Surah 19:19,21 vs. Surah 3:45

[Marie]

If Muhammad had plagiarized from that silly book, he would have repeated the stupidity that Jesus was God's son. Right? But he did not. So, wtf was plagiarized from that absurd book?

Muhammed says the Quran reconfirms the message of the Gospel:

Sura 3:3 "He [Allah] has verily revealed to you this Book [the Qur'an] in truth and confirmation of the Books revealed before, as indeed He had revealed the Torah and the Gospel." This is reconfirmed: Qur'an 5:46 "Later, in the train of the prophets, We [Allah] sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah which had been sent down before him, and gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light, which corroborated the earlier Torah."

Sura 5:47-48"Let the people of the Gospel [Christians] judge by what has been revealed in it by Allah." And... "To you We have revealed the Qur'an containing the truth, confirming the earlier revelations [Torah, Psalms, and Gospels], and preserving them from change and corruption. So judge between them by what has been revealed by Allah."

And the message of the Gospels say Jesus is the son of God, therefore Muhammed indirectly declares Jesus is son of God.

According to the Quran Jesus had the ability to create life:

Sura 3:49 and he shall be a prophet to the people of Israel (saying), that I have come to you, with a sign from God, namely, that I will CREATE for you out of clay (annee AKHLUQU lakum mina ALTTEENI) as though it were the form of a bird, and I will blow thereon and it shall become a bird by God's permission; and I will heal the blind from birth, and lepers; and I will bring the dead to life by God's permission; and I will tell you what you eat and what ye store up in your houses. Verily, in that is a sign for you if ye be believers.

Sura 5:110 When God shall say, O Jesus son of Mary, remember my favour towards thee, and towards thy mother; when I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, that thou shouldest speak unto men in the cradle, and when thou wast grown up; and when I taught thee the scripture, and wisdom, and the law, and the gospel; and when thou didst CREATE of clay (wa-ith TAKHLUQU mina ALTTEENI) as it were the figure of a bird, by my permission, and didst breathe thereon, and it became a bird by my permission; and thou didst heal one blind from his birth, and the leper, by my permission; and when thou didst bring forth the dead [from their graves], by my permission; and when I with-held the children of Israel from [killing] thee, when thou hadst come unto them with evident [miracles], and such of them as believed not, said, this is nothing but manifest sorcery.

Sura 38:71-72 Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man from clay (innee KHALIQUN basharan min TEENIN): When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him."

According to Islam only Allah has the ability to create and breath life into something, but in the Quran there are suras stating Jesus can create and breath life into something. How can a mere prophet create and breath life into something? Therefore Muhammed is indirectly saying Jesus is the son of God.

Besides most the stories of Jesus mentioned in the Quran were well known by different Christian sects, so how can these verses not be plagiarized by Muhammed when they were already well known amongst the Christians ( and they probably told these stories to Muhammed )?

[piscohot]

Besides most the stories of Jesus mentioned in the Quran were well known by different Christian sects, so how can these verses not be plagiarized by Muhammed when they were already well known amongst the Christians ( and they probably told these stories to Muhammed )?

It is obvious that Muhammad heard stories of Adam, Jesus, Noah, joseph and Abraham. So when ever he needed to bring up verses, he can only repeat the stories of these people that he heard before. The quran claimed that if all the trees were pens and all the water in the oceans were ink, it would still not be enough to write what Allah have to say. Yet Allah produced a book full of inconsistent repetitions.

031.027
And if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean (were ink), with seven oceans behind it to add to its (supply), yet would not the words of Allah be exhausted (in the writing): for Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.

[Marie]

Besides most the stories of Jesus mentioned in the Quran were well known by different Christian sects, so how can these verses not be plagiarized by Muhammed when they were already well known amongst the Christians ( and they probably told these stories to Muhammed )?

It is obvious that Muhammad heard stories of Adam, Jesus, Noah, joseph and Abraham. So when ever he needed to bring up verses, he can only repeat the stories of these people that he heard before. The quran claimed that if all the trees were pens and all the water in the oceans were ink, it would still not be enough to write what Allah have to say. Yet Allah produced a book full of inconsistent repetitions.

031.027
And if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean (were ink), with seven oceans behind it to add to its (supply), yet would not the words of Allah be exhausted (in the writing): for Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.

Muhammed brought nothing new to Islam. Even Allah was already worshipped by the pagan Arabs.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

You guys missed this glaring problem right under your noses.

"(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). (Surah 3:45 Pickthall)"

Why are the angels telling Mary that she will have a son and then telling her his name will be Jesus, but then also adding "son of Mary"? Doesn't Mary know that already based on the fact they just told her she would be having a son?? The equivalent to this would be God telling Sara she shall have a son named Issac, and he shall be called son of Sara. That's a really stupid, unnecessary and obvious statement. What else would he be called, son of Susan?? Son of Sam?


Why are they telling her "son of Mary" instead of simply saying his name will be Jesus? It's because Muhammad always was obsessed with making sure he said "son of Mary" when Jesus is mentioned to make it appear as though God is making it clear to us that he was no more than the son of Mary, and not his son. He does this all over the Quran. He was so insistent about this, that he accidentally added it to some very awkward situations.

So here, we have the angels telling Mary that her son shall be called "son of Mary". If you read the sentence again, you'll see it's very awkward and actually does not work because it's telling her something redundant. Telling Mary she will have a son and telling her he will be called son of Mary is redundant, but he had to have that son of Mary in there. So it gets awkwardly inserted where it does not belong. You have to really pay attention to this guy when he speaks and really ponder it, and you'll suddenly see all sorts of mistakes that he makes that Muslims never see. It's like 63:4 or 9:30, where Muslims don't even notice that it is accidentally Muhammad wishing for something from Allah rather than Allah himself speaking.

[Marie]

You guys missed this glaring problem right under your noses.

"(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). (Surah 3:45 Pickthall)"

Why are the angels telling Mary that she will have a son and then telling her his name will be Jesus, but then also adding "son of Mary"? Doesn't Mary know that already based on the fact they just told her she would be having a son?? The equivalent to this would be God telling Sara she shall have a son named Issac, and he shall be called son of Sara. That's a really stupid, unnecessary and obvious statement. What else would he be called, son of Susan?? Son of Sam?


Why are they telling her "son of Mary" instead of simply saying his name will be Jesus? It's because Muhammad always was obsessed with making sure he said "son of Mary" when Jesus is mentioned to make it appear as though God is making it clear to us that he was no more than the son of Mary, and not his son. He does this all over the Quran. He was so insistent about this, that he accidentally added it to some very awkward situations.

So here, we have the angels telling Mary that her son shall be called "son of Mary". If you read the sentence again, you'll see it's very awkward and actually does not work because it's telling her something redundant. Telling Mary she will have a son and telling her he will be called son of Mary is redundant, but he had to have that son of Mary in there. So it gets awkwardly inserted where it does not belong. You have to really pay attention to this guy when he speaks and really ponder it, and you'll suddenly see all sorts of mistakes that he makes that Muslims never see. It's like 63:4 or 9:30, where Muslims don't even notice that it is accidentally Muhammad wishing for something from Allah rather than Allah himself speaking.

MBL you are right. Muhammed was trying to cover up Jesus's divinity.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

He just seemed to go too far with it. Here's another very awkward insertion.

112. When the disciples said: O Isa son of Marium! will your Lord consent to send down to us food from heaven? He said: Be careful of (your duty to) Allah if you are believers.

Here it's quoting his disciples. Why would his disciples say son of Mary when that would go without saying if they thought he was a regular man?? One would not need to say son of Mary, any more than anybody would need to call Moses or any prophet "son of ......". They wouldn't say "son of Mary", they would merely say Jesus, or Christ or Lord, or Messiah or teacher. Those would all makes sense. But "son of Mary" is a bizarre, additional qualification that his disciples wouldn't have bothered to say because it would have no real significance except to state the obvious, and never did it say that all throughout the entire NT.

Again, although it would seem that Muhammad was a crafty, deceptive and clever military ruler, he made a lot of logical errors and seemed to not see where people would see through what he was saying. He never saw how awkward and implausible this was because he was so focused on getting that "son of Mary" qualification into the verse. You can clearly smell a rat.

squeak squeak

[ringmaster]

You stupid dumb fuk of an idol worshiper, 19:19-21 is a totally different event to 3:45

Dismiss yourself you desperate and hell bound idol worshiper.

(1) If somebody wants to worship idols, or anything else for that matter, I fail to see what business it is of yours.

(2) It is not a case of 2 different events. It's 2 versions of the same event from your stupid allah guy. It means that allah was too stupid to get things right the first time. But then there are lots of instances like that in the koran, which is nothing more than cheap porn.

By the way.............I am new here. I just signed up a short while ago. When I signed up I agreed to refrain from personal insults.

Is referring to somebody as a "dumb fuk" fit within forum rules? Are we not all treated equally here? Or are some "more equal" than others? Maybe the moderators want to allow muslims to show their "true colors"?

What is the policy, and how is it applied?

[zamie]

hello ringmaster, welcome to these forums. Mr bagget has been here for a long time, so we just get used to his profanity.

[ringmaster]

hello ringmaster, welcome to these forums. Mr bagget has been here for a long time, so we just get used to his profanity.

Point taken.

But my question still stands. What is the policy and how is it applied?

[ixolite]

hello ringmaster, welcome to these forums. Mr bagget has been here for a long time, so we just get used to his profanity.

Point taken.

But my question still stands. What is the policy and how is it applied?

Policy:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum_signup/
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=168

AB is currently on a little vacation sponsored by M.

[Marie]

hello ringmaster, welcome to these forums. Mr bagget has been here for a long time, so we just get used to his profanity.

Point taken.

But my question still stands. What is the policy and how is it applied?

Policy:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum_signup/
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=168

AB is currently on a little vacation sponsored by M.

AB is on vacation again. Boy he must enjoy all the time off M gives him.

[Eagle]

Why are the angels telling Mary that she will have a son and then telling her his name will be Jesus, but then also adding "son of Mary"?

While addressing the blessed Mary, the name of Jesus is qualified with the phrase "son of Mary" to tell the audience and first of all to tell Mary that he would be born without the agency of a father. This is because she will be pregnant miraculously, see her astonishement in 3:47, and therefore would be known with this name; and that Maryam would jointly share this sign with him 21:91"and made her and her son a sign for the worlds"

[Eagle]

Muhammed says the Quran reconfirms the message of the Gospel

Yes, because it is the Guardian/Muhaymin over the Revelations of the past. It is also the Criterion/Furqan and Balance/Mizan. It restores those corrupted scriptures to their pristine originality by filtering the truth still present in them

And the message of the Gospels say Jesus is the son of God

Like countless others are called sons of God in the Bible, and some are even called gods. What is your point

therefore Muhammed indirectly declares Jesus is son of God

Not directly or even indirectly. The Quran refutes various christian deviations from the baseless trinity to their excessive usage of the phrase "son of God" to Jesus 9:30 and even in a metaphorical sense to themselves 5:18 because God's mercy and guidance does not belong to a race, or group but to all. It also implies that someone might be compared in essence to God, belittling Him greatly when everything in the heavens and earth bow to His will willingly or unwillingly 3:83,19:88-95,13:15,22:18. This title is so much honor no one deserves, not the greatest prophets or angels, not anything of His creation. The greatest of the greatest creations, although honored and drawn near to Allah, are only fit to be called His slaves 19:93,21:26"And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants".

According to the Quran Jesus had the ability to create life

And both your Bible and the Quran say that it was with the will of Allah, who gave Jesus that ability and whom Jesus thanked afterwards. Jesus additionaly recognized being powerless and helpless without the One who sent him. See this from your Bible Jn17:6-8,13:3,8:28,5:30,Matt28:17-19,Mk2:10 Jesus is given everything and cannot do anything on his own Jn10:25 he does miracles in God's name and thanks God after performing miracles Jn11:40-43.
Now think of how deluded you and your people must be to worship the one who in your scriptures bowed to Allah, said he was doing Allah's will, praised Him and kept calling others to worship Him. Go there and start getting back to the right path that can only ultimately lead you to Islam http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... le&sid=109

According to Islam only Allah has the ability to create and breath life into something

There is no "only". And God has said in His Quran that He bestows from His knowledge and power whatever He wills on whomever He wills.

but in the Quran there are suras stating Jesus can create and breath life into something.

Yes and the Bible says Elisha and Elijah made many similar miracles like feeding hundreds with little food 2Kings4:44, healing 2Kings5:14,6:17-20, raise the dead 1Kings17:22,2Kings4:34, even Elisha's dead bones restored a dead body in 2 Kings 13:21. What is your point, deluded trinitarian

Besides most the stories of Jesus mentioned in the Quran were well known by different Christian sects

Yes, these "sects" that were declared such by the helenized and paganized church who were either slaughtered or forced into exile, along with the original followers of "the way" briefly mentionned in the NT that were assimilated, many of these "stories" that didnt make it into the final canon of the Bible (upon which the Protestant,Roman Catholic,Anglican,Greek Orthodox,Coptic,Ethiopic,Syriac churches disagree so they each combine different gospels,rejecting and adding things from the OT and adding to the NT), because they were deemed unnecessary to the objective of the unkown authors of the NT Jn20:30-31"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name".

[YahooChatIslam1]

(Surah 19:34 Pickthall)

Mary's delivery in Surah 19
However, in Surah 3
(Surah 3:45 Pickthall)


Here comes the question: why is this difference? Why in Surah 19 Mary was not told the simple and basic name of her son whereas in Surah 3 she was revealed even the redundant information about her son's name/s?

Any ideas?

Your main objection is why the Quran did not mention the name of Messiah in the same paragraph where the news of his birth is mentioned. -

My question is "why is that a requirement?"

Secondly, you liberally switch from referring to Surah to Ayah and to Verse in your argument. When we write Verse/Ayat number followed by the Chapter/Surah number, then the over-all reference points to a single, or a range of Verses/Ayats; not Surah/Chapters. ie 3:45 refers to an Ayat/Verse not the whole Surah. Surah 3 is correct way to reference and Surah 3:45 is wrong way to reference.

Let the reader decide for your eagle eye focus.

[Nosubmission]

Your main objection is why the Quran did not mention the name of Messiah in the same paragraph where the news of his birth is mentioned. -

This is not exactly my main objection. I only gave it as an example for the various discrepancies between the narrative of Jesus' nativity in Surah 19 and in Surah 3.

My question is "why is that a requirement?"

For the sake of the supposed consistency of your fabricated book (the Qur'an).

Secondly, you liberally switch from referring to Surah to Ayah and to Verse in your argument. When we write Verse/Ayat number followed by the Chapter/Surah number, then the over-all reference points to a single, or a range of Verses/Ayats; not Surah/Chapters. ie 3:45 refers to an Ayat/Verse not the whole Surah. Surah 3 is correct way to reference and Surah 3:45 is wrong way to reference.

This is a logical fallacy of RED HERRING! It seems that you are another ignorant Islamic troll that is unable to have an academic debate here.

[Nosubmission]

While addressing the blessed Mary, the name of Jesus is qualified with the phrase "son of Mary" to tell the audience and first of all to tell Mary that he would be born without the agency of a father. This is because she will be pregnant miraculously, see her astonishement in 3:47, and therefore would be known with this name; and that Maryam would jointly share this sign with him 21:91"and made her and her son a sign for the worlds"

A perfectly stupid answer from our featherless Eagle, the silly and ignorant Islamic troll.

In Surah 19 Mary is not told that her son will be called the Son of Mary! More to the point, was it not possible for Allah to tell Mary that her son would be born without the agency of a father without using the silly and redundant phrase "Son of Mary" for his name? Your argument is, as usual, stupid.

[YahooChatIslam1]

Your main objection is why the Quran did not mention the name of Messiah in the same paragraph where the news of his birth is mentioned. -

For the sake of the supposed consistency of your fabricated book (the Qur'an).


This is a logical fallacy of RED HERRING! It seems that you are another ignorant Islamic troll that is unable to have an academic debate here.

I have only corrected your incorrect usage of islamic terms. Can you explain how my explanation of what Surah and Ayat perpetrate Red Herring because you have not justified your accusation?

Why is the mention of Messiah's name even in close proximity of his birth relevant to the consistency of anything?

Can you manage to answer without calling me Ignorant and a Troll? Insulting the person rather than explaining points falls under Adhominem Abusive.

[Nosubmission]

I have only corrected your incorrect usage of islamic terms. Can you explain how my explanation of what Surah and Ayat perpetrate Red Herring because you have not justified your accusation?

I hope you are only pretending not to understand, for I have no time to teach people who do not know anything about logical fallacies.

Your argument is fallacious and is based on RED HERRING as it does not address any of the points stated in the article. The accusation has NOTHING to do with the correct or incorrect usage of the numerical references. I wrote Surah 3:45 because it is the VERSE that causes the problem and inconsistency in the entire Qur'an. Is it clear to you now?

Writing Surah 3:45 is NOT an Islamic term either. This is why you are correcting YOURSELF.

Why is the mention of Messiah's name even in close proximity of his birth relevant to the consistency of anything?

It is RELEVANT to the narrative of Christ's birth. One Surah says nothing about the child's name whereas the other says EVERYTHING, even in the silly and redundant form! These two narratives are not consistent. Is it really so difficult for you to understand this?

Can you manage to answer without calling me Ignorant and a Troll? Insulting the person rather than explaining points falls under Adhominem Abusive.

The way you approach this issue reveals your real aim to hijack this thread with the help of the logical fallacies you create. Only a troll would follow this strategy.

[YahooChatIslam1]

...for I have no time to teach people who do not know anything about logical fallacies.

&

Your argument is fallacious and is based on RED HERRING as it does not address any of the points stated in the article.

&

Is it clear to you now?

You have just contradicted yourself.
First statement says you have no time to teach, and in the following paragraph you spent 3 statements teaching me what exactly RED HERRING is. I won't speculate how long it took you to type 3 statements but we can be 100% sure that it did not materialise in "no time".

You accused me of RED HERRING because my correction of your incorrect Islamic terms allegedly constituted deviance from the points raised. However, the explanation itself never claimed to deal with the 'points' that you are referring to; therefore, no fallacy was perpetrated.

It is RELEVANT to the narrative of Christ's birth.

Name of the baby being relavent to the birth of the baby is as relevant as its clothes or the slap it might receive. In other words: Messiah adopting the name of Jesus has as much likelihood as him adopting Picachoo, or Santa Clause, son of Mary.

[Nosubmission]

You have just contradicted yourself.
First statement says you have no time to teach, and in the following paragraph you spent 3 statements teaching me what exactly RED HERRING is. I won't speculate how long it took you to type 3 statements but we can be 100% sure that it did not materialise in "no time".

I thought that it would be crucial to offer you some help the FIRST TIME you pretended not to understand what RED HERRING meant. I was merciful as I was not sure that you were only playing childish games here. From now on no more teaching will be given.

You accused me of RED HERRING because my correction of your incorrect Islamic terms allegedly constituted deviance from the points raised. However, the explanation itself never claimed to deal with the 'points' that you are referring to; therefore, no fallacy was perpetrated.

Thanks for explaining and confirming the fallaciousness of your argument. Since the explanation had nothing to do with the arguments, it IS proven to be a RED HERRING fallacy. You focused on the supposed mistake of the scriptural references because you failed to address any of the points raised in the article.

Name of the baby being relavent to the birth of the baby is as relevant as its clothes or the slap it might receive. In other words: Messiah adopting the name of Jesus has as much likelihood as him adopting Picachoo, or Santa Clause, son of Mary.

I cannot talk to you unless you become sober and understand what you are talking about. I did not talk about the concept of adoption. Read the article if you do not want to further make a fool of yourself.