MAKKAH - NOT "MECCA" - Al-Jamiat vol.3 no.10
Jamiat
MAKKAH - NOT "MECCA"
It is increasingly being observed with a degree of concern that all kinds of
businesses are (mis-)using the name "Mecca". "Motor-Mecca", "The Mecca
Group", etc.
It should be respectfully pointed out to such persons that the use of the
word "Mecca" to name their businesses is regarded as offensive to Muslims. A
billion and a half Muslims, the world over, hold this holy city in the
highest regard and veneration. To desecrate the name of this holy city by
abusing it in this fashion is not acceptable.
Protests
On an international level, Muslims are offended by this practice. Recently,
The British Rank Corporation which owns a chain of gambling and
entertainment shops under the name of "Mecca", removed the name from its
shop fronts as a result of protests from British Muslims. Muslims of Luton
in the UK had protested against the defamatory use of the name of this holy
city.
It must be noted, that Saudi Arabia had officially changed the spelling of
the name of this city to "Makkah" a few years ago due to the derogatory
usage of the word by the Western media and Western authors.
In most cases it is done out of ignorance, not deliberately. If pointed out
politely but firmly, most companies respond favourably by changing the name.
Muslims should also be encouraged to adopt the proper spelling of Makkah,
rather than the old, incorrect "mecca" version. Madinah should rather be
spelt as Madinah rather than being spelt as "medina". Principals and
educators of educational institutions such as Madrasahs, Islamic Schools,
academies, Muslim writers, authors, researchers, scholars are to be
encouraged to use the correct spelling.
Muslims have a duty to be vigilant and decisive in acting against anything
that may be deemed sacrilegious, blasphemous or disrespectful to Islam or
Muslims all over the world. Every town, city, province, country should have
a dedicated and committed group of people to fulfil this important
"watch-dog" role for the sake of the Ummah and Islam.
Mufti Zubair Bayat
http://www.jamiat.org.za/v310makkah.html
ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: in...@jamiat.org.za
GF Haddad
[although this message was cross-posted, I am replying only on SRI]
Jamiat wrote in message <7h80ov$cri$1...@waltz.rahul.net>...
>http://www.jamiat.org.za/v310makkah.html
>
>MAKKAH - NOT "MECCA"
>It must be noted, that Saudi Arabia had officially changed the
spelling of
>the name of this city to "Makkah" a few years ago due to the
derogatory
>usage of the word by the Western media and Western authors.
....
>Muslims should also be encouraged to adopt the proper spelling of
Makkah,
>rather than the old, incorrect "mecca" version. Madinah should
rather be
>spelt as Madinah rather than being spelt as "medina". Principals and
>educators of educational institutions such as Madrasahs, Islamic
Schools,
>academies, Muslim writers, authors, researchers, scholars are to be
>encouraged to use the correct spelling.
Respected Mufti:
Today spelling, tomorrow meaning. With due respect, Saudi Arabia is
entitled to dictate neither spelling nor meaning for English
translations of Arabic words.
As a long-time translator of the meanings of Qur'an and hadith from
Arabic into English, I consider it Haram for myself to follow
other than what I am convinced is the best and most appropriate
English rendering -- including spelling -- for what I am duty-bound
to translate faithfully.
In my view Saudi Arabia, even in their own publications, is not
entitled to alter English spellings or meanings except according to
the rules of the English language and in full conformity with the
best usage in translation and transliteration. Do they like that
Allah and His Prophet be given the lie?
Look how much care was taken by translators of the meanings of the
Holy Qur'an such as M.M. Pickthall, Ghulam Sarwar, and M. Yusuf Ali.
But the Saudi translation of the meanings of the Qur'an, which I
obtained this year upon returning from Hajj, is a lamentable text
which would not pass the criteria of Freshman Composition in most
colleges, from the perspective of style alone. By Allah, I believe
that Arberry served Islam and Muslims better with his! We belong to
Allah and to Him is our return.
A translation *or fatwa in translation* in Islam is unacceptable
until it can stand on its own two feet as a text that is both: (1)
accurate and (2) grammatically and stylistically correct in itself.
For the Qur'an and Sunna, criteria are even higher, as these two
sources flow according to the highest standards in the Arabic
language. So we have to look for the highest standards in the target
language, not work randomly like one who gathers wood at night. Do
they like that Allah and His Prophet be given the lie?
As for Mecca/Makkah, Medina/Madinah, Qur'an/Koran, Moslem/Muslim,
Necmettin/Najm al-Din, kebob/kabab it is on the whole indifferent and
a ruse of shaytan to get us busy with what is of little concern.
There are far more important issues on the table and the issue is
usage in the first place, not spelling.
However, I agree with the other issue that whatever a Muslim
community considers offensive and/or harmful it is right and just
that they should strive to have it eliminated according to the duties
and conditions of ordering good and prohibiting evil. Now most Saudi
ulamas have declared smoking Haram as it damages health and
constitutes a public hazard -- due to secondary smoking -- as well as
squandering (israf). So I am asking that Saudi Arabia declare smoking
illicit in public places in the Kingdom, or at least in the two
Sanctuaries, and enforce this ban. When we reform what is in our
midst, we can reform others also. And Allah knows best, from Him is
all success.
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
jk...@math.gatech.edu
"GF Haddad" <Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> writes:
> In my view Saudi Arabia, even in their own publications, is not
> entitled to alter English spellings or meanings except according to
> the rules of the English language and in full conformity with the
> best usage in translation and transliteration. Do they like that
> Allah and His Prophet be given the lie?
Sadly, it happens rather regularly. I don't care much for spellings,
as there are different ways words can be transliterated and still be
recognizable. There is to this day no "standardized" transliteration
of the Qur'an on the web. There is one transliteration on the web
today but a year ago there was another one which has disappeared,
which had a quite different scheme. And a third one I have in
book form...
But I certainly care about the changes in meaning which are sometimes
introduced by the translator to divert the reader from problems in
the content of the text. I have started to collect some of these
(and I have many more filed but need more time to transfer them
into a presentable article for the web) at
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/
> Look how much care was taken by translators of the meanings of the
> Holy Qur'an such as M.M. Pickthall, Ghulam Sarwar, and M. Yusuf Ali.
Even though they are reasonably good, in particular Yusuf Ali is
guilty of some major twistings. Pickthall seems to be much more
reliable. It certainly helps to check translations against each
other.
> But the Saudi translation of the meanings of the Qur'an, which I
> obtained this year upon returning from Hajj, is a lamentable text
> which would not pass the criteria of Freshman Composition in most
> colleges, from the perspective of style alone.
Are you refering to Hilali and Khan? Or is there another Saudi
translation? I would agree, Hilali/Khan is one botched up
translation. Twisting at every corner. Sometimes more
interpolation than translation. However, its conservative
stance can serve at times to counterbalance some too liberal
translations of reform Muslims. One just has to realize that
at times, translators have agendas. Sometimes a neutral outsider
can do a better job than one embroiled in interfaith controversies
which has colored so much of Yusuf Ali's commentary and at times
also translations.
> By Allah, I believe
> that Arberry served Islam and Muslims better with his! We belong to
> Allah and to Him is our return.
I am glad for an honest Muslim evaluation and recommendation of
a non-Muslim translator. It is rare. Too many look for the religion
of the translator more than for his scholarship and qualification
in the translation.
> A translation *or fatwa in translation* in Islam is unacceptable
> until it can stand on its own two feet as a text that is both: (1)
> accurate and (2) grammatically and stylistically correct in itself.
Amen. But that is not just for Islam. I would hope that these
criteria will be important for any translator. And I would wish
Muslim would give the same care when they render Biblical texts
in their writings.
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
Pen1418hj
>at times, translators have agendas.
Really? Gosh, Golly, Gee! What ever could these agendas be?
>Sometimes a neutral outsider
>can do a better job than one embroiled in interfaith controversies
Hmmm....
If so, this would certainly render your own assessment of accuracy null and
void, my dear fellow. In America, we may refer to these moments as "tasting
foot sandwich."
pen1418hj
Alburhaan
From: "Jamiat" <in...@jamiat.org.za>
>It should be respectfully pointed out to such persons that the use
>of the word "Mecca" to name their businesses is regarded as
> offensive to Muslims.
Why? When you call any crowded place a Mecca in English you promote its
poularity. I think Muslims should be proud that their holy city is looked at as
a true focal point for hijjaj from all over the world and prayers from all over
the world. Having foreigners compare any focal or gathering point to Mecca
should be something that pleases us, not offend us, mufti.
sv...@hotmail.com
jk...@math.gatech.edu wrote:
> In article <7hctid$dug$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
> "GF Haddad" <Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> writes:
>
>> In my view Saudi Arabia, even in their own publications,
>> is not entitled to alter English spellings or meanings except
>> according to the rules of the English language and in full
>> conformity with the best usage in translation and
>> transliteration. Do they like that Allah and His Prophet be
>> given the lie?
JK
> But I certainly care about the changes in meaning which are
> sometimes introduced by the translator to divert the reader
> from problems in the content of the text. I have started to
> collect some of these (and I have many more filed but need
> more time to transfer them into a presentable article for
> the web) at
>
> http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/
SV
It is for this sort of thing that you have such little
credibilty. It is for this sort of thing that hardly anyone
who observes your behaviour believes you when you say you
have some interest in the truth. You will always come as close
to deception as you think you can get away with and the above
is a good example. To call differring translations based on
the same text, "versions" is wrong.
The different Bible versions are versions for two reasons.
One: That is what Christians themselves call them;
King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New
Revised Standard Version, etc.
Two: These different versions are not necessarily based on
on the same texts. For example, the RSV is based on
texts different than the KJV. Not to mention different
versions might contain different books to reflect the
particular Church they represent.
The situation is different for the Quran and no Muslim refers
to different translations as versions. To use the word
"version" is to lower the Quranic text to the level of the
Biblical text which is wrong, though probably your purpose.
I suppose the book of Rashid Khalifa might be considered a
"version" of the Quran but that is really too minor a point
to consider. Much like the sect of Christians who refuse
to refer to anything besides the King James Version and
consider other versions corrupt.
This is in itself is not a great issue but I use it as an
example of your behaviour which causes many if not most
readers of SRI to have little respect for you.
>> Look how much care was taken by translators of the meanings
>> of the Holy Qur'an such as M.M. Pickthall, Ghulam Sarwar,
>> and M. Yusuf Ali.
JK
> Even though they are reasonably good, in particular Yusuf
> Ali is guilty of some major twistings. Pickthall seems to
> be much more reliable. It certainly helps to check
> translations against each other.
SV
I would agree with that. If you are going to make a case
based on the Quran it is best to know Arabic, but if you
don't, check several different translations to get a better
view.
JK
> One just has to realize that at times, translators have
> agendas. Sometimes a neutral outsider can do a better job
> than one embroiled in interfaith controversies which has
> colored so much of Yusuf Ali's commentary and at times
> also translations.
SV
You admit that different translators insert there own
thoughts into the text. I agree that this is unavoidable.
So, let me ask you, what language did Jesus(pbuh) speak?
Was it Koine Greek, the language on which most of the
present versions of the Bible are based? No. So you
recognise that the text contains the thinking of the
translators. The earliest Christians were "embroiled in
interfaith controversies" with different groups and
so-called heretical sect. The text that we have comes from
people who were not far removed from worshipping many gods.
People who saw Zeus as the Father of all gods. People
whose favorite god was Hercules, who was the son of Zeus,
and came to earth to perform many great feats, die and then
return to his Father. Could these beliefs have tainted the
view of those who translated and interpreted the Gospels?
Well, let us consider the very name "Jesus". It is found
throughout the Torah as "Y'eshu" and is translated in all
English Bibles as "Joshua". How come the name "Y'eshu",
translated throught the Bible as "Joshua" is translated as
"Jesus" when it refers to the Messiah?
One possible explanation: "Jesus" comes from the Greek
Iesous (EE-YAY-ZOOS). which literally means "Zeus is
Salvation". The Roman Christians happened to favor a literal
"Son of God" in the style of Hercules and Zeus and since
they are the ones upon whose backs Christianity rose to
power, their views, mixed with Jewish views about the "sons
of god", became established as "fact".
Ask yourself; why is "Y'eshu" translated as "Joshua" in all
cases except the Messiah, in whose case it is translated
as "Jesus"?
As soon as you admit that translation is also interpretation
you will understand that the NT is not quite what Jesus(pbuh)
was saying.
>> By Allah, I believe that Arberry served Islam and Muslims
>> better with his! We belong to Allah and to Him is our
>> return.
JK
> I am glad for an honest Muslim evaluation and recommendation
> of a non-Muslim translator. It is rare. Too many look for
> the religion of the translator more than for his scholarship
> and qualification in the translation.
SV
A translation of the Bible by a Muslim would certainly be
viewed with much suspicion among Christians. Does it surprise
anyone that translations of the Quran by Christians, some of
whom were openly hostile toward Muhammad(pbuh), are not
usually recommended by Muslims?
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
jk...@math.gatech.edu
sv...@hotmail.com writes:
GF HADDAD
> >> In my view Saudi Arabia, even in their own publications,
> >> is not entitled to alter English spellings or meanings except
> >> according to the rules of the English language and in full
> >> conformity with the best usage in translation and
> >> transliteration. Do they like that Allah and His Prophet be
> >> given the lie?
> JK
> > But I certainly care about the changes in meaning which are
> > sometimes introduced by the translator to divert the reader
> > from problems in the content of the text. I have started to
> > collect some of these (and I have many more filed but need
> > more time to transfer them into a presentable article for
> > the web) at
> > http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/
> SV
> It is for this sort of thing that you have such little
> credibilty. It is for this sort of thing that hardly anyone
> who observes your behaviour believes you when you say you
> have some interest in the truth. You will always come as close
> to deception as you think you can get away with and the above
> is a good example. To call differring translations based on
> the same text, "versions" is wrong.
My, my, the ad hominem again, without knowing what we are
talking about. Why do you think that T.B.Irving calls his
Qur'an translation "First American Version"
( http://www.islam-usa.com/quran.htm ) ??
This Muslim translator obviously thinks more like I do than
like you do. Fact is that Christians have used it in this
meaning for many decades and your claim to the contrary
won't change the way it is used by Christians. Yes, there are
also issues of which Greek text to make the basis of the
translation (textual criticism issues) and the issue of
which books are canonical (differences between Catholics
and Protestants mainly) but that is NOT the reason the
word "version" is part of the names. It means nothing else
but "version of translation", not "version of original text
it is translated from". The CEV = Contemporary English
Version, the NRSV = New Revised Standard Version, the NIV =
New International Version, NASV = New American Standard
Version (or NASB = New American Standard Bible, people use
both names) etc. etc. are all based on the very same Greek
text. THIS is the usage and has always been the meaning of
this word in Christian terminology. And I am going to use
it the same way for versions of Qur'an translations.
> The different Bible versions are versions for two reasons.
> One: That is what Christians themselves call them;
> King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New
> Revised Standard Version, etc.
Yes, but the question is WHY do they call it "versions"
and what do they mean by it? I have no problem calling
them with this name, the problem is that you take the
name and try to fill it with your own different meaning.
THAT is a very common Muslim dishonesty in this discussion.
Maybe you just parrotted the arguments, maybe you didn't
know better, but now you know and I hope you adjust your
silly outrage to conform to the truth.
> Two: These different versions are not necessarily based on
> on the same texts. For example, the RSV is based on
> texts different than the KJV. Not to mention different
> versions might contain different books to reflect the
> particular Church they represent.
Yes, textual criticism has made progress and we have today
a better text than was available in 1600 when the KJV was
translated. So, the text is indeed slightly different.
However, that is NOT the reason for the word "version".
That is where the Muslim deceptive argument comes in.
> The situation is different for the Quran and no Muslim refers
> to different translations as versions.
Wrong, see above.
> To use the word
> "version" is to lower the Quranic text to the level of the
> Biblical text which is wrong, though probably your purpose.
I never ever attempted to raise the Quranic text to the
level of the word of God. You mis-spoke badly. I only
correctly use American English terminology.
> I suppose the book of Rashid Khalifa might be considered a
> "version" of the Quran but that is really too minor a point
> to consider.
Why? Yes, it is also a version, because it is a different
translation. In addition, it has a different Arabic text,
because it deletes two verses. But that is not the reason
to call it a Quran (translation) version.
> This is in itself is not a great issue but I use it as an
> example of your behaviour which causes many if not most
> readers of SRI to have little respect for you.
And you think they should give respect to you based on
the ignorance displayed in this response?
> JK
> > Even though they are reasonably good, in particular Yusuf
> > Ali is guilty of some major twistings. Pickthall seems to
> > be much more reliable. It certainly helps to check
> > translations against each other.
>
> SV
> I would agree with that. If you are going to make a case
> based on the Quran it is best to know Arabic, but if you
> don't, check several different translations to get a better
> view.
I wanted to leave this in, because it is good to realize
that we do agree on some things. However, I don't see you
make much arguments based on the Arabic, but instead you
are very fond of quoting Sher Ali's translation (or some
similar other Ahmadiyya translations/versions) which are
also doing some major twisting in various verses. See my
other posting a couple of days ago.
> JK
> > One just has to realize that at times, translators have
> > agendas. Sometimes a neutral outsider can do a better job
> > than one embroiled in interfaith controversies which has
> > colored so much of Yusuf Ali's commentary and at times
> > also translations.
>
> SV
> You admit that different translators insert there own
> thoughts into the text. I agree that this is unavoidable.
However, there are honest scholarly translations (not
without bias, but with minimum of it) and there are propaganda
translations which are produced to push a certain theology.
On the Bible side, there is the Jehovah's witnesses "New World
Translation" which is atrocious when you look at it from a
scholarly viewpoint in some passages, but it was produced to
support JW teachings. Similarly, Sher Ali as some verses with
rather wierd translations not supported by the Arabic, but it
was done to support Ahmadiyya theology.
I think Pickthall is not perfect, but it seems to have been
done without theological/sectarian bias.
> So, let me ask you, what language did Jesus(pbuh) speak?
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek most probably. See
http://answering-islam.org/Bible/nt-languages.html
> Was it Koine Greek, the language on which most of the
> present versions of the Bible are based? No.
On what do you base your "No."?
> So you
> recognise that the text contains the thinking of the
> translators.
Mark, John, Luke, Paul were not "translators" they were
authors. Major difference. And they were guided by the
Holy Spirit which makes all the difference.
> The earliest Christians were "embroiled in
> interfaith controversies" with different groups and
> so-called heretical sect. The text that we have comes from
> people who were not far removed from worshipping many gods.
Complete nonsense. Apart from Luke, all the books of the NT
are written by people with orthodox Jewish background.
> People who saw Zeus as the Father of all gods.
Nonsense.
> People
> whose favorite god was Hercules, who was the son of Zeus,
> and came to earth to perform many great feats, die and then
> return to his Father. Could these beliefs have tainted the
> view of those who translated and interpreted the Gospels?
No NT scholar promotes this. You are 100 years behind in
scholarship. The "Religionsgeschichte" school is long dead.
But it was modern at the time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and so
his followers do not get tired to repeat it as if it were
an inspired opinion. Give me one reputable academic journal
of NT studies which publishes anything that close to your
claims currently. And then let me know how many of the
academic community (who mostly are unbelievers) agree with
this theory. The unbelieving academia doesn't accept this
anymore. It was a fad that had its high point about 100 years
ago and lasted to the early part of this century but it is
without foundation and abandoned today by all but the
infidels.org and Muslims who are out of touch with scholarship.
> Well, let us consider the very name "Jesus". It is found
> throughout the Torah as "Y'eshu" and is translated in all
> English Bibles as "Joshua". How come the name "Y'eshu",
> translated throught the Bible as "Joshua" is translated as
> "Jesus" when it refers to the Messiah?
And how come it was made in to "Isa" in the Qur'an?
Now that is quite a jump, don't you think?
> One possible explanation: "Jesus" comes from the Greek
> Iesous (EE-YAY-ZOOS). which literally means "Zeus is
> Salvation".
Why don't you read a Bible lexicon sometimes before you
disseminate such ignorance?
Where in the Tora is "Jesus" written as "Y'eshu" I am not
aware of it.
And why is Muhammad's name written Mahomet, Mohammed, Mohammad,
Muhammad, ... ? Do you think it has lots of significance?
But so that you may be told again (and I am quite sure I have
told it before on the forums you read): Jesus is the form
that comes to us via the Latin via the Greek NT: iesous.
Where does that come from? Read some time the Septuagint,
the Jewish translation into Greek of the Old Testament and
look how it renders the name of Joshua. It is iesous. In
fact, in the NT both Joshua and Jesus are written exactly
the same way. Why then are they transliterated differently?
Because the name "Jesus" comes from the NT and the name
Joshua comes from the direct translation of the Hebrew,
not via the Greek. It has historical reasons but has
nothing whatsoever to do with Zeus. This blunder is even
worse than the versions thing.
> The Roman Christians happened to favor a literal
> "Son of God" in the style of Hercules and Zeus and since
> they are the ones upon whose backs Christianity rose to
> power, their views, mixed with Jewish views about the "sons
> of god", became established as "fact".
Utter nonsense. The Christians were persecuted and killed
by the Romans in the time when the NT was written. The
Christians died for their rejection of the Roman gods and
their refusal to worship Ceasar as god.
> Ask yourself; why is "Y'eshu" translated as "Joshua" in all
> cases except the Messiah, in whose case it is translated
> as "Jesus"?
There is no "Y'eshu" in the Torah or the NT. Get your facts
straight.
> As soon as you admit that translation is also interpretation
> you will understand that the NT is not quite what Jesus(pbuh)
> was saying.
But where did I ever say that the Greek NT is translation?
Your argument is rather irrelevant.
> >> By Allah, I believe that Arberry served Islam and Muslims
> >> better with his! We belong to Allah and to Him is our
> >> return.
> JK
> > I am glad for an honest Muslim evaluation and recommendation
> > of a non-Muslim translator. It is rare. Too many look for
> > the religion of the translator more than for his scholarship
> > and qualification in the translation.
> SV
> A translation of the Bible by a Muslim would certainly be
> viewed with much suspicion among Christians.
That depends on whether he has any qualifications. I am not
aware of even one Muslim who is an established scholar of
NT studies. If a Muslim without any qualifications would do
this, certainly one should be a bit careful to just applaud.
But Arberry is a well recognized scholar of Arabic. And he was
not a missionary or anything. I am not even aware if he was
a Christian in any sense other than nominal. I don't know of
any books of his that are propagating Christianity.
> Does it surprise
> anyone that translations of the Quran by Christians, some of
> whom were openly hostile toward Muhammad(pbuh), are not
> usually recommended by Muslims?
I know that, and I didn't talk about Sale or other Christians,
I talked by a relatively neutral scholar of Arabic who was
certainly less biased and given to twisting than the Ahmadiyya
translators with their very obvious agenda to propagate the
special teachings of their sect.
May we both seek to know and speak the truth.
Jochen Katz
kev...@clic.net
>
> The different Bible versions are versions for two reasons.
> One: That is what Christians themselves call them;
> King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New
> Revised Standard Version, etc.
> Two: These different versions are not necessarily based on
> on the same texts. For example, the RSV is based on
> texts different than the KJV. Not to mention different
> versions might contain different books to reflect the
> particular Church they represent.
Why do Christians call the various translations of the Bible "versions". The
answer is to be found in, for example, _Webster's Collegiate Dictionary_, 10th
ed., which gives the first meaning of the word "version" to be "translation".
The introductory notes to the dictionary point out that the various senses of
each word are given in chronological order. In other words, the original,
basic, essential meaning of "version" is translation. Later the word came to
mean a particular interpretation or understanding of a text or event. (And of
course "interpretation" sometimes means oral translation. The King James
Version is simply a translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts available at
that time to a group of translators who used what they considered to be
appropriate translation techniques to interprete or explain in English the
meaning of texts written in other languages. Those versions could also be
called English adaptations. This does not necessarily mean that the
translation is inaccurate but that the attempt to carry over the meaning from
one language to another is always imperfect.
>
> The situation is different for the Quran and no Muslim refers
> to different translations as versions. To use the word
> "version" is to lower the Quranic text to the level of the
> Biblical text which is wrong, though probably your purpose.
>
Muslims and especially Muslim translators do indeed use the word version as a
synonym for translation. Indeed, Muslim translators of the Qur'an are the
first to insist on the imperfect and personal nature of their efforts by
calling them translations of the meaning of the Qur'an, since no perfect
correspondence of the actual Arabic words is possible.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali uses the word "version" in the preface to the first edition
of his _The Holy Qur'an--Text, Translation and Commentary_. That preface is
included in all subsequent editions. He asks, "Is there any need for a fresh
English translation?" He answers by inviting his readers to compare his work
with "any previous version they choose". He also calls his translation an
"interpretation": "...what I wish to present to you is an English
interpretation, side by side with the Arabic text. ...The English shall
be...the best expression I can give to the fullest meaning which I can
understand from the Arabic text." Ali also says, "In choosing an English word
for an Arabic word, a translator necessarily exercises his own judgment and
may be unconciously expressing a point of view, BUT THAT IS INEVITABLE
(emphasis added)."
The Muslim translators of Sayyid Qutb's _In the Shade of the Qur'an_ says:
"The translators wish to point out that in rendering in English the meaning of
the surahs included in the present volume they did not adopt any of the many
translations of the Qur'an. The translators produced their own version which,
they hope, will be found to convey the Qur'anic meanings more fully...."
As Muslim translators themselves say by their use of certain words quoted
above, a translation of the Qur'an is:
a rendition, an interpretation, a version
As we can see, the various adaptations or renderings of the Qur'an into other
languages can be called, indifferently, translations or versions--just as is
the case for Christian interpretations of their scriptural texts.
The essential difference between the Qur'an and the Bible from the Muslim
point of view is that the Qur'an is considered to be the direct revelation of
the exact words of God himself as transmitted throught his angel Gabriel
(peace be upon him). The original Bible texts are not direct but inspired
revelation. That is to say that the Biblical books are in the words of the
writers as a result of God's inspiration of their minds. Therefore, the Qur'an
is the direct, literal words (sic) of God whereas the Bible is the indirect
expression by inspired humans of the Word of God. This means, in a certain
way, that even the original Biblical books are translations or interpretations
of God's Word. They may be intended to express the Word of God through the
Hebrew or Greek tongues but they are not (and most Christians do not claim
them to be) to be the literal words (sic) of God.
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Certified Translator
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>From: "Jamiat" <in...@jamiat.org.za>
>
>>It should be respectfully pointed out to such persons that the use
>>of the word "Mecca" to name their businesses is regarded as
>> offensive to Muslims.
I'm a Muslim. Not only am I not offended, I don't really care about
this non-issue. "Mecca" in English is not only the name of a city, but
also indicates the idea of an important destination.....
What DOES offend me are these Muslim organizations that have such egos
running them they think they can speak for all Muslims, rather than
ONLY the members of their organizations.
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues Y2K
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
denis...@my-deja.com
jk...@math.gatech.edu wrote:
> > One possible explanation: "Jesus" comes from the Greek
> > Iesous (EE-YAY-ZOOS). which literally means "Zeus is
> > Salvation".
>
> Why don't you read a Bible lexicon sometimes before you
> disseminate such ignorance?
It's the Absolute truth Jochen, you need to realize this. The whole idea
of worshipping Jesus as God is completely pagan. Never did Jesus say he
was God, and even you admitted this, although you tried to follow up
with scriptures that can only support such a claim after extreme
interpretation.
You get upset when people assert that the concept of Jesus being the
half human half God son of the mighter God is pagan (and polytheistic).
This is in direct relation to Greek Mythology, and many books assert
this. I'll offer two books....
First see "Cipher of Genesis" by Carlo Suares. Mr. Suares is a noted
expert on the Torah, and Quabala. at anyrate, in his epilogue he touches
on how the concept of Jesus being God is a pagan one, related to Zeus.
A second (and more noteworthy) book is "The Birth of Christianity" by
John Dominic Crossan. Mr. Crossan is a highly regarded expert on the
gospels. Look up Zeus in the index, and it will take you to information
on how early christians after Jesus' time began to discuss the
similarities between the God of the Jews, and Zeus.
This whole concept of Jesus being God was put into practice at the
Nicean Council, which is also where Constantine compiled the New
Testament, discarding MANY Gospels. This was shown in a documentary by
the Discovery Channel called "Christianity the first 1,000 years". You
most likely can still order this film by calling 1-800-423-1212. Even
the discovery channel says that this concept of Jesus being God was not
taught by Jesus, but rather it was concocted at the Nicean council.
At anyrate, Constantine endorsed the notion that Jesus was God, and
nobody would dare speak out against him. Still, it was an uneasy thing
to except the Messiah as God for those who were familiar with the hebrew
scriptures. This is why Islam spread so fast in the 8th century. The
concept of a prophet coming down teaching that Jesus was not God, but
merely the Messiah. I discuss the concept of Jesus being the Messiah in
my essay titled "Messiah Jesus and the Muslims"
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2105/essays/jesusislam.html
Let me just say this.... if Jesus is the Messiah, he cannot be God. Read
the hebrew scriptures. Micah 5:4 says the Messiah is sent by God, and
works for God. How can he be God himself, if he was sent by God?
Secondly, to whom did Jesus pray when he prayed? Surely not to himself.
I know you'll try to explain the trinity, but thats garbage, you have to
acknowledge that if Jesus was God, and he was praying to a separate God,
that makes 2 Gods.... POLYTHEISM!
> Where in the Tora is "Jesus" written as "Y'eshu" I am not
> aware of it.
First off, a bible expert like yourself should know that there's and 'h'
at the end of the word toraH. Second, Jesus is not mentioned in the
Torah. There is however the name Y'hoshua, but that's Joshua.
> And why is Muhammad's name written Mahomet, Mohammed, Mohammad,
> Muhammad, ... ? Do you think it has lots of significance?
Those are just english spellings of a semetic word. Why is Chanukkah
spelled differently from time to time? It's a semetic langauage being
translated to english, which often cannot be translated directly.
However, if you knew anything about the name Muhammad, you'd know it
appears in the old testament scriptures. I understand and can read
hebrew, and Muhammad's name appears in the bible, in the book of Songs.
you can read about it on my essay titled "Muhammad in the Bible"
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2105/essays/muhammadbible.html
>
> But so that you may be told again (and I am quite sure I have
> told it before on the forums you read): Jesus is the form
> that comes to us via the Latin via the Greek NT: iesous.
> Where does that come from? Read some time the Septuagint,
> the Jewish translation into Greek of the Old Testament and
> look how it renders the name of Joshua. It is iesous. In
> fact, in the NT both Joshua and Jesus are written exactly
> the same way. Why then are they transliterated differently?
> Because the name "Jesus" comes from the NT and the name
> Joshua comes from the direct translation of the Hebrew,
> not via the Greek. It has historical reasons but has
> nothing whatsoever to do with Zeus. This blunder is even
> worse than the versions thing.
It has everything to do with Zeus my friend. Iesous is not remotely
close to Y'shua or "Yeshu" as it is pronounced in modern hebrew. Y'shua
is a contraction of the word Y'hoshua which means "God is Salvation".
Christians try and assert that Iesous (EE-YAY-ZOOS) also means God is
salvation, but that's a lie. "God is Salvation" in Greek would be "Theos
e Socatera" as God in greek is theos, and salvation is socatera, and it
translates directly, as it is a european language (not semetic).
However, EE-YAY-ZOOS (iesous) on the other hand is closer to Zeus is
Salvation. Yes we know that Jesus (Jee-zus) is the english version of
Jesus (Hay-Zoos) the latin version of Iesous (EE-YAY-ZOOS). The greek
texts used to often change the yah (yod-he) in the begining of hebrew
names to ia or ie (like Jacob, yahkhob, was changed to iacob) so the ie
or ia can represent yah which is the God of the Jews. Again, as was
stated by me, and brother Svirk on numerous occassions, Modern
Christianity is a hybrid form of Judaism and Greek Mythology. Jesus
(iesous) is also the combination of the two Gods... Yah and Zeus. I
assume that is two far out for you, so I'll get off the names here. But
let me say this, show me where in the Torah it says the Messiah is also
God. It does not say that, because that is a pagan belief.
>
> > The Roman Christians happened to favor a literal
> > "Son of God" in the style of Hercules and Zeus and since
> > they are the ones upon whose backs Christianity rose to
> > power, their views, mixed with Jewish views about the "sons
> > of god", became established as "fact".
>
> Utter nonsense. The Christians were persecuted and killed
> by the Romans in the time when the NT was written. The
> Christians died for their rejection of the Roman gods and
> their refusal to worship Ceasar as god.
Actually, you don't have your time frames together my friend. This was
the case in the begining of the common era (1st century), as all jews
were persecuted (the early christians were almost entirely jews, and
believed in the Torah so were essentially jewish by faith). The zealots
battled for the temple, and the romans wiped them out, the macabeans
held off the romans while in one of Herod's palaces, and the Essenes,
writers of the dead sea scrolls, were totally anihilated by the romans.
So yes the Christians were persecuted by the Romans in the first
century, but that was because they were consider among the many sects of
jews who were rebellious (just like the Essenes, zealots, etc). However,
by 326 Rome had pretty much adopted the fact that Jesus was indeed sent
by God. I implore you to buy that video from the discovery channel so
you can see the part on the Nicean council. That is the birthplace of
your religion my friend. Constantine (essentially a Roman) compiled the
new Testament, and endorsed this new concept of Jesus being God.
> > Ask yourself; why is "Y'eshu" translated as "Joshua" in all
> > cases except the Messiah, in whose case it is translated
> > as "Jesus"?
>
> There is no "Y'eshu" in the Torah or the NT. Get your facts
> straight.
Yeshu is the modern hebrew pronounciation of Y'shua and Y'hoshua. Y'shua
is actually in the one Hebrew version of Matthew that exists in Israel.
Y'hoshua appears all over the TaNaKh (read the book of Y'hoshua, 6th
book of the TaNaKh). You believe Jesus is God, and therefore you are a
pagan. If HaRab Y'shua (The Rabbi Jesus) were alive today he would
consider your belief system pagan. I know you have that answering islam
site, which is very thorough, so in honor of your site, I'd like to
quote from the Qur'an to describe you and your state.
[al-Ma'idah 5:69] Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and
Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Al-Ilah (the one true
God) and the Last Day and does good deeds - there shall no fear come
upon them neither shall they grieve.
So as a Christian (or a jew) those who believe in Al-Ilah (simply THE
God, the God of Abraham) and do good deeds will have nothing to fear.
I'm sure the TaNaKh (the book Jesus believed in) would agree. Hosea 6:6
explains that God requires acknowledgement and riteous deeds. However
the TaNaKh also says "Thou shalt worship no gods before me". When you
worship the Messiah as God, you are breaking a major law, and the Qur'an
is also against such a thing.
[al-Ma'idah 5:72] They surely disbelieve who say: Jesus, son of Mary is
Al-Ilah. The Messiah himself said: Hear o' Israel, the Lord thy God is
one God. Whoever ascribeth partners unto Al-Ilah, for him God will
forbid paradise. His future is in hell.
Jochen, if you return to Monotheism, you will be okay. But if you
worship someone other than God, then surely you will be in trouble. This
reply, I will admit, used strong language, but I hope this did not give
you the impression that I hate or dislike you. Truly you are, just as I
am, a man, a creature created by Ha-El (Al-Ilah), and you are therefor
my brother and I love you. The Muslim, the Jew and the Christian are
sworn enemies at this point, but we are all brothers.
visit my webiste and read the Qur'an and Bible on-line
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2105
jk...@math.gatech.edu
it to the end, you will find what would qualify for an entry
in the Guiness book of records for making the highest numbers
of misquotations in one quranic aya that I have ever seen.
How many errors can one make in 3.5 lines of quotation?
Take your guess ... and see what is coming up.
In article <7imss9$l9r$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
denis...@my-deja.com writes:
> > > One possible explanation: "Jesus" comes from the Greek
> > > Iesous (EE-YAY-ZOOS). which literally means "Zeus is
> > > Salvation".
> >
> > Why don't you read a Bible lexicon sometimes before you
> > disseminate such ignorance?
>
> It's the Absolute truth Jochen, you need to realize this.
You are making a fool of yourself.
Show me ONE academic article, dictionary, or textbook which
maintains this above nonsense. If you meant only your own
words that followed this statement are "the absolute truth",
not the words above on which you made thecomment, then I would
like ask on what basis do you think any human has the absolute
truth, and in particular yourself?
> The whole idea
> of worshipping Jesus as God is completely pagan.
>From a Muslim perspective maybe. But since when is the Muslim
perspective "the absolute" one? :-)
> Never did Jesus say he
> was God, and even you admitted this, although you tried to follow up
> with scriptures that can only support such a claim after extreme
> interpretation.
Correction, you misinterpret me. I agree, that we do not have a
record that Jesus ever said these exact words of "I am God", but
I did NOT say that he didn't say that he is God. A subtle but very
important difference. I assume you are refering to my article
`N O W H E R E does Jesus say "I am God, worship me."' at
http://answering-islam.org/Q-A-panel/nowhere.html ?
I personally think, it takes a lot of extreme misinterpretation
to explain away the evidence I have collected on that page and
then mainly at the one linked at the bottom of it ...
But it is the freedom of anyone to shut the eyes to it.
> You get upset when people assert that the concept of Jesus being the
> half human half God son of the mighter God is pagan (and polytheistic).
I never said any such thing. Such notions are indeed silly nonsense
and maybe pagan. I don't know of any Christian who believes this.
> This is in direct relation to Greek Mythology, and many books assert
> this. I'll offer two books....
To the making of books there is no end. And not everything that is
written is true just because it appears in print.
> First see "Cipher of Genesis" by Carlo Suares. Mr. Suares is a noted
> expert on the Torah, and Quabala. at anyrate, in his epilogue he touches
> on how the concept of Jesus being God is a pagan one, related to Zeus.
So? I didn't argue anything of that, I argued the origin of his NAME.
The argument whether pagan concepts crept into the understanding
and theological aspects of who Jesus is, that is a different issue.
I have not read this book, so I will not comment, ... in particular,
since I don't know if I can even trust you to correctly relate
what he says. After all, you completely missed the target with
your response when compared with what I wrote. Since you didn't
understand what I said, how then can I trust you understood what
that author wrote?
Does this author say that the name "Iesous" comes from "Zeus"?
What page does he says so? If not, what has your response to
do with this discussion?
> A second (and more noteworthy) book is "The Birth of Christianity" by
> John Dominic Crossan. Mr. Crossan is a highly regarded expert on the
> gospels. Look up Zeus in the index, and it will take you to information
> on how early christians after Jesus' time began to discuss the
> similarities between the God of the Jews, and Zeus.
This again is completely irrelevant to our discussion.
Does this author say that the name "Iesous" comes from "Zeus"?
What page does he says so? If not, what has your response to
do with this discussion?
As an aside, Dr. Crossan also writes that Jesus _was_ crucified
contrary to the orthodox Muslim understanding of the Qur'an.
Will you agree with him? Crossan also writes that Jesus did not
rise from the dead, but the reason that his body was nowhere to
be found is that the dogs ate him. Do you believe him? Do you
take this serious? Does this make him a highly regarded expert
to you?
Yes, he is highly regarded by some. But for any such regard
one can only say with the words of Thomas Sowell:
"Citation of an eminent 'authority' does not constitute
a valid proof, technique, or even a convincing argument.
We all have the ability to think for ourselves [I hope],
and evaluate propositions based on their merits and
available evidence rather than relying on oracles."
If you are so endeared by Crossan, I would recommend that
you read Bill Craig ( http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/ )
and under "resources" you will find two publications of his
where he debates Crossan.
> This whole concept of Jesus being God was put into practice at the
> Nicean Council, which is also where Constantine compiled the New
> Testament, discarding MANY Gospels.
This is an argument spouted by many ignorant Muslim polemicists.
Constantine never made any decisions on the Bible, nor did
Nicea have anything to do with decisions on the Biblical canon.
Give me ONE credible document that would say so. I have just
recently recommended a thorough article on the misinformation
regarding Nicea on SRI, but you must have been on vacation so
here it is again: http://debate.org.uk/topics/trtracts/t11.htm
> This was shown in a documentary by
> the Discovery Channel called "Christianity the first 1,000 years". You
> most likely can still order this film by calling 1-800-423-1212. Even
> the discovery channel says that this concept of Jesus being God was not
> taught by Jesus, but rather it was concocted at the Nicean council.
I very much doubt that you are quoting correctly. If you want to
claim it, you get the tape and quote. I can't chase every nonsense
claim anyone makes. And they certainly did not say that many gospels
were discarded at Nicea or that Constantine compiled the Bible.
There might be some dumb journalists around, but nothing that dumb
gets on the discovery channel.
> At anyrate, Constantine endorsed the notion that Jesus was God, and
> nobody would dare speak out against him.
Nonsense again. Give me the sources for your claim that Constantine
made the decision and the bishops just followed him. You will not
be able to.
> Still, it was an uneasy thing
> to except the Messiah as God for those who were familiar with the hebrew
> scriptures. This is why Islam spread so fast in the 8th century.
Non-sequitur. You are making a jump of 400 years and connect them
with "that is why". Don't you think you need a little more evidence
for such "logical" connections?
> The
> concept of a prophet coming down teaching that Jesus was not God, but
> merely the Messiah.
Muhammad was not a concept, he was a charismatic leader. However,
the term "merely the Messiah" shows that you have not understood
what the Messiah is. Just as Muhammad emptied this term of all
meaning. Jesus is called the Messiah in the Qur'an, but the Qur'an
does not give any indication WHY he has this title and why it would
be significant. For that you have to go to the Jewish scriptures.
And if you go there, then you see that Muhammad had no clue when
he was speaking about Jesus being "merely the Messiah". The whole
concept of Messiah invalidates the Qur'an. Have a look at what
the Messiah is at http://answering-islam.org/Messiah/
> I discuss the concept of Jesus being the Messiah in
> my essay titled "Messiah Jesus and the Muslims"
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2105/essays/jesusislam.html
I read it and was singularly unimpressed. So much misinformation.
But one thing you did right. You recognized that the Gospel of
Barnabas is a fraud. You should be commended for that and with
it you are ahead of many Muslims who propagate it as the true
Injil, spoken of in the Qur'an.
> Let me just say this.... if Jesus is the Messiah, he cannot be God.
Why not?
> Read
> the hebrew scriptures. Micah 5:4 says the Messiah is sent by God, and
> works for God. How can he be God himself, if he was sent by God?
I think it is a good question to ask, but you gave up too fast.
Instead of waiting for an answer, you just claimed that this is
not possible. Unless you want an answer and want to understand,
no answer I can give will convince you. So, I will defer until
you want to know. In fact, Micah 5:2-4 is a passage that does
indicate the deity of the Messiah. It shows his eternality,
which is a divine attribute. You couldn't choose a worse passage
as prooftext for your claim.
> Secondly, to whom did Jesus pray when he prayed? Surely not to himself.
It seems to be one of your habits dismiss any possible explanations
before you listen to the answers of your rethorical questions.
> I know you'll try to explain the trinity, but thats garbage,
hear, hear. Some of the greatest minds thought differently,
but obviously Mr. Giron has the last word.
> you have to
> acknowledge that if Jesus was God, and he was praying to a separate God,
> that makes 2 Gods.... POLYTHEISM!
No, I do not have to acknowledge that. It only shows your lack
of understanding.
Finally, after your extensive detour, we are coming back to the
topic of discussion. [By the way, to the moderator, I still have
not seen any Islamic content in this posting. Why was this approved?
I hope that the discussion of the same topic is relevant also when
the Christian writes about it, not just this syncretistic "Muslim"
who puts a cross on his home page, say peace to it, but like to
attack Jesus' true identity and mocks Christianity.]
> > Where in the Tora is "Jesus" written as "Y'eshu" I am not
> > aware of it.
>
> First off, a bible expert like yourself should know that there's and 'h'
> at the end of the word toraH.
I usually do. Sorry that I make an occasional typo. I suggest to search
dejanews and to check how often I spelled it Torah and how often Tora.
[apart from the fact, that in German it is spelled Thora, and the
mixing of the two happens once in a while.] Should I dismiss your
arguments because of the typos you made in this posting? How about
the very sentence in which you declare yourself to be my spelling
teacher? You write: "... that there's and 'h' at the end of ..."
I didn't know that you can add a 'd' to the indefinite article.
It is supposed to be "an 'h'" not "and 'h'". I hope you appreciate
my careful reading of your words and will do better next time.
Sorry for all the triffling remarks on the way, the Gironic
distortion of the Qur'an is coming up shortly...
> Second, Jesus is not mentioned in the
> Torah. There is however the name Y'hoshua, but that's Joshua.
I KNOW that Jesus is not mentioned in the Torah (by name). That was
the whole point of the exercise because Saqib claimed he or rather
Saqib's distortion of his name was mentioned and then he made some
ridiculous argument about it.
Yes, Y'hoshua is transliterated Joshua into most English translations.
So, thank you for agreeing that Saqib spoke from ignorance. But have
you looked how Y'hoshua was transliterated in the Septuagint, the
Jewish (pre-Christian) translation of the Torah? It is spelled
"Iesous". It is the same way as Jesus is written in the New Testament
and the same way Joshua's name is written in the Greek New Testament
(see e.g. Hebrews 4:8).
> > And why is Muhammad's name written Mahomet, Mohammed, Mohammad,
> > Muhammad, ... ? Do you think it has lots of significance?
>
> Those are just english spellings of a semetic word.
I already said (or rather implied) that it was insigificant.
I am glad we can agree.
> Why is Chanukkah
> spelled differently from time to time? It's a semetic langauage being
> translated to english, which often cannot be translated directly.
I fully agree. What is your point?
> However, if you knew anything about the name Muhammad, you'd know it
> appears in the old testament scriptures. I understand and can read
> hebrew, and Muhammad's name appears in the bible, in the book of Songs.
> you can read about it on my essay titled "Muhammad in the Bible"
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2105/essays/muhammadbible.html
Nonsense again. I replied to that yesterday. But I have to keep these
few lines in here, since they might be the reason that the moderator
thought the posting is relevant to Islam. I don't want to lose the
relevance, you know... In fact, to make sure there is enough relevant
material, let me quote some of my web page on that "prophecy" ...
now that you mention the topic...
**********
Some refer chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad,
simply because in the Hebrew the word mahamaddim, "delights,"
"delightfulnesses," occurs there, and is derived from the
same root.
But we find that the word in Hebrew is a common, and not a
proper noun (i.e. not a name), as the use of the _plural_
here shows.
The same word occurs again as a common noun in Hosea 9:6,16;
1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10;
2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25</A>.
In the last passage (Ezekiel 24:16, "the desire of thine
eyes") it is _applied_to_a_woman_, Ezekiel's wife
(compare verse 18), and to the sons and daughters of the
_idolatrous_Jews_ (verse 25). It would be just as wise to
apply the word to Muhammad HERE as in the Song of Songs.
In Arabic many words are formed from the same root , but
they do not on that account denote Muhammad. An ignorant
Muslim might just as well assert that Muhammad's name
occurred in Surah 1, Al Fatihah, verse 1: Al _hamdo_ lillahi
Rabbi 'lalamin ("Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds").
In the same way a Hindu might assert that the name of Ram
or some other of his deities was mentioned in the Qur'an,
because in Sura 30, Ar-Rum, verse 1, we read " the Romans
have been overcome," where Arabic dictionaries give "Rum"
as if derived from the root "ram". This kind of argument is
unworthy of men of learning and judgement.
**********
This should be enough, for further discussion, see
http://answering-islam.org/BibleCom/songs5-16.html
> > But so that you may be told again (and I am quite sure I have
> > told it before on the forums you read): Jesus is the form
> > that comes to us via the Latin via the Greek NT: iesous.
> > Where does that come from? Read some time the Septuagint,
> > the Jewish translation into Greek of the Old Testament and
> > look how it renders the name of Joshua. It is iesous. In
> > fact, in the NT both Joshua and Jesus are written exactly
> > the same way. Why then are they transliterated differently?
> > Because the name "Jesus" comes from the NT and the name
> > Joshua comes from the direct translation of the Hebrew,
> > not via the Greek. It has historical reasons but has
> > nothing whatsoever to do with Zeus. This blunder is even
> > worse than the versions thing.
>
> It has everything to do with Zeus my friend. Iesous is not remotely
> close to Y'shua or "Yeshu" as it is pronounced in modern hebrew.
Mr. Giron, have you paid attention to ANYTHING I said in this
paragraph? It is the JEWS who spelled Joshua's name as "IESOUS"
in their own translation of the Torah in about 200 B.C. This was
the translation used by the Jews all over the Greek speaking world.
Jesus had the same Hebrew name as Joshua. So, when writing the
Greek New Testament manuscripts, the Apostles chose to transliterate
his name _in_the_already_established_fashion_. That is the one
and only reason that it is spelled "IESOUS", because such was
the Jewish tradition already for 250 years prior to the NT.
> Y'shua
> is a contraction of the word Y'hoshua which means "God is Salvation".
Quite right. And that was the very purpose that God our Savior
came into this world. Jesus says: I have to come and to seek
and save those who are lost.
> Christians try and assert that Iesous (EE-YAY-ZOOS) also means God is
> salvation, but that's a lie.
The meaning is the meaning of Jesus' HEBREW name. The Greek spelling
is only a transliteration. In Greek, it doesn't mean anything.
Mahomet is one (older) transliteration of the Arabic name of
the prophet of Islam. In English, it doesn't mean anything.
Nor does Muhammad (the newer transliteration) mean anything
in English. In Arabic it means "praised one". In the same way,
IESOUS doesn't mean anything in Greek, or JESUS doesn't mean
anything in English, both are just transliterations and the
meaning of the name is only in the original Hebrew word.
> "God is Salvation" in Greek would be "Theos
> e Socatera" as God in greek is theos, and salvation is socatera, and it
> translates directly, as it is a european language (not semetic).
Outch. One should leave such arguments to those who actually
know the language. Give me one Greek dictionary that says
that "socatera" means salvation. Ugh. For example, try
the classical Greek dictionary of Liddle-Scott-Jones at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform and see
if it gives you anything else but an error for that word.
If, however, you search for so^te^ria, you will find the
proper word. S_O_THPIA (with _O_ = omega, H = eta, P = rho)
means salvation. I have had 5 years of intensive Greek
language studies. Don't try to teach me Greek. Furthermore,
since when is "e" = "is"? Way to go.
Anyway, the whole argument is silly, since I never claimed
that the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name of Jesus
has any meaning in Greek. But I could not resist exposing
your ignorance, which you claim to be "the absolute truth".
> However, EE-YAY-ZOOS (iesous) on the other hand is closer to Zeus is
> Salvation.
First, who invented the ludicrous transliteration of YAY for
the letter eta? I have no clue where Saqib or you got this from.
Furthermore, now that we know that "soteria" means "salvation",
where in "IESOUS" do you see the word "soteria"? Your argument
is incredibly confused.
Should I go now and search for Zeus, or alternatively for
Hubal, or Manat or ... any of the other pagan Arab deities
in some of the Arabic words in the Qur'an and then conclude
that the Qur'an is permeated with paganism?
This approach is just too silly.
> Yes we know that Jesus (Jee-zus) is the english version of
> Jesus (Hay-Zoos) the latin version of Iesous (EE-YAY-ZOOS).
Hay-Zoos ?? Please give me a reference to one Latin manuscript
that contains this word. I studied Latin for six years in school
longer than English. And since our alphabet is the Latin alphabet,
why would you want to transliterate any Latin word anyway?
You have no clue what you are talking about, whatsoever.
> The greek
> texts used to often change the yah (yod-he) in the begining of hebrew
> names to ia or ie (like Jacob, yahkhob, was changed to iacob) so the ie
> or ia can represent yah which is the God of the Jews.
That might be true. So what? After all, as you already declared
yourself in the above, that Y'hoshua means "Yahweh is salvation",
so the "y" refers to the name of God and the transliteration
done by JEWS is absolutely consistent. What is your problem?
Do you want to claim that the Jewish translators of the Torah
wanted to give Joshua the name "Zeus is salvation" ?
> Again, as was
> stated by me, and brother Svirk on numerous occassions, Modern
> Christianity is a hybrid form of Judaism and Greek Mythology.
That is a completely different issue. It is wrong, but even
if you want to argue it, you have to do so on other grounds
than the spelling of Jesus' name.
> Jesus
> (iesous) is also the combination of the two Gods... Yah and Zeus.
Interesting that the Christians never knew about this before you
came along to enlighten us.
It is about as intelligent as to claim that Al-lah is the
combination of El (the canaanite high god" and l(ilit)h the
mythical first wife of Adam, after all, you get all the consonants
to make up what you need from the two....
> I assume that is two far out for you,
That is too far out for anyone who has not checked his brain at
the door. Sorry to be rough on you, but I am not willing today
to entertain your condescending attitude for which you have
shown nothing in knowledge to be even entitled to it.
By the way, it is "too" not "two".
> so I'll get off the names here. But
> let me say this, show me where in the Torah it says the Messiah is also
> God. It does not say that, because that is a pagan belief.
How about Micah 5:2, since you brought up Micah 5 already? But
in case you want more evidence, I would suggest that you read
in my pages on the Trinity in the OT and the pages on the Messiah.
You'll find them if you are even willing to read.
Most of the rest snipped, this is already too long and too much
honor to that posting.
> You believe Jesus is God, and therefore you are a
> pagan.
Maybe you got your definition of "pagan" messed up?
> If HaRab Y'shua (The Rabbi Jesus) were alive today he would
> consider your belief system pagan. I know you have that answering islam
> site, which is very thorough, so in honor of your site, I'd like to
> quote from the Qur'an to describe you and your state.
Thank you, I am very much honored. But just admit you only
quoted this to make the posting pass the moderator. ;->
Qur'an quotes make relevance even if they have little to do
with the discussion, which was about the origin of the name
Jesus.
Oh, by the way, since you are so fond of the Hebrew Y'hoshua
how do you explain where Muhammad got the name `Isa from
for Jesus?
Maybe as a conflation with Isis the pagan goddess from Egypt?
Yes, I am being sarcastic. But I think if we are talking
appropriate transliterations, `Isa is certainly too far away
from Y'hoshua for being transliterated from one Semitic
language to another. The Arabic Bible has Yasoua which is
a lot nearer and not as pagan as the Qur'an. [attention: Parody]
> [al-Ma'idah 5:69] Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and
> Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Al-Ilah (the one true
> God) and the Last Day and does good deeds - there shall no fear come
> upon them neither shall they grieve.
The Qur'an says "Allah" not "Al-Ilah" but let's go on.
> So as a Christian (or a jew) those who believe in Al-Ilah (simply THE
> God, the God of Abraham) and do good deeds will have nothing to fear.
That is nice, but I take my clues from the word of God.
I don't need the Qur'an for consolation.
> I'm sure the TaNaKh (the book Jesus believed in) would agree. Hosea 6:6
> explains that God requires acknowledgement and riteous deeds.
It is not deeds of performing "rites" it is about righteousness
and hence it needs to be spelled "righteous deeds".
> However
> the TaNaKh also says "Thou shalt worship no gods before me". When you
> worship the Messiah as God, you are breaking a major law, and the Qur'an
> is also against such a thing.
We do not believe in Jesus as a second god. We do not worship any
god besides the Creator God. Jesus IS this ONE God. THAT is the
issue. You might not agree, but to say we have several gods is
only showing off your ignorance about the Christian beliefs.
Now the gem of the posting:
> [al-Ma'idah 5:72] They surely disbelieve who say: Jesus, son of Mary is
> Al-Ilah. The Messiah himself said: Hear o' Israel, the Lord thy God is
> one God. Whoever ascribeth partners unto Al-Ilah, for him God will
> forbid paradise. His future is in hell.
That is an interesting version. Where did you find that?
It seems to be mainly Pickthall, but with some distinctive changes...
I venture to say that you took it from
http://goon.stg.brown.edu/cgi-bin/pqcgi?sourceform=pqform.shtml&searchtype=fetch&boolop=and&maxhits=50&searchstring=5%3a72&version=pickthall
and then went to corrupt it with your own hand.
Here is what Pickthall translated:
[al-Ma'idah 5:72] They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah,
son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah,
my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah
hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will
be no helpers. [Pickthall translation]
Let me list the differences:
Pickthall: Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.
Giron : Jesus, son of Mary is Al-Ilah.
Where did you find the name "Jesus" in the Arabic? How then
did it make it into your translation? Why did you switch the
subject and predicate noun? Certainly Allah is the subject
and every translation I have ever seen says "Allah is the
Messiah/Christ" and not one that switched it to "The Messiah
is Allah". You are the very first one who did this. Why?
As before, the Arabic says "Allah" not "al-ilah". But that
is minor in comparison to all your other changes.
Let's continue:
Pickthall: The Messiah (himself) said:
O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.
Giron : The Messiah himself said:
Hear o' Israel, the Lord thy God is one God.
Hm, now I do recognize the Shema here ...
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
You can find it it Deuteronomy 6:4.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Deut+6:4
But to this day I had not been aware that this was also found
in Sura 5:72. One learns new things every day...
On we go:
Pickthall: Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah,
for him Allah hath forbidden paradise.
Giron : Whoever ascribeth partners unto Al-Ilah,
for him God will forbid paradise.
Relatively close, though it is somewhat inconsistent to render
"allah" once with "Al-Ilah" and then with "God". To my knowledge,
it is the same word in Arabic. Also, you have changed 'has forbidden'
to 'will forbid'. But who cares for such minor issues as tenses....
Pickthall: His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
Giron : His future is in hell.
Hm, changing "abode" to "future" is interesting. A local concept
becomes a temporal one. And then you also seem to like the
abbreviated version, as the last clause has falled under the table
completely.
You certainly get high marks for creativity.
But what do you think of this verse:
[al-Baqarah 2:79] Therefore woe be unto those who WRITE the Scripture
WITH THEIR HANDS and then say, "THIS IS FROM ALLAH," that they may
purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their
hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.
> Jochen, if you return to Monotheism, you will be okay.
You claim so on your own authority? I don't know if I want to
stake my future on somebody who corrupts even the book he
supposedly believes in.
And, by the way, Christians are monotheists. This is recognized
by all scholars of religion of any rank.
I certainly believe in ONE God.
> But if you
> worship someone other than God, then surely you will be in trouble.
Well, I don't. Rest assured.
> This
> reply, I will admit, used strong language, but I hope this did not give
> you the impression that I hate or dislike you.
No. It only took it as a friendly invitation to use similarly strong
language. You seem to like it and I hope you got the message.
> Truly you are, just as I am, a man,
Something we can agree about, and I never claimed anything else.
> a creature created by Ha-El (Al-Ilah), and you are therefor
> my brother and I love you. The Muslim, the Jew and the Christian are
> sworn enemies at this point, but we are all brothers.
This is not true. We are all "brothers in humanity" as Ahmed Deedat
expressed it. But both religions, Islam and Christianity only
call those brothers who have the same faith. Muslims call each
other brothers, but not the Christians (and Muhammad never did
to my knowledge) nor do Christians call non-Christians brothers
because that is the title for a fellow follower of Christ.
Let us respect each other as people, but let us not be syncretistic
and pretend there is more that connects us than there is in truth.
You love me? Check your defintion against 1 Corinthians 13.
You started out with the claim that you are bringing me "the
absolute truth" and then went on with total ignorance and
in utter arrogance to present some of the most ridiculous
claims. All of this culminated in a gross misquotation of
the Qur'an. I have the impression, you have a lot of
repenting to do.
> visit my webiste and read the Qur'an and Bible on-line
It is so much nicer to read them in book form. I have several
Bibles and several Qur'ans at home. I think I stick to those.
But thanks for your invitation.
Jochen Katz
jk...@math.gatech.edu
> ... Iesous is not remotely
> close to Y'shua or "Yeshu" as it is pronounced in modern hebrew. Y'shua
> is a contraction of the word Y'hoshua which means "God is Salvation".
> Christians try and assert that Iesous (EE-YAY-ZOOS) also means God is
> salvation, but that's a lie. "God is Salvation" in Greek would be "Theos
> e Socatera" as God in greek is theos, and salvation is socatera, and it
> translates directly, as it is a european language (not semetic).
> However, EE-YAY-ZOOS (iesous) on the other hand is closer to Zeus is
> Salvation.
That the above claims about the meaning of IESOUS in Greek is nonsense,
I have already explained two days ago my first response to this posting.
See segments http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=483762377.4 and
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=483762377.5
Today, I would like to make some more comments, or rather ask
a few questions.
Seemingly, Mr. Giron thinks the meaning of the name Y'hoshua is
important. It is important that this meaning is also expressed in
(the Greek) transliteration of it, not just in the original language.
What meaning does the Arabic form for the name of Jesus in the
Qur'an have? What is the meaning of the word `Isa ?
Muhammad is an Arabic name and has the meaning "praised one".
Do any of the other prophet names in the Qur'an have a meaning
in Arabic or are they just names? Ibrahim? Ishma'il? Yusuf, Yunus,
Yahya, Hud, Salih? Do these names have meaning in Arabic?
Or do Islamic commentators go back to the Hebrew to explain what
Ibrahim / Abraham, Yahya / Yohannan mean (if they ask this question
at all)?
If the meaning of Jesus' name in his own language is so important,
what does it mean to a Muslim that Jesus is called "God is Salvation"?
Where does this concept of salvation play a role in Islam, and how
does Jesus figure into this concept in Islamic theology?
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
GF Haddad
>In article <7imss9$l9r$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
>denis...@my-deja.com writes:
>> The whole idea
>> of worshipping Jesus as God is completely pagan.
>
>>From a Muslim perspective maybe. But since when is the Muslim
>perspective "the absolute" one? :-)
Hardly nothing could have sounded more pagan to Abraham, to Jacob and his
sons, to Moses and Aaron, to Peter and James -- and Barnabas!-- to
Zacharias and his son John, or to Maryam and her parents -- Allah's
blessings and peace on all of them -- than to hear of the worship of a
suffering-then-triumphant, super-demigod "true God and true Man" or
sacramental formulas such as "Eat this, this is My flesh; Drink this, this
is My blood." Subhan Allah. I can hardly imagine such words being said in
a semitic language as nothing could sound worse. And the concept of God's
transubstantiation of (meaning: descent into) the elements of bread and
wine, followed by His union with their consumer? Subhan Allah. From the
Patriarchs' perspective, from the Jewish perspective, and from the
perspective of `Isa ibn Maryam and his innocent followers -- in sum, from
the Muslim perspective, "the absolute" perspective -- this does not belong
to the Religion of the Prophets and Patriarchs but to the bacchic cults of
Greece and Rome, and Allah knows best.
>> You get upset when people assert that the concept of Jesus being the
>> half human half God son of the mighter God is pagan (and polytheistic).
>
>I never said any such thing. Such notions are indeed silly nonsense
>and maybe pagan. I don't know of any Christian who believes this.
(To Denis Giron: They do not say half, they say full, two times.)
The entire Eastern Orthodox Church declared their Western brethren heretic
because the latter insisted on adding "and from the Son" in the part of
the Creed which states: "... And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, which
proceeds from the Father..." If it proceeds from the Father but not from
the Son, then to millions and millions of Orthodox Christians in history,
unbeknownst to you until now, the Father has been and continues to be
mightier than the Son. Whereas to Catholics the Holy Spirit is considered
to proceed equally from each then and now, and blah blah blah-- all
without a shred of evidence.
"Say: Have ye any knowledge that ye can adduce for us? Lo! ye follow
naught but an opinion. Lo! ye do but guess" (6:148). "Why then argue ye
concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge? Allah knoweth. Ye know not."
(3:66). These theological speculations are at the origin of the expression
Byzantine disputations. Which is what the original respondant has
innovated on this forum, laced with undisguised hatred for a Prophet of
God. But enough of this.
At the time the Caliph `Adud al-Dawla sent Ibn al-Baqillani (d. 403 H) as
an envoy to the Eastern Roman emperor, he was asked to enter through a low
door to see the emperor and realized that this was done by design so as to
make him enter on his knees; whereupon he entered on his knees but with
his back turned, approaching the emperor backside first. In the course of
their conversation he noticed, next to the emperor, a church dignitary. He
turned to him and asked: “How are your wife and children?” Hearing this,
the emperor exclaimed: “Lo! Do you, the spokesman of Islam, not know that
a monk is exempt of such matters?” Ibn al-Baqillani replied: “You exempt a
monk from such matters, but you do not exempt the Lord of the Worlds from
having a mate and child?”
MyTajMahal
>> > One possible explanation: "Jesus" comes from the Greek
>> > Iesous (EE-YAY-ZOOS). which literally means "Zeus is
>> > Salvation".
Jochen
>> Why don't you read a Bible lexicon sometimes before you
>> disseminate such ignorance?
Denis
>It's the Absolute truth Jochen, you need to realize this.
Taj
Well Denis it isn't the Absolute truth and as you have clearly shown in
reference to certain opinionated writers it is a theory and an explanation
based upon a theory which is a long way from the truth.
>The whole idea of worshipping Jesus as God is completely pagan.
The idea of worshipping Messiah (The anointed of God) is rooted in the Tanak.
God appeared in visible form and sometimes human form and accepted the worship
which was offered to God. In fact God demanded this worship and obedience but
to go further to explain this may not be relevant to SRI to see.
http://members.aol.com/crossfires/messiah/god.htm
>Never did Jesus say he was God, and even you admitted this
And as it has been pointed out endlessly this was not necessary since Messiah
claimed for Himself (with proofs) that honour and right which was due to God so
either He was divine or he was satan.
>although you tried to follow up with scriptures that can only support
>such a claim after extreme interpretation.
This is strawman. There is no need for 'extreme' interpretation as you claim.
Messiah claimed the right to forgive sins committed against God (Himself) and
proved it by a miracle which was humanly impossible. One doesn't have to
interpret that. Furthermore when the ancients in the Tanak were confronted in
physical form by He who claimed their worship and who spoke in His own right as
God they did not come with the lame excuse "But you didn't _say_ that you were
God" They immediately bowed in worship and offered sacrifice.
>You get upset when people assert that the concept of Jesus being the
>half human half God
This is irrelevant. I see that Jochen claims that Messiah is fully human and
fully God. Leave the strawmen be...
>Mr. Suares is a noted expert on the Torah, and Quabala.
If Mr Suares is an expert on Kaballah then he will also be an expert on the
Zohar and maybe he can explain why the Rabbis connect the personality of God
(claimed as such in the Zohar) in Proverbs ch 8 with the God who created the
world in Genesis Ch 1 which is exactly the same claim made of Messiah. It
sounds that he has a lot more to learn before he comes up with his theories.
>A second (and more noteworthy) book is "The Birth of Christianity" by
>John Dominic Crossan. Mr. Crossan is a highly regarded expert on the
>gospels. Look up Zeus in the index, and it will take you to information
>on how early christians after Jesus' time began to discuss the
>similarities between the God of the Jews, and Zeus.
I am surprised now to discover that your earlier claim to "Absolute truth" is
based on some theories advanced by individual whose claim stems from some
perceived 'similarity'. Sorry Denis this isn't good enough.
<snipped the story about the Nicean council answered many times>
>I discuss the concept of Jesus being the Messiah in
>my essay titled "Messiah Jesus and the Muslims"
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2105/essays/jesusislam.html
I will have a look at this sometime. Is this a new article?
>Let me just say this.... if Jesus is the Messiah, he cannot be God.
Not at all. The appearance of God in physical form in the TaNaK and accepting
for Himself the worship offered to God show that faith in the divinity of
Messiah (the appearance of God in physical form) is rooted in the TaNaK and
one has no need to refer to anything other than the Hebrew Bible to come to
faith in Messiah the Redeemer and author of Salvation to the world.
>Read the hebrew scriptures. Micah 5:4 says the Messiah is sent by God, and
>works for God. How can he be God himself, if he was sent by God?
Nothing is impossible for God and do not set limits upon Him. Read the Hebrew
Scriptures in many places and you will find passages like in Hosea 1:7. Elohim
is speaking and says; "Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save
them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, by
horses or horsemen." So 'Elolim" sends the "Lord their God" to save Judah and
there are more such passages...
>Secondly, to whom did Jesus pray when he prayed? Surely not to himself.
>I know you'll try to explain the trinity, but thats garbage, you have to
>acknowledge that if Jesus was God, and he was praying to a separate God,
>that makes 2 Gods.... POLYTHEISM!
I leave this in because it is something which has been answered endlessly on
SRI. Messiah sometimes acts in His human capacity and sometimes in His divine
capacity. But I am sure that you have come across the passages in the TaNaK
where God speaks to God? No? Well here is one: Psalm 110:1
Jochen
>> Where in the Tora is "Jesus" written as "Y'eshu" I am not
>> aware of it.
Denis
>First off, a bible expert like yourself should know that there's and 'h'
>at the end of the word toraH. Second, Jesus is not mentioned in the
>Torah. <snipped>
I'll let you argue this one out but you seem to agree. In any case the
personality who is Jesus of Nazareth is accepted and defined in many places
outside the New Covenant writing (ie, in the Talmud etc...) so as long as we
know who we are talking about then playing around with "translations" of names
is senseless.
Jochen
>> And why is Muhammad's name written Mahomet, Mohammed, Mohammad,
>> Muhammad, ... ? Do you think it has lots of significance?
Denis
>Those are just english spellings of a semetic word. Why is Chanukkah
>spelled differently from time to time? It's a semetic langauage being
>translated to english, which often cannot be translated directly.
>However, if you knew anything about the name Muhammad, you'd know it
>appears in the old testament scriptures. I understand and can read
>hebrew, and Muhammad's name appears in the bible, in the book of Songs.
This myth has already been exploded in another current thread.
Jochen
>> But so that you may be told again (and I am quite sure I have
>> told it before on the forums you read): Jesus is the form
>> that comes to us via the Latin via the Greek NT: iesous.
>> Where does that come from? Read some time the Septuagint,
>> the Jewish translation into Greek of the Old Testament and
>> look how it renders the name of Joshua. It is iesous. In
>> fact, in the NT both Joshua and Jesus are written exactly
>> the same way. Why then are they transliterated differently?
>> Because the name "Jesus" comes from the NT and the name
>> Joshua comes from the direct translation of the Hebrew,
>> not via the Greek. It has historical reasons but has
>> nothing whatsoever to do with Zeus. This blunder is even
>> worse than the versions thing.
Denis
>It has everything to do with Zeus my friend. Iesous is not remotely
>close to Y'shua or "Yeshu" as it is pronounced in modern hebrew. <snip>
Well it is how the Jews chose to translate "Joshua" (Yeshua) into Greek in the
Septuagint and other Greek writings including Josephus. And modern day
pronunciation has nothing to do with it.
>But let me say this, show me where in the Torah it says the Messiah is also
>God. It does not say that, because that is a pagan belief.
The appearance of God in physical form in the Torah, the prophets and the
writings was not such that the physical manifestation became any less God.
Furthermore there are many Jews even today who claim that the concept of
Messiah is not in the TaNaK and so the whole question is one of wisdom,
understanding and divine revelation. If you claim that the physical appearance
of God is a pagan belief then you demolish your own arguments concerning the
TaNaK.
Denis
>> > The Roman Christians happened to favor a literal
>> > "Son of God" in the style of Hercules and Zeus and since
>> > they are the ones upon whose backs Christianity rose to
>> > power, their views, mixed with Jewish views about the "sons
>> > of god", became established as "fact".
Jochen
>> Utter nonsense. The Christians were persecuted and killed
>> by the Romans in the time when the NT was written. The
>> Christians died for their rejection of the Roman gods and
>> their refusal to worship Ceasar as god.
Denis
>Actually, you don't have your time frames together my friend. This was
>the case in the begining of the common era (1st century), as all jews
>were persecuted
If you read secular historians and investigate the archeology of graves etc of
the time you will see that even then Christians and Jews were seen as separate
and even confronting each other over beliefs in Messiah.
>(the early christians were almost entirely jews, and
>believed in the Torah so were essentially jewish by faith).
This is only true if you try to rewrite history and the New Testament (which I
know some try to do). But Christians also believe in Torah even if they don't
accept the definitions of Maimonidies (who got a lot of thnigs wrong)
<snipped a home-spun history lesson>
Denis
>> > Ask yourself; why is "Y'eshu" translated as "Joshua" in all
>> > cases except the Messiah, in whose case it is translated
>> > as "Jesus"?
Jochen
>> There is no "Y'eshu" in the Torah or the NT. Get your facts
>> straight.
Denis
>Yeshu is the modern hebrew pronounciation of Y'shua and Y'hoshua. Y'shua
>is actually in the one Hebrew version of Matthew that exists in Israel.
The James Scott-Trimm project based upon Hebrew and Aramaic sources is a
rewording and reinterpretation to suit an obvious agenda (Bit like the 19ers).
The most ancient Hebrew manuscript of Matthew isn't that ancient (about 11th
Century) and Trimm admits that its preservation is due to a 'sect' (cult of
John the Baptist).
<snipped>
>You believe Jesus is God, and therefore you are a
>pagan.
If you don't believe Him to be God and therefore unable able to forgive sins
(as he claimed) then you are pagan :-)
Denis
> I'd like to
>quote from the Qur'an to describe you and your state.
>
>[al-Ma'idah 5:69] Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and
>Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Al-Ilah (the one true
>God) and the Last Day and does good deeds - there shall no fear come
>upon them neither shall they grieve.
>
>So as a Christian (or a jew) those who believe in Al-Ilah (simply THE
>God, the God of Abraham) and do good deeds will have nothing to fear.
>I'm sure the TaNaKh (the book Jesus believed in) would agree. Hosea 6:6
>explains that God requires acknowledgement and riteous deeds.
>
> However the TaNaKh also says "Thou shalt worship no gods before me". When
>you worship the Messiah as God, you are breaking a major law, and the Qur'an
>is also against such a thing.
So when the ancients worshipped the God who appeared to them in physical
manifestation were they breaking a major Law? Of-course not !. God appears
and we worship Him and offer sacrifices of praise to Him just like the ancients
did in the TaNaK. Just like them we worship the God of Abraham who reveals
Himself.
>[al-Ma'idah 5:72] They surely disbelieve who say: Jesus, son of Mary is
>Al-Ilah. The Messiah himself said: Hear o' Israel, the Lord thy God is
>one God. Whoever ascribeth partners unto Al-Ilah, for him God will
>forbid paradise. His future is in hell.
>
>Jochen, if you return to Monotheism, you will be okay.
Jochen has to put his trust in what Denis Giron says? :-) That would be an
interesting faith.
> But if you worship someone other than God, then surely you will be in
trouble.
This I agree with but we do not worship someone other than God.
>This reply, I will admit, used strong language, but I hope this did not give
>you the impression that I hate or dislike you. Truly you are, just as I
>am, a man, a creature created by Ha-El (Al-Ilah), and you are therefor
>my brother and I love you. The Muslim, the Jew and the Christian are
>sworn enemies at this point, but we are all brothers.
Messiah said love your enemies so they are no longer enemies from the
standpoint of the true believer in Messiah.
>visit my webiste and read the Qur'an and Bible on-line
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2105
http://members/alo.com/crossfires/messiah/frontdoor.htm
Kind regards
comb...@hotmail.com
jk...@math.gatech.edu wrote:
> That the above claims about the meaning of IESOUS in Greek is
> nonsense, I have already explained two days ago my first
> response to this posting.
If you already did so then why are you doing it again? You seem like
you're complaining as though the same argument keeps getting thrown at
you, when in reality you responded to the same post twice!
> Seemingly, Mr. Giron thinks the meaning of the name Y'hoshua is
> important. It is important that this meaning is also expressed in
> (the Greek) transliteration of it, not just in the original language.
>
> What meaning does the Arabic form for the name of Jesus in the
> Qur'an have? What is the meaning of the word `Isa ?
A very valid point Jochen. Quite possibly Isa means nothing, but I have
read that Isa is derived from the Arabic word Isuw which somehow means
savior or salvation, or something to that effect (but I do not accept
that). However, I cringe everytime muslim brothers say that this is
Esau. This sends a shiver up my back, as it is obvious that Esau was not
the Messiah of the jews, rather he was the progenitor of one of their
most dispised enemies. However, any muslim who says Isa is referring to
Esau is sadly misinformed, as surely Esau was not the son of Mary, and
never had anything to do with the Gospels.
>
> Muhammad is an Arabic name and has the meaning "praised one".
> Do any of the other prophet names in the Qur'an have a meaning
> in Arabic or are they just names? Ibrahim? Ishma'il? Yusuf, Yunus,
> Yahya, Hud, Salih? Do these names have meaning in Arabic?
Again Jochen, very valid points. Quite possibly, as you said of Iesous,
they mean nothing, and are just arabic versions of the original form.
> If the meaning of Jesus' name in his own language is so important,
> what does it mean to a Muslim that Jesus is called "God is Salvation"?
> Where does this concept of salvation play a role in Islam, and how
> does Jesus figure into this concept in Islamic theology?
Well, it fits right into Muslim doctrine. God is salvation, not Jesus.
This is pure monotheist doctrine that God is salvation, i.e. Gos is the
only savior! This can be found in the TaNaKh as well. Read Isaiah 43:11
where it says "I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior." As
for your question about "how does Jesus figure into this concept in
Islamic theology?" I will say this.... Al-Imran 3:45 very clearly says
Jesus is the Messiah. It is my understanding that the Messiah is the one
who "opens the doors" for the non-jews. In otherwords, through the
messiah, the non-jew (Arab, etc) can benefit from worshipping the God of
Abraham, and living by the laws of the one true God. The TaNaKh confirms
this, as in Zechariah 8:23, while discussing the coming of the Messiah,
it says "Thus says the LORD of hosts: In those days ten men from the
nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying,
`Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'" So
obviously through the Messiah, people of nations other than Israel can
follow God, and worship God.
-Denis Giron
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
comb...@hotmail.com
Fair enough Jochen. I agree that maybe my post jumped all over the
place, so this time I will try to keep it more centered. My post will
cover two things: First I will discuss the concept of Jesus being God,
and why I personally think Muslims have a better concept of the Messiah
than you do. The second topic will revolve around love between Muslims
and Christians, in response to you saying we are not brothers.
==================
Messiah Jesus
==================
Before I get into my response, I would like to say that I recognize that
you will never accept anything coming out of a Muslims mouth as being
true, so I'll offer a three on-line writings from Christians....
http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/doctrine_develop.htm
http://www.plim.org/IsJesusGod.html
Those are three websites discussing how certain Christian doctrines
(such as Jesus being God) are related to the Nicean Council.
Okay first I'd like to comment on the documentary I offered. You totally
put it aside, but said that nobody from the Discovery channel "is that
dumb". Well my friend, I ask you to buy that video, "Christianity: the
First 1,000 years", by calling 1800-423-1212. You wanted me to quote
directly from the documentary, so I will. In the segment on the Nicean
council, organized by the pagan emporer Constantine, they said that it
was Arphanasius (sp?) who argued that Jesus was equal to God. This was
obviously not something Jesus taught, as many of the priests and
religious figures at the council disagreed. However, once Constantine
was in favor of the notion that Jesus was God, that train of thought won
by a landslide. This SAME documentary said it was Constantine who
promoted the idea that Jesus was God, and it was him who compiled the
New Testament (with the help of Arphenasius and others) and subsidized
50 large bibles to be sent out to the fifty biggest chruches within that
empire. The New testament was finished, with the help of Arphenasius, in
367. The compilers of the New Testament rejected some gospels, and
accepted others, thus the creation of the current "new testament". I'll
give more sources....
An excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica 1968
"The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325. Constantine himself
presiding, actively guiding the discussion, and personally proposed the
crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed
issued by the council. 'of one substance with the father.' Over-awed by
the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed,
many of them against their inclination. Constantine regarded the
decision of Nicaea as divinely inspired. As long as he lived no one
dared openly to challenge the creed of Nicaea."
So according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Constantine was the one who
pushed this notion of Jesus being "of the same substance as the father"
(i.e. he was also God).
I continuously say that the idea of Jesus being God is pagan! Of course
any quote from the Qur'an (you've seen them all) is not acceptable to
you. Well, the Qur'an tells muslims to say this to Christians: "Say O
People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe
the Torah......" (al-Ma'ida 5:68). The Qur'an essentially tells it's
followers to tell the Christians to go back and study your scriptures. I
cut the verse where it says Torah to prove a point. I'm telling you now
Christian: You have no guidance until you observe the Torah! Is Jesus
God in the form of a man? Read numbers 23:19 (from the Torah). The first
thing it says is "GOD IS NOT A MAN!" It goes on to say that is also not
a son of man! That seems pretty simple to me.
There are so many sources that state that this modern christian concept
of Jesus being God is related to some sort of paganism. I already
offered you the books by Carlo Suares and John Dominic Crossan. (by the
way, no I do not accept everythign Crossan says. On numerous occassions
you have quoted from Buhkary on your site to prove a point, but not for
a second did I ever assume you accepted everything he said). I also gave
you the documentary from the discovery channel, and the Encyclopedia
Britannica. Here are some other sources.....
According to the New Bible Dictionary 1982, "The word trinity is not
found in the Bible . . . " ". . . it did not find a place formally in
the theology of the church till the 4th century." ". . . it is not a
biblical doctrine in the sense that any formation of it can be found in
the Bible, . . ." "Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of
the trinity, . . ."
According to The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995, ". . .
scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as
such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."
According to The Encyclopedia Americana 1956, "Christianity derived from
Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The
road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one.
Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian
teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a
deviation from this teaching."
According to The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967, "The formulation 'one
God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully
assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to
the end of the 4th century."
According to Dictionary of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie, "The trinity
of God is defined by the church as the belief that in God are three
persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached
only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and
formally a biblical belief."
So Jochen, was the concept of Jesus being God created in the 4th century
(at the Nicean council) or am I making all of this up, and misquoting
the discovery channel? Your response will be greatly apreciated.
=======================================
Love Between Christians and Muslims
=======================================
When I said we are all brothers (jews, christians, muslims) you said
"This is not true" and told me to read the 13th chapter of 1st
Corinthians. First of all, I do not accept the letters to the church in
corinth, but I have read it anyway. Nowhere did I see where it said we
are not brothers. However, in verse four, it said "Love is patient and
kind; love is not jealous or boastful;". What did Jesus say about Love?
Well, look at Matthew 5:43-44: "You have heard that it was said, `You
shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, 'Love
your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'." Obviously, I am
not persecuting you, so if you are ordered to love even those who
persecute you, then it should be easy to love someone like me, who is
merely trying to discuss God's law with you. Are we not brothers? Does
not the bible teach brotherhood? Read Deuteronomy 23:7 where it says
"You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not
abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land." The
edomites and Egyptians were sworn enemies of the believers in the bible
(Jews) but still it says they are your brother. Im assuming based on
yopur last name (and I apologize if I'm wrong) that you are jewish. I
remember it was King Hussein Ibn Taleel (of Jordan) who descibed the
Jews and Arabs as brothers and descendants of the children of Abraham.
Even if you're not jewish, which one of Noah's three sons are you
descended from? Are you sure we're not brothers? Even the wicked edomite
who God hated is your brother according to the bible.
-Denis Giron
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
comb...@hotmail.com
mytaj...@aol.como (MyTajMahal) wrote:
> n article <7imss9$l9r$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, denis...@my-deja.com
writes:
>
> Well Denis it isn't the Absolute truth and as you have clearly
> shown in reference to certain opinionated writers it is a
> theory and an explanation based upon a theory which is a
> long way from the truth.
Okay Taj, fair enough. I'll be sure to use that line whenever anyone
uses a written source to make an argument. I'll step away from John
Dominic Crossan, and Carlo Suares, and instead, focus on what you wrote.
I will try to show you that Islam is monotheist and in tune with the
TaNaKh (TaNaCh), while your form of religion is not in the least bit
connected.
>
> >The whole idea of worshipping Jesus as God is completely pagan.
>
> The idea of worshipping Messiah (The anointed of God) is rooted
> in the Tanak.
You've got to be kidding me. When ever Muslims acuse Christians of being
polytheists, your response is always "that shows how ignorant you are,
we don't believe in three Gods, we believe in one God in three forms"
(or something to that effect. However, look at what you just said. You
admitted you worship the Messiah, "the anointed of God". If he's the
anointed of God (God anointed him) then he's not actually God himself
now is he? Read the last sentence of Isaiah 43:10 along with Isaiah
43:11 where it says "......Before me no god was formed, nor shall there
be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior."
Thats something Muslims can agree with! That's what the TaNaKh says.
> >You get upset when people assert that the concept of Jesus being the
> >half human half God
>
> This is irrelevant. I see that Jochen claims that
> Messiah is fully human and fully God.
I already know that, what I'm trying to point out is you (and Jochen and
about 1 billion other christians) claim Jesus is God, he's a man, he
prays to God, he's God himself. The people who attack this pagan theory
are not the ones who are ignorant. We understand fully what you are
trying to say, but it's obvious you have lost understanding of the
Messiah.
You wrote:
> <snipped the story about the Nicean council answered many times>
Actually, no, nobody has ever disputed the story about the Nicean
Council. Christian polytheists have merely said "it's not ture" or "it
never happened". Time and Time again I tell people to order the
documentary from the discovery channel, where it talks about Constantine
compiling, and sponsoring the recognized new testament, as well as
father Arphenasius leading the people who think that the Messiah should
be worshipped as God. This is the birthplace of your polytheist
religion.
> >Read the hebrew scriptures. Micah 5:4 says the Messiah is
> >sent by God, and works for God. How can he be God himself,
> >if he was sent by God?
>
> Nothing is impossible for God and do not set limits upon Him.
> Read the Hebrew Scriptures in many places and you will find
> passages like in Hosea 1:7. Elohim is speaking and says;
> "Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save
> them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow,
> nor by sword, by horses or horsemen." So 'Elolim" sends
> the "Lord their God" to save Judah
You've got to be kidding me. So you're saying Hosea 1:7 is telling us
that God will send a separate God? Let me guess, God will send another
God (even though they are the same God). This is this backwards
Christian circular reasoning. It never said God will send God. It says
Judah will be saved by God. The word "send" never appeared in there.
Don't use the TaNaKh to promote your polytheism.
> Messiah sometimes acts in His human capacity and sometimes
> in His divine capacity. But I am sure that you have come
> across the passages in the TaNaK where God speaks to God?
> No? Well here is one: Psalm 110:1
Are you kidding me? This is what you offer up as support to your
polytheist doctrine. No Rabbi, Jew, or hebrew speaker would ever accept
this garbage. Psalms 110:1 says "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at
my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." You must have
offered this thinking that the poor ignorant Muslims would not be able
to explain it. First, if you're going to quote from the TaNaKh (and use
the term TaNaKh rather than "Old Testament") you should learn Hebrew.
I'm sure whatever english translation you have, puts the first LORD in
all caps, while the second is not. The first LORD is translated from
YHWH (Yahweh, Yahuah, Jehovah, Allah etc) which is THE ONE TRUE GOD (an
arab would say Al-Ilah). The second lord was translated from Adon which
means lord or master, and in modern hebrew can be used as sir. It's
someone other than God who is NOT God. You can ask any rabbi, and I'm
sure he'd tell you that there is only one God in that conversation.
> >You believe Jesus is God, and therefore you are a
> >pagan.
>
> If you don't believe Him to be God and therefore unable
> to forgive sins (as he claimed) then you are pagan :-)
Okay let me get this straight. So if I don't believe Jesus is God, then
I am a pagan? Was it not Jesus who said (Mark 12:29) that the greatest
commandment was "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is ONE GOD"? He was
quoting from the Torah. Was it not Jesus who in John 5:30 that said that
he is nothing without God (why not? I thought he was God himself.)
Finally, numerous times in your reply you said that the "ancients
worshipped God in physical form". I have no idea what you're talking
about, please show this to me in the Torah. I do not know of anyother
man (any man at all) who was considered God in the TaNaK. Thanks
--Denis Giron
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
jk...@math.gatech.edu
comb...@hotmail.com writes:
> > That the above claims about the meaning of IESOUS in Greek is
> > nonsense, I have already explained two days ago my first
> > response to this posting.
>
> If you already did so then why are you doing it again? You seem like
> you're complaining as though the same argument keeps getting thrown at
> you, when in reality you responded to the same post twice!
Well, it was a long posting with many arguments.
I responded to one aspect of your argument and the next day
I suddenly had an idea which didn't come to me when I responded
originally. It was a distinctly different question that I had
not raised in the first response, so I posted a second one.
What exactly is your complaint about that? My second idea related
to the same paragraph. So I quoted your statement again. I did not
repeat my refutation, I only refered to it and then went on to
formulate my further questions. I don't know why you would be so
irritated about that. I did not claim it was repeated by you after
it was refuted. In fact, I would like to pay you the compliment
that you seem to have accepted my arguments on the linguistic
discussion, instead of digging in your heels and insisting on
your former claims. That is a somewhat unusual experience on
this forum. :-)
> > Seemingly, Mr. Giron thinks the meaning of the name Y'hoshua is
> > important. It is important that this meaning is also expressed in
> > (the Greek) transliteration of it, not just in the original language.
> >
> > What meaning does the Arabic form for the name of Jesus in the
> > Qur'an have? What is the meaning of the word `Isa ?
>
> A very valid point Jochen. Quite possibly Isa means nothing, ...
> > Muhammad is an Arabic name and has the meaning "praised one".
> > Do any of the other prophet names in the Qur'an have a meaning
> > in Arabic or are they just names? Ibrahim? Ishma'il? Yusuf, Yunus,
> > Yahya, Hud, Salih? Do these names have meaning in Arabic?
>
> Again Jochen, very valid points. Quite possibly, as you said of Iesous,
> they mean nothing, and are just arabic versions of the original form.
This conversation is becoming ever so pleasant. :-)
> > If the meaning of Jesus' name in his own language is so important,
> > what does it mean to a Muslim that Jesus is called "God is Salvation"?
> > Where does this concept of salvation play a role in Islam, and how
> > does Jesus figure into this concept in Islamic theology?
>
> Well, it fits right into Muslim doctrine. God is salvation, not Jesus.
But you can hardly overlook that one of the main titles of Jesus
in the New Testament is "The Savior". Obviously, one can give this
name to a child as a reminder to everyone that "God is our Savior"
(like when Joshua has that name and many others after him, it was
by no means a rare name), or one can give this name to indicate that
this child is this salvation from God, but since the savior is God,
this is the God-man. I do not think you will accept that so easily,
but it is a possibility. Why did Jesus receive his name by the
command of an angel? [Incidentally, that is something left out in
the Qur'anic report of the annunciation, if I remember right.]
Compare who is called "The Savior" in the OT and NT:
Savior Isaiah 43:3 Matthew 1:21
Isaiah 43:11 Luke 2:11
Isaiah 63:8 John 1:29
Luke 1:47 John 4:42
1 Timothy 4:10 Titus 2:13
Hebrews 5:9
Let me just pick one of these ... God, Yahweh, declares his unique
saviorhood for example in Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.
In the NT we read from the mouth of the angels, this pronouncement:
Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you;
he is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11
Also note the other title he is given: "The Lord".
Again, an angel appears to Joseph, announcing about the birth of Jesus:
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,
because he will save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21
Clearly, Jesus was given his name for this very clear purpose
that He Himself is the savior, not just as "reminder" that God is
our salvation. And this was done against the Hebrew understanding
that the LORD is our Savior and there is none else.
Question: Why did the Qur'an leave out this detail, even though
the largest part of the Qur'anic material about Jesus deals with
his birth and the annunciation of it to Mary (narrated at least
twice).
> This is pure monotheist doctrine that God is salvation, i.e. Gos is the
> only savior!
Amen. We fully agree. And he came as our Savior in the person of
Jesus of Nazareth.
> This can be found in the TaNaKh as well. Read Isaiah 43:11
> where it says "I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior."
Amen. You are so close.
> As
> for your question about "how does Jesus figure into this concept in
> Islamic theology?" I will say this.... Al-Imran 3:45 very clearly says
> Jesus is the Messiah. It is my understanding that the Messiah is the one
> who "opens the doors" for the non-jews.
That too, but that is not all. That would be a very deficient understanding
of the Messiah. And HOW do you think he opened this door? What did he
do to open this door, even though his ministry mostly focussed on Israel
in his life time on earth?
Again, the Qur'an agrees that Jesus is the Messiah (in the sense that
it retains this title), but does the Qur'an have a clear understanding
of what the meaning of this title is? You give some aspects of it,
but those are hardly gleaned from the Qur'an.
> In otherwords, through the
> messiah, the non-jew (Arab, etc) can benefit from worshipping the God of
> Abraham, and living by the laws of the one true God. The TaNaKh confirms
> this, as in Zechariah 8:23, while discussing the coming of the Messiah,
> it says "Thus says the LORD of hosts: In those days ten men from the
> nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying,
> `Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'" So
> obviously through the Messiah, people of nations other than Israel can
> follow God, and worship God.
I agree, however, the Muslims stress ever so often, that Jesus was only
for the children of Israel. If now Jesus was the one who already opened
the access to God for all people, the messenger to all mankind, what is
left for Muhammad?
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
MyTajMahal
>> Taj
>> Well Denis it isn't the Absolute truth and as you have clearly
>> shown in reference to certain opinionated writers it is a
>> theory and an explanation based upon a theory which is a
>> long way from the truth.
Denis
>Okay Taj, fair enough. I'll be sure to use that line whenever anyone
>uses a written source to make an argument. I'll step away from John
>Dominic Crossan, and Carlo Suares, and instead, focus on what you wrote.
Fine. I would recommend that you also look into the Zohar which is the central
work of the Kabbalah (of the most orthodox Jews - for those who are not
familiar with it) and you will find a lot of commentary which counters the
'sterile' monotheism which many secular Jews (apart from the atheists and
communists :-) seem so keen to parade around today. If you can - check out the
Amsterdam edition which is in Hebrew. You know Hebrew don't you?
>I will try to show you that Islam is monotheist and in tune with the
>TaNaKh (TaNaCh), while your form of religion is not in the least bit
>connected.
With respect you don't know anything about my 'form of religion'. What is
puzzling me is your "form of religion'.
Denis
>> >The whole idea of worshipping Jesus as God is completely pagan.
Taj
>> The idea of worshipping Messiah (The anointed of God) is rooted
>> in the Tanak.
Denis
>You've got to be kidding me.
Not at all but providing you the evidence on SRI will be difficult so if you
want to discuss it by email then please do.
>When ever Muslims acuse Christians of being
>polytheists, your response is always
Where do you get the idea that 'my response is always'. Where is your evidence
of anyone calling me (prior to today) a polytheist on SRI or anywhere else?
Why do you insist on going around making false accusations about people?
Denis
>"that shows how ignorant you are,
>we don't believe in three Gods, we believe in one God in three forms"
I have never said this. I have never addressed this issue ever. Since you
accuse me then provide your evidence.
>(or something to that effect. However, look at what you just said. You
>admitted you worship the Messiah, "the anointed of God". If he's the
>anointed of God (God anointed him) then he's not actually God himself
>now is he?
Yes He is is actually God in manifestation just like the Angel of the Lord who
appeared to Manoah, Gideon and others as recorded in the TaNaK.
>Read the last sentence of Isaiah 43:10 along with Isaiah
>43:11 where it says "......Before me no god was formed, nor shall there
>be any after me.
And that is exactly what I claim and believe.
>I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior."
Exactly. Then go read the testimony of Isaiah in 63: "He (God) said "Surely
they are my people...so He was their Saviour...In all their afliction he was
afflicted and the Angel of His Presence saved them." Huh? Besides the Lord
there is no Saviour ? so they must be one and the same !. It might also be
helpful for you to discover who the Rabbis in the Zohar claim the Redeemer and
Saviour is before you come back to me on this.
>Thats something Muslims can agree with! That's what the TaNaKh says.
They only agree with the bits which prophesy the coming of Muhammad :-)
Denis
>> >You get upset when people assert that the concept of Jesus being the
>> >half human half God
Taj
>> This is irrelevant. I see that Jochen claims that
>> Messiah is fully human and fully God.
Denis
>I already know that, what I'm trying to point out is you (and Jochen and
>about 1 billion other christians) claim Jesus is God.
Fair enough we do.
>he's a man, he prays to God, he's God himself.
Yes that is right.
>The people who attack this pagan theory are not the ones who
>are ignorant.
It isn't a 'theory' it is the truth about God which is also in the TaNaK.
Denis
> We understand fully what you are trying to say, but it's obvious
> you have lost understanding of the Messiah.
Not at all. We havn't 'lost' anything.
>Taj wrote:
>> <snipped the story about the Nicean council answered many times>
Denis
>Actually, no, nobody has ever disputed the story about the Nicean
>Council. Christian polytheists have merely said "it's not ture" or "it
>never happened". Time and Time again I tell people to order the
>documentary from the discovery channel, where it talks about Constantine
>compiling, and sponsoring the recognized new testament, as well as
>father Arphenasius leading the people who think that the Messiah should
>be worshipped as God. This is the birthplace of your polytheist
>religion.
The whole issue of the Nicean council is not of any interest or relevance to me
and certainly nothing about the New Testamant as there is much more earlier
evidence for the collection of writings.
Denis
>> >Read the hebrew scriptures. Micah 5:4 says the Messiah is
>> >sent by God, and works for God. How can he be God himself,
>> >if he was sent by God?
Taj
>> Nothing is impossible for God and do not set limits upon Him.
>> Read the Hebrew Scriptures in many places and you will find
>> passages like in Hosea 1:7. Elohim is speaking and says;
>> "Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save
>> them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow,
>> nor by sword, by horses or horsemen." So 'Elolim" sends
>> the "Lord their God" to save Judah.
Denis
>You've got to be kidding me. So you're saying Hosea 1:7 is telling us
>that God will send a separate God?
No there is only One God - God will appear in person to deliver Judah. God
will save them in the way he saved the Moses and his brethren from the armies
of Pharaoh. Not a separate God. The One God who appears to deliver them.
>Let me guess
Guessing is your problem
> God will send another God (even though they are the same God).
No not 'another God'. God will appear as he did in the cloud which delivered
the Moses and the brethren from Pharaoh. There is only ONE Saviour. The Angel
of His Presence saved them.
>This is this backwards Christian circular reasoning.
You flatter me.
> It never said God will send God.
Then who will He send since we agree there is only one Saviour?
>It says Judah will be saved by God.
You forgot one thing the 'It' is God speaking and He says He will save them "by
the Lord their God."
>The word "send" never appeared in there.
I never claimed it appeared in the text but since God in past days saved by the
Angel of His Presence then I am only responding your strange claim which you
clipped that "if Messiah was _sent_ then how could He be God. However God does
_send_ His Saviour and Redeemer as you will read in many places in the TaNaK.
>Don't use the TaNaKh to promote your polytheism.
I don't have any 'polytheism'. I never claim that there is more than One God.
Taj
>> Messiah sometimes acts in His human capacity and sometimes
>> in His divine capacity. But I am sure that you have come
>> across the passages in the TaNaK where God speaks to God?
>> No? Well here is one: Psalm 110:1
Denis
>Are you kidding me? This is what you offer up as support to your
>polytheist doctrine. No Rabbi, Jew, or hebrew speaker would ever accept
>this garbage.
Really? How would you know? :-)
Denis
>Psalms 110:1 says "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at
>my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." You must have
>offered this thinking that the poor ignorant Muslims would not be able
>to explain it. First, if you're going to quote from the TaNaKh (and use
>the term TaNaKh rather than "Old Testament") you should learn Hebrew.
>I'm sure whatever english translation you have, puts the first LORD in
>all caps, while the second is not. The first LORD is translated from
>YHWH (Yahweh, Yahuah, Jehovah, Allah etc) which is THE ONE TRUE GOD (an
>arab would say Al-Ilah). The second lord was translated from Adon which
>means lord or master, and in modern hebrew can be used as sir. It's
>someone other than God who is NOT God. You can ask any rabbi, and I'm
>sure he'd tell you that there is only one God in that conversation.
Thanks for the little lesson in Hebrew but we all know that.
The first LORD is indeed YHVH and not the Allah of Muhammad. The second Lord
is indeed 'Adon' and it is He who is the Lord of King David. Huh? So who is
the 'Adon' of King David? Unless David was one of those "christian'
polytheists then his 'Adon' was YHVH. So YHVY speaks to YHVH. Strange but
true.
Denis
>> >You believe Jesus is God, and therefore you are a
>> >pagan.
Taj
>> If you don't believe Him to be God and therefore unable
>> to forgive sins (as he claimed) then you are pagan :-)
Denis
>Okay let me get this straight. So if I don't believe Jesus is God, then
>I am a pagan? Was it not Jesus who said (Mark 12:29) that the greatest
>commandment was "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is ONE GOD"?
>He was quoting from the Torah.
Well it depends on how you define Heathen. I withdraw my comment and
apologise. Regarding the Shema if you were true to the Hebrew and if you could
see through Rashi's smokescreen you would know the truth about the plurality of
personalities acknowledged in the Shema.
> Was it not Jesus who in John 5:30 that said that
>he is nothing without God (why not? I thought he was God himself.)
In John 5:30 Messiah said "I can of mine own self do nothing" meaning that He
doesn't act independantly of YHVH. In verse 19 He says " The Son (Messiah) can
can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father (YHVH) do: For what
things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." What? They do
_everything_ exactly the same? Yes because they are One and the same.
Denis
>Finally, numerous times in your reply you said that the "ancients
>worshipped God in physical form". I have no idea what you're talking
>about, please show this to me in the Torah. I do not know of anyother
>man (any man at all) who was considered God in the TaNaK. Thanks
OK Denis this is where it gets serious. The ancients did worship 'people' who
they bowed down to. You must have read my webpage on the God of Abraham ?
Here it is again and if you want then email me privately because, sadly, I
don't think that it is a topic for SRI
http://members.aol.com/crossfires/messiah/god.htm
And for the moderators. This discussion has been about Monotheism in the Torah
which Dennis claims is the same as the Monotheism of Islam. These claims are
made in many places and surely it is relevant to Islam to discuss that the
Torah does not support the Qur'anic position of sterile monotheism.
Kind regards
Jochen Katz
comb...@hotmail.com writes:
> Fair enough Jochen. I agree that maybe my post jumped all over the
> place, so this time I will try to keep it more centered.
However, you are changing the topic from what it originally was.
Fine with me.... So it seems the original issue we found some
agreement on and we can lay it aside.
> My post will
> cover two things: First I will discuss the concept of Jesus being God,
> and why I personally think Muslims have a better concept of the Messiah
> than you do. The second topic will revolve around love between Muslims
> and Christians, in response to you saying we are not brothers.
Well, frankly, I have not seen Muslims having any real concept of
the Messiah at all. The Qur'an uses the term a number of times, but
it never fills it with meaning. What is the function of "the Messiah"?
What makes him "the Messiah" in distinction to the other prophets?
The Qur'an explicitly says that Jesus, the Messiah, is ONLY a messenger
and many messengers have come before him. In the Hebrew scriptures,
the Messiah certainly is unique, a very special figure. In the Qur'an
this special meaning gets completely lost. Could you try to define
the meaning of the term "Messiah" from the Qur'an? I don't think you
can. It remains without real content. Why give him such a "special"
title and then fail to say what this title signifies?
Also, what do you mean by "better concept"? By what standard to you
judge my concept of the Messiah (and I am not even sure you have
understood my concept) against that of Muslims? What is the standard
to measure our concepts against?
> ==================
> Messiah Jesus
> ==================
> Before I get into my response, I would like to say that I recognize that
> you will never accept anything coming out of a Muslims mouth as being
> true,
Not true. I have often accepted statements of Muslims as true.
Just in the other thread "conversion info" I affirmed Mansoor
Butt several times for giving the proper Islamic reasoning.
Not that it is good, but it is correct Islamically, and I happily
accept that.
> so I'll offer a three on-line writings from Christians....
>
> http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/doctrine_develop.htm
And you think these are Christians? This is from the official
web site of the Jehovah's witnesses, a cult. They are not
Christian. I don't even need to look at it. I know their
doctrines and arguments. Nothing new about them.
> http://www.plim.org/IsJesusGod.html
Well, these people don't even call themselves Christians. I don't
really know what they are, but let us concentrate on what
they say about the Messiah, and then see whether you want to
agree... http://www.plim.org/sqincarnation.html states:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Incarnation of Elohim into the flesh
and the Fulfillment of the Scriptures
Lecture Topic for December 1997 - Feb. 199
Purpose of this series Lectures:
This series of lectures is show forth that the Messiah, who is Elohim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Jn. 1:1-4,14, Col. 1:14-16), visited mankind many times not only Israel
but also other cultures.
1. What scriptures in the Old and New Testament show that Elohim visited
mankind in the flesh before coming as Yahshua the Messiah?
2. What was the purpose of Elohim manifesting in the earth plane before
He came to die for the sins of world?
3. Were the Messiah's appearances on earth foretold in the scriptures?
4. What did the Messiah say about his past visitations?
5. Is there any pattern to these visitations?
6. Has Elohim physically appeared, but not revealed himself, to men in
other cultures? Have various cultures literature claimed that this
mystery figure is an alien?
etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You want to tell me they are correct and I should learn from them?
Well, I agree that the Messiah is God (Elohim), but I disagree that
there were lots of other incarnations of God before. I think this
group is decidedly further away from Islam than orthodox Christianity.
Sometimes I really wonder about the suggestions for reading I am getting...
> Those are three websites discussing how certain Christian doctrines
> (such as Jesus being God) are related to the Nicean Council.
I never denied those doctrines are "related" to the Nicean Council.
After all, they were discussed there, and because the bishops
came to the conclusions they are Biblical, that is why they were
part of their decisions.
However, you seemingly have been thinking a bit too much about the trinity
when you now claim that 2 = 3. [ two addresses = three websites ? ]
In any case, I have never argued for the Trinity on the basis of
a council, Nicea or otherwise. My arguments have always been ONLY
from the Bible. THAT is what you have to deal with. The issue is
scripture, not councils.
> Okay first I'd like to comment on the documentary I offered. You totally
> put it aside, but said that nobody from the Discovery channel "is that
> dumb". Well my friend, I ask you to buy that video, "Christianity: the
> First 1,000 years", by calling 1800-423-1212. You wanted me to quote
> directly from the documentary, so I will. In the segment on the Nicean
> council, organized by the pagan emporer Constantine, they said that it
> was Arphanasius (sp?) who argued that Jesus was equal to God.
This alone shows how little you know about the history of Christianity.
Athanasius was the MAIN figure at that council. If you don't even
know how he is spelled, that is a bad sign. By the way, he is discussed
and mentioned many times on the first website you "recommended". Do you
yourself read carefully what you recommened?d
Anyway, Athanasius did not argue that Jesus was "equal to God".
He argued that he is God incarnate. Being "God's equal" would mean
that he is a second god, and that was NEVER an option for Christians.
If they said that, then the tape is not worth the material it is is
copied on. I would have expected a little more from that channel.
I would recommend you to get a good book on church history,
the paragraph continues just as confused as it started.
> This was
> obviously not something Jesus taught, as many of the priests and
> religious figures at the council disagreed. However, once Constantine
> was in favor of the notion that Jesus was God, that train of thought won
> by a landslide. This SAME documentary said it was Constantine who
> promoted the idea that Jesus was God, and it was him who compiled the
> New Testament (with the help of Arphenasius and others) and subsidized
> 50 large bibles to be sent out to the fifty biggest chruches within that
> empire. The New testament was finished, with the help of Arphenasius, in
> 367.
Just note that Constantine died in 337. He certainly couldn't be of
much help in 367. And this whole claim is ludicrous. If you want to
learn something about the formation of the canon, read about it here:
http://www.integrityonline15.com/jpholding/tekton/Tekton_TOC.html
> The compilers of the New Testament rejected some gospels, and
> accepted others, thus the creation of the current "new testament". I'll
> give more sources....
And a good book on the Canon might help too. Sure some things were
rejected, but one has to ask WHY were some books not considered?
Shall we include everything that claims to be gospel? How about
those gnostic gospels who basically claim that Jesus was God but
never really became man, but he only 'appeared to them as such'
(does that phrase look familiar to you?)
> An excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica 1968
>
> "The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325. Constantine himself
> presiding, actively guiding the discussion, and personally proposed the
> crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed
> issued by the council. 'of one substance with the father.' Over-awed by
> the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed,
> many of them against their inclination. Constantine regarded the
> decision of Nicaea as divinely inspired. As long as he lived no one
> dared openly to challenge the creed of Nicaea."
>
> So according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Constantine was the one who
> pushed this notion of Jesus being "of the same substance as the father"
> (i.e. he was also God).
Well, I had a look at the EB 1955 (in our math lounge) and it doesn't
say this, nor does the current version on the internet. The EB is
changed every year, so you seem to have taken great efforts to find
the edition that was most anti-orthodox. Given their differing
versions, the EB is hardly the ultimate reference on church history.
> I continuously say that the idea of Jesus being God is pagan!
Well, continuing to say it doesn't make it more true.
> Of course
> any quote from the Qur'an (you've seen them all) is not acceptable to
> you. Well, the Qur'an tells muslims to say this to Christians: "Say O
> People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe
> the Torah......" (al-Ma'ida 5:68).
Every quote of the Qur'an is acceptable as a documentation of what the
Qur'an says. But does that mean it is true, even more true than the EB?
Hardly.
> The Qur'an essentially tells it's
> followers to tell the Christians to go back and study your scriptures.
That is what I do, and that is why I present the doctrine of the Trinity
from the scriptures alone: http://answering-islam.org/Trinity/
> I
> cut the verse where it says Torah to prove a point. I'm telling you now
> Christian: You have no guidance until you observe the Torah!
AND the gospel. It doesn't say you may choose which one you like best.
> Is Jesus
> God in the form of a man? Read numbers 23:19 (from the Torah). The first
> thing it says is "GOD IS NOT A MAN!" It goes on to say that is also not
> a son of man! That seems pretty simple to me.
Good grief. Can you pay a bit of attention to the context?
Silly quotes get silly answers: At the time, God had not yet become
man. It doesn't say God will never be man, or never become man.
Full quotation:
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it?
or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?", Numbers 23:19
Where is the emphasis of this verse? What is its message? Does it
deny the incarnation? No. It says that God does not lie LIKE MEN DO.
He does not fail to keep his promises. THAT is the meaning of the
verse. It has nothing to do with the ability of God to become man.
Well, if you want to take things out of context, before you come
to Numbers, there is Exodus:
"The LORD is a man ..." (Exodus 15:3).
So, the case is established.
> There are so many sources that state that this modern christian concept
> of Jesus being God is related to some sort of paganism.
What is your definition of source? Does every speculation or
opinion qualify to be called a source?
> Here are some other sources.....
>
> According to the New Bible Dictionary 1982, "The word trinity is not
> found in the Bible . . . " ". . . it did not find a place formally in
> the theology of the church till the 4th century." ". . . it is not a
> biblical doctrine in the sense that any formation of it can be found in
> the Bible, . . ." "Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of
> the trinity, . . ."
You have to introduce a LOT of "..." to make it appear to say what you
would like, don't you? However, you couldn't find the paganism in
that source.
> According to The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995, ". . .
> scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as
> such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."
Nor here.
> According to The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967, "The formulation 'one
> God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully
> assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to
> the end of the 4th century."
I agree. But does the time it needed to find the proper formulation
mean that it is not Biblical? Do you realize that the word tawheed
is not in the Qur'an, but it is nevertheless the proper word to describe
Islamic theology?
> According to Dictionary of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie, "The trinity
> of God is defined by the church as the belief that in God are three
> persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached
> only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and
> formally a biblical belief."
Are you going to admit that you copied that one from this page,
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1053/12216.html or from his book?
Have you read McKenzie's complete article? What does he say? Note:
EXPLICITLY and FORMALLY. He does NOT deny that the teaching is Biblical,
he only says (like the other dictionaries) that these exact formulations
are not used in the Bible itself, and were developed later. So what?
And certainly nowhere does he say it is from pagan origin.
Here is some more of that entry on the trinity by McKenzie:
Jesus ... knows the Father and reveals Him.
HE THEREFORE BELONGS TO THE DIVINE LEVEL OF BEING;
AND THERE IS NO QUESTION AT ALL ABOUT THE SPIRIT BELONGING
TO THE DIVINE LEVEL OF BEING.
and many other parts of that article show that McKenzie does
hold that the Bible teaches the content of the doctrine of the
trinity, though it does not use the words. I find it very
sad that people have to misquote Christian dictionaries and
try to make them say something other than they really do.
You can find the quote and our response and lots more at
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r01.2.2.16.html#McKenzie
> So Jochen, was the concept of Jesus being God created in the 4th century
No. Its most proper formulation was discussed. The concept was not
created, it was discovered in the Bible.
> (at the Nicean council) or am I making all of this up, and misquoting
> the discovery channel? Your response will be greatly apreciated.
I am not so sure if you misquote the discovery channel, but you certainly
tried to make the Bible dictionaries say something they do NOT say.
That is misquotation.
By the way, I thought you wanted to to discuss how the Muslim concept
of the Messiah is better than mine. I think you lost your train of
thought somewhere. You tried unsuccessfully to claim that the Trinity
is a pagan concept, but you did not discuss the Muslim concept of
the Messiah. I am not surprised, because they don't have one, but
then don't promise, if you are not going to deliver.
> =======================================
> Love Between Christians and Muslims
> =======================================
>
> When I said we are all brothers (jews, christians, muslims) you said
> "This is not true" and told me to read the 13th chapter of 1st
> Corinthians.
No, I did not. I told you to read that chapter as a definition
of what love is, because you attacked me in your letter and then
claimed that you love me. THAT was the reason you should read it.
The issue of brother or not, was dealt with before. Don't mix
up two different statements.
> First of all, I do not accept the letters to the church in
> corinth, but I have read it anyway. Nowhere did I see where it said we
> are not brothers.
Well, I never claimed it did. My posting clearly stated:
------------------
> Truly you are, just as I am, a man,
Something we can agree about, and I never claimed anything else.
> a creature created by Ha-El (Al-Ilah), and you are therefor
> my brother and I love you. The Muslim, the Jew and the Christian are
> sworn enemies at this point, but we are all brothers.
This is not true. We are all "brothers in humanity" as Ahmed Deedat
expressed it. But both religions, Islam and Christianity only
call those brothers who have the same faith. Muslims call each
other brothers, but not the Christians (and Muhammad never did
to my knowledge) nor do Christians call non-Christians brothers
because that is the title for a fellow follower of Christ.
Let us respect each other as people, but let us not be syncretistic
and pretend there is more that connects us than there is in truth.
You love me? Check your definition against 1 Corinthians 13.
------------------
Nowhere did I claim that 1 Cor. 13 would give you a definition
of who is a spiritual brother.
> However, in verse four, it said "Love is patient and
> kind; love is not jealous or boastful;". What did Jesus say about Love?
> Well, look at Matthew 5:43-44: "You have heard that it was said, `You
> shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, 'Love
> your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'." Obviously, I am
> not persecuting you, so if you are ordered to love even those who
> persecute you, then it should be easy to love someone like me, who is
> merely trying to discuss God's law with you.
That is not the issue. The enemies are not brothers,
even if you do show love to them.
> Are we not brothers? Does
> not the bible teach brotherhood? Read Deuteronomy 23:7 where it says
> "You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not
> abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land."
But the Edomites are called brothers because the Israelites are sons
of Jacob, the Edomites are sons of Esau, and Jacob and Esau are
physical brothers. NOTE: the Egyptians are NOT called brothers.
Isn't that obvious?
> The
> edomites and Egyptians were sworn enemies of the believers in the bible
> (Jews) but still it says they are your brother.
No, it does not. It only says it about the Edomites, because they
are, genealogically. But we were not talking about physical kinships
we were talking about spiritual brothers.
And it doesn't say this to me either, I am not a Jew.
> Im assuming based on
> yopur last name (and I apologize if I'm wrong) that you are jewish.
The name is Jewish, but that doesn't make me a Jew. Ask the Jews how
Jewishness is defined.
> I remember it was King Hussein Ibn Taleel (of Jordan) who descibed the
> Jews and Arabs as brothers and descendants of the children of Abraham.
Correct, they are related through Abraham. But that again is
genealogical, not spiritual brotherhood. Was this so difficult
to understand? Muslims, including Jordanian kings, do not call
Jews or Christians 'brothers in the faith'. Did Muhammad ever
call the Jews or Christians "brothers"? I asked this before
and you did not respond. If Muhammad did not do this, why do
you think you have the authority to overrule him?
> Even if you're not jewish, which one of Noah's three sons are you
> descended from? Are you sure we're not brothers? Even the wicked edomite
> who God hated is your brother according to the bible.
EVEN if I were Jewish, are you an Edomite?
But I would suggest that you read the NT and see where Jesus or
the apostles call people who are non-believers in Jesus "brother"
and the Qur'an / Hadith and see where Muslims call non-Muslims
brothers.
Then give me the evidence and we can discuss this issue.
Jochen Katz
comb...@hotmail.com
jk...@math.gatech.edu (Jochen Katz) wrote:
> However, you seemingly have been thinking a bit too much
> about the trinity when you now claim that 2 = 3. [ two
> addresses = three websites ? ]
Before I start, let me say I included the above because I found it very
funny. Good point. I originally planned to put three sites, but I was so
anxious to get points across, most of my message was jumbled. Very funny
response LOL
You wrote:
> By the way, I thought you wanted to to discuss how the Muslim concept
> of the Messiah is better than mine. I think you lost your train of
> thought somewhere. You tried unsuccessfully to claim that the Trinity
> is a pagan concept, but you did not discuss the Muslim concept of
> the Messiah.
Good point, I think I have a real problem with staying on track, but I'm
getting better =^) I'll focus on the MESSIAH. By the way, I'm not
ignoring the rest of your post, it was very good, I'm just going to
focus on the term Messiah, and it's meaning.
First let me retract the statement "the muslim concept of Messiah is
better than yours". The muslims do not have a monopoly on the term
Messiah, and I will concede that many Muslims also have a poor idea of
what the messiah is. Many say "well, all the prophets were Messiahs" or,
if you go into an AOL chatroom, and in capital letters yell "WAS JESUS
THE MESSIAH?" You'll quickly recieve ten or so responses saying "No. He
was just a prophet". So, my conclusion is that many muslims also do not
have a grasp of the Messiah.
The fact is, your text, and my text both say Jesus is the Messiah. Both
of us believe he is the Messiah. We just disagree completely as to what
Messiah means. The Qur'an says Jesus is the Messiah, so for me, that's
it, he's the Messiah, it says so on elevn occassions. But lets discuss
this concept.
The following excerpt is a snippet from a previous discussion between us
which can be found at
http://x22.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=483762377&search=thread&CONT
EXT=928772194.406519829&HIT_CONTEXT=928772194.406519829&HIT_NUM=3&hitnum
=8
=============
Denis Giron Wrote:
> Read the hebrew scriptures. Micah 5:4 says the Messiah
> is sent by God, and works for God. How can he be God
> himself, if he was sent by God?
Jochen Katz responded:
I think it is a good question to ask, but you gave up too fast. Instead
of waiting for an answer, you just claimed that this is not possible.
Unless you want an answer and want to understand, no answer I can give
will convince you. So, I will defer until you want to know. In fact,
Micah 5:2-4 is a passage that does indicate the deity of the Messiah. It
shows his eternality, which is a divine attribute. You couldn't choose a
worse passage as prooftext for your claim.
============
Okay so I offered Micah 5:4 to prove my point, and you countered with
Micah 5:2 (or asked me to take 5:2,3 into context as well). As a counter
to your counter, I will AGAIN offer Micah 5:4. Let's view Micah 5:2-4,
which we both agree is discussing the Messiah.
[Micah 5:2-3] But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among
the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be
ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.
Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in
travail has brought forth; then the rest of his brethren shall return to
the people of Israel.
I'm not sure exactly what part of the above proves the Messiah is God,
but I do understand that i can be interpreted as such. However, now I
offer Micah 5:4, the very next verse....
[Micah 5:4] And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the
LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall
dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth.
That's the verse that sums it up for me. He shall stand and feed his
flock in the strength of the LORD. How does he stand "in the strength of
the LORD" if he is God himself? More importantly, he does so "in the
majesty of the name of the LORD his God"! The LORD is HIS GOD! That is
as clear as day! The LORD is HIS GOD! The LORD is the GOD of the
Messiah. The Messiah is a servant of the LORD! It's very clear.
There's a cute book by Rabbi Benjamin Blech titled "The complete idiots
guide ot Jewish history and culture" (That's actually the title!) I
enjoyed the book very much. At anyrate, Rabbi Blech says "Jews believe
in the religion of Jesus, they just can't believe in the religion ABOUT
Jesus". His section on Jesus was very interesting, and he pointed out
that the Messiah is not God. Also, another book, written by a Christian
named William E. Phipps, called "Muhammad and Jesus" had an interesting
thing to say on the concept of Jesus' divinty. While the book made a few
slanderous remarks towards Islam and/or Muhammad, it did say on page 201
"Jesus of Nazareth did not think he was divine". This reminded me why I
jumped all over the place, trying to discuss the Messiah, but ended up
babbling about the Nicean council. If the concept of trinity and Jesus'
divinity was discovered around the early fourth century, what does it
say about it's relation to what Jesus taught? What I mean is, if they
were DISCUSSING and debating this concept at the Nicean council, it
makes one wonder if Jesus ever taught that. Why would they need to
debate it if Jesus taught such things? I would assume (and I acknowledge
my assumptions are often wrong) that Jesus never taught or supported
such a claim. However, let me get back to the term Messiah, before I go
off on another road discussing the nicean council....
As I said earlier, rather than discussing the "muslim concept" of
Messiah vs the "christian concept" of Messiah, lets try and find the
*TRUE* concept of Messiah, and not atribute it to a specific religion.
The Qur'an says Jesus is the Messiah, and also says without a doubt that
he is not God. I consider that to be in tune with the *TRUE* concept of
Messiah. Forget what the muslims say, focus on the quran. (I know that's
a strange statement, what I mean is, the text has the answers). I'll end
it here, and await your response.
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2105
(Torah, Bible and Qur'an on-line in different langauges)
comb...@hotmail.com
jk...@math.gatech.edu wrote:
> ...
Jochen, first of all, let me apologize for taking so long to respond to
this post (roughly 4-5 days) My college was closed, and that's my only
internet access. Regardless let's get to the post...
> > > Muhammad is an Arabic name and has the meaning "praised one".
> > > Do any of the other prophet names in the Qur'an have a meaning
> > > in Arabic or are they just names? Ibrahim? Ishma'il? Yusuf, Yunus,
> > > Yahya, Hud, Salih? Do these names have meaning in Arabic?
> >
> > Again Jochen, very valid points. Quite possibly, as you said of
> > Iesous, they mean nothing, and are just arabic versions of
> > the original form.
>
> This conversation is becoming ever so pleasant. :-)
I'm glad you think so. I'm not intentionally trying to be difficult, we
just have major theological differences that quite possibly may never be
overcome, but it's good to debate them, as through these discussions we
both learn.
> But you can hardly overlook that one of the main titles of Jesus
> in the New Testament is "The Savior". Obviously, one can give this
> name to a child as a reminder to everyone that "God is our Savior"
> (like when Joshua has that name and many others after him, it was
> by no means a rare name), or one can give this name to indicate that
> this child is this salvation from God, but since the savior is God,
> this is the God-man. I do not think you will accept that so easily,
> but it is a possibility. Why did Jesus receive his name by the
> command of an angel? [Incidentally, that is something left out in
> the Qur'anic report of the annunciation, if I remember right.]
I do not personally believe his name is proof he is God (as you
predicted I would not). However, it's an interesting point. On a side
note, the Qur'an DOES report that Jesus recieved his name from an angel
(or more directly from God, the angel just relayed the message). The
begining of Al-Imran 3:45 says "(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..." So the Angel told Mary what the name of her
son would be. Of course one might wonder why the angel would demand to
name the child Isa Al-Masih, but quite possibly (as you pointed out)
this is just the arabic rendering of the story, and the name is not
related directly to his mission (if that makes sense).
> Clearly, Jesus was given his name for this very clear purpose
> that He Himself is the savior, not just as "reminder" that God is
> our salvation. And this was done against the Hebrew understanding
> that the LORD is our Savior and there is none else.
The above makes me question the Gospels, but I'll refrain from disputing
their authenticity, as the Qur'an seemingly stands by them. I'll give
you points here, as I am at a loss as what to say about this. To me it
is seemingly contradictory, not working together. I'll have to gain a
better understanding before I can make a direct comment. Sorry if that
sounds like I'm taking the cheap way out, I'm just saying I don't have
an answer (possibly due to lack of knowledge) and I'll respond when I
understand the concept better.
> > This is pure monotheist doctrine that God is salvation,
> > i.e. Gos is the only savior!
>
> Amen. We fully agree. And he came as our Savior in the person of
> Jesus of Nazareth.
Difficult to accept that Jochen. When debating with Christians in my
school, I often say "If Jesus is God, then he can't be the Messiah" and
I stand by this statement, as in the other road of this thread that
forked, I offered Micah 5:4, which to me (obviously not to you) proves
(along with al-Ma'ida 5:68-72 in conjunction with Al-Imran 3:45) that
the Messiah is NOT GOD. The Messiah is a man, a mortal, a servant of God
(not God himself).
> > As for your question about "how does Jesus figure into this
> > concept in Islamic theology?" I will say this.... Al-Imran
> > 3:45 very clearly says Jesus is the Messiah. It is my
> > understanding that the Messiah is the one
> > who "opens the doors" for the non-jews.
> That too, but that is not all. That would be a very deficient
> understanding of the Messiah. And HOW do you think he opened
> this door? What did he do to open this door, even though his
> ministry mostly focussed on Israel in his life time on earth?
Agreed, his ministry focused on Israel, but does not the bible say Luke
was a gentile? This leads me to assume there were gentiles among Jesus'
followers (although I cannot prove this). How did he open the door?
Well, although I do not accept the book of Timothy, I believe 1 Timothy
2:5 says Jesus is the mediator between men and God. I take that to mean
he's like our lawyer of sorts. I believe the gospels agree Jesus "opened
the door" (so to speak) for the gentiles. In Luke 4:16, Jesus went to
his home town of Nazareth and spoke in the synagogue on the sabbath day.
In verses 17-21 he reads from Isaiah's writings, prophesying of the
Messiah, and says that that days has been fullfilled (i.e. he's the
Messiah they've been waiting for). The begining of verse 4:22 says "And
all spoke well of him" So I take this to mean the Jews were pleased.
Here they are being opressed by the Romans, and a man has come saying he
is the Messiah. This they like. However in verses 23-28 he talks about
instances of prophets healing people of other nations (like Elisha
healing a syrian) and the Jews get mad and try to kill him. Sorry to
bombard you with this long interpretation of Luke's writings, but I take
it to mean Jesus came for the gentiles.
> Again, the Qur'an agrees that Jesus is the Messiah (in the sense that
> it retains this title), but does the Qur'an have a clear understanding
> of what the meaning of this title is? You give some aspects of it,
> but those are hardly gleaned from the Qur'an.
Well, the Qur'an tells us two things: (1) Jesus is the Messiah and (2)
Jesus is not God!. I accept those to be true. Maybe the Qur'an does not
give much else concerning the term Messiah, but Yunus 10:94 tells us
"And if thou art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee,
then question those who read the Scripture that was before thee." I
personally take that to mean we can get a better understanding from the
TaNaKh (hence my constant reference to Old Testament scrips like Micah
5:4)
> I agree, however, the Muslims stress ever so often, that
> Jesus was only for the children of Israel.
Yes, many muslims assert that, but that is not a fact. I personally do
not accept that train of thought. One Imam told me that God has always
been for all mankind. God created us all (not just the jews and Arabs)
so he is the God of everyone (not just the jews and arabs) I also
believe many Rabbis assert that the reason God started with only two
people (Adam and Eve) rather than many people, was to insure that no one
could say "my lineage is greater than yours". We all have the same
lineage.
> If now Jesus was the one who already opened the access to God
> for all people, the messenger to all mankind, what is
> left for Muhammad?
A very good question, and one I asked myself. Also, I've discussed this
with other muslims as an exercise of faith. The question I always ask is
"If Jesus is the Messiah, why send Muhammad?" Now I asked this question
over a year ago, and answered it myself, and I'll give you my answer
(but I think you wont accept it). The Qur'an tells us Jesus is the
Messiah. Now, if Jesus was the Messiah, why send another prophet? Well
the Qur'an tells us the Christians started worshipping Jesus as God, and
were subconciously ascribing partners to God (thats my interpretation of
the Qur'an's message). So God sent his Messiah, and we (human beings)
blew it, we started worshipping him as God. Surely we are worthless, and
God should have destroyed us. But as part of one last chance, God sent
one last prophet: Muhammad. This is our last chance (a chance we dont
deserve) to come back to worshipping only God. Surely Muhammad and the
Qur'an is a sign of God's love, mercy and compassion.
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2105
(Torah, Bible, and Qur'an on-line in different langauges)
Jochen Katz
There is one point I want to note, all further discussion would
probably not be deemed relevant, so I will not elaborate.
In article <7jjj2o$4ib$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
comb...@hotmail.com writes:
> [Micah 5:2-3] But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among
> the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be
> ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. ..
> I'm not sure exactly what part of the above proves the Messiah is God,
> but I do understand that i can be interpreted as such.
The point is that this one to come has a very special attribute,
he has an unusual origin, he is not just coming into existance
by his conception, he is "from of old", from eternity past.
This is never said about any human, this makes him superhuman.
Eternality is a divine attribute. In Daniel, God has the name
"the ancient of days".
In Islam, this is one of God's exclusive names/attributes:
Al-Samad: The Eternal, The One who continues forever (Surah 112:2)
> However, now I
> offer Micah 5:4, the very next verse....
>
> [Micah 5:4] And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the
> LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall
> dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth.
>
> That's the verse that sums it up for me. He shall stand and feed his
> flock in the strength of the LORD. How does he stand "in the strength of
> the LORD" if he is God himself? More importantly, he does so "in the
> majesty of the name of the LORD his God"! The LORD is HIS GOD! That is
> as clear as day! The LORD is HIS GOD! The LORD is the GOD of the
> Messiah. The Messiah is a servant of the LORD! It's very clear.
That is the whole point of the trinity (multi-personality of God's
complex unity) and the mystery of the incarnation. Yes, we confess
that the second person of the trinity became a man, and servant
of God, but that does not deny his divine nature. Christian creed
confesses that Jesus has two natures, and it is the old Muslim
fallacy to point to his human nature and conclude THEREFORE he
cannot be God. He is both. Nobody could ever show me that God
cannot in principle become man.
More details on the deity of the Messiah in the Old Testament
can be found at http://answering-islam.org/Trinity/ as this
is by far not the only passage. Particularly clear are the
divine son of man passage of Daniel, and the child that will
be born and given the name "Mighty God" as found in Isaiah.
Check it out.
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
Jochen Katz
comb...@hotmail.com writes:
> > But you can hardly overlook that one of the main titles of Jesus
> > in the New Testament is "The Savior". Obviously, one can give this
> > name to a child as a reminder to everyone that "God is our Savior"
> > (like when Joshua has that name and many others after him, it was
> > by no means a rare name), or one can give this name to indicate that
> > this child is this salvation from God, but since the savior is God,
> > this is the God-man. I do not think you will accept that so easily,
> > but it is a possibility. Why did Jesus receive his name by the
> > command of an angel? [Incidentally, that is something left out in
> > the Qur'anic report of the annunciation, if I remember right.]
> I do not personally believe his name is proof he is God (as you
> predicted I would not). However, it's an interesting point. On a side
> note, the Qur'an DOES report that Jesus recieved his name from an angel
> (or more directly from God, the angel just relayed the message). The
> begining of Al-Imran 3:45 says "(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..." So the Angel told Mary what the name of her
> son would be. Of course one might wonder why the angel would demand to
> name the child Isa Al-Masih, but quite possibly (as you pointed out)
> this is just the arabic rendering of the story, and the name is not
> related directly to his mission (if that makes sense).
I never realized this before today. But don't you think this is
a somewhat strange formulation?
Compare the above with the passage in Luke 1 also reporting the
visitation of the Angel to Mary:
30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have
found favor with God.
31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are
to give him the name Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.
The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever;
his kingdom will never end."
Do you see the difference? In the gospel, the angel gives the
command to name him Jesus (after he is born). In the Qur'an
the angel says: 'whose name _IS_ Jesus' even though he has not
yet been born (and has not even been conceived). Don't you
think that is strange? I have not yet been able to ask an Arab
what the Arabic clearly says, but taking the above translation
at face value, this seems to indicate that the author of the
Qur'an was looking back to Jesus, since for him he was already
in the past, then putting this "backward look" perspective into
the angel's mouth, while in the Bible the angel correctly talks
in the future sense since the child was not yet conceived or
born. It is a minute detail, but if this observation holds
true in the Arabic, then this little oversight is yet another
indication that the authorship is to be sought in someone living
after the time of Jesus, and not in the claimed divine author.
Both reports are written after Jesus. But the Bible got the
tense right for the announcement of the angel, and the Qur'an
didn't.
By the way, "Messiah" is not a name, it is a title and a function.
The Qur'an is somewhat strangly claiming that "the Messiah"
is a name, when saying "whose name is the Messiah, Jesus..."
just as many not well-informed people today think his name is
"Jesus Christ". This is not true. Jesus is his name, and being
the Messiah, the Christ, is his position. He was never addressed
"Jesus Christ" by the people around him. What Messiah means,
is spelled out by the angel in verses 32-33 which point back
to the messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, where the
title Son of God is introduced for him.
> > Clearly, Jesus was given his name for this very clear purpose
> > that He Himself is the savior, not just as "reminder" that God is
> > our salvation. And this was done against the Hebrew understanding
> > that the LORD is our Savior and there is none else.
> The above makes me question the Gospels, but I'll refrain from disputing
> their authenticity, as the Qur'an seemingly stands by them.
It seems the discussions between Sam Shamoun and Saifullah have
not been fruitless. At least one seems to see that the Qur'an
confirmes the authenticity of the scriptures of the people of
the Book.
> I'll give
> you points here, as I am at a loss as what to say about this. To me it
> is seemingly contradictory, not working together. I'll have to gain a
> better understanding before I can make a direct comment. Sorry if that
> sounds like I'm taking the cheap way out, I'm just saying I don't have
> an answer (possibly due to lack of knowledge) and I'll respond when I
> understand the concept better.
No, it is not cheap. For this response, my respect for you has
increased a lot. It shows honesty. Too many when they don't
know a real answer, just make up something ad hoc and really
silly, just to not appear as if they have no answer. With your
attitude, I have hope that you will come to a deeper understanding.
"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."
Epictetus
If you see that there is something you don't understand yet,
then you have the potential to learn. :-)
> > > This is pure monotheist doctrine that God is salvation,
> > > i.e. Gos is the only savior!
> > Amen. We fully agree. And he came as our Savior in the person of
> > Jesus of Nazareth.
> Difficult to accept that Jochen.
I agree, it is not easy. But difficult doesn't mean that it is
false. God is certainly way beyond our capacity to think. So,
a God I could fully understand is unlikely to be the true God.
> When debating with Christians in my
> school, I often say "If Jesus is God, then he can't be the Messiah" and
> I stand by this statement, as in the other road of this thread that
> forked, I offered Micah 5:4, which to me (obviously not to you) proves
> (along with al-Ma'ida 5:68-72 in conjunction with Al-Imran 3:45) that
> the Messiah is NOT GOD. The Messiah is a man, a mortal, a servant of God
> (not God himself).
Well, I agree that the Qur'an denies the deity of the Messiah, but
then, this only counts for somebody who accepts the Qur'an as
revelation. For me this is no argument, because that is one of
the reasons I reject the Qur'an as contradicting the revelation
of God.
> ... Sorry to
> bombard you with this long interpretation of Luke's writings, but I take
> it to mean Jesus came for the gentiles.
Nothing to be sorry about. We basically agree on this.
> Well, the Qur'an tells us two things: (1) Jesus is the Messiah and (2)
> Jesus is not God!. I accept those to be true. Maybe the Qur'an does not
> give much else concerning the term Messiah, but Yunus 10:94 tells us
> "And if thou art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee,
> then question those who read the Scripture that was before thee." I
> personally take that to mean we can get a better understanding from the
> TaNaKh (hence my constant reference to Old Testament scrips like Micah
> 5:4)
You are on a good way, but do not read selectively, read the whole
of those scriptures and their witness to the Messiah.
.... snipped more that we can agree on ...
> > If now Jesus was the one who already opened the access to God
> > for all people, the messenger to all mankind, what is
> > left for Muhammad?
>
> A very good question, and one I asked myself. Also, I've discussed this
> with other muslims as an exercise of faith. The question I always ask is
> "If Jesus is the Messiah, why send Muhammad?" Now I asked this question
> over a year ago, and answered it myself, and I'll give you my answer
> (but I think you wont accept it). The Qur'an tells us Jesus is the
> Messiah. Now, if Jesus was the Messiah, why send another prophet? Well
> the Qur'an tells us the Christians started worshipping Jesus as God, and
> were subconciously ascribing partners to God (thats my interpretation of
> the Qur'an's message). So God sent his Messiah, and we (human beings)
> blew it, we started worshipping him as God. Surely we are worthless, and
> God should have destroyed us. But as part of one last chance, God sent
> one last prophet: Muhammad. This is our last chance (a chance we dont
> deserve) to come back to worshipping only God. Surely Muhammad and the
> Qur'an is a sign of God's love, mercy and compassion.
Would God not have known this? Why did He not take any precautions
but let his most important messenger, the Messiah, be idolized for
600 years? Even though there is some "internal logic" to your argument,
I think it falls short on various counts. The Messiah has an absolutely
unique position in the Bible, way beyond any of the other prophets.
He is the culmination of all prophecy. Why should the last messenger
be a mere prophet in an anti-climax of God's revelation history?
But more important, you cannot show that the worship of Jesus is a
late invention. The divine titles "Lord" and "Savior" are applied
to him from the very beginning by the apostles. Nothing points to
a gradual corruption.
But I think, the issue is much more foundational than that.
The Qur'an does not only disagree with the Bible on the role
of Jesus, it fundamentally disagrees in its image of the
character of God. It is a different kind of God presented
in the Qur'an. It is no stretch to imagine that the God who
came in form of a man to Abraham, and who was intimately
involved in the history of Israel, appearing to many more,
the "lover" of Israel, seeking the love of the beloved, could
come as true man in Jesus. The God of the Qur'an is a very
different kind of being, not seeking love, but submission of
the slave to the master.
I will soon have a thorough article on this issue, in about
two weeks time. I think you want to read it closely as I found
it bring much clarity to the discussion between Muslims and
Christians.
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
Adnan
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:16:17 GMT, jk...@math.gatech.edu (Jochen Katz) wrote:
>"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."
JK, how many times have said on MCD that you already know Christianity is true
and that you don't study Islam to search the truth? Don't you think it is a
bit hypocritical to tell Muslims that they should be open to the possibility
that Islam might not be true, while you yourself believe that you know FOR
SURE that Christianity is true? I remember asking you whether you are open to
the possibility that Christianity might not be true, and your response was
"No."
GF Haddad
>In article <7jjj2o$4ib$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
>comb...@hotmail.com writes:
[...]
>> The Messiah is a servant of the LORD! It's very clear.
>
>That is the whole point of the trinity (multi-personality of God's
>complex unity) and the mystery of the incarnation. Yes, we confess
>that the second person of the trinity became a man, and servant
>of God, but that does not deny his divine nature. Christian creed
>confesses that Jesus has two natures, and it is the old Muslim
>fallacy to point to his human nature and conclude THEREFORE he
>cannot be God. He is both. Nobody could ever show me that God
>cannot in principle become man.
That is the great swindle of trinitarianism.
It is obvious to all that God has many names and attributes. However,
there are attributes that a true monotheist can never attribute to God,
but that Christians do, because their monotheism is corrupt. The following
are some of the attributes of the God worshipped by Trinitarian
Christians:
The Limited God
The Mortal God
The Created God
The Subject God
The Servant God
The Lowly, Meek, Weak, and Humble God
The God Who Has A Beginning
The God-in-Becoming
The God Who is Born of Woman
The Infant God Who is Raised From Infancy
The Unaware God
The Powerless God
The Dependent God
The God Who Needs to Eat
The God Who Needs To Excrete
The God Who Needs to Sleep
The God Who Needs Protection From the Elements
The God Who Experiences Fear and Danger
The God Who Struggles
The God Who Experiences Temptation
The God Who Struggles Against the Devil
The God Who Prays To Another
The God Who Suffers and Undergoes Pain
The God Who Feels Sickness Unto His Soul
The God Who Is Put To Death
The God Who is Resurrected by Another
The God Who is Taken Up Heavenward in Body
etc.
These are some of the attributes of their God concerning which "Nobody
could ever show" this poor, confused man "that God cannot in principle
become man." Glory to God in the Highest! Then he also believes in the
possibility "in principle" of His becoming a cow, or a spoon, or a piece
of rock. If one were completely ignorant then one would be a mere
pantheist, but as it stands I can only see satanic ill-will in such
beliefs.
Tomorrow we shall see who stands in rightful worship of the One God
together with our beloved master, `Isa ibn Maryam, and who stands on the
side of those to whom `Isa will say: Away, off with you.
Jochen Katz
GF Haddad claims to have been a Christian earlier, but he seems
to be quite confused about the faith his ancestors professed.
If the below is what he believed before he became a Muslim,
then there is no surprise that he abandoned this such nonsense.
He certainly was not a believer with a the faith informed by
the Bible. As impressive as his learning in Islam is, I wonder
why he never used his aptitude to learning to study the Christian
faith in its authentic teachings.
In article <37702c1a....@news2.vom.com>,
"GF Haddad" <Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> writes:
> Jochen Katz wrote in message <376ecc08...@news2.vom.com>...
> >... Christian creed
> >confesses that Jesus has two natures, and it is the old Muslim
> >fallacy to point to his human nature and conclude THEREFORE he
> >cannot be God. He is both. Nobody could ever show me that God
> >cannot in principle become man.
> That is the great swindle of trinitarianism.
>
> It is obvious to all that God has many names and attributes.
Yes, we agree. For example, you may learn about the attributes of
God here: http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/proper/attrib/toc.htm
> However,
> there are attributes that a true monotheist can never attribute to God,
> but that Christians do, because their monotheism is corrupt.
Or your understanding of our faith.
> The following
> are some of the attributes of the God worshipped by Trinitarian
> Christians:
>
> The Limited God
How so? I couldn't find that attribute in the above list.
> The Mortal God
God never died and cannot die.
> The Created God
No, God is the Creator, not the creation.
> The Subject God
What do you mean?
> The Servant God
> The Lowly, Meek, Weak, and Humble God
We glory in the fact that our mighty God is humble and not prideful.
> The God Who Has A Beginning
Nowhere will you find that.
> The God-in-Becoming
?? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God...
> The God Who is Born of Woman
He was born in his humanity, his deity is without beginning.
> The Infant God Who is Raised From Infancy
This again pertains to his human body, not his divine nature.
> The Unaware God
> The Powerless God
> The Dependent God
> The God Who Needs to Eat
> The God Who Needs To Excrete
I wonder if you believed this while a "Christian".
> The God Who Needs to Sleep
Okay, I can't write a Bible passage for every point here, but let
me answer to this one:
Isaiah 40:25-28
"To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?"
says the Holy One. Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these? ... Do you not know? Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.
Another passage is in Psalm 121
1 I lift up my eyes to the hills - where does my help come from?
2 My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth.
3 He will not let your foot slip - he who watches over you will not
slumber;
4 indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.
5 The LORD watches over you - the LORD is your shade at your right hand;
6 the sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.
7 The LORD will keep you from all harm - he will watch over your life;
8 the LORD will watch over your coming and going both now and
forevermore.
Muhammad only listened well to the Jews. They taught long before that God
is not tired and that God does not sleep. This was well known long before.
The Qur'an is bringing nothing new in this respect.
> The God Who Needs Protection From the Elements
> The God Who Experiences Fear and Danger
> The God Who Struggles
> The God Who Experiences Temptation
> The God Who Struggles Against the Devil
> The God Who Prays To Another
> The God Who Suffers and Undergoes Pain
> The God Who Feels Sickness Unto His Soul
> The God Who Is Put To Death
> The God Who is Resurrected by Another
> The God Who is Taken Up Heavenward in Body
> etc.
Oh so confused... where shall we start? Are you willing to
learn something about authentic Biblical theology? I gave a
reference above, which is a good starting point.
> These are some of the attributes of their God
No, those are not the divine attributes. You are quite wrong.
You are in Lebanon, and certainly have been at the sea shore
at some time. If you fill a little bottle with water from the
Mediterranean Sea, has this sea then become limited to your
bottle? Such is your logic by saying that in the incarnation
the limitless God became limited. No, the sea is not limited
by the bottle, but nevertheless you have in that bottle some
genuine sea water with most of its attributes. It is genuinely
Mediterranean sea. It is the same consistency, the same nature.
You seem to forget that Jesus is not all of God. God is not
limited to Jesus, nor certainly is he not limited to or by
his human body.
> concerning which "Nobody
> could ever show" this poor, confused man "that God cannot in principle
> become man." Glory to God in the Highest! Then he also believes in the
> possibility "in principle" of His becoming a cow, or a spoon, or a piece
> of rock. If one were completely ignorant then one would be a mere
> pantheist, but as it stands I can only see satanic ill-will in such
> beliefs.
I guess, that quite clearly establishes it that you have no interest
in seeking understanding, but prefer mockery. What a pity, you are
damaging your own soul.
> Tomorrow we shall see who stands in rightful worship of the One God
> together with our beloved master, `Isa ibn Maryam, and who stands on the
> side of those to whom `Isa will say: Away, off with you.
Ah, remnants of something true. Don't you ever wonder that Jesus
is the one who decides who is accepted and who is rejected? Isn't
that one of the divine attributes of the judge of all men which
you acknowledge belongs to Jesus?
Jochen Katz
Jochen Katz
Dr. Christoph Heger
GF Haddad <Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> wrote on Sat, 19 Jun 1999:
>That is the great swindle of trinitarianism.
That's Mr. Haddad all over: everytime polite and factual! It's however easy to
answer him as I did at various occasions before and as Mr. Haddad must be aware
of.
Islam, or to be precise: the Ash'arite creed of the vast majority of Muslims,
surely doesn't know a trinity, but definitely at least three gods.
According to this Ash'arite creed the Qur'an is uncreated (and eternal), which
is tantamount of being a second god. The lame excuse the Ash'arites have for
their astonishing creed is: The Qur'an is the word of God, therefore uncreated
itself. By this very reasoning Jesus, who according to the Qur'an (4:171) is
"rasoolu llaahi wa kalimatuhu" (Allah's messenger and His word), must be
uncreated, too, and necessarily a third god.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
peNkaLai kâtalikkirên
denis...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Those are just english spellings of a semetic word. Why is Chanukkah
> spelled differently from time to time? It's a semetic langauage
Speaking of misspellings, why is "Semitic" one of the most frequently
misspelled words? Not only on the Internet (a haven of poor spelling),
but even in print, for many years I have been noticing how often
"Semitic" is misspelled as "Semetic" and wondering what it is about
this word that causes that.
--
mikavum nanRi,
anpu,
unkaLuTaiya tampi
peNkaLai kātalikkirźn
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/