Sister of Aaron
-
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?
-
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 is not debating Sunnis. He is debating Jews who follow Judaism. Mainly the Pharisees that he was one of them. Their understanding of religion is not about faith. A Rabbi can be an atheist and preach in a synagogue. Judaism as it is understood by most Jews is about geneology and not faith. Of course this is RADICALLY different than the Judaism of Joseph, Moses or Jacob. But thats what they follow. It is called Pharisaic Judaism and they believe in many traditions and rituals and Laws. faith for them is not an obligation. Thats probably what Paul said. Of course paul did not mean you can go and commit all kinds of sins. Why don't you read Paul's letters in its entitiret and see what he say about faith and deeds. I am just pointing to the audeince that Paul was speaking to. Its the same audience that Jesus also spoke to almost in the same language.
When a Koranist tell a Sunni that the two shahadas are not an article of faith, Sunnis think we are against Muhammad. When Paul says that obeying the law without faith is meaningless than some might think he is against deeds. Of course Paul can not say that as we can see
In Romans 72-3 Paul wrote, "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."
Furthermore, in Colossians 35-7 Paul wrote, "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry For which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them" (Emp. mine, tgm). Since Paul said they "lived in" fornication, then it is possible to live in adultery.
-
Paul is not debating Sunnis. He is debating Jews who follow Judaism. Mainly the Pharisees that he was one of them. Their understanding of religion is not about faith. A Rabbi can be an atheist and preach in a synagogue. Judaism as it is understood by most Jews is about geneology and not faith. Of course this is RADICALLY different than the Judaism of Joseph, Moses or Jacob. But thats what they follow. It is called Pharisaic Judaism and they believe in many traditions and rituals and Laws. faith for them is not an obligation. Thats probably what Paul said. Of course paul did not mean you can go and commit all kinds of sins. Why don't you read Paul's letters in its entitiret and see what he say about faith and deeds. I am just pointing to the audeince that Paul was speaking to. Its the same audience that Jesus also spoke to almost in the same language.
When a Koranist tell a Sunni that the two shahadas are not an article of faith, Sunnis think we are against Muhammad. When Paul says that obeying the law without faith is meaningless than some might think he is against deeds. Of course Paul can not say that as we can see
In Romans 72-3 Paul wrote, "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."
Furthermore, in Colossians 35-7 Paul wrote, "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry For which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them" (Emp. mine, tgm). Since Paul said they "lived in" fornication, then it is possible to live in adultery.
Well James addresses this in his letter too, saying that your faith without works is meaningless, and I by my works will show you my faith. To say that Yeshua died for sins of mankind, is insinuating that no sinning is not something that is ok, but if you have sinned and you may sin again, by believing that Yeshua died for your sins you are let off the hook. This is what James and those who actually knew Jesus and his teachings spoke against. Yeshua according to the people who knew him and were more concerned with his teachings than any divine significance his death could have played categorically denied that atonement came through faith alone, for them it was works through faith. Paul's idea was faith alone. Yes good works are nice, but all you need is faith.
James 216-22 is addressing people who have deeds but no faith, AND those who think that faith by itself is fine. He uses the word "you foolish man" this may be addressing Paul, since he was the one saying faith is all that is necessary.
This may be a response to Galatians, because in Galatians Paul cites Abraham's righteousness as being in favour with God, and proof that faith is all that is necessary. And yet James responds by saying "yes, Abraham's faith and righteousness was displayed through his deeds, by willing to sacrifice Isaac" basically calling out Paul's poor understanding/misquote/misapplication of the Torah.
Personally I think this is the most glaring example of the above assertion about Paul
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."
-
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?
Remember that both Paul and John knew full well that the mother of Yeshua (Jesus) was not called Maryam. In fact, when he describes the scene of the crucifixion, John clearly states that there were 3 women standing near the cross His mother (nameless), his aunt Mary, and Mary Magdalene (probably his wife or close companion). If his aunt's name was Maryam, then there is no way his mother was also named Maryam. (THis is one of the most eye-popping contradictions in the NT, that the Christian scholars like to keep in the closet, so to speak). Paul also does NOT mention the name of Jesus' mother anywhere, becasue he knew full well that she was an insignificant figure, and that Yeshua could be traced - through hsi father - all the way back to David. Whereas the Isa (Esau) mentioned in the Quran was a descendant of Amram.
Peace.
-
Remember that both Paul and John knew full well that the mother of Yeshua (Jesus) was not called Maryam.
In fact, when he describes the scene of the crucifixion, John clearly states that there were 3 women standing near the cross His mother (nameless), his aunt Mary, and Mary Magdalene (probably his wife or close companion). If his aunt's name was Maryam, then there is no way his mother was also named Maryam. (THis is one of the most eye-popping contradictions in the NT, that the Christian scholars like to keep in the closet, so to speak).
John 1925 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
this is not saying the sister of Mary mother of Jesus is called Mary, it is saying that also there was Mary the wife of Cleophas, or Cleopas in some spellings. There were many Mary's around this time, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha the sisters, Mary mother of James and John, who was not Mary mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Cleophas. This is saying there were 4 there, not 3 and 3 of them were called Mary, her sister is thougth to be Salome the wife of Zebedee who also had children called James and John, note there are also more than one Salome! there were also many James, many Johns and many Josephs and tying it all up is very confusing! But it is clear that the woman that gave birth to Jesus was called Mary.
Matt 2755And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him
56Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
Mark 1540There were also women looking on afar off among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
All throughout the old and new testament the terms 'sister', 'brother' 'son of' etc are not used to mean actuals. hence many 'sons of God', they are terms used as a Muslim is the 'brother' or 'sister' of another Muslim, not necessarily the 'birth' brother or sister of.
Mary was the name of Jesus mother, the woman that actually gave birth to Jesus.
Matt 116And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Matt 118Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matt 120But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
You see here God calls Joseph son of David, not meaning the actual birth son. James and John and Simeon were also called brothers of Jesus, but they are not birth brothers, there were none, Mary remained a virgin.
Paul also does NOT mention the name of Jesus' mother anywhere, becasue he knew full well that she was an insignificant figure, and that Yeshua could be traced - through hsi father - all the way back to David. Whereas the Isa (Esau) mentioned in the Quran was a descendant of Amram.
Peace.
Insignificant figure? Isnt Acts part of Pauls stuff?
Acts 114These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.Jesus is a decendant of David also, and of Amran. Amran was father of Moses and descendant of Abraham as was David.
-
Well James addresses this in his letter too, saying that your faith without works is meaningless, and I by my works will show you my faith. To say that Yeshua died for sins of mankind, is insinuating that no sinning is not something that is ok, but if you have sinned and you may sin again, by believing that Yeshua died for your sins you are let off the hook. This is what James and those who actually knew Jesus and his teachings spoke against. Yeshua according to the people who knew him and were more concerned with his teachings than any divine significance his death could have played categorically denied that atonement came through faith alone, for them it was works through faith. Paul's idea was faith alone. Yes good works are nice, but all you need is faith.
James 216-22 is addressing people who have deeds but no faith, AND those who think that faith by itself is fine. He uses the word "you foolish man" this may be addressing Paul, since he was the one saying faith is all that is necessary.
This may be a response to Galatians, because in Galatians Paul cites Abraham's righteousness as being in favour with God, and proof that faith is all that is necessary. And yet James responds by saying "yes, Abraham's faith and righteousness was displayed through his deeds, by willing to sacrifice Isaac" basically calling out Paul's poor understanding/misquote/misapplication of the Torah.
Personally I think this is the most glaring example of the above assertion about Paul
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."
Paul & James on Faith & Works
by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.
Many readers of the New Testament misinterpret both Paul and James, thus concluding that their statements about faith and works contradict each other. That is simply not true! There are differences in emphasis, but no contradictions in teaching, if one understands both properly.
Paul and James agree that both "faith" and "works" are essential parts of Christian life, although they have different roles. Paul and James also agree that salvation ultimately comes from God and from Jesus Christ, not from us or anything that we do.
However, since Paul and James wrote to different audiences in different situations about different problems, their letters have different presuppositions and different emphases. To combat the opinion of some people that circumcision and other "works of the law" were necessary for Gentile converts to early Christianity, Paul stresses that the foundation of our salvation is the death of Jesus, not the laws of Moses. To combat the opinion of other people that professing faith in God is enough for salvation, James stresses that Christians must put their faith into concrete action.
What Paul and James actually wrote
Galatians 216 - "Yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in/of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in/of Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law." (see all of Gal 215?314)
Romans 328 - "For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law." (see all of Rom 321?425)
James 224, 26 - "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone... For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead." (see all of James 214-26)
The common but incorrect interpretation, leading to an apparent contradiction between Paul and JamesPaul supposedly said Justification comes not by our good works, but by our faith in Jesus alone.
James supposedly said Justification comes by our good works, not by our faith in God.
Errors with these interpretationsPaul is not talking about "good works" in the sense of "charitable acts"; rather, he says "works of the Law" (Gal 216; 32-12; Rom 32, which refers to the Jewish/Mosaic laws on circumcision, sacrifices, dietary restrictions, etc.
When James says "works," he means acts of charity = care for widows, orphans & the poor, love for neighbors, etc. (James 127; 28; 215-16)
Paul is not opposed to "good works" or "charitable actions"; he sees them as necessary consequences (although not the foundation) of authentic Christian living (see Gal 5?6; Rom 12?15).
Conversely, James is not opposed to faith; he presupposes it, and then stresses that authentic faith must be put into action (James 214-26).
Paul is not talking primarily about our "faith in Jesus," but rather the "faith of Jesus" in God (i.e., Jesus' own trusting in God; see Gal 216, 20; Rom 322, 26); based on this foundation, our faith in God/Jesus is a necessary (but secondary) response.
In contrast, James does mean people?s faith, primarily believing in God (223) but also believing in Jesus (21).
Paul does not presuppose the same definition of "faith" as James does; for Paul, "faith" means "trusting" God, or "entrusting oneself" to God's plans (Rom 43-22).
For James, "faith" is more of an intellectual assent to theological truths, e.g., "believing that God is one" (219; even demons can "believe" in God's existence).
Paul did not write the word "alone" in Rom 328; Martin Luther was the one who added the word "allein" in his German Bible translation.
James does not write "by works alone" but stresses "not by faith alone"; he maintains that both have to go together.
The Example of Abraham,Interestingly, to argue their points, both James and Paul appealed to the example of Abraham in Gen 156, but in a different way.
Genesis 156 - "And he believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness."
Galatians 36-9 - "Just as Abraham 'believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' 7 so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.' 9 For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed."
Romans 41-3, 10-12 - "What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.' ... 10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised." (see all of Rom 41-25)
James 221-23 - "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? (cf. Gen 229-1 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God.
In other words, Paul argues that Abraham was justified (in Gen 15) before he was circumcised (in Gen 17),
while James argues that Abraham's faith/trust in God was completed and evidenced by his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac (in Gen 22).
SummaryRather than contradicting or disagreeing with each other, it seems that James (probably written after Paul's letters) intended to correct some misinterpretations of Paul's teachings that seem to have arisen in some circles of early Christianity.
http//catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-James.htm
So it seems this idea is common. However as I said Paul clearly understood faith and deeds as one. It was the Judaic understanding of Law he was speaking against.
-
Yes, I don't disagree that James meant both good works and faith. Good works through faith, the good works is the example of the faith.
Paul however, says quite clearly that those who follow the law are cursed. He says those who seek justification through their works in following the law have been cut off from Christ.
First of all, what justification? If they don't have faith and are not following the law because of faith, then from who are they seeking justification?
Divinity of Christ (These are from Paul's letters to the Galatians, amongst the many letters of Paul of which origins and authenticity are disputed, these are some of the letters which are most agreed upon from being authentically written by Paul)
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.
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.
If you are the Son of God, that is if God is one of your parents you are at the very least half divine by definition no? What are the counter arguments as to why calling him the Son of God does not prescribe him a divine status?
-
If Yeshua did not have birth brothers, then why were those figurative brothers buried in his family tomb? Only family members and wives of family members were buried in a family tomb. (Which explains the tomb of Mariamne/Mary Magdalene, wife of Yeshua in this tomb)
-
If Yeshua did not have birth brothers, then why were those figurative brothers buried in his family tomb? Only family members and wives of family members were buried in a family tomb. (Which explains the tomb of Mariamne/Mary Magdalene, wife of Yeshua in this tomb)
Forget the lost tomb of Jesus though.
http//bible.cc/matthew/1-25.htm
Matthew 125 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
Now I am not an expert on ancient Hebrew grammar, but an explanation given for "knew her not" which is apparently the literal translation is as follows
People's New Testament
125 Knew her not. A Hebrew form for conjugal intercourse. The language of the verse does not imply the perpetual virginity of Mary.Also, Luke 27.
http//bible.cc/luke/2-7.htm
Luke 27 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
The following are two differing explanations for the usage of firstborn
People's New Testament
27 Her firstborn son. This implies that Mary was subsequently the mother of other children.Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
7. first-born-So Mt 125; yet the law, in speaking of the first-born, regardeth not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before . -
Yes, I don't disagree that James meant both good works and faith. Good works through faith, the good works is the example of the faith.
Paul however, says quite clearly that those who follow the law are cursed. He says those who seek justification through their works in following the law have been cut off from Christ.
First of all, what justification? If they don't have faith and are not following the law because of faith, then from who are they seeking justification?
Divinity of Christ (These are from Paul's letters to the Galatians, amongst the many letters of Paul of which origins and authenticity are disputed, these are some of the letters which are most agreed upon from being authentically written by Paul)
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.
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.
If you are the Son of God, that is if God is one of your parents you are at the very least half divine by definition no? What are the counter arguments as to why calling him the Son of God does not prescribe him a divine status?
Son of God is used in the Bible in many ways.
clear example of the term "Son of God" being used in Jewish scripture is that Prophet Solomon (peace be with him) is called "Son of God" in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), and is even quoted by God as saying he is His Son, in the book 1 Chronicles.
The relevent passages are these
1 Chronicles, chapter 17
11 When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom.
12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever.13 I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you,
14 but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever.'"
15 In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.
Therefore, this passage quotes God as saying that, regarding one of David's sons, "I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son" (capitals added, the way is usually done by Christians).
Who is this son of David, who will be the "Son of God" ? This is made clear in two later passages in 1 Chronicles.1 Chronicles, chapter 22
7 David said to Solomon, "My son, I had it in my heart to build a house to the name of the LORD my God.
8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, `You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me upon the earth.9 Behold, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. I will give him peace from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days.
10 He shall build a house for my name. He shall be my Son, and I will be his Father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel for ever.'
11 Now, my son, the LORD be with you, so that you may succeed in building the house of the LORD your God, as he has spoken concerning you.
In the first underlined section, David repeats the words of God (according to the Hebrew Bible), that the person referred to will be the "Son of God."
The second underlined part shows that the person who will be the "Son of God" is "you," that is, Solomon, to whom David is speaking.Finally, here is the third and last passage....
1 Chronicles, chapter 28
3 But God said to me, `You may not build a house for my name, for you are a warrior and have shed blood.'
4 Yet the LORD God of Israel chose me from all my father's house to be king over Israel for ever; for he chose Judah as leader, and in the house of Judah my father's house, and among my father's sons he took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel.5 And of all my sons (for the LORD has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
6 He said to me, `It is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my Son, and I will be his Father.
7 I will establish his kingdom for ever if he continues resolute in keeping my commandments and my ordinances, as he is today.'
Son of God
Many passages in the Jewish Scriptures, which Christians call the Old Testament, describe the people of Israel as God?s son or child (Exod 422,23; Jer 3120; Hos 111), or declare how God has been a father to the people (Deut 326; Isa 64. These expressions show the special relationship God has with his chosen people. But the title, ?son of God,? is also given to an unnamed king of Israel (Ps 27). God said that King David is ?my first-born son, and he will be the ruler of all kings on earth? (Ps 8927). David is also told that one of his children would be God?s son (2 Sam 714; 1 Chr 1713). The later prophets spoke of the faithful members of the people of Israel as God?s children (Isa 436; Hos 110).
In the New Testament Gospels, Jesus is the only true Son of God, as is declared by the voice from heaven at his baptism (Luke 322). The religious leaders who wanted to have him put to death asked him if he was the Son of God, and he said that he was (Mark 1461,62). The Gospel writers show that even the devil recognizes Jesus as Son of God (Luke 41-12), and the demons that he brought under control do so as well (Mark 311; 57).Most important is the direct claim of Jesus in Luke 1021,22 to be the Son of God who has been given God?s wisdom, which he shares with those who trust him as one sent by God. Before Jesus was born, he was identified by the angel as the Son of God (Luke 132-35). Matthew 215 quotes Hosea 111, which speaks of God bringing his Son back from Egypt. Paul wrote that Jesus is by human birth the son of David, but he is now Son of God, because God raised him from the dead (Rom 13,4; see also Gal 220). The author of John?s Gospel wrote that Jesus is the Son of God (John 114) who was sent by God into the world to save his people from their sins (John 316,17). He does God?s work in the world (John 1034-36), and is one with God (John 171, 22). And it is because of what the Son has done that people who put their faith in him can also claim ?the right to be children of God (John 111-13).
You also did not seem to take attention to what I said before about Paul's use of the term Law. What Law do you think Paul meant?
-
Son of God is used in the Bible in many ways.
clear example of the term "Son of God" being used in Jewish scripture is that Prophet Solomon (peace be with him) is called "Son of God" in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), and is even quoted by God as saying he is His Son, in the book 1 Chronicles.
The relevent passages are these
1 Chronicles, chapter 17
11 When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom.
12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever.13 I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you,
14 but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever.'"
15 In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.
Therefore, this passage quotes God as saying that, regarding one of David's sons, "I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son" (capitals added, the way is usually done by Christians).
Who is this son of David, who will be the "Son of God" ? This is made clear in two later passages in 1 Chronicles.1 Chronicles, chapter 22
7 David said to Solomon, "My son, I had it in my heart to build a house to the name of the LORD my God.
8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, `You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me upon the earth.9 Behold, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. I will give him peace from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days.
10 He shall build a house for my name. He shall be my Son, and I will be his Father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel for ever.'
11 Now, my son, the LORD be with you, so that you may succeed in building the house of the LORD your God, as he has spoken concerning you.
In the first underlined section, David repeats the words of God (according to the Hebrew Bible), that the person referred to will be the "Son of God."
The second underlined part shows that the person who will be the "Son of God" is "you," that is, Solomon, to whom David is speaking.Finally, here is the third and last passage....
1 Chronicles, chapter 28
3 But God said to me, `You may not build a house for my name, for you are a warrior and have shed blood.'
4 Yet the LORD God of Israel chose me from all my father's house to be king over Israel for ever; for he chose Judah as leader, and in the house of Judah my father's house, and among my father's sons he took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel.5 And of all my sons (for the LORD has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
6 He said to me, `It is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my Son, and I will be his Father.
7 I will establish his kingdom for ever if he continues resolute in keeping my commandments and my ordinances, as he is today.'
Son of God
Many passages in the Jewish Scriptures, which Christians call the Old Testament, describe the people of Israel as God?s son or child (Exod 422,23; Jer 3120; Hos 111), or declare how God has been a father to the people (Deut 326; Isa 64. These expressions show the special relationship God has with his chosen people. But the title, ?son of God,? is also given to an unnamed king of Israel (Ps 27). God said that King David is ?my first-born son, and he will be the ruler of all kings on earth? (Ps 8927). David is also told that one of his children would be God?s son (2 Sam 714; 1 Chr 1713). The later prophets spoke of the faithful members of the people of Israel as God?s children (Isa 436; Hos 110).
In the New Testament Gospels, Jesus is the only true Son of God, as is declared by the voice from heaven at his baptism (Luke 322). The religious leaders who wanted to have him put to death asked him if he was the Son of God, and he said that he was (Mark 1461,62). The Gospel writers show that even the devil recognizes Jesus as Son of God (Luke 41-12), and the demons that he brought under control do so as well (Mark 311; 57).Most important is the direct claim of Jesus in Luke 1021,22 to be the Son of God who has been given God?s wisdom, which he shares with those who trust him as one sent by God. Before Jesus was born, he was identified by the angel as the Son of God (Luke 132-35). Matthew 215 quotes Hosea 111, which speaks of God bringing his Son back from Egypt. Paul wrote that Jesus is by human birth the son of David, but he is now Son of God, because God raised him from the dead (Rom 13,4; see also Gal 220). The author of John?s Gospel wrote that Jesus is the Son of God (John 114) who was sent by God into the world to save his people from their sins (John 316,17). He does God?s work in the world (John 1034-36), and is one with God (John 171, 22). And it is because of what the Son has done that people who put their faith in him can also claim ?the right to be children of God (John 111-13).
You also did not seem to take attention to what I said before about Paul's use of the term Law. What Law do you think Paul meant?
God's law of course, or the Torah. Then why does he say those who follow the law are under a curse?
And why do Paul and James both refer to each other as those who preach a perverted gospel, (who could this possibly have been, preaching a perverted gospel, it could not have been non Jesus following Jews) And who would Peter be referring to when he refers to someone as the man who is my enemy preaching a lawless and absurd doctrine? (Peter's epistle to James) Peter and James both reviled Paul.
http//books.google.ca/books?id=Tlvgp7WggvEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=Peter+the+man+who+is+my+enemy&source=bl&ots=oT4fs1uy8N&sig=FWf2rvLDuMTkjwMdH2dXXmnCySE&hl=en&ei=FLk2TL-iEcP-8Abj1e2PAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Peter%20the%20man%20who%20is%20my%20enemy&f=false