal Salibi, who is an expert on original Hebrew texts, has confirmed this. (The original Hebrew of the Old Testament is quite different for the Hebrew spoken in Israel today).
Let me try to explain it again
If you read the Arabic transliteration of the OT, you will see that "Esau" (the Hebrew name) is written as "" NOT "" Because there is no "alif maqsoura" in Hebrew, they replaced it with "".
Hence, Isa = Esau.
"Jesus", on the other hand, is an entirely different name. It has nothing to do with Isa whatsoever. The Muslims are confused because they think "Isa" is Arabic for Jesus. It is NOT so. The Arabic for "Jesus" is NOT . Jesus, in Hebrew, is Yeshua.
Hence
Esau (Hebrew name) = Isa (Arabic) = . This name appears in the Quran. It is the name of the prophet who was sent to the Israelites in Arabia, not long after the time of Moses. Isa was the son on Maryam, daughter of Amram.
Yeshua (another Hebrew name) = Yassoo (Arabic) = . This is the name of a political rebel who entered Jerusalem some 2000+ years ago, to overthrow the Heriodian rule and establish a kingdom for the Jews of the Davidic descent. Jesus can be traced back to David. Jesus was tried for treason, and died on the cross. End of story. He was not a prophet, and is not mentioned anywhere in the QUran. He lived and died many centuries after Isa the son of Maryam.
The main reason for the confusion is that both names are pronounced the same in Greek (although their spelling is different)
Esau = Isa = (Greek), pronounced "Iessous"
Yeshu = Jesus = (Greek), also pronouced "Iessous"
Note that the spelling is not the same. These are two different and distinct names we are dealing with here, belonging to two people who lived in completely different eras.
Peace...
-
Dear Aysha
I never claimed that the mother of Esau and Jacob was Maryam. The point I was trying to make was that the name "Isa" which appears in the Quran is simply the Arabic form of "Esau". "Esau" is a Hebrew name. Just as "Ibraheem" is the Arabic version of the Hebrew "Abram". Of course the Esau who was the brother of Jacob was not the son of Maryam. THat's a different Esau. This just goes to show you that the name "Esau" was a very common Hebrew name.
You did claim that Maryam was the mother of Esau
They are simply incapable of grasping that the Maryam mentioned in the QUran, and her son Eesa (NOT JESUS) came 1000 years before the Jesus who was crucifed in Jerusalem.
The QUran calls the son of Maryam ESAU NOT YESHUA.
The only Esau mentioned in Torah is Esau the son of Rebekah and Isaac, so whether it was a common name or not at this time God only made reference to that one who was not a prophet nor was he crucified.
The QUran clearly tells us that at the clergy of the Israelites, who wrote the Torat with their own hands, spoke lies and slander against Maryam.
(See Quran 4156)
....(Exodus 15 19,20)
Note how they ridicule her They describe Maryam as being a "Nabiyya", yet she was dancing and singing like some drinken maiden.
The exodus verse is speaking about Miriam the sister of Moses and prophetess, the Quran verse you posted is speaking about Mary mother of Jesus. (see 4157) You have decided that Miriam was acting 'like some drunken maiden' when she was joining in celebration of the destruction of Pharaoh and so was her brother Moses, was he too drunken? they were singing praises to God just as they did in Medina when prophet Muhammed arrived there.
Also, they claim that she became jealous of her brother Moses, and refused to speak to him, so God cursed her with a skin desease and she died a wretched death. (See Old Testament, Numbers 12 , 1-15).
Which Maryam are they talking about here?
You tell me.
This Miriam was the sister of Moses. The slander against Mary the mother of Jesus was because she was pregnant before marriage.One of the Mary's in Quran gave birth to a son called Jesus/Emmanuel, meaning 'God with us' that was strengthened with the Holy Spirit see 287, 2253 and matt 120
The verse 1928 is referring to Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron, previously in chapter 19;1-15 it refers to Zachariya having the son John the Baptist see Luke 15-25 its exact. The father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam was Amran who divorced his wife Jochebed before Moses was born, according to the Exodus Rabbah (Midrash). Miriam was the sister that cared for Moses by arranging for the real mother, Jochebed, to feed the baby Moses in the house of Pharaoh.
Jesus speaking as a baby is found in Apocrypha, the texts left out of the New Testement after the Nicene Council in 325ad.
Jesus/Isa/Emmanuel was a great prophet of Allah as Quran confirms throughout. He was the Word of God.
-
http//www.islamicaweb.com/forums/religion-spirituality/913-koran-torah-gospel-corrupted.html
aahh Sanhedrin!
002.079
YUSUFALI Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.What the Jews did by adding to Torah are the same as what the Muslims are doing with hadith IMHO. Scholars (Rabbi) and claimed oral transmissions (of Moses and Muhammed) are what distort what God said.
Sanhedrin 55b A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.
Sanhedrin 55b A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother's wife acquires her .
Muslims made it a little older with 9 years for a girl and on that I suppose its assumed 9 is still ok for a boy. ;D
-
aahh Sanhedrin!
002.079
YUSUFALI Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.What the Jews did by adding to Torah are the same as what the Muslims are doing with hadith IMHO. Scholars (Rabbi) and claimed oral transmissions (of Moses and Muhammed) are what distort what God said.
Sanhedrin 55b A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.
Sanhedrin 55b A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother's wife acquires her .
Muslims made it a little older with 9 years for a girl and on that I suppose its assumed 9 is still ok for a boy. ;D
Good point. When Shafi's point of view spread that every tradition of value must be grounded on some hadith by the prophet, every tradition that people wanted to pass along had to find its way in some form of hadith that claimed he said it or did it.
Its also important to point out its not the Jewish hadith the Koran attacked as much as the fatwas of the Rabbis. A tradition is just that, a tradition. Its what we do with it that matters. Different Jewish sects dealt with the oral traditions differently but only the Pharisees believed, like Sunni and Shias, that the oral traditions were binding and can even abrogate the written scriptures.
Rabbinic Judaism believed that the traditional interpretations received through the Oral Torah were binding. This belief, however, was not accepted amongst all segments of Judaism and religions which grew out of the Old Testament.
Galileans
The ancient Galileans were noted as not being strict to oral traditions. Many of the people Galilee, were less strict. In this regard it may be noted that Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, not from Galilee, were the ones who took issue with the failure of Jesus? disciples to observe the traditional washing of hands.? Mark 71, 5."Sadducees
Sadducees rejected the Pharisaic oral traditions. They based their interpretations on their own traditions emphasizing a more literal understanding of the verses. In many respects, this led to a more severe observance than that of the Pharisees especially as regards purity laws and temple practice. It must be noted that most aspects of Sadduceean law and methods of interpretation are not known.Essenes
Essenes, a monastic group of people, had a ?monastic organization?. Though they had non-biblical rules, and customs, they reject much of the oral traditions.Christians
Christians generally reject a notion of any oral Torah as they see most of the laws in Tanakh as completed or fulfilled by Jesus (Matthew 517). According to some, Jesus rejects some oral traditions as seen in Matthew 151, 2, 7-11; and Mark 74-8.Karaites
Main article Karaite JudaismKaraite Judaism or Karaism is a Jewish denomination which arose about the time of the completion of the Talmud. It is characterized by the rejection of writing down the Oral Law and Talmud, and, on its reliance on the Tanakh as scripture.
Some Karaites strive to adhere only to the p'shat (plain meaning) of the text. This is in contrast to Rabbinic Judaism, which relies on the Oral Law and employs several interpretive methods which, at times, stray from the literal meaning.
Codification
Prohibition to write the Oral TorahThe laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. According to proponents of the Oral Torah, the explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law.
Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, it became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved.
Thus, around 200 CE, a redaction of oral law in writing was completed. Rabbinic tradition ascribes this effort to Rabbi Judah haNasi. The Mishna is generally considered the first work of Rabbinic literature.
Over the next four centuries this body of law, legend and ethical teachings underwent debate and discussion (Gemara) in the two centers of Jewish life, Israel and Babylonia. The Gemara with the Mishnah came to be edited together into compilations known as the Talmud.
Many of the legalistic terms and concepts found in Rabbinic literature have antecedents in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is especially true in the Halachic Letter (Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah/ Qumran Cave 4).
Ramification of Jewish law
Oral law was the basis for nearly all subsequent Rabbinic literature. It is therefore intricately related to the development of Halakha. As such, despite codification, interpretation of the "oral law" is likewise required. Although the Oral Law has been in written form for almost 18 centuries, it is still referred to as Torah she-be'al peh.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah
Matt 151-3 "Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?"
Matt 231-5 "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men."
Matt 2313 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."
Matt 2327-29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
John 182-3 "Then Judas, having received a detachment of troops, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons"
-
-
-
You know interestingly enough, the rejected gospels which were written by people who knew Yeshua and were in his presence and were his real disciples do not mention any kind of miracles including a miraculous birth. Unlike Paul, and Pauline Christianity which puts the most overwhelming focus on Yeshua's death and resurrection, the Jesus Movement led by James who Yeshua designated as his successor (NOT Paul) was extremely if not fanatically adherent to his teachings. And did not attach any significance to Yeshua's birth or death. If these people were more attached to Yeshua's teachings more than anyone else in human history, why would they ignore something as significant as miracles such as a miraculous birth, miracles acts etc.? The rejected Gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Ebionites/Hebrews) do not mention anything about miracles.
Have you guys ever seen the movie the lost tomb of Yeshua? Very compelling evidence of him having a wife Mary Magdalene, (the only way an unrelated woman would be buried in a family tomb is if she was married to someone in that tomb) Her tomb's inscription is "Mariamne" and the writings of Philip mention Mary Magdalene as Mariamne. Apparently, he also had a son named Judah. Along with 4 brothers, James, Judas/Jude (Not Judas Iscariot) Simeon, and Jose (Joseph, but they might have called him Jose to differentiate him from his father.) And two sisters, Salome and Mariam (common name it seems). The inscription on his mother's ossuary was Maria, perhaps to distinguish from the three Mariams in their extended family.
So maybe these miracles could have been added after, the miracles of Isa added to the life and works of Yeshua? And this was part of Ananias plans to destroy Yeshua's cause from the inside in a non violent way, and the reason why he sent Saul to Arabia for three years (to find parchments which contained stories of Isa, and his miracles including his miraculous birth) which is not discussed at all in any book?
Funny thing about Paul and Pauline Christianity, is their insistence on the irrelevance of the Torah. Yet the New Testament itself quotes Yeshua as saying something along the lines of the law (Torah) will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away. And before saying this, Yeshua says I have not come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. And Yeshua also urges his followers to exceed the Pharisees in their righteousness.
The most perplexing line though, is in Galatians 3, when he says those who follow the Law are under a curse, and then produces a line from the Torah as evidence for his assertion which says the exact opposite, that cursed are those who do not follow the law.
It's like someone taking a picture of me and showing it to people to prove that I'm bald (I have quite thick hair)
Also, Paul's letters were written in at least the 30's and at latest the 60's. The first gospels were not written till the 70's. It is highly probable these Gospels could have included things from Paul.
Unlike James and the remaining disciples, Paul never met Jesus, was not familiar with his teachings, and was not present at his death. As a matter of fact, Paul was reviled by people who knew Yeshua (his actual disciples, people who met him and lived with him and were there at his death) and regarded as a false teacher.
-
the quran also says in 2278 to the prophet that there is no hardship in this judgement, the creed "of your father (abeekum)" abraham. Now this is indeed a metaphorical reference isnt it?
Similarly, can "sister of aaron" be a metaphorical reference too?
I really like your thinking. However grammatically 2278 is speaking to us; your father is in plural form like the rest of the verse. Thus, 'father' HAS to be metaphorical.
-
You know interestingly enough, the rejected gospels which were written by people who knew Yeshua and were in his presence and were his real disciples do not mention any kind of miracles including a miraculous birth. Unlike Paul, and Pauline Christianity which puts the most overwhelming focus on Yeshua's death and resurrection, the Jesus Movement led by James who Yeshua designated as his successor (NOT Paul) was extremely if not fanatically adherent to his teachings. And did not attach any significance to Yeshua's birth or death. If these people were more attached to Yeshua's teachings more than anyone else in human history, why would they ignore something as significant as miracles such as a miraculous birth, miracles acts etc.? The rejected Gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Ebionites/Hebrews) do not mention anything about miracles.
The miracles, virgin birth, etc are all mentioned in the Lost Gospels. The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary tells her life and the virgin conception. The Gospel of Infancy which is attributed to Thomas (there is also one from Matthew and others) tells of Jesus miracles form an early age AND of speaking from the cradle - so does Quran. Still searching and reading on these but SO MUCH is making more sense now and relating to Quran.
-
But this is what they say Mazhar, that these hadith are from Muhammed himself, they are the hadith of Muhammed.
No, they don't say like this. They don't say that these are the words of him. That is why they use twice word Qala Qala. They attribute that he meant to say was this and that.
-
No, they don't say like this. They don't say that these are the words of him. That is why they use twice word Qala Qala. They attribute that he meant to say was this and that.
???
But most start with 'so and so said that so and so said that the messenger said' so they are saying he said them. If they are only saying what he MEANT to say thats even worse! o
-
???
But most start with 'so and so said that so and so said that the messenger said' so they are saying he said them. If they are only saying what he MEANT to say thats even worse!
Conjectural matter is always kept vague and confusing, and open for interpretation. That is the trick.
-
I really like your thinking. However grammatically 2278 is speaking to us; your father is in plural form like the rest of the verse. Thus, 'father' HAS to be metaphorical.
May be "figurative" sounds better. "the millat of the father of you people". Though it is clear and certain here that he has been referred as "father"/the head with relation to millat to which the addresses belong; yet it has abundantly been made evident by explanation immediately after, as to in what sense he is the father; "He named you people...".
-
You know interestingly enough, the rejected gospels which were written by people who knew Yeshua and were in his presence and were his real disciples do not mention any kind of miracles including a miraculous birth. Unlike Paul, and Pauline Christianity which puts the most overwhelming focus on Yeshua's death and resurrection, the Jesus Movement led by James who Yeshua designated as his successor (NOT Paul) was extremely if not fanatically adherent to his teachings. And did not attach any significance to Yeshua's birth or death. If these people were more attached to Yeshua's teachings more than anyone else in human history, why would they ignore something as significant as miracles such as a miraculous birth, miracles acts etc.? The rejected Gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Ebionites/Hebrews) do not mention anything about miracles.
Have you guys ever seen the movie the lost tomb of Yeshua? Very compelling evidence of him having a wife Mary Magdalene, (the only way an unrelated woman would be buried in a family tomb is if she was married to someone in that tomb) Her tomb's inscription is "Mariamne" and the writings of Philip mention Mary Magdalene as Mariamne. Apparently, he also had a son named Judah. Along with 4 brothers, James, Judas/Jude (Not Judas Iscariot) Simeon, and Jose (Joseph, but they might have called him Jose to differentiate him from his father.) And two sisters, Salome and Mariam (common name it seems). The inscription on his mother's ossuary was Maria, perhaps to distinguish from the three Mariams in their extended family.
So maybe these miracles could have been added after, the miracles of Isa added to the life and works of Yeshua? And this was part of Ananias plans to destroy Yeshua's cause from the inside in a non violent way, and the reason why he sent Saul to Arabia for three years (to find parchments which contained stories of Isa, and his miracles including his miraculous birth) which is not discussed at all in any book?
Funny thing about Paul and Pauline Christianity, is their insistence on the irrelevance of the Torah. Yet the New Testament itself quotes Yeshua as saying something along the lines of the law (Torah) will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away. And before saying this, Yeshua says I have not come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. And Yeshua also urges his followers to exceed the Pharisees in their righteousness.
The most perplexing line though, is in Galatians 3, when he says those who follow the Law are under a curse, and then produces a line from the Torah as evidence for his assertion which says the exact opposite, that cursed are those who do not follow the law.
It's like someone taking a picture of me and showing it to people to prove that I'm bald (I have quite thick hair)
Also, Paul's letters were written in at least the 30's and at latest the 60's. The first gospels were not written till the 70's. It is highly probable these Gospels could have included things from Paul.
Unlike James and the remaining disciples, Paul never met Jesus, was not familiar with his teachings, and was not present at his death. As a matter of fact, Paul was reviled by people who knew Yeshua (his actual disciples, people who met him and lived with him and were there at his death) and regarded as a false teacher.
What made you think that Paul believed in the irrelevancy of the Old testament? Plus even though Paul never seen Jesus he did see his disciples and was their companion. Paul emphasis on Jesus's crucifixion and resuurection does not bother me. He probably was countering the claims of Jesus's enemies who saw Jesus as a fake. Its the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity that I have problems with. Paul has nothing to do with all this. In fact its John that Christians claim that emphaiszed jesus's divinity however they bring about implied verses with spin. Nothing explicit and very vague arguments. There is no evidence that any of them believed Jesus was divine, including Paul.
Paul was a follopwer of Rabbinic Judaism so he probably opposed Judaic law. Not Old Testament at least he probably interpret it different than a Rabbi would. After all many here interpret the Koran differently than how a Muslim would.
-
What made you think that Paul believed in the irrelevancy of the Old testament? Plus even though Paul never seen Jesus he did see his disciples and was their companion. Paul emphasis on Jesus's crucifixion and resuurection does not bother me. He probably was countering the claims of Jesus's enemies who saw Jesus as a fake. Its the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity that I have problems with. Paul has nothing to do with all this. In fact its John that Christians claim that emphaiszed jesus's divinity however they bring about implied verses with spin. Nothing explicit and very vague arguments. There is no evidence that any of them believed Jesus was divine, including Paul.
Paul was a follopwer of Rabbinic Judaism so he probably opposed Judaic law. Not Old Testament at least he probably interpret it different than a Rabbi would. After all many here interpret the Koran differently than how a Muslim would.
Paul's letter to the Galatians.
Galatians 215-17 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.
Galatians 310 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law." (What was Paul thinking when he decided to cite this particular piece of "evidence" for his claim that those who follow the law are under a curse? Was he thinking?)
Galatians 54 You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Actually he met with his disciples for a mere 15 days and was rebuffed by them. Not only was he not their companion, they refer to him in their letters as "the man who is my enemy." Paul was the one who put forward the importance of crucifixion. To tell James and his followers that Yeshua's execution was something to be celebrated was incredibly abhorrent. In their letters (James) they refer to him (Paul) as a false teacher, and he refers to them in Galatians as those who preach a false gospel.
Galatians 16-7 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-Not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
Did Paul believe Jesus was human?
Galatians 111-12 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Son of God
Galatians 220 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
-
Paul's letter to the Galatians.
Galatians 215-17 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.
Galatians 310 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law." (What was Paul thinking when he decided to cite this particular piece of "evidence" for his claim that those who follow the law are under a curse? Was he thinking?)
Galatians 54 You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Actually he met with his disciples for a mere 15 days and was rebuffed by them. Not only was he not their companion, they refer to him in their letters as "the man who is my enemy." Paul was the one who put forward the importance of crucifixion. To tell James and his followers that Yeshua's execution was something to be celebrated was incredibly abhorrent. In their letters (James) they refer to him (Paul) as a false teacher, and he refers to them in Galatians as those who preach a false gospel.
Galatians 16-7 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-Not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
Did Paul believe Jesus was human?
Galatians 111-12 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Son of God
Galatians 220 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
The Koran itself says the Gospel is from God. Plus is saying exactly what Jesus told the Pharisees regarding obeying the Laws. But remember many of the se Laws were Rabbinic laws and Jesus spoke against some of them.
Clean and Unclean
1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.
5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."9And he said to them "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."
20He went on "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
Thats probably what Paul meant. As fas as the term "son of God" Jesus himself uses that term but not the way you or Christians might understand them.
An objector may point to the opening lines of the Gospel of John, which apparently identify the �Logos� with God (John 11) and the �Logos made flesh� with Jesus (John 114). Of course these lines were not spoken by Jesus, and so do not show that Jesus himself claimed to be God; but in any case, what exactly are they saying? The relation between God and the Logos seems to fall short of strict identity; the Greek, literally translated, says something like �the Logos was with the God, and God is what the Logos was� � an awkward construction clearly trying to express a subtler relation than identity. The term �Logos� is borrowed from Greek philosophy, where it means a thing�s abstract rational nature; the Logos that is �with� God and is what God is, is not God but God�s nature. To say that Jesus is the Logos made flesh, then, is simply to say that he is a physical embodiment of God�s nature. This hardly makes him identical with God, since all human beings are supposed to be created from God�s spirit (Genesis 27) and in God�s image and likeness (Genesis 126-27).
Indeed the New Testament authors clearly understand Jesus as offering everyone the opportunity to be sons (and daughters) of God and to partake of God�s nature
�But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.� (John 112-13)
�For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. ... And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.� (Romans 814-17)
�Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him.� (1 John 32)
As the New Testament authors understand Jesus� message, being the �Son of God� is evidently not a status that Jesus claims for himself alone, but one that is open to all Christians; a fortiori it is not a way of being identical with God. Jesus puts himself forward, not as God, but as the first man to have succeeding in manifesting the divine nature that is open to all; anyone who follows his example, who �believes� in him � �trusts� or �accepts� would be a better translation � will himself become a �Logos made flesh.� Hence those who receive the Logos are even described as �gods.� (John 1035)http//praxeology.net/unblog02-04.htm
Anyone can cherry pick and take things out of context. We need to read the scriptures as a whole and make deduction on what the scriptures are saying and not what we think its saying. Paul has nothing to do with the Trinity. Yes, he did emphasize Jesus's resurrection and crucifixion. So what? The Koran did not attack those concepts but attacked the Judaic interpretation of those events. At least thats how I see those verses.
As far as paul saying that you must have faith in Christ and not just obey the Law this is because for Judaism there is no faith needed. There is no article of faith in Judaism but there are rituals that are to be followed. To understand scriptures you need to see who the verses are addressing.
-
but he's not just saying you need faith as well, he's saying don't even follow the law period, and you aren't justified by following the law, and that those who follow the law are under a curse! How and why would you follow the laws if you didn't have faith in the first place?
Paul's entire emphasis on Yeshua's death specifically has to do with atonement for sins through Yeshua's death.Galatians 221 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
He attacks circumcision, which is not from the oral law, this is something from the first book of the Torah. In fact he refers to the laws as a curse. This is why the Jews reviled Paul, not because they reviled his "defense" of Yeshua, who actually supported the Torah and said that.
Yeshua followed all Jewish laws and customs. He attended passover (the last meal, was actually a passover meal) he reinterpreted some things like permissible acts on the Sabbath (he said it was ok to lift an animal out of a ditch during the Sabbath, some people were against this) took some things even further (instead of don't murder, don't even get angry because anger could lead to desire to commit murder) instead of don't commit adultery, don't even look at women with a lustful eye, and tear out your right eye and throw it away if you do, because it is better than throwing your whole body away into hell. He reinterpreted Torah, but he did not dare declare them irrelevant or unnecessary.
Galatians is full of Paul's lamentations against Torah and why it is unnecessary since Christ has arrived. He calls it a curse and a prison (the Law) that was placed on the Jews for their transgressions, and that the time of Torah finished with Christ's arrival and death, and that now the only thing necessary was faith in Christ's death for ours sins. (Galatians 3) He even says that those who follow the Torah, are slave descendants of Ishmael, and that those who follow Christ, are the descendants of Isaac (Galatians 4).
And in Matthew 231-4, Yeshua tells the crowds to obey the Pharisees, but not to be hypocrites like them who say but do not do. Otherwise though, he is saying to be like them. The Pharisees unlike the Sadducees followed not only the Torah, but 3 other books as well. I don't disagree with the admonition of the oral tradition which came to be collected into the Talmud.
Nor do I disagree with that the Qu'ran itself confirms the Injeel. However this goes back to the original topic, which Injeel? The one mixed in with various other accounts of Yeshua, or the original Injeel given to Isa? And why is Mariam mother of Isa described as daughter of Imraan/Amran and yet Mariam mother of Yeshua in other sources (Gospel of James, Mariam mother of Yeshua's other son who most likely knew who his grandparents were) is described as the daughter of Anna and Joachim?
How can people say Yeshua is a light to the Gentiles, when he rejects a Canaanite woman who comes to him to have him help her son? This could be from the Gospel which was intended for Jewish audiences though. (They all have different audiences, motivations and even differing accounts of some pretty important things, like his baptism (a sinless person needs to be baptized? some gospels allude to it being an unnecessary "ceremonial" baptism that occurred only because Yeshua insisted upon it, others skip this event entirely) and his last words (unto you I give my soul/my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?)
Perhaps the Qu'ran is confirming the modern Gospels that exist, because they contain bits and pieces of the original Injeel Isa preached? So to reject the modern Gospels in entirety, would be to have absolutely no example period of Isa's Injeel?