Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

Spoiler! :
The Cat wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:When I wrote "Nobody was the father of Jesus", it was a clear declaration that Jesus did not have a father. He was no man's son and he was only his mother's son. That is why Quran addresses him as Ibn-e-Maryam.
Thanks for admitting that Isa (a title) is fatherless as God... being His Will (Yasha'a), His Word (Kalimatullah) and His Spirit (Rūĥun Minhu).
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:If I wrote "Nobody killed the man", would you take it to mean that a person by the name Mr. Nobody, killed him? Was God known as Nobody? Is that God's name? Zero divinity means that man was not divine at all.... Quran projects Jesus simply as a man, the son of Mary.
The Koran rejects that Isa could be a biological son (-walid-) of God. But it still gives his human entity to be perfect, immaculate...

And yes, God is nobody, that is -not a body- but a transcient, unnamable entity. Thus, what 3.45 is telling us is that Isa, as a person,
was created in the similitude of Adam, to whom ALL angels like Gabriel had to bow. Then again, as a spirit, he is ONE WITH Allah
(Inna Mathala Īsá Inda Allāhi), or His will (Yasha'a). Yeshua is the one who can say: BE, so it is. As such and as per 2.116-117,
Isa is the true originator of the heaven and of the earth, for he's (also) the verb: BE, if only through 3.49!

In 3.45 the first similitude attest on what Isa IS (inda Allah), differentiated from his human birth, in the similitude of Adam, yet faultless!

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Allah,_His_Word,_and_%27Isa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What Ibn Kathir and other Muslims have attempted to do is blur the meanings of 'Isa being a word from Allah and 'Isa being born from a virgin in the same manner that Adam was created. Who 'Isa is and how he was born are two very separate things. For example, in the "Book of Miscellany" from the Riyad-us-Saliheen we read: Prophet `Isa (Jesus) has been referred in the Qur'an as "Kalimatullah" (the Word of Allah) (4:171). What these words really mean is that he was born in an unusual manner, without being fathered by anyone, only on the express fiat of Allah.

The Quran states 'Isa is a spirit and word FROM Allah, not just "of" like a title of honor.

Again, as the Word from Allah, Isa is the spirit of truth lending the Koran to mankind. Like in the Nestorian christology, Isa is an
emanation from Allah (His prosopon) much like sunrays and heat come out from the sun. Nestorius precepts became troublesome
when translated 'substance' or 'consubstantiality' in Latin, for it's indeed a different subtle meaning. Anyhow, the prosopon concept
got into the Koran, but more specifically of an Hindu avatar: Isa is an avatar (bodily emanation) of Allah.

The more I study the Koran, the more I find utter links with Hinduism... like this concept of avatar (or prosopon)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_%28Hinduism%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In Hinduism, Avatar or Avatāra (Devanagari अवतार, Sanskrit for "descent" [viz., from heaven to earth]) refers to a deliberate descent of a deity (an incarnation of a deva (god) from heaven to earth, or a descent of the Supreme Being (i.e., Vishnu for Vaishnavites) and is mostly translated into English as "incarnation", but more accurately as "appearance" or "manifestation".
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthrea ... sopon-mean" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It then becomes easy to understand that this appearance is what 4.157 talks about:
4.157: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him,
but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; ... they slew him not for certain.


Isa wasn't replaced on the cross by a substitution! His bodily appearance went away, while his real-self went to God where it belongs.

4.158-159: But Allah took him up unto Himself.... and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them.

Then we can understand what 4.171 really talks about...
4.171: The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was (only) a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed
unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease!


Al-Masīĥu `Īsá Abnu Maryama Rasūlu Allāhi Wa Kalimatuhu 'Alqāhā 'Ilá Maryama
Wa Rūĥun Minhu Fa'āminū Billāhi Wa Rusulihi Wa Lā Taqūlū Thalāthatun.

Conceptual transposition:
Do not say 'three' (as in the Latin 'substancia') for the Messiah, born Isa son (abnu) of Mary, was an emissary of Allah: His Logos (Kalimatuhu),
conveyed into the flesh through Mary, yet His spirit (Ruhun Minhu). So believe in Allah and His messengers (since the Word did inspire them).

In short: Jesus is the incarnated message of Allah, His Mercy as a Revelation, all by himself, unto mankind (19.21).
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:We have already discussed the rest.
Where you've been proven faulty on all grounds, let alone a liar of all trades!

Most unfortunately...
I must say that all that spinning is futile. You are talking only through the English words of a translation or of a few, which you prefer and that is not correct.

I have told you before that Yeshua is an Aramaic word. Yashua or Joshua is the Hebrew word, which means Salvation. Salvation is Nejat in Arabic. Thus the Arabic YASHAA (verb) has nothing to do with Yeshua.

I had even said that going by your argument, the chapter Joshua in the stone-age to bronze age Bible should be renamed as Jesus.

Let me show you part of verse 3:6 Huwa allathee yusawwirukum fee al-arhami kayfa yashao and let us take some other translations:

Shakir: He it is Who shapes you in the wombs as He likes;
Muhammad Asad: He it is who shapes you in the wombs as He wills.
Edward Henry Palmer: He it is who fashions you in the womb as He pleases.

I can translate the above in the following manner:

He it is, Who shapes you in the wombs as He wants;
He it is, Who shapes you in the wombs as He wishes;

So, Yashau means "as He wills", "as He wants", "as He likes", "as He wishes", "as He pleases" and "as He desires".

So, Isa aka Jesus was not the WILL of Allah. The man was created by Allah. No seed was placed in Mary's womb. That was just Allah's Command, something like "Let Mary conceive and give birth to a child" and that happened. It is a simple case of "Let there be and there it was!"

Thanks very much for debunking yourself.

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

The Cat wrote:
Al-Masīĥu `Īsá Abnu Maryama Rasūlu Allāhi Wa Kalimatuhu 'Alqāhā 'Ilá Maryama
Wa Rūĥun Minhu
That simply means: Maseeh (Messiah) Isa son of Maryam was a messenger of Allah and His word given to Maryam and he was a spirit from Him. The word was the good news announced by the angels earlier.
The Cat wrote:Conceptual transposition:
Do not say 'three' (as in the Latin 'substancia') for the Messiah, born Isa son (abnu) of Mary, was an emissary of Allah: His Logos (Kalimatuhu), conveyed into the flesh through Mary, yet His spirit (Ruhun Minhu). So believe in Allah and His messengers (since the Word did inspire them).

In short: Jesus is the incarnated message of Allah, His Mercy as a Revelation, all by himself, unto mankind (19.21).
The so-called "conceptual transposition" is silly, absurd and is not applicable. The highlighted words in your quote "His spirit (Ruhun Minhu)" do not mean "His spirit". Min means From. It means a spirit from God. If God had sent His Own Spirit or Himself into Maryam, that would have been the end of God. :lol:

Jesus was nothing more than a man. That is why Quran calls him as son of Mary. He was created without the seed of the bad House of Israel. It also means that the Seed of Israel was cut off and ceased to exist.

User avatar
Centaur
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Centaur »

who gives a damn about the paedophile authored book, though mistakenly the confused paedo speaks some truth about Jesus being Logos.It asks jesus if he preached he was part of the trinity including Mary.:lol: It simply shows Paedo Mo or whover the author of Korand has no clue regarding christian faith.After all we dont expect a 7th century pagan gigalo who aroused seeing children to have any spiritual insight.
Click to win $50,0000 :rock:

only 2% of KKK are radical, the rest are peaceful law abiding moderates
Islamic Football Team: Striker:Extremist; Defender: Moderate One; Goallie :Leftist

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
The Cat wrote:
Al-Masīĥu `Īsá Abnu Maryama Rasūlu Allāhi Wa Kalimatuhu 'Alqāhā 'Ilá Maryama
Wa Rūĥun Minhu
That simply means: Maseeh (Messiah) Isa son of Maryam was a messenger of Allah and His word given to Maryam and he was a spirit from Him. The word was the good news announced by the angels earlier.
The Cat wrote:Conceptual transposition:
Do not say 'three' (as in the Latin 'substancia') for the Messiah, born Isa son (abnu) of Mary, was an emissary of Allah: His Logos (Kalimatuhu), conveyed into the flesh through Mary, yet His spirit (Ruhun Minhu). So believe in Allah and His messengers (since the Word did inspire them).

In short: Jesus is the incarnated message of Allah, His Mercy as a Revelation, all by himself, unto mankind (19.21).
The so-called "conceptual transposition" is silly, absurd and is not applicable. The highlighted words in your quote "His spirit (Ruhun Minhu)" do not mean "His spirit". Min means From. It means a spirit from God. If God had sent His Own Spirit or Himself into Maryam, that would have been the end of God. :lol:
Salam bro

Keep in mind that Nafakhana Fihi (of Fiha) min Ruhina means that Jebril who is also the Ruh from Allah, was the one who blew into her or into him, i.e. min ruhina also means from the ruh (Jebril) of Allah

Salam

User avatar
Centaur
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Centaur »

@ BagShit
you call him brother? just a few posts up, he could be seen insulting Jesus referring to picture of Mohamed, Isn't a Muslim supposed to respect Jesus as well, the word and spirit of allah?.Well typical Mohammedan behaviour.Islam starts and ends on Mohammed.The irony is that this is from guy who gets upset seeing Mohammed in small letters, :lol:
By the way Allah is totally confused pimp. Did he blow in Jibril as well Like to see the verse in Koran if any?
Click to win $50,0000 :rock:

only 2% of KKK are radical, the rest are peaceful law abiding moderates
Islamic Football Team: Striker:Extremist; Defender: Moderate One; Goallie :Leftist

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

AhmedBahgat wrote: Salam bro

Keep in mind that Nafakhana Fihi (of Fiha) min Ruhina means that Jebril who is also the Ruh from Allah, was the one who blew into her or into him, i.e. min ruhina also means from the ruh (Jebril) of Allah

Salam
Brother, salam to you and you are right.

Yes, I will. It is a great point, which the stupid Kafirs and dumb non-Muslims will not be able to comprehend.

Thanks very much for bringing it up.

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

Centaur wrote:@ BagShit
you call him brother? just a few posts up, he could be seen insulting Jesus referring to picture of Mohamed, Isn't a Muslim supposed to respect Jesus as well, the word and spirit of allah?.Well typical Mohammedan behaviour.Islam starts and ends on Mohammed.The irony is that this is from guy who gets upset seeing Mohammed in small letters, :lol:
By the way Allah is totally confused pimp. Did he blow in Jibril as well Like to see the verse in Koran if any?
Centaur, the brother has a good sense of humor.

Image

Please look at the erection of Jesus' father very carefully. The artist has shown the holy spirit rushing in through the holy penis, with a roar, causing that massive post-Jesus' birth erection. If you had not posted that pic, I would not have known the culprit. :lol:

Nosubmission
Posts: 685
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:03 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Nosubmission »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Keep in mind that Nafakhana Fihi (of Fiha) min Ruhina means that Jebril who is also the Ruh from Allah, was the one who blew into her or into him, i.e. min ruhina also means from the ruh (Jebril) of Allah

Salam
Hey people! Mark Ache-mad's words! He says Allah blew Jibril into Mary's private part!!! :roflmao:
Elohim has come, Allah has vanished

User avatar
Centaur
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Centaur »

@ghalib-gibberish
I dont give a damn what pic you post, becuase if jesus was a Paedophile I will be posting the same of Jesus.but If he is good he would speak for him self, regardless of what pics you post. but such cannot be said for Pagan Jigalo Paedophile Mohammed.So going desperate does not help Muslims.
Click to win $50,0000 :rock:

only 2% of KKK are radical, the rest are peaceful law abiding moderates
Islamic Football Team: Striker:Extremist; Defender: Moderate One; Goallie :Leftist

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

Centaur wrote:@ghalib-gibberish
I dont give a damn what pic you post, becuase if jesus was a Paedophile I will be posting the same of Jesus.but If he is good he would speak for him self, regardless of what pics you post. but such cannot be said for Pagan Jigalo Paedophile Mohammed.So going desperate does not help Muslims.
According to some secret papers of Mark and other documents kept hidden in the Vatican basement, Jesus is thought to have had pedophilia for young boys but he was also good with women.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote: So why didn't Allah make the scriptures before the Quran non corruptible like he did with the Quran?
Because Allah had thought that the stone age to bronze age men would keep the words faithfully,
:lol: I guess Allah thought wrong, eh??
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: but Allah saw them writing on their own and saying, "This is from Allah!", where as those words were not at all from Allah. Those wicked men kept on adding tonnes of material in the stone age and the bronze age Bibles. I had told Skenderbeg that the true teachings of Moses and Jesus can still be found in the two books but the true content is little. For example, no one could change the Laws revealed to Moses and no one could change the Beatitudes and the Parables, revealed to Jesus.
The Beautitudes are only between 8 and 10 short verses. That all that we have of what Jesus really said?? Are you joking? But any way, let's take a look at those.

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

So what would stop someone from adding number 5, for example, or stopping someone from removing it?? I don't see anything about these that are non corruptible, and they are from a chapter where Jesus says a lot of things that are quite different in philosophy than Muhammad.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: After seeing the corruption and the forgeries carried out in the Bibles, Allah saw how Jesus was turned into God, based on books written by men. It was time to put a stop to the butchering of Scripture. So, Allah decided it was time to guard and protect Quran.


You do realize that you have just hopelessly contradicted the idea that Allah knows all things. If you say that Allah does not know the future, then couldn't that be counted as not knowing all things??

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Anyway, what you don't understand is that the Gospels, for example, were never supposed to be the letter for letter dictation of God, and this is why nobody ever put together a "Gospel of Jesus", and instead each Gospel purposefully referenced an Apostle's name. Jesus never said anything about any book being brought down or even written. He did things, and knew they would be written about and he left it to others to do that. This was because it was written as an author recounting the story of Jesus and the most important parts of what happened.


Good point and I agree that the gospels were not meant to be scripture. By the way, Mark and Luke were not Jesus' disciples at all. You are right in saying "nobody ever put together a "Gospel of Jesus"", because Jesus did not bring anything new and also he did not reveal any Scripture.


The Golden Rule is not new?? That quote above from the Sermon on the Mount is not new?? Here's another one.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:This is why it is written in third person narrative form where it says "and then Jesus said, Jesus did....." rather "I said or we said" like it is in the Quran where it's supposed to be Allah speaking directly rather than an author narrating. The entire Quran is in first person format, with the exception of 63:4 where Muhammad accidentally forgot that it was supposed to be Allah speaking, not him. :lol:


What is your point, regarding 63:4? Can you explain yourself, please?


I went over this in another thread. The verse consists of Muhammad asking Allah to fight or curse the unbelievers, because obviously, Allah does not ask himself to do something, so it's accidentally someone else (Muhammad) asking Allah to do something that he wishes to see happen. It's also in 9:30 as well. Same exact thing. i think Muhammad was whipped up into such an angry frenzy in 9:30 that he forgot who was supposed to be speaking like the ventriloquist who accidentally moves his lips while his Allah hand puppet is supposed to be speaking. :lol:

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:So where are the remnants of a prior book written in first person format??


Those can be found within the texts written by the prophets, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah and others,

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:The truth is, there were original, uncorrupted scriptures and what we got is pretty much what they are.


Indeed! But those were the scrolls written only by the prophets themselves or their personal scribes.


What is your basis for that assumption??

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote: They are stories about God's interactions with man, and few, if any, are anything even remotely like the Quran. If one wants to make the case that some books might not belong in the Bible, that case could be made, but we don't see any major corruptions of the books themselves at all and at most see translation difficulties or questions. The Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much matched what we knew of before they were found and offered no real surprises.


Yes, I appreciate translation difficulties but the DSS has nothing to do with the New Testament and it does not contain the entire scrolls of the Jewish Tanakh.


Yes, but there is supposed to be corruption of all the past scriptures. So why didn't we find any major surprises?? Seems like they were pretty much the same thing we have today. And the interesting thing is, if the Jews and Christians were both corrupting their scriptures after Jesus, how come they both corrupted them in such a remarkably similar fashion in regard to the Old Testament verses the Torah?? Like I said, there are some numeric and translation discrepancies, but considering that these two peoples became rivals, it's remarkable how similar their supposed corrupting additions were. But if we say they weren't purposefully and willfully false additions, then it all makes sense for the two to be so similar.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

bobs1244
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 6:45 am

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by bobs1244 »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
bobs1244 wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:Because Allah had thought that the stone age to bronze age men would keep the words faithfully, but Allah saw them writing on their own and saying, "This is from Allah!", where as those words were not at all from Allah.
Dear Ghalib, I can only hope you realize how ridiculous that sounds. Are you saying Allah is capable of misjudgement? I thought he's your all-powerful, all-knowing God! How does he make a miscalculation much like how a common man does? You say Allah is our creator. And yet the creator knows so little about his own creation that he doesn't even know which is the good guy and which is the bad guy? God, that makes no sense whatsoever!!
Allah always knew when the Scripture was forged, corrupted and when people deviated. That is why prophets were sent at interval to the stone age-bronze age people at intervals, as and when necessary, to bring them back to the truth. Otherwise, what was the use of sending Jesus and others?
Oh man! How is that an answer to my question? Grrrr $#%$#%TR#$%!!! :x

Let me make it so clear that even a child would understand me:

Your claim: Allah thought people would keep his words faithfully. But they didnt.

My analysis: Therefore, what Allah thought would happen, didnt happen. This means Allah made a miscalculation. An error. How can a perfect God commit error?

Get it?

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

Spoiler! :
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote: So why didn't Allah make the scriptures before the Quran non corruptible like he did with the Quran?
Because Allah had thought that the stone age to bronze age men would keep the words faithfully,
:lol: I guess Allah thought wrong, eh??
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: but Allah saw them writing on their own and saying, "This is from Allah!", where as those words were not at all from Allah. Those wicked men kept on adding tonnes of material in the stone age and the bronze age Bibles. I had told Skenderbeg that the true teachings of Moses and Jesus can still be found in the two books but the true content is little. For example, no one could change the Laws revealed to Moses and no one could change the Beatitudes and the Parables, revealed to Jesus.
The Beautitudes are only between 8 and 10 short verses. That all that we have of what Jesus really said?? Are you joking? But any way, let's take a look at those.

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

So what would stop someone from adding number 5, for example, or stopping someone from removing it?? I don't see anything about these that are non corruptible, and they are from a chapter where Jesus says a lot of things that are quite different in philosophy than Muhammad.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: After seeing the corruption and the forgeries carried out in the Bibles, Allah saw how Jesus was turned into God, based on books written by men. It was time to put a stop to the butchering of Scripture. So, Allah decided it was time to guard and protect Quran.


You do realize that you have just hopelessly contradicted the idea that Allah knows all things. If you say that Allah does not know the future, then couldn't that be counted as not knowing all things??

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Anyway, what you don't understand is that the Gospels, for example, were never supposed to be the letter for letter dictation of God, and this is why nobody ever put together a "Gospel of Jesus", and instead each Gospel purposefully referenced an Apostle's name. Jesus never said anything about any book being brought down or even written. He did things, and knew they would be written about and he left it to others to do that. This was because it was written as an author recounting the story of Jesus and the most important parts of what happened.


Good point and I agree that the gospels were not meant to be scripture. By the way, Mark and Luke were not Jesus' disciples at all. You are right in saying "nobody ever put together a "Gospel of Jesus"", because Jesus did not bring anything new and also he did not reveal any Scripture.


The Golden Rule is not new?? That quote above from the Sermon on the Mount is not new?? Here's another one.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:This is why it is written in third person narrative form where it says "and then Jesus said, Jesus did....." rather "I said or we said" like it is in the Quran where it's supposed to be Allah speaking directly rather than an author narrating. The entire Quran is in first person format, with the exception of 63:4 where Muhammad accidentally forgot that it was supposed to be Allah speaking, not him. :lol:


What is your point, regarding 63:4? Can you explain yourself, please?


I went over this in another thread. The verse consists of Muhammad asking Allah to fight or curse the unbelievers, because obviously, Allah does not ask himself to do something, so it's accidentally someone else (Muhammad) asking Allah to do something that he wishes to see happen. It's also in 9:30 as well. Same exact thing. i think Muhammad was whipped up into such an angry frenzy in 9:30 that he forgot who was supposed to be speaking like the ventriloquist who accidentally moves his lips while his Allah hand puppet is supposed to be speaking. :lol:

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:So where are the remnants of a prior book written in first person format??


Those can be found within the texts written by the prophets, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah and others,

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:The truth is, there were original, uncorrupted scriptures and what we got is pretty much what they are.


Indeed! But those were the scrolls written only by the prophets themselves or their personal scribes.


What is your basis for that assumption??

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote: They are stories about God's interactions with man, and few, if any, are anything even remotely like the Quran. If one wants to make the case that some books might not belong in the Bible, that case could be made, but we don't see any major corruptions of the books themselves at all and at most see translation difficulties or questions. The Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much matched what we knew of before they were found and offered no real surprises.


Yes, I appreciate translation difficulties but the DSS has nothing to do with the New Testament and it does not contain the entire scrolls of the Jewish Tanakh.


Yes, but there is supposed to be corruption of all the past scriptures. So why didn't we find any major surprises?? Seems like they were pretty much the same thing we have today. And the interesting thing is, if the Jews and Christians were both corrupting their scriptures after Jesus, how come they both corrupted them in such a remarkably similar fashion in regard to the Old Testament verses the Torah?? Like I said, there are some numeric and translation discrepancies, but considering that these two peoples became rivals, it's remarkable how similar their supposed corrupting additions were. But if we say they weren't purposefully and willfully false additions, then it all makes sense for the two to be so similar.


First, I must clarify that I should not have written Beatitudes only. I should have referred to Matthew 5, 6 and 7. My mistake. That is where we can find the true teachings of Jesus. We can also find the same in the Parables.

The so-called Golden Rule is not new and was not exclusive to Jesus.

Let us take a look at Matthew 5:43 (NLT), which says:

"You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy." Where did this come from and where was this said? There was no such thing in the law. I could not find anything written in the Torah.

63:4 has nothing to do with 9:30.

Surah 63:1-8 talks continuously about Muafiqoon meaning hypocrite and bigots. The remaining part 63:9-11 addressed the believers.

You asked me what was the basis of my assumption about the scrolls. Scrolls are famous for being kept as the scrolls belonging to the prophets, e.g., Isaiah's Scroll, etc. But one cannot say the same about Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Numbers and other chapters, which were written by many.

There are major surprises and by comparing the stone age Bible and the bronze age OT of Christians, one can find the corruptions and forgeries. I will bring up some and would love to have your honest comments. We will do that some other time. We must keep in mind that the Jews corrupted their Scriptures long before the Christians copied the Septuagint to have their OT.

Skenderbeg
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:45 am

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Skenderbeg »

bobs1244

Let me make it so clear that even a child would understand me:

Your claim: Allah thought people would keep his words faithfully. But they didnt.

My analysis: Therefore, what Allah thought would happen, didnt happen. This means Allah made a miscalculation. An error. How can a perfect God commit error?

Get it?
You have a better chance with a child understanding the point you made then any real Muslim or their scholars.

Muslims on this tread are making fools of themselves but think and believe they are winning the debate..

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
First, I must clarify that I should not have written Beatitudes only. I should have referred to Matthew 5, 6 and 7. My mistake. That is where we can find the true teachings of Jesus. We can also find the same in the Parables.

The so-called Golden Rule is not new and was not exclusive to Jesus.

Let us take a look at Matthew 5:43 (NLT), which says:

"You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy." Where did this come from and where was this said? There was no such thing in the law. I could not find anything written in the Torah.
Well if you think there is a problem, then why do you think that Matthew 5 is legit?? Isn't this all coming down to whether it meets your needs or not?? If the verse meets your needs or helps the story you create for yourself, then that's the true verse. That's really all you are doing.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: 63:4 has nothing to do with 9:30.
Surah 63:1-8 talks continuously about Muafiqoon meaning hypocrite and bigots. The remaining part 63:9-11 addressed the believers.
They both ask Allah to fight or curse the unbelievers. Does Allah ask himself to do things?? Does Allah say "may Allah curse them" or "Allah curse them"? (same meaning)
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: You asked me what was the basis of my assumption about the scrolls. Scrolls are famous for being kept as the scrolls belonging to the prophets, e.g., Isaiah's Scroll, etc. But one cannot say the same about Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Numbers and other chapters, which were written by many.
Genesis, Exodus and Joshua were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Genesis is slightly altered only in 2 verses and Exodus, 1 verse and they are insignificant scribal errors.

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: There are major surprises and by comparing the stone age Bible and the bronze age OT of Christians, one can find the corruptions and forgeries. I will bring up some and would love to have your honest comments. We will do that some other time. We must keep in mind that the Jews corrupted their Scriptures long before the Christians copied the Septuagint to have their OT.
Read this first
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/dss.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There really isn't much discrepancy that couldn't simply be attributed to minor translation or scribal errors and there seems to be very little sign of willful corruption or conspiracy. It would really seem like, for the most part, before the Quran, that God wrote very little. It seemed more like God did things and expected people themselves to write about it. And that's exactly what happened. But Muslims claim that God sent down multiple books penned in heaven and that he sent down a book with Jesus as well, even though Jesus says nothing of any book and in fact, it is said that in the New Covenant, the law shall be written not in a book with any name, but on the hearts of men. That was the chance for Jesus to mention this book penned in heaven that he brought down, but he never did.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

bobs1244

Let me make it so clear that even a child would understand me:

Your claim: Allah thought people would keep his words faithfully. But they didnt.

My analysis: Therefore, what Allah thought would happen, didnt happen. This means Allah made a miscalculation. An error. How can a perfect God commit error?

Get it?
He got it but he merely ignores it.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

peoshi
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:04 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by peoshi »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Centaur wrote:@ghalib-gibberish
I dont give a damn what pic you post, becuase if jesus was a Paedophile I will be posting the same of Jesus.but If he is good he would speak for him self, regardless of what pics you post. but such cannot be said for Pagan Jigalo Paedophile Mohammed.So going desperate does not help Muslims.
According to some secret papers of Mark and other documents kept hidden in the Vatican basement, Jesus is thought to have had pedophilia for young boys but he was also good with women.
Where is the evidence that Marks Secret Gospel even exists outside of Clements letter?

Oh wait...there isn't any is there?
Apart from these considerations, most scholars do not consider Clement to be an accurate source of information. Recall that Secret Mark is known only from Clement’s letter to Theodore; it is not mentioned in any other patristic writing. Clement was notorious for accepting fake documents and fake traditions (Parker, 1973, p. 237). “Keen as Clement was on opposing what he regarded as heretical, he seems to have been uncritical almost to the point of gullibility in accepting material which chimed in with his own predilections” (France, 1986, p. 83). Clement quoted from non-canonical sources more than most patristic writers, and was particularly fond of gnostic sources such as the Gospel According to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Preaching of Peter, and the Apocalypse of Peter (Bruce, pp. 310-311). Clement quoted the Gospel of Thomas no less than six times, whereas no other patristic writer quoted it more than once (France, p. 83). In other words, just because Clement quoted Secret Mark and claimed that Mark wrote it does not mean that it is legitimate. All evidence suggests that it was the product of Alexandrian Gnostics, not the writer of the Gospel of Mark
http://www.apologeticspress.com/articles/2599

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

peoshi wrote: All evidence suggests that it was the product of Alexandrian Gnostics, not the writer of the Gospel of Mark
Why did the Alexandrian Gnostics show that Jesus had pedophilia for young boys then, if it weren't Mark, as the Christian apologists try to wriggle out of this?

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Eagle »

Nosubmission wrote:
Eagle wrote:
:lol: so first you say "the chapters of the Mecca period by no means affiliated Ishmael with Abraham", after i bring a Meccan verse 14:39 where
the prophet Ibrahim thanks Allah for granting him only Ismail and Isaac, you still say that the prophet Muhammad was "unaware of Ishmael’s relation to Abraham" and that he "did not come to his senses until his migration to Medina" which implies that any verse affiliating the prophet Ibrahim with his firstborn Ismail should be Medinan, where Muhammad allegedly "came back to his senses" unless you mean that he learned this information then went back to Mecca where he wrote that sura? :lol:
I stand corrected. That mistake is going to be corrected in the article very soon too.
Eagle wrote: Yes nafila is a general word and no there is nothing in the verse narrowing down its meaning to mean that Jacob was Ibrahim's son. In fact everything, whther from extra-Quranic sources, to the Quran itself where Ibrahim thanks Allah for granting him only Ismail and Isaac support this fact
How can you know for sure that the verse means Jacob was Abraham's grandson then? Does nafila always mean grandson when used in a verse about fathers and their sons? If so, prove it!

There is something you also ignore: Surah 29 does not have the word nafila. Actually, the word nafila does not occur in Surah 19 and 6 either!
Eagle wrote: Bring the words "second" and "son"
You bring the word grandson.

Those chapters refer to TWO of Abraham's SONS.

The discrepancy between Surah 14 and all the other Meccan chapters is obvious. When we have Ishmael's name in Surah 14, Jacob is not mentioned. When Jacob is mentioned, Ishmael is dropped. What a nice coincidence!
Eagle wrote: But chapters 21/29/14 are all Meccans, where the prophet Muhammad was supposedly unaware of Ismail being Ibrahim's son yet sura 14 refutes you unless the prophet made 2 migrations to Medina only for the sake of writing down sura 14? :lol:
NO. You have to play the ignorant fool and disregard the chronological order of the Qur'an chapters. Surah 21 and 29 come after Surah 14, and in those chapters your pagan prophet forgot about Ishmael, going back to his faulty formulation that replaced Isaac with Jacob and Ishmael with Isaac again! He repeated his mistake most likely due to a copying error.
Eagle wrote: Rephrase this like that, no single verse refers to Jacob as Ibrahim's son.
The Qur'an refutes you:

And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the prophethood and the Scripture among his seed, and We gave him his reward in the world, and lo! in the Hereafter he verily is among the righteous. (Surah 29:27)
Eagle wrote: wahabna means we gave, not necessarly in the sense of sonship, thats the point
This makes no sense in this debate. A useless point then!
The Quran quotes Ibrahim in a Meccan verse thanking God for granting him Ismail and Isaac only and it is one of the earliest instances in the chronology of revelation where the sons of Ibrahim are mentionned, and there is absolutely no reference to Jacob
This refutes your borrowing claim which is supposed to have happened in Medina and supports the fact that Jacob coming as a nafila/in addition means from Isaac -as all comentators logically agree- which is why Ismail is never mentionned in such verses where nafila is used. The name of Jacob is there to show that not only Ibrahim was miraculously granted a progeny given his old age as reflected in his prayer 14:39, but also that his progeny will endure.
And in the cases where nafila is not used, ive shown that wahabna simply means we gave, not necessarly in the sense of sonship so this silences your arguñent that it means in addition to (not from) Isaac.

Come on priest, what else do you want to learn

peoshi
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:04 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by peoshi »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
peoshi wrote: All evidence suggests that it was the product of Alexandrian Gnostics, not the writer of the Gospel of Mark
Why did the Alexandrian Gnostics show that Jesus had pedophilia for young boys then, if it weren't Mark, as the Christian apologists try to wriggle out of this?
They didn't "show" anything.

No one other than the man who supposedly had possession of this letter has even seen it, only photographs of it.

Why has no one ever seen this "secret gospel"?

You really dont know anything about gnosticism, do you? Many gnostics believed jesus was a false messiah.

You have already posted(in the Quranic Morality thread) that you "know" jesus was not a pedophile.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:There are some secret papers, which suggest that Jesus had paedophilia for young boys. I know Jesus was not a paedophile. But Mark's Secret Gospel suggests that.


So why do you keep bringing this up if you "know" its not true? :???:

You have posted nothing to back your assertion, a simple search would have told you this so called "secret gospel" is bullsh*t!

And regardless of what jesus did or did not do, muhammad still f*cked a nine-year old girl, and that is no "secret"!

Post Reply