WAS JOHN FATHER OF JESUS?
-
Peace,
Prophet Yahya was given Al-Kitab and ?Hukm? with confidence when he was young (sabiy). He became a messenger of Allah when he was a young man.
God sent to Mary (his ruh = wahiy) by a messenger who was present at that time. This messenger married Mary. There were two messenger at that time Zakariya and Yahya. Zakariya was old and already married.
When Mary pointed to her husband to speak for her, her people said ?How can we talk to someone who is a child in a cradle?? They were to swollen with pride to discus the matter with such a young man.
So the only messenger came to Mary to marry her should be YAHYA.
Peace,
Interesting view 'm considering this.
I am having issues with a couple of things, however.
Your rendition of 1929 doesn't make sense (john is not the child), could you further clarify
-
So she pointed to John. They said ?How can we talk to someone who is a child in a cradle??
-
John said ?I am God?s servant, He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.?
I do think child is a mistranslation. Sabiyyan = young man; same word from 1912.
How do you understand the accusation in 1927-28?
Thanks.
-
-
Peace,
Interesting view 'm considering this.
I am having issues with a couple of things, however.
Your rendition of 1929 doesn't make sense (john is not the child), could you further clarify
I do think child is a mistranslation. Sabiyyan = young man; same word from 1912.
How do you understand the accusation in 1927-28?
Thanks.
Peace Jack,
Yes you are right ?child? is a mistranslation ?Sabiyyan? means ?young man?
343-45 ?O Mary, be devoted to your Lord and obey him and be humble with those who are humble.?
This is from the news of the unseen that We inspire to you. You were not with them when they drew straws as to which one of them will be charged with Mary; you were not with them when they disputed and the Angels said ?O Mary, God gives good news of a word from Him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary. Honourable in this world and in the Hereafter, and from among those who are made close.?Mary learned that the people of the temple drew straws as to which one of them will be charged with her. And she knew that they disputed. In my opinion that is why Mary She took to a barrier which separated her from them. And in my opinion that is the main reason of their accusation. They accused her because she did not listen to them and she run away.
On the other hand,
Verses 2189 to 91 are one sentence.2189-91 And Zachariah when he called out to his Lord ?My Lord, do not leave me without an heir, and You are the best inheritor.? So We responded to him, and We cured his wife and We granted him Yahya, and they used to hasten to do good, and they(Zakariya-his wife-his son) would call to Us in joy and in fear and to Us they were reverent, and the one who ?ahsanat? her ?farj?, so We blew into her from Our ?ruh?, and We made her and her son a sign for the worlds.
We granted him Yahya and the one who ?ahsanat? her ?farj?. Yahya as a son (and as a prophet) and Mary as her son?s wife to bring a grand son (another prophet) to Zakariya. In my oppinion, Yahya and his son Isa are Zakariya's offspring. That ?s how God responded to him.
-
Peace, the contradictions with thread topic are obvious...
The Qur'an (Chapter 3, Verses 33-54) Sura Ali 'Imran
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMjdmD761KA
-
Peace Tlepsh, all,
I agree with this understanding.
Also see http//www.jesussonofjohn.com/ -
I agree. There are many false statements made
This is true, but the website is still remarkably interesting. It points out some very distinct, interesting Biblical and Qur'aanic passages...
-
-
John said ?It is such that your Lord has said, it is easy for Me. And We(Mary and John) shall make him a sign for mankind and a mercy from Us. It is a matter already ordained.?
-
So she was pregnant to him(Jesus), and she went to deliver in a far place with John.
-
Then the birth pains came to her, by the trunk of a palm tree. Mary said ?I wish I had died before this, and became totally forgotten!?
-
But then John called to her from beneath her ?Do not be sad, your Lord has made below you a stream.?
-
?And shake the trunk of this palm tree, it will cause ripe dates to fall upon you.?
How lethargic and stupid was this particular so called john that despite being pysically present there he is asking a lady who has given birth to a child without an attending nurse to do other things also at her own. He seems to be an human drone. People keep making ridiculous assertions like the one here.
-
-
Like...?
There is one obvious one. In his article the author said that Jesus was accused of blasphemy when he said he was the son of God. Well nowhere did Jesus ever say he was the son of God, he only ever said he was the son of Man. He called God "Father", "My Father" etc. This was common in Judaism.
Also the term "Son of God" was used to describe some high priests and (on occations) the Emperor. The titles "Divine", "Son of God", "God", "God from God", "Lord", "Redeemer", "Liberator", "The Prince of Peace", "The Wonder Counsellor", and "Saviour of the World" were each applied to the Roman emperors.
Some historians consider that the application of them to Jesus by other people, never Jesus himself, would have been regarded as denying them to the emperor(s). They were taking the identity of the Roman emperor and giving it to a Jewish peasant. Either that was a peculiar joke and a very low lampoon, or it was what the Romans called majestas and we call high treason.
It is also thought that "Son of man" was not a title but rather the polite way in which people referred to themselves, i.e. a pronominal phrase.
-
There is one obvious one. In his article the author said that Jesus was accused of blasphemy when he said he was the son of God. Well nowhere did Jesus ever say he was the son of God, he only ever said he was the son of Man. He called God "Father", "My Father" etc. This was common in Judaism.
Also the term "Son of God" was used to describe some high priests and (on occations) the Emperor. The titles "Divine", "Son of God", "God", "God from God", "Lord", "Redeemer", "Liberator", "The Prince of Peace", "The Wonder Counsellor", and "Saviour of the World" were each applied to the Roman emperors.
Some historians consider that the application of them to Jesus by other people, never Jesus himself, would have been regarded as denying them to the emperor(s). They were taking the identity of the Roman emperor and giving it to a Jewish peasant. Either that was a peculiar joke and a very low lampoon, or it was what the Romans called majestas and we call high treason.
It is also thought that "Son of man" was not a title but rather the polite way in which people referred to themselves, i.e. a pronominal phrase.
Yeah I agree. Hi john. son of man. handshake
-
Or I could be "John son of John" and my son would then be "John son of John who is son of John" rotfl
rotfl LOL! that was very funny. Hilarious. rotfl
-
Actually it gets worse as most of my ancestors were named John too laugh
rotfl that makes it more funny.