Sister of Aaron
-
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.
-
Whereas;
"Esau" (pronounced /is/) (Hebrew , Standard Hebrew Esav, Tiberian Hebrew w; Greek ) was the fraternal twin brother of Jacob (whom God renamed Israel)?the patriarch and founder of the Israelites.
Hence, Esau = Esaw =
The QUran calls the son of Maryam ESAU NOT YESHUA.
The mother of Esau and Jacob was Rebekah, not Maryam. Father was Isaac.
-
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.