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 »

Centaur wrote:Qur'an 21:91

* Literal: "her genital parts , so We blew into her"
Please do not misinform and do not remain misinformed like an ignorant fool. Where did you get the trash "her genital parts" from?

Vagina or $$$ or Pussy, in Arabic is: المهبل Mahbl

Genital parts, in Arabic is: الأعضاء التناسلية Al-a'ada-at-tanasilya

Qur'an 66:12

ومريم ابنت عمران التي احصنت فرجها فنفخنا فيه من روحنا وصدقت بكلمات ربها وكتبه وكانت من القانتين
Transliteration: Wamaryama ibnata AAimrana allatee ahsanat farjaha fanafakhna feehi min roohina wasaddaqat bikalimati rabbiha wakutubihi wakanat mina alqaniteena
Literal: And Mary Amran's daughter who remained chaste (protected) her genital parts between her legs, so We blew in it

Why is Allah (Mo) feel it so important that he mentions blowing into vagina here and there in his Korand, was he forgetful, that he already mentioned it in 21:91?

As perverted as his sex maniac Paedophet Mo?[/quote]

It is the stone age Bible that shows a double job by the biblical God and the alleged Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:35 shows it best:

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." :lol:

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 »

Ahmed chose to reply to troll inmate cuntaur

What happened cuntaur? are you hanging around pussy's cell?

Hope you enjoyed the movie

Now tell us inmate, is meccah's location the golden mean of the earth or not?

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: Well, the pleasure is partaken. Yet, the cross of surah 86 is the Crux Constellation.
I have already shown that there is no cross in Surah 86. If the verse were talking about the alleged Cross, it would have mentioned Saleeb , not Sulb.

Also the verse would have said something like this, basing on AP's silly argument. I have specially constructed the following for clarification. This is not a verse.

"Inna mathala AAeesa kamathali maneeye yakhruju min thaleeb". :lol: (Hope everyone understands the humor here)
Please see my anthropological thread on this: Happy Resurrection
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1879" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks, will do.
The Cat wrote:Let me be more explicit about the pierced star in the Southern constellation
And the figurative of this in the Christian mythology as I understood it...
Christianity had no clue about the Southern Cross. The earliest mention was in the early part of the 14th Century. The five brightest stars of Crux (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon Crucis) appear on the flags of Australia, Brazil, New Guinea, Papua and Samoa, while the New Zealand flag shows four. No Christian country in the Northern hemisphere used the Southern Cross on her flags.
Spoiler! :
Image

--By the heaven and the Morning Star
--Ah, what will tell thee what the Morning Star is!
--The piercing Star!
--No human soul but hath a guardian over it.
--So let man consider from what he is created.
--He is created from a gushing fluid
--That issued from between the loins and ribs.
The Cat wrote:It's clearly talking about mankind determined by the gushing fluid that came out from Jesus when pierced by a Roman!
The surah clearly states that mankind was determined by Jesus' death (the gushing fluid issue between his loins and ribs).
It then talks about the Resurrection, the Judgment day, where all ''thoughts shall be searched out'' by Allah's Word: Isa !
No. I have already clarified that there is no mention of Cross in the Surah. AP could not differentiate between Sulb and Saleeb.
Only John mentions about blood and water gushing out but that is not true. It is incorrect and impossible. When a person dies, the blood stops flowing and coagulates. Water is not retained in the body as a water-bag does.

Christian scholars, who defend John's story, should take a dead body and pierce the side with a spear and I assure you that no water and no blood will gush out. Unless the dead person's bladder, which was full, and was pierced but did not relieve himself before he died. You can check with the forensic experts, who cut dead bodies open.
Spoiler! :
--Lo! He verily is Able to return him (unto life)
--On the day when hidden thoughts shall be searched out.
--Then will he have no might nor any helper.
--By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,
--And the earth which splitteth (with the growth of trees and plants)
--Lo! this is a conclusive word, It is no pleasantry.
The Cat wrote:The Southern Cross (or Crux) Constellation is The celestial background behind Christianity. A must to know and study!
In ancient time it was related with spring resurrection, fertility..... then appearing ONLY in Easter' (April's) mornings!
It is still a true guiding light since it does indicate to travelers and sailors almost the perfect south. Not Venus...
I agree it was an ancient belief but that is not being discussed in the Surah. Here I wish to clarify that Quran is not referring to Venus or Sirius, etc. Venus is regarded as the Morning Star by all. However, Quran mentions Sirius in another Surah. That is another topic.
Spoiler! :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux (notice how, on some of the flags, the 'piercing star' is shown like that of AB's Australia)
Image
I have already commented on this above.

Nor forgetting viewtopic.php?p=135125#p135125" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Spoiler! :
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:I have already clarified above that there is no likeness between Allah and Adam and there is also no likeness between Allah and Jesus. I hope it is clear from the way, I moved "`Inda Allāhi " away for the sake of clarification.
Sorry Ghalib but you simply can't restructure a Koranic text like you've done, placing khalimathali before Mathala! For Inda Allahi (with Allah) is clearly after 'Inna Mathala Isa' thus establishing the first similitude. The 2nd similitude is also clearly introduced by 'Khamathali'. The first similitude establish Isa WITH Allah while the second, kha-mathali, differentiates Jesus' human body, made of dust in the likeness of Adam.

Let us see why Adam and Jesus are so differentiated...
In 2.33 and 2.37 Adam is instructed to give names BUT that's way different for Isa, sanctified through the Holy Spirit: 2.87: We supported him with the Holy spirit; 2.253 (idem), 5.110: I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit all are showing that Jesus is sanctified, something not said or given to any other one is he Adam, Abraham or Moses. He's the Massihrullah, the Ruhullah! Adam was instructed, Jesus instructed. See?

3.39, 3.45 and 66.12 all confirm the blessed status accorded to Isa as Allah's Ruhullah (Spirit, Word, Breath), so corroborated in 4.171. Then 3.59 can only emphasize the discrepancy of status between Jesus and Adam consistent with the differences demonstrated above (2.33/2.37). Still the angels were commanded to prostrate to Adam, including Jibril... the more so then with Jesus/Isa!
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:(In 81.19) Innahu refers to Quran in the verse. The translators added Quran in brackets to make the reader understand that. So, there is really no lying pen. You can also see the same in the translation of 81:19 and if you continue reading, you will see in 81:23 that Muhammad saw Gabriel, the noble messenger (rasoolin kareem) coming down over the horizon, but that was not Jesus coming down.
From 81.19-21, 86.13 and 69.40 the same picture arisen: Isa is God's Word in Spirit (Logos)

81.19 Certainly His Word (Jesus) is a Holy message (Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin).

86.13: Lo! this is a conclusive Word (Innahu Laqawlun Faşlun)

69:40 That's indeed the Word of an illustrious messenger (Innahu Laqawlu Rasūlin Karīmin)

This illustrious messenger from birth can only be Jesus, 3.45: Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is
the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)
. I don't think
Gabriel is ever called 'illustrious' or a 'honored' messenger in the Koran, nor Muhammad, so all those verses must apply to Jesus.

As an angel, having no Free Will, who had to bow to Adam, Gabriel is an automaton and as such cannot be that illustrious.

Now, Isa is not only made a viceroy in the likeness of Adam (3.59/2.30), but he's a holy one able to abrogate God's words!

43:63
When Jesus came with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), he said: I have come unto you with wisdom,
and to make plain some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.


Here, Isa is not receiving revelations like all the other messengers, he's instructions all by himself (also 3.50)!
The wisdom (Ĥikmati) is not here given... but something he had from the cradle and even from inception...

The Koranic 'Isa' is not even a name but a lordly title...
Isa can only mean: Our Lord, stemming out right from Hinduism like in the Isa Upanishads, yet mixed with the Phoenician sun-god 'IES' (The One Light) at the origin of many Hebrew names, including Yeshua meaning The Healing Light. In short, the very name of ISA used in the Koran confers sovereignty to him, for it wasn't originally a name but a title! In correct Arabic Jesus would have been written: Yashu. Instead the Koran used -a title- indicating his godly, immaculate conception exactly like in Christianity... How's that! The very title of ISA was meant to be much deferential!

Still God doesn't have a biological son (ie. Arabic walid) but a spiritual soul-mate: His Word, Spirit, Logos. Curiously Ibn (of the belonging) isn't use to describe the Allah/Isa filiation, instead we find it to describe his filiation with... Mary, while it should be the other way around! The only way I can interpret this curiosity is that, in his human belonging (Abna Maryama), Jesus isn't to be consecrated but solely through his godly Spirit.

2.253: Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spake,
while some of them He exalted (above others) in degree; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary (Īsá Abna Maryama), clear proofs
and We supported him with the holy Spirit (Rūĥi Al-Qudusi).
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
The Cat wrote:Leaving aside, for the moment, the controversy of Gabriel being or not the Holy Spirit....
3.45: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

I'm just noting here that angels are plural, thus eliminating Gabriel this far.
There is no need to leave it. There is no controversy. Ruhul Ameen is the title of Gabriel.
Please read 26:103, which says, "Nazala bihi alrroohu al-ameen" ( brought down by the Faithful Spirit)
There's no alrroohu al-ameen in 26.103 and the context is about Noah.

I find Gabriel mixed up and seriously confused in the Islamic tradition. For he ain't the Holy Spirit (as Muslims believe) and, like I've said,
as an angel without a will of his own, he has no more importance than let say the royal seal on a delivered message. Without such will of
his own, Gabriel can't be the 'Faithful Spirit' no more than let say a transmitting computer has spirit (although 'faithful').

But such is not the idea carried behind the notion of the Holy Spirit for anyone blessed by it is transfigured or, like you've said about 5.110:
''I strengthened you with the spirit of holiness". Indeed the Koranic notion of Ruhullah ascribed to Isa is about the same as the Christian
notion of Jesus being the Logos: ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God''. (John 1.1). Best
translated by ''The Word made flesh'', transcribing the idea of Heraclius that the Logos was the Principle of divine order within knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Cat wrote:So we still have a lot to discuss, like if Gabriel and the Koranic Holy Spirit are the same.
Of course I have a Christian background and you a Muslim one. Don't we say: 'Vive la Difference' !
Yes and we will discuss as much as we can. Thanks very much for an interesting exchange.

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: Here is a free-mind forum page discussing over the topic of makkata.
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?a ... =9597437.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Just a short note. I read the given link and I observe that some of the posters at Free Minds sound like Confused Minds.

I liked it when one of the posters afridi220 (wrote on September 25, 2009, 09:18:09 AM) said something similar to what I had said here.

He had asked others to read all the verses 48:24-27, whereas I had suggested more.

Thanks very much for the link.

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

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Centaur »

Luke 1:35
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.
It just says Conception is not natural. Where as paedophet says Allah blowed into marys private part. Sex mad paedophet and sex mad Allah, what else you expect from Paedophile sex maniac? :prop:
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:
Luke 1:35
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.
It just says Conception is not natural. Where as paedophet says Allah blowed into marys private part. Sex mad paedophet and sex mad Allah, what else you expect from Paedophile sex maniac? :prop:
I do not see anyone sitting and blowing into Jesus' mother's private parts. However, it is confirmed from Luke 1:35 that it was a double
job by the biblical God and the alleged Holy Spirit or Ghost, whatever. Would like to use your favorite smiley. :rock:

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

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Centaur »

you wont thats one of the abilities of being a muslim. Allah a blow jobber? Also treachery is the main tool of your korand translietors they lie and twist.
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
Centaur
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Centaur »

Image

ring any bells? come on visuals are good when some one has lack of comprehension
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: ring any bells? come on visuals are good when some one has lack of comprehension
Yes, Sure looks like Jesus' father and poor little Mary. All right! But it does not show the second accomplice. :rock:

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

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Nosubmission »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Centaur wrote:
Luke 1:35
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.
It just says Conception is not natural. Where as paedophet says Allah blowed into marys private part. Sex mad paedophet and sex mad Allah, what else you expect from Paedophile sex maniac? :prop:
I do not see anyone sitting and blowing into Jesus' mother's private parts. However, it is confirmed from Luke 1:35 that it was a double
job by the biblical God and the alleged Holy Spirit or Ghost, whatever. Would like to use your favorite smiley. :rock:
Dogs bark, Muslims lie.. So simple.

The word FARJAHA, which occurs in Surah 21:91and 66:12 refers to Mary's vagina. Thus, the author of the Qur'an claims that Allah blew into Mary's vagina from his spirit.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:I do not see anyone sitting and blowing into Jesus' mother's private parts..
You can see as soon as you open your eyes while reading the Qur'an and stop lying.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
However, it is confirmed from Luke 1:35 that it was a double
job by the biblical God and the alleged Holy Spirit or Ghost, whatever.
The New Testament has no reference to Mary's vagina!You are confusing it with your Qur'an.

Your interpretation of the Spirit's coming down on Mary is utterly silly and fallacious. The Holy Spirit is said to descend on all of Jesus' apostles and disciples. The same Spirit is even said to have come down on Jesus at His baptism. This notion of descent cannot connote or denote sexuality if there is no reference to the person's genital organs. (Luke, unlike the author of the Qur'an, never says that the Spirit came down on Mary's vagina or entered into her private parts). Overshadow does not connote sexuality either. It is the same word that occurs in the accounts of Jesus' transfiguration. A cloud overshadowed the apostles..
Elohim has come, Allah has vanished

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by The Cat »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:1. I have already shown that there is no cross in Surah 86. If the verse were talking about the alleged Cross, it would have mentioned Saleeb, not Sulb.

2. Only John mentions about blood and water gushing out but that is not true. It is incorrect and impossible. When a person dies, the blood stops flowing and coagulates. Water is not retained in the body as a water-bag does.
1. Sulb by AhmedBahgat (sexual male organ?)... :wacko:
viewtopic.php?p=112933#p112933" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You will find out that sulb refers to crucifixion (noun) and crucify (verb). Nothing to do with black hole either! :shock:

What you don't get is that 86.3 (the piercing star) relates to 86.6: the lance piercing Jesus' body.
It's an old thing, before the Crux disappeared in the north due to the Precession of the Equinoxes!
Image
The real Crux at the upper left, with its defining 'piercing star', the false Crux at the bottom right.
Image
Still a trusty guiding light for all travelers and sailors, pointing the south! Venus doesn't do such, nor Sirius.
It was related to Christ because it only appeared in April (Easter), signifying the nature's resurrection...

86.2-3: Ah, what will tell thee what the Morning Star is! The piercing Star! (or Night-Visitant)

2. It is medically very possible and a sure way for the Romans to check his death.
http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://bible.cc/john/19-34.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/jesusdeath.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The spear released a sudden flow of blood and water (John 19:34). Not only does this prove that Jesus was already dead when pierced, but Thompson believes it is also evidence of cardiac rupture. Respected physiologist Samuel Houghton believed that only the combination of crucifixion and rupture of the heart could produce this result.
Jesus was standing up when dead just minutes before, so it was a mixture of water and blood or gushing fluid as reported in 86.6,
The whole surah refers to this event: ie. mankind's Redemption through Jesus' death. Twist it as much as you want, like it or not...
It's plain for everyone to see. Otherwise, you're engaging into the controversy of semen being produced in the loins. Good luck !

From 81.19-21, 86.13 and 69.40 the same picture arisen: Isa is God's Word (Logos)...

86.13: Most surely it is a decisive word, (Innahu Laqawlun Faşlun)
81.19 Most surely it is the Word of an honored messenger, (Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin).
69:40 Surely, it is the Word brought by an honored Messenger, (Innahu Laqawlu Rasūlin Karīmin)

This honored messenger from birth can only be Jesus, 3.45: Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is
the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)
. I don't think
Gabriel is ever called 'illustrious' or a 'honored' messenger in the Koran, nor Muhammad, so all those verses must apply to Jesus.

As an angel, who had to bow to Adam, Gabriel is an automaton and as such cannot be that illustrious. More so, in 81.19-20 the honored messenger is ''embued with Power, established in the sight of God, having authority to be obeyed.'' No angel has such authority on its own, but... Isa (5.30/43.63).

66.12: And Mary, daughter of ´Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein something of Our Spirit (Min Rūĥinā).

Surely, Allah didn't breath Gabriel into Mary! Nor into a fetus already conceived, if to be chaste!
Here, we're clearly within the Nestorian christology in which Jesus was one prosopon (emanation),
in coalescence. That's why, even as a human, Isa was born perfected from the beginning (19.17)!

Now we can understand that the similitude with Adam in 3.59 only refers to the creation of Isa's human body.
That is why the Koran states that Isa is the -abna Maryama- belonging to the human race from Mary, not only
of a flesh and blood like other prophets but as a Revelation all by himself, a sanctity incarnated...

Like Adam his body was created from nothing (dust) yet, unlike Adam, his Spirit is beyond time which is established in the first similitude:
The 'mathala' of Isa is being WITH Allah, while khamathala is Isa in the flesh created as Adam, perfected from the beginning as in 19.17:
We sent unto her Our Spirit (Ilayhā Rūĥanā) and it assumed for her the likeness (Fata-maththala) of a perfect man.

More so proven by the fact that Isa wasn't formerly a name but a divine attribute stemming right out from the Hindu 'Isa Upanishad' !
By using this very title of 'Isa', instead of the Arabic proper name Yashu, a priori the Koran acknowledges his divinity, ipso facto.

The conjunction of Isa and Allah is all too well attested in the expression Insha 'Allah (إن شاء الله) ! So God will...

So, to the question: ''Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?''
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:The answer: Nobody was the father of Jesus.
Agreed! But then it means that... you're plainly admitting Isa's Koranic divinity! Thanks...
Or is it that Allah being this 'nobody', Muslims are but worshiping a 'no one' as The One?
Last edited by The Cat on Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:20 am, edited 3 times in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by The Cat »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:I read the given link and I observe that some of the posters at Free Minds sound like Confused Minds.
It tells us that the matter isn't clear even for Arabic speaking people...

Well, the plain context is the Hudaibiyah negociations, isn't it? There was almost war, tensions on all sides, then Peace of Reassurance.

Thus the meaning I kept from the CA dictionaries:
Al-Ghani MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.

Now, if you don't want to translate this idea with ''in the midst of swindles'' with what word would you translate better the idea?
You've said: ''The words in Arabic, for Destruction and Swindles, are Tadmeer and fa'amliyat respectively''. But back then?

The CA dictionaries state that destruction is one ROOT meaning for MKK. You can't explain makkata... with modern Arabic.

As I've said the absence of the term elsewhere in the Koran, even badly needed, strongly indicates that it wasn't that known.

Now we may discuss if Gabriel is the same as the Holy Spirit, like Muslims like to believe.
Bye.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

Nosubmission wrote:
Dogs bark, Muslims lie.. So simple.

The word FARJAHA, which occurs in Surah 21:91and 66:12 refers to Mary's vagina. Thus, the author of the Qur'an claims that Allah blew into Mary's vagina from his spirit.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:I do not see anyone sitting and blowing into Jesus' mother's private parts..
You can see as soon as you open your eyes while reading the Qur'an and stop lying.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
However, it is confirmed from Luke 1:35 that it was a double
job by the biblical God and the alleged Holy Spirit or Ghost, whatever.
The New Testament has no reference to Mary's vagina!You are confusing it with your Qur'an.

Your interpretation of the Spirit's coming down on Mary is utterly silly and fallacious. The Holy Spirit is said to descend on all of Jesus' apostles and disciples. The same Spirit is even said to have come down on Jesus at His baptism. This notion of descent cannot connote or denote sexuality if there is no reference to the person's genital organs. (Luke, unlike the author of the Qur'an, never says that the Spirit came down on Mary's vagina or entered into her private parts). Overshadow does not connote sexuality either. It is the same word that occurs in the accounts of Jesus' transfiguration. A cloud overshadowed the apostles..
That was no submission, Nosubmission

I have already said that according to Luke's bronze age gospel, it was a double job. May be Jesus' father shoved that alleged Holy Spirit in.

I can see that you do not understand Arabic and that is quite obvious from your what you wrote about farjaha.

What you do not understand is that the words Ahasant farjaha go together and mean "She guarded her chastity" or "She kept herself pure" and if you don't understand that, it means "She knew no man". And if you do not understand this, then it means "She did not let any one screw her". :lol:

The verse does not say "Fanafakhna fee farjaha". :roflmao:

Please do not humor me anymore. Lucky, I was not having a cup of coffee. Thanks very much.

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

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Centaur »

Desperate mohammedan going nuts may be we address you when you come out of Paedophile mohammeds arse
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

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

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Nosubmission »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
That was no submission, Nosubmission

I have already said that according to Luke's bronze age gospel, it was a double job. May be Jesus' father shoved that alleged Holy Spirit in.
I have already shown that you are a pathetic liar. The Gospels, unlike your pagan prophet's forgery, do not talk about Mary's vagina.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: I can see that you do not understand Arabic and that is quite obvious from your what you wrote about farjaha.

What you do not understand is that the words Ahasant farjaha go together and mean "She guarded her chastity" or "She kept herself pure" and if you don't understand that, it means "She knew no man". And if you do not understand this, then it means "She did not let any one screw her". :lol:

The verse does not say "Fanafakhna fee farjaha". :roflmao:
What you foolishly ignore is that the word FARJAHAA in the Qur'an refers to a woman's private parts. You also ignore that the verse says We blew our spirit INTO her! Into her vagina, of course, not into her chastity! :roflmao:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Please do not humor me anymore. Lucky, I was not having a cup of coffee. Thanks very much.
Keep entertaining us with your logical fallacies.
Elohim has come, Allah has vanished

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

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

Nosubmission wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
That was no submission, Nosubmission

I have already said that according to Luke's bronze age gospel, it was a double job. May be Jesus' father shoved that alleged Holy Spirit in.
I have already shown that you are a pathetic liar. The Gospels, unlike your pagan prophet's forgery, do not talk about Mary's vagina.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: I can see that you do not understand Arabic and that is quite obvious from your what you wrote about farjaha.

What you do not understand is that the words Ahasant farjaha go together and mean "She guarded her chastity" or "She kept herself pure" and if you don't understand that, it means "She knew no man". And if you do not understand this, then it means "She did not let any one screw her". :lol:

The verse does not say "Fanafakhna fee farjaha". :roflmao:
What you foolishly ignore is that the word FARJAHAA in the Qur'an refers to a woman's private parts. You also ignore that the verse says We blew our spirit INTO her! Into her vagina, of course, not into her chastity! :roflmao:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Please do not humor me anymore. Lucky, I was not having a cup of coffee. Thanks very much.
Keep entertaining us with your logical fallacies.
Thanks very much. No need. I should not have entertained an ignorant fool for his no submission. :roflmao:

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

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Nosubmission »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Nosubmission wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
That was no submission, Nosubmission

I have already said that according to Luke's bronze age gospel, it was a double job. May be Jesus' father shoved that alleged Holy Spirit in.
I have already shown that you are a pathetic liar. The Gospels, unlike your pagan prophet's forgery, do not talk about Mary's vagina.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: I can see that you do not understand Arabic and that is quite obvious from your what you wrote about farjaha.

What you do not understand is that the words Ahasant farjaha go together and mean "She guarded her chastity" or "She kept herself pure" and if you don't understand that, it means "She knew no man". And if you do not understand this, then it means "She did not let any one screw her". :lol:

The verse does not say "Fanafakhna fee farjaha". :roflmao:
What you foolishly ignore is that the word FARJAHAA in the Qur'an refers to a woman's private parts. You also ignore that the verse says We blew our spirit INTO her! Into her vagina, of course, not into her chastity! :roflmao:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Please do not humor me anymore. Lucky, I was not having a cup of coffee. Thanks very much.
Keep entertaining us with your logical fallacies.
Thanks very much. No need. I should not have entertained an ignorant fool for his no submission. :roflmao:
I am surprised to see that you consider this short and stupid message of yours a response to my arguments and concede defeat so quickly :D
Elohim has come, Allah has vanished

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

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

Centaur wrote:Image

ring any bells? come on visuals are good when some one has lack of comprehension
Centaur,

Was Jesus born pre-mature? He looks too small in Mary's hands. Was it post-Jesus' birth erection? :rock:

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:1. I have already shown that there is no cross in Surah 86. If the verse were talking about the alleged Cross, it would have mentioned Saleeb, not Sulb.

2. Only John mentions about blood and water gushing out but that is not true. It is incorrect and impossible. When a person dies, the blood stops flowing and coagulates. Water is not retained in the body as a water-bag does.
1. Sulb by AhmedBahgat (sexual male organ?)... :wacko:
viewtopic.php?p=112933#p112933" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You will find out that sulb refers to crucifixion (noun) and crucify (verb). Nothing to do with black hole either! :shock:

What you don't get is that 86.3 (the piercing star) relates to 86.6: the lance piercing Jesus' body.
It's an old thing, before the Crux disappeared in the north due to the Precession of the Equinoxes!
Image
The real Crux at the upper left, with its defining 'piercing star', the false Crux at the bottom right.
Image
Still a trusty guiding light for all travelers and sailors, pointing the south! Venus doesn't do such, nor Sirius.
It was related to Christ because it only appeared in April (Easter), signifying the nature's resurrection...

86.2-3: Ah, what will tell thee what the Morning Star is! The piercing Star! (or Night-Visitant)

2. It is medically very possible and a sure way for the Romans to check his death.
http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://bible.cc/john/19-34.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/jesusdeath.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The spear released a sudden flow of blood and water (John 19:34). Not only does this prove that Jesus was already dead when pierced, but Thompson believes it is also evidence of cardiac rupture. Respected physiologist Samuel Houghton believed that only the combination of crucifixion and rupture of the heart could produce this result.
Jesus was standing up when dead just minutes before, so it was a mixture of water and blood or gushing fluid as reported in 86.6,
The whole surah refers to this event: ie. mankind's Redemption through Jesus' death. Twist it as much as you want, like it or not...
It's plain for everyone to see. Otherwise, you're engaging into the controversy of semen being produced in the loins. Good luck !

From 81.19-21, 86.13 and 69.40 the same picture arisen: Isa is God's Word (Logos)...

86.13: Most surely it is a decisive word, (Innahu Laqawlun Faşlun)
81.19 Most surely it is the Word of an honored messenger, (Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin).
69:40 Surely, it is the Word brought by an honored Messenger, (Innahu Laqawlu Rasūlin Karīmin)

This honored messenger from birth can only be Jesus, 3.45: Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is
the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)
. I don't think
Gabriel is ever called 'illustrious' or a 'honored' messenger in the Koran, nor Muhammad, so all those verses must apply to Jesus.

As an angel, who had to bow to Adam, Gabriel is an automaton and as such cannot be that illustrious. More so, in 81.19-20 the honored messenger is ''embued with Power, established in the sight of God, having authority to be obeyed.'' No angel has such authority on its own, but... Isa (5.30/43.63).

66.12: And Mary, daughter of ´Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein something of Our Spirit (Min Rūĥinā).

Surely, Allah didn't breath Gabriel into Mary! Nor into a fetus already conceived, if to be chaste!
Here, we're clearly within the Nestorian christology in which Jesus was one prosopon (emanation),
in coalescence. That's why, even as a human, Isa was born perfected from the beginning (19.17)!

Now we can understand that the similitude with Adam in 3.59 only refers to the creation of Isa's human body.
That is why the Koran states that Isa is the -abna Maryama- belonging to the human race from Mary, not only
of a flesh and blood like other prophets but as a Revelation all by himself, a sanctity incarnated...

Like Adam his body was created from nothing (dust) yet, unlike Adam, his Spirit is beyond time which is established in the first similitude:
The 'mathala' of Isa is being WITH Allah, while khamathala is Isa in the flesh created as Adam, perfected from the beginning as in 19.17:
We sent unto her Our Spirit (Ilayhā Rūĥanā) and it assumed for her the likeness (Fata-maththala) of a perfect man.

More so proven by the fact that Isa wasn't formerly a name but a divine attribute stemming right out from the Hindu 'Isa Upanishad' !
By using this very title of 'Isa', instead of the Arabic proper name Yashu, a priori the Koran acknowledges his divinity, ipso facto.

The conjunction of Isa and Allah is all too well attested in the expression Insha 'Allah (إن شاء الله) ! So God will...

So, to the question: ''Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?''
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:The answer: Nobody was the father of Jesus.
Agreed! But then it means that... you're plainly admitting Isa's Koranic divinity! Thanks...
Or is it that Allah being this 'nobody', Muslims are but worshiping a 'no one' as The One?
Response:

I have not read the entire discussion on that link but I have to agree with AhmedBahagt. He is right.

I have also written about this in a thread here, which was started by Enceladus, titled "Re: Allah doesn't know where sperm come from". It was a very silly thread but it became quite interesting to educate folks. Perhaps you missed reading the posts there.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=8376&start=60" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sulb in the verse is not pronounced in the way "Bulb" is pronounced. Sulb is pronounced as Soolb but not a long ooo though!

The Arabic word that you are trying to use, is Salb (Thalb).

Neither does that star pierce nor does it get pierced. It still appears everyday and it has nothing to do with a crux or an imagined cross. You should realize that only John came up with that story and nobody else reported it.
The Cat wrote:Still a trusty guiding light for all travelers and sailors, pointing the south! Venus doesn't do such, nor Sirius.
It was related to Christ because it only appeared in April (Easter), signifying the nature's resurrection...
But to others in the Southern hemisphere, it was and it is still visible everyday.
Spoiler! :
The Cat wrote:2. It is medically very possible and a sure way for the Romans to check his death.
http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://bible.cc/john/19-34.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/jesusdeath.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Cat wrote:The spear released a sudden flow of blood and water (John 19:34). Not only does this prove that Jesus was already dead when pierced, but Thompson believes it is also evidence of cardiac rupture. Respected physiologist Samuel Houghton believed that only the combination of crucifixion and rupture of the heart could produce this result.
Please check with forensic surgeons and experts, not a physiologist.

After I brought up the point and mentioned that blood and water cannot flow out from a dead body, you have come up with another wild imagination and unsupported point "Jesus was standing up when dead just minutes before,". Any proof? Gospels do not agree with that. Jesus was already dead for hours, according to the story. Blood stops flowing when a person dies and coagulates.

Regarding the Logos, there is no talk of any Greek word Logos in Quran. No Logos! It is simply God's command!

Surah 81 has nothing about Jesus. There is no Jesus in there. The very first verse says that the stars will lose their light and that also covers the so-called "piercing star". "Jesus", which AP and you are trying to find, will lose the light and be dimmed forever!

86:13 This verse refers to Quran.
81:19 and 69:40 These verses refer to Gabriel.
Jesus is not called anywhere in Quran as Rasoolin-Kareem.

As I stated above, neither Jesus nor other prophets have been called Rasoolin Kareem in Quran. Only Gabriel has been called.

Regarding breathing in, neither Allah breathed nor pushed Gabriel in. There is no talk of Gabriel in 66:12 and Allah breathed life into the fetus or simply gave life to the zygote of Jesus. God can do anything. Right? So, God simply said something like this: "Let Mary conceive and .....she was pregnant!"
The Cat wrote:So, to the question: ''Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?''
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:The answer: Nobody was the father of Jesus.
Agreed! But then it means that... you're plainly admitting Isa's Koranic divinity! Thanks...
Or is it that Allah being this 'nobody', Muslims are but worshiping a 'no one' as The One?
[/quote]

How am I am admitting the divinity, when the man had zero divinity?

Let us move on to something new, which you wish to discuss. I consider this done. Thanks for a very civil discussion. it was a pleasure writing here.

sum
Posts: 6574
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

Post by sum »

Hello Ghalibkhastahaal

Cat`s quote -
The Cat wrote:
So, to the question: ''Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?''
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
The answer: Nobody was the father of Jesus.
The Cat wrote:
Agreed! But then it means that... you're plainly admitting Isa's Koranic divinity! Thanks...
Or is it that Allah being this 'nobody', Muslims are but worshiping a 'no one' as The One?



Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
How am I am admitting the divinity, when the man had zero divinity?

Let us move on to something new, which you wish to discuss. I consider this done.


Your logic has gone and that is why you are running away from this thread. Your standing has reached a new low.

Sorry, The Cat, for intruding on your discussion with Ghalibkhastahaal. He has shot himself in the foot, well and truly, and so now wants to leave with his tail between his legs.

sum

Post Reply