Tariq Ramadan

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

nope, Abraham wasnt sent Hagar and Ishmael away, but sent Hagar and her baby away, as you dont hand over a man to his mother.
He was not quite a "man" yet... a teenager. A "baby" neither could nor would be held responsible for tormenting his brother. And he was not "handed over" , the FOOD was handed over.

We are told in an earlier chapter of Genesis that he was circumcised aged 13, and this was before he was sent away. (Genesis 17:25); he was about 14 years at the birth of Isaac (Genesis 16:16, 21:5, using the age of Abraham given as a rough guide)

Even if we assume that the ages given are only a rough indication, we should have no problems in agreeing that Ishmael was at the very least 10-12 years older than Isaac.

And the Samaritan were an "astray" people only in the eyes of the Southern Jews, and Jesus opposes that view. You still, it seems have not had a look at the chapter.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

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

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Eagle »

As to the samiri, when a person is given a designation ending with the letter "i" it is a known literary device aimed at creating a laqb/association, between that person and an entity, abstract or concrete such as a tribe, location, profession, mindframe or behavior.
The root s-m-r means to spend the night in conversation, with a negative connotation. This fits the Quranic context and the deceptive behavior ascribed to the samiri. See for example 23:67 where the word is used in a similar sense. Al samiri is thus associating a specific behavior to a person.
A person from Samerah is also called samiri, not because people from that location have an implicit connection with the meaning of the root but because following the arabization of the Hebrew Shomiron (Samaria in English) into Samerah, the only possible triliteral root of the word becomes s-m-r. The association of samiri with samerah in certain Quran comentaries is purely arbitrary and devoid of contextual support, while the parallel between samiri and a deceitful behavior, which happens to be the meaning of the root word as well as the description of the person in the direct context, is more proper. By speaking of the samiri, the Quran, in accordance with its self proclaimed function of being the muhaymin/guardian of the truth, is interested in exposing the reality of the golden calf incident to the Israelites that have unjustly and convolutedly blamed Aaron for it. It does so by describing the machinations that led to it, by a misleading individual that literally and in accordance with the meaning of the word, would hold conversations in the dark, away from Aaron's sight who had been given the responsibility of watching over the community in Moses' absence, casting his suggestions, spreading rumours and falsehoods until he managed to deceive a portion of people that became bold and numerous enough to confront Aaron and those with him, with the latter fearing it was too late to react forcefully against them without risking the implosion of the whole community.

The Quran makes it clear, Aaron was neither a passive and silent witness, nor the one to have fashionned the idol with his hands as in the Torah account. He was a prophet who never comitted shirk in his life 6:84-90 and who was thus part of the righteous among Moses'people 7:159. The Israelites refused listening to his repeated and persistent calls to abandon the worship of the idol and had almost slain him for that so he finally stepped back along with those opposed to the practice, fearing not only for his life but for the cohesion of a community under his responsibility, that had just been forcibly pulled out of the crooked path of idolatry 20:99"Thus do We relate to you (some) of the news of what has gone before; and indeed We have given to you a Reminder from Ourselves".

The convolution in the biblical account account starts after the event, when it says those that sinned during the incident were never forgiven and consequently killed yet it is claimed that Aaron wasnt. Besides this, it is also stated that he was given the charge of the sanctuary and the office of priesthood Numbers18 yet he was the one, together with the foreigners among them, that allegedly made the calf that the idolaters requested. Talmudic scholars explain this by attributing his participation in the incident to his peace-loving character, constructing the idol in order to prevent dissension among the people and attempting to gain time until Moses' return. Why would anyone, let alone a prophet of God, think that reintroducing idol worship to a comunity that was in the process of abandonning it and whose hearts were deeply imbued with it, is a lesser harm than causing a seperation between those prone to goodness (the vast majority according to the Bible) who would thus be clearly and unambiguously guided, and the guilty (a mere 1% of the whole) that persit in their wrongdoings despite all they had witnessed until now? This carried the risk of sinking the whole comunity back into idol worship.

God then followed by making a clear seperation between those that had nothing to do with the sin, and those that had any kind of involvement in it, whether directly or indirectly. Since those that had actively taken part in the sin were already dead, the remaining silent witnesses were struck with a divine calamity Ex32:30-35 (Again Aaron survives the divine wrath despite being the very builder of the idol).

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

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Eagle »

Garudaman wrote: nope, Abraham wasnt sent Hagar and Ishmael away, but sent Hagar and her baby away, as you dont hand over a man to his mother.
Sure.

What the text says is Abraham accepted Sarah's request and sent Hagar with his firstborn Ishmael, food and water all on her shoulders "and he took bread and a leather pouch of water, and he gave [them] to Hagar, he placed [them] on her shoulder, and the child, and he sent her away; and she went and wandered in the desert of Beer sheba".

As is clear in the wording of the verse and as understood in traditional Jewish interpretation, all elements mentionned are placed upon Hagar, including a 15-16 years old Ishmael, with the reason given in those same traditional commentaries that Hagar's carrying of her child along with her food and water reserves was due to Ishmael being incapacitated by Sarah's evil eye cast upon him Gen. Rabbah 53:13. When the meager means of subsistence tarried, and because of the debilitating sickness, Hagar "cast the child under one of the bushes". She couldnt bare to "see the death of the child". There is obviously no reason to assume that a healthy supposedly 16 year old teenager's life would be threatened by lethal dehydration that fast, faster than his mother.

Unable to weave out from the inconsistencies of their corrupt story, the rabbinic commentator painted themselves into a corner, forced to cast even Sarah whom they revere as superior to Abraham in terms of revelational experience (exod. rabb. 1:1 tan. shem. 1) into a bad light, invoking some evil occult science to cause Ishmael to become severely ill and unable to walk. Eventually "God heard the voice of the lad" and told Hagar to "Rise, pick up the lad and grasp your hand upon him".
All these are obviously not the description of a 15-16 year old teenager but of an INFANT. The whole story is that of Hagar desparately fearing that her infant baby would die. Isaac wouldn't even have been born at the time for the incident that is alleged to have happened in verse 12. If the incident was related to Isaac being born, Ishmael would NOT have been an infant at the time he was cast out. It should also be noted that Beersheba was a place well known to her, Ibrahim having lived there with her for long. Waterwells were dug all throughout the region and even by Ibrahim. All these could not have been unknown to Hagar. She could therefore have obtained further water, after a little search, from any of the many wells in the area. And yet she is depicted as desperately wandering in search of water to no avail, to the point she cast the child under one of the shrubs until "God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water". It is worthwile noting here yet another attempt at character assassination by the scribes, in their comentaries and oral tradition as quoted by Rashi, in order to minimize to the utmost any positive reference to Ishmael, where they quote the angels themselves protesting God's revealing of the well's location to Hagar.

Further, the essence of the order of banishment per the Torah was to have only Isaac as Abraham's heir, while Ismail and his descendants should settle in and populate another land. How then could they have been settled in any place in an area much then within the sphere of Ibrahim’s and Sarah’s activities? Hagar and Ismail could only have been, and were indeed consigned to an unknown, far-away and unsettled land. The Paran mentioned in the Genesis as their domicile could not simply have been any Paran in and around Beerseba and Sinai.

The claim that Ishmael and Hagar were cast into Paran as a result of some wife jealousy is patently false, and as the Quran states, Ishmael was re-located by the command of God for a particular purpose, by Abraham, and neither were there conflicts between the wives or the brothers who are even depicted as attending their father's funeral together Gen25:9. This means, and just as the Quran states, there were frequent trips throughout the years between the 2 locations, involving at least Abraham as per the Quran, and implicitly Ishmael as per the Tanakh since he was aware of his father's condition.

Abraham in addition, would never commit an act so be-smearing of any sensitive person. People dont just send their other wife and child into the midst of the wilderness to end the bickering of their wives. If this was the case, Abraham would have simply let Hagar and Ishmael reside in some tent in a nice place and not the desert wilderness, where they were to suffer from extreme thirst to the point the infant child was on the verge of death.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

The root s-m-r means to spend the night in conversation, with a negative connotation.
:lotpot:

"rooting around" like Mughal.... Like all Muslims, when there Qur'an writes nonsense, you just help it along and correct it...

If you read the early Tafir of the passage it is abundantly clear the text means a Samaritan, a person from Samaria, plain and simple. Only when later Jewish and Christian commentators pointed out that this is plain nonsense, Muslims came up with the excuses like yours.

The word has no double meaning at all. It simply is a Samaritan, a man from Samaria. It is as such that the text has been understood from the start. All the rest are inventions by Arabs to hide the truth, that this passage is simply nonsense.

I already explained how the confusion in the Qur'an came about: Hosea, speaking of a much later time, mentions a calf image being worshipped in Samaria. This was confused with the calf mentioned in Exodus, relating to the time of Moses. Technically it is the same type of silly error as Mary, the sister of Aaron, being the mother of Jesus.

As to the age of Ishmael when he and his mother was sent away, the biblical texts allow us to work that out, at least roughly, and as I have shown, he was in his early teens. We had this discussion many times before.
and he took bread and a leather pouch of water, and he gave [them] to Hagar, he placed [them] on her shoulder, and the child, and he sent her away; and she went and wandered in the desert of Beer sheba
Grammatically, you are linking "and the child "to the wrong noun, because the word order is a bit relaxed here. It means the food and water was given to Hagar and the child, and she put it (the food and water) on her shoulder, and Ishmael carried some too. Then they both , Hagar and her son, went away. So the food and water for for Hagar AND the child. Your interpretation suggests that the food was only for her and she carried her 12 to 14 year old son on her shoulders, alongside with food and water. This is inconsistent with the rest of the story.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Centaur
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Centaur »

Even according to Islamic sources Mohammed was all ears and believed in any story anyone told him, which later made its way into koran as revelation :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCe9B5E4bPc
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
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

manfred wrote:He was not quite a "man" yet... a teenager. A "baby" neither could nor would be held responsible for tormenting his brother. And he was not "handed over", the FOOD was handed over.
a teenager who cant be responsible, as the verse only said, sent her away, not sent Hagar & Ishmael away or sent them away : http://www.sabda.org/sabdaweb/bible/cha ... e=clearsky" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
manfred wrote:We are told in an earlier chapter of Genesis that he was circumcised aged 13, and this was before he was sent away.
what he was sent away? there's no he/Ishmael was sent away, only her/Hagar was sent away! http://www.sabda.org/sabdaweb/bible/cha ... e=clearsky" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
manfred wrote:And the Samaritan were an "astray" people only in the eyes of the Southern Jews, and Jesus opposes that view. You still, it seems have not had a look at the chapter.
Jesus not opposed it, Jesus agree with it (John 4:20 & John 4:22)! & you cant contradict apple (know the meaning of neighbour) with orange (know how to worship)!

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

Centaur wrote:Even according to Islamic sources Mohammed was all ears and believed in any story anyone told him, which later made its way into koran as revelation :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCe9B5E4bPc
Dhul-Qarnayn are Cyrus the Great, & you didnt really know whether the 7 sleepers story is historical or myth as you didnt live since that time, & Paul suggested celibate while Jesus suggested marriage.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

Dhul-Qarnayn are Cyrus the Great, & you didnt really know whether the 7 sleepers story is historical or myth as you didnt live since that time, & Paul suggested celibate while Jesus suggested marriage.
Some Muslims say Cyrus, some Alexander the Great... Alexander was in fact the general consensus amongst Muslims, until some Western Scholars found that quite amusing....

As the name means the horned one, and Alexander the Great is depicted on coins wearing a rams horn head-dress, and as Alexander travelled far and wide, to me that is more likely anyway.

Neither of the two was a Muslim, or a Christian or Jew. And the tale of the muddy pool really deserves a topic of its own. What we do know about the story of the sleepers is that is a hellenistic (i.e. late classical Greek) story found in the so-called "Romances of Alexander", a collection of fanciful stories mostly from a period some 550 years after the death of Alexander, and 200 years before Mohammed. They formed part of the folk tales in the Middle East for hundreds of years, in some parts, such as Syria, still to today., and they were widely known in Europe too at least until about 1500.

The stories were treated from their beginnings like a collection of fairy-tales, and it would be as weird suggesting they are historical, as saying there once lived a real Red Riding Hood.

So how did this end up as part of the Qur'an, a pagan Greek fairy tale? Clearly old Mo never checked hos sources....
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Fernando »

Thanks for that, Manfred. I got at least a smattering of classical stories when I was young and worry that today's children will learn little of them (or indeed of traditional tales). I don't know whether I'm worrying unduly, though.
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

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

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Eagle »

Dhul Qarnayn's story is that of a mighty King-Prophet, most probably Cyrus the persian (according to scholars citing the prophecy of Daniel in which the king of the Medes and Persians is interpreted as the two-horned ram), known for his high morality even among his enemies, a monotheist who freed the ISraelites from their Babylonian captivity, authorizing their return to Jerusalem and rebuilding of the Temple, who despite his monumental achievements and conquests remained humble and attributed his "being established in the land" to God's mercy, just like the prophet King Solomon and other righteous and great humans attributed their wisdom, spiritual uprightness, powers and other wordly advantages to God.

The story also speaks about the limitations man can achieve in dominion. Dhul Qarnayn, despite being a noble and pious person and being blessed by God in his dominion, was also limited in the extent of his conquests. In one conquest, he was halted by a geographical limitation, that of an abundance of water/aynin. In another conquest, he came across a people who could not understand the communciations of the King nor could they speak to him. His dominion in this area was essentially useless, despite him having power over the people.

As far as Gog and Magog, Dhul Qarnayn could only establish a barrier to prevent their assaults ie he could not maintain an army in that region, and that barrier too, as Dhul Qarnayn pointed out, would ultimately collapse despite being built with the most formidable of materials.

Nothing in the above general facts, much less the intricate ones that none of the dwellers of this place can appreciate, are found in any of the so called sources mentioned by the above poster.

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

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Eagle »

As to the historicity of the story of the sleeping believers, it is a highly revered and respected Christian tradition known, among other titles as the seven youths of Ephesis, whose miraculous events are believed to have started under the reign of the Roman emperor Decius that persecuted all beliefs contrary to the polytheistic Greek state religion. The earliest manuscripts relating the story are Greek but the tradition itself predates them and was widespread geographically very early on after the actual events. Upon their refusal to accept pagan deities, they were forced to go into hiding, into a cave, where they remained in prayer, awaiting their eventual martyrdom. However when the Roman authorities discovered their whereabouts, they decided to seal the cave's entrance to cause them to die from hunger and thirst. This is where the miraculous events begin, with God preserving their bodies by causing them to fall into a several centuries long sleep. When they were awaken by the then land owner who had openned the cave's entrance, and that the population as well as the new leadership that had now accepted Christianity as the new state religion, discovered their true identity, the miracle was exposed to all and conveniently served the purpose of settling the dispute people were having at the time concerning the concept of bodily resurrection. After their death they were raised to sainthood and the power of intercession was attributed to them.

The Jacobites Christians of Najran celebrated them yearly, with some church paintings representing them with a dog. Up to this day, the Orthodox Church commemorates them twice yearly. Their historicity was never officially doubted until the 16th century that saw the rise of Protestantism and the period of Enlightement, and the first to voice doubts regarding it was actually a Renaisance scholar and cardinal, branding it as apocryphal.

Where the Quran account departs from Christian tradition is regarding their theological derivations and some factual details. The Quran denies the intercession powers attributed to them, through their declaration of God's supreme power and unity. The Quran also teaches through them the universal principle that in some cases, unnecessary attention given to side issues deviates the focus from the deeper meaning of things and more important, pressing and immidiate problems; for example when raised, some among them began guessing and disputing the time-span of their sleep, while others knew for a fact that only God posesses this knowledge, relied on Him and began instead organizing the manner in which their immidiate needs and problems should be solved. Similarily, as the townfolk discovered the truth some began going after the unnecessary details of the sleepers' identity, the various facts surrounding them, the length of time they spent in the cave instead of ackowledging God's all encompassing knowledge and pondering on the deeper significance of the miracle 18:26"Say: Allah knows best how long they remained; to Him are (known) the unseen things of the heavens and the earth; how clear His sight and how clear His hearing! There is none to be a guardian for them besides Him, and He does not make any one His associate in His Judgment".

Among all saints of Christianity, had they not been mentionned, none would have known them in Islam, but God rehabilited them as heroes of spiritual integrity, insisting and puting great emphasis that 18:13"We relate to you their story bil haqq/with truth/purpose/rightfully". The word covers that God takes back all rights to telling their story, it isnt the prerogative of the Christians and their false conjectures anymore. And by rehabilating their truth, restores the purpose of God's miracle through them and how they benefited themselves from it.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

As far as Gog and Magog, Dhul Qarnayn could only establish a barrier to prevent their assaults ie he could not maintain an army in that region, and that barrier too, as Dhul Qarnayn pointed out, would ultimately collapse despite being built with the most formidable of materials.
... and despite every square inch of the planet having been photographed by google earth, this "barrier" has not been found... And the Gog and Magog story of the Qur'an very closely matches the one found in the Alexander Romance, providing good evidence that this Dhul Qarnayn was originally Alexander.
As to the historicity of the story of the sleeping believers, it is a highly revered and respected Christian tradition ...
Their historicity was never officially doubted
Again, false. the story of the sleepers is part of the Alexander romance which is not a Christian text... however, it is it true that there is also a later re-write of the story, the youths of Ephesus, as you mention, with a religious twist, something the original version is lacking.

So, some Christians took and old story and gave it a religious meaning, that does not suddenly make that old tale historical fact. The early church included in into the the GOLDEN LEGEND compendium, which means the story was seen as something edifying but not factual. This text dates from 478 AD, and was compiled under the orders of emperor Theodosius. So certainly when the church was still one, and "orthodox" and "catholic" were applied to all Christianity, there was no doubt at all as to what this story was.

Finally while the old tale is at times still repeated in the Orthodox church (not in the Latin church), there is no requirement to believe that this story is historical, and few in fact do. It is told to speak of another message: the church grows stronger through persecution.


But then came the 6th century Arab retard, who thought it was fact... Well, are you surprised people laughed at him?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

manfred wrote:As the name means the horned one, and Alexander the Great is depicted on coins wearing a rams horn head-dress, and as Alexander travelled far and wide, to me that is more likely anyway.
Cyrus the Great too : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the ... _the_Quran" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
manfred wrote:The stories were treated from their beginnings like a collection of fairy-tales, and it would be as weird suggesting they are historical, as saying there once lived a real Red Riding Hood.

as saying that the King Arthur are historical http://www.kingarthursknights.com/arthur/historical.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , thats the correct analogy.

;)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

Garudaman, the "cyrus" idea is a very new one, proposed mostly because the original identification causes a number of difficulties for Islam...

The story of Gog and Magog in the Qur'an matches a passage in the Alexander Romance so well, that it is obviously the source for the Qur'anic text. But there us no "Cyrus" in that, it about Alexander. Then we have the coins with Alexander and the two horns, and we know that for almost all of Islamic history Muslims identified Dhul Qarnayn...

But even if you wish to persist with this Cyrus story, for which we have really very little evidence, the fundamental problem remains. Why is Allah re-telling an old pagan fairy tale?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

lol, the question is wrong, we have no evidence that its really a fairy tale, i mean can you tell me that King Arthur are really fairy-tale figure?

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

So Garudaman, do you believe in in dragons, witches, wizards and such? Surely not. Why not? Because you know they belong to a fantasy world. The Arthur story is full of that, so surely we agree that it cannot be a historical account.

So was there a real "king Arthur", but the stories about him are not? Well, we have no evidence that there was such a king. All we do have are references from much later times.

However, record keeping in early post-Roman Britain was was shocking at first, and only with the large scale arrival of monasteries this got better.

So COULD there have been a "king Arthur"... ? Maybe, but doubtful. We know nothing reliable about him.

The character of the Legend of Arthur, with Merlin, Guinevere, Lancelot and Morgana and the Round table is entirely fictional.

Finally, please show me a google picture of the barrier of Gog and Magog. You say it is real, so show me.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

manfred wrote:The character of the Legend of Arthur, with Merlin, Guinevere, Lancelot and Morgana and the Round table is entirely fictional.
wiki wrote:King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against Saxon invaders in the late 5th and early 6th centuries.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

LOL, a medieval "history" is a STORY BOOK. That is what people called a story collection in the middle ages. And does wiki not say "legendary leader"? And what about the word "romances"?

OK you made me laugh, but forgive me if that was rude.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

then what about your Bible?
Spoiler! :
Mary still didnt know that Jesus is Son of God even after his several miracles (read also the previous verses) :

Mark 3 (NIV) :
Jesus Accused by His Family and by Teachers of the Law
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”


Mary already know that Jesus is Son of God even before his first miracle :

John 2 (NIV) :
On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” 4 “Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” 6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. 8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.” 11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

The bible is a collection of texts that have lots of authors, and the oldest is 1000 years older than the youngest. It has all kinds of material in it, songs, stories, legends, but also historical accounts. The key to understanding it is to know which is what kind of text.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Post Reply