Answering Christianity Research Center

MAIN BOARD (You must register to post) => THE BIBLE | TRINITY & JESUS | CRUCIFIXION vs CRUCIFICTION | HISTORY | CANONS | REBUTTALS => Bible History, Canons, alleged Lost Scriptures, alleged Contradictions & Errors, and general Text QA => Topic started by: Egyptian on August 09, 2012, 06:42:45 PM

Title: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 09, 2012, 06:42:45 PM
                                         " Origin of Christianity"


                     In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.



NOTE : NT  is the New Testament , OT  is the Old Testament.

for years and I try to solve the puzzle of why the writers of the new testament held those theologies which goes against Islam ....  why they elevated Jesus such elevation ,why they believed in him as atoning with his blood the sinful. etc etc...

I used to believe that such corruption is due to some pagans who imported pagan themes eg; the story of Krishna etc....

but after engaging myself with more profound readings ,I no longer hold that position .... 
I believe that such corruption was derived from some themes of the old testament then been developed by Jewish hands ... 

to properly understand the origin of Christianity we need to understand the mentality of the writers of the new testament ,their intentions .... getting the intentions of the writers would get us the clue of the origin of Christianity ....

we don't have a time machine to go back interviewing the writers, but fortunately we have enough from what they wrote to understand their intentions ..

What is Christianity ? Christianity emerged as a Jewish sect ,whose founders had desires and wishful thinking based on the Jewish messianic hopes ,It is the messianic hope that made them develop ,distort, pervert, and concoct Old testament ,etc.......

the following study I tried to get the matter in great details ,including the Quranic input along with the biblical and historical input .

The best place to understand the intentions of the writers of the new testament ,is when we check and examine what they borrowed from the old testament ,as what they borrowed from the Old testament is the foundation of their theology....

we won't get directly examining their use(quoutations) of the old testament ,before getting the context .......

                    chapter one : the historical context of Christianity.


our context is? Christianity emerged in the Second Temple Period that ran from 520 B.C. - A.D. 70, ending with the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.


              The Jewish scene in second temple period ?



First : Timeline.

1020-922 undivided monarchy
922 Solomon’s kingdom divided into Northern (Israel) and Southern (Judah)
721 Northern kingdom is defeated by the Assyrians
597-538 Babylonian exile; 587 Temple destroyed
538-332 Persian rule; 520 Temple rebuilt. Second Temple Judaism begins.
332-167 Hellenization under Alexander the Great and his successors from Egypt & Syria
167-63 Hundred years of independence under Maccabees
63 BC Roman conquest of Palestine. Independence lost till 20th c. AD!
1-33 ?  the mission of Jesus .
70 AD Second Temple destroyed.



                      second : A huge crisis and intense diversity



Holy Quran 043:063  When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me.




Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 09, 2012, 07:28:30 PM
That is noted by the scholars:

Quote from: Jewish Movements of the Second Temple. Dr. Eliezer Segal
,a Ph.D in Talmud from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary.
The era of the "Second Temple (or: Second Commonwealth)" [c. 400 B.C.E.-70 C.E.] was one of the most complex and exciting eras in the development of the Jewish religion,and one that exerted a decisive influence on the shape of Judaism (and its offshoot,Christianity) for subsequent generations. This era was characterized by the division of the Jewish people into rival sects advocating differing approaches to the central religious questions of the day; such as:
• Scripture, its authority and interpretation.
• Models of religious leadership: Priests, scholars and pietists.
• Paths to holiness: Purity, worship, study and morality.
• Ideas about God, the afterlife, the Messiah, etc
.


Quote from: the rediscovery of Jewish diversity in the Second,The Enoch seminar
Temple period, as well as the variety of scholarly methodologies applied to the field,must be considered among the major achievements of contemporary research. In the last fifty years we have seen the eclipse of the concept of normative Judaism and the emergence of a new world, populated by new characters: Sapiential Judaism, Mosaic Judaism, Enochic Judaism, Qumran Judaism, and the like.


Quote from: J.J. Collins, “How Distinctive Was Enochic Judaism,”in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls V-VI. A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant, ed.M. Bar-Asher and E. Tov, Haifa/Jerusalem: University of Haifa/Bialik Institute, 2007,
p.33.
Second Temple “Judaism… was not uniformly Torah centered, even among those who were familiar with the Torah and respected it as one source of wisdom among others.

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 09, 2012, 07:37:04 PM
Quote from: The Internal Diversification of Second Temple Judaism: An Introduction to the Second Temple Period,Jeff S. Anderson .
The period in which the second Jewish temple flourished (515 B.C.E to 70.CE) was one of the most prolific and creative in all of Israel's history .It was unparalleled literary and theological diversity . Rather than positing a rigid contrast between biblical Israel and post-exilic Judaism ,it is now recognized that numerous socio-religious communities during this era envisioned themselves as the sole legitimate expression of post-classical Israel.
Admittedly, the religion of Judaism experienced enormous transformations during this time .One common characteristic of the second temple period is that radically diverse groups made very different determinations as to whether another socio-religious entity was or was not practicing Judaism.
.


Jesus came ,according to the Quran , to make clear to the Jews some of the points on which they dispute.. was his mission merely to clear some points of disputes or more other goals ,according to the Quran?
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 09, 2012, 07:42:36 PM
shirk among some Jews

Holy Quran 5:72 Christ  said: "Children of Israel, worship God my Lord as well as your Lord." God will ban the Garden for anyone who associates anything else with God; his lodging will be the Fire. Wrongdoers will have no supporters.

why Jesus warned the children of Israel (whose religion is monotheistic) against shirk?

A. some Jews venerated the dead saints:

Jack Lightstone dedicated a chapter of 20 pages in his book (The Commerce of the Sacred: Mediation of the Divine Among Jews in the Greco-Roman World) dealing with that matter, that tombs are the site of veneration of the dead, and in which the earthly remains of these saints constitute valued objects in the mediation of the divine.

B-the veneration/worship of angels:

practice of seeking help from the angels is well attested within both Jewish and Christian literature during the Greco Roman period. Inscriptions on amulets and bracelets confirm the widespread reliance upon angels for exorcisms, healing, and protection among the Jewish population.


C- “Star Worship” :

"the Jewish Encyclopedia states":The Israelites fell into this kind of idolatry and as early as the time of Amos they had the images of Siccuth and Chium, ‘the stars of their god’ (Amos 5:26); the latter name is generally supposed to denote the planet Saturn. That the Kingdom of Israel fell earlier than that of Judah is stated (II Kings 17:16) to have been due, among other causes, to its worshipping the host of heaven. But the Kingdom of Judah in its later period seems to have outdone the Northern Kingdom [Israel] in star-worship.” Of Manasseh it is related that he built altars to all the hosts of heaven in the two courts of the house of YHWY, and it seems it was the practice of even Kings before him to appoint priests who offered sacrifices to the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and all the hosts of heaven. Altars for star-worship were built on the roofs of the houses, and horses and chariots were dedicated to the worship of the Sun. (II Kings 21:5; 23:4-5, 11-12) Star-worship continued in Judah until the 18th year of Josiah’s reign (621 B.C.) when the King took measures to abolish all kinds of idolatry. But although star-worship was then abolished as a public cult, it was practiced privately by individuals who worshipped the heavenly bodies, and poured out libations to them on the roofs of their houses (Zephaniah 1:5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13) … Jeremiah, who prophesied in the sixth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin (591 B.C.) describes the worship of the Sun as practiced in the court of the Temple (Ezekiel 8:16) and that even after the destruction of the Temple the women insisted on continuing to worship the Queen of Heaven.

D:  The Jewish figure "Son of man" :

mentioned in the Jewish Book of 1 Enoch (dated before the mission of Jesus)  is described as,judge of the world , universal dominion and preexistence are predicated of him . He sits on God's throne , which is His own throne.!!


N. T. Wright. wrote in his book ,The Challenge of Jesus : p. 105.

"There is a complex range of Jewish texts from different periods that speculate about the exaltation and the heavenly enthronement of a figure who may be either an angel or a human being. These speculations grow from meditation upon and discussion of certain key texts such as Ezekiel 1, in which the prophet receives a vision of YHWH's throne-chariot, and Daniel 7, where "one like a son of man" is presented to "the Ancient of Days" and shares his throne. . . .
How far these speculations were taken is a matter of continuing debate. But the point should be clear: things like this were thinkable; they were not obviously self-contradictory, nor were they regarded as necessarily a threat to what second-Temple Jews meant by "monotheism."


It seems that there were enough reasons for Jesus "peace be upon him" to warn Jews against shirk.

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Ben on August 10, 2012, 02:01:23 AM
nice post. very informative.  ;D
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 10, 2012, 06:09:36 AM
Welcome Brother Ben ,and Jazakallahu khairun .


Our point now, is  the THIRD duty The Quranic Jesus was supposed to do:

our discussion has a guide line ,it is the following verse:

Holy Quran 003.050 And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.



What had been forbidden to the Jews ,that Jesus came to allow some? The answer to that question needs getting the broader context , before examining the law of food with the children of Israel ,according to the Quran, we need to get the context:

How far God blessed the Jews?

1- He rescued them from agony and afflection.

Quran - 7:141
And remember We rescued you from Pharaoh's people, who afflicted you with the worst of penalties, who slew your male children and saved alive your females: in that was a momentous trial from your Lord.



2-He made them inheritors of a blessed land,due to their patience and constancy,made amongst them prophets, and kings.

Quran - 7:137 And We made a people, considered weak (and of no account), inheritors of lands in both east and west, - lands whereon We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of thy Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because they had patience and constancy, and We levelled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride).

Quran - 10:93
And [thereafter], indeed, We assigned unto the children of Israel a most goodly abode, and provided for them sustenance out of the good things of life.

Quran - 5:20
And Moses said to his people: "My people, remember God's favour upon you that he made amongst you prophets, and made you kings, and he gave you what He had not given any from the worlds."



But alas


They:


1- Corrupted the revelation:

5:13 they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them..

etc....

2- broke the convenant:

Holy Quran 4:154
raising Mount Sinai high above them in witness of their solemn pledge. And We said unto them, “Enter the gate humbly”; and We told them, "Do not break the Sabbath-law"; and We accepted from them a most solemn pledge.


Holy Quran 2:84
And We have taken a covenant with you: "You shall not spill each other's blood, nor drive each other out from your homes." And you agreed to this while bearing witness.
Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the re ward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.



Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 10, 2012, 07:26:07 AM
2- Sins and transgressions:

Quran - 5:62
And you see many of them hasten to sin and transgression and consuming money illicitly (or eating of things forbidden ). Miserable indeed is what they were doing.

Quran - 4:161
And because they practised usury although it had been forbidden them; and for using others' wealth unjustly. For those who are unbelievers among them We have reserved a painful punishment.

Quran - 2:58
And [remember the time] when We said: "Enter this land, and eat of its food as you may desire. abundantly; but enter the gate humbly and say, `Remove Thou from us the burden of our sins', [whereupon] We shall forgive you your sins, and shall amply reward the doers of good."
Then the evildoers substituted a saying other than that which had been said to them; so We sent down upon the evildoers wrath out of heaven for their ungodliness.

Holy Quran 7:163 And ask them about that town which stood by the sea: how its people would profane the Sabbath whenever their fish came to them, breaking the water's surface, on a day on which they ought to have kept Sabbath -because they would not come to them on other than Sabbath-days! Thus did We try them by means of their [own] iniquitous doings.



3 - Rejecting the signs ,killing the prophets:


Quran - 2:61
they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.

Quran - 2:87
We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!



4-They ordered the people to do good, but forget To practice it , sold the revelations for a trifling price such as worldly gains, status and renown , overlayed the truth with falsehood, suppressing the truth.

Quran - 2:41 And believe in that which I have sent down confirming that which is with you, and be not the first to disbelieve therein, and barter not My revelations for a small price, and Me alone shall ye fear.
42. And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).
44. Do ye enjoin right conduct on the people, and forget (To practise it) yourselves, and yet ye study the Scripture? Will ye not understand?



The punishment ?

1- covered with humiliation and misery

Quran - 2:61
They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah.


2-Cursed by God and some prophets...

And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts.

Quran4:47 O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violaters of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed.    Quran - 5:78 Cursed are those who have rejected from among the Children of Israel by the tongue of David and Jesus son of Mary. That is for what they have disobeyed, and for what they transgressed.


no wonder both David and Jesus are depicted shamefully (by those whom they cursed)...one as adulterer and another as son of adultery!
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 10, 2012, 07:37:16 AM
3- Were given hard laws .

Holy Quran 4:160 And because of the iniquity (or injustice) of the Jews, We have forbidden them the good things which We had made lawful for them, and for their much obstructing the way of Allah.


The Bible?


Ezekiel 20: 21 “‘But the children rebelled against me: They did not follow my decrees, they were not careful to keep my laws, of which I said, “The person who obeys them will live by them,” and they desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my anger against them in the wilderness. 22 But I withheld my hand, and for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 23 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, 24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. 25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live

..................................

After we got the context ,let's now concentrate more on the things that were prohibited for the Jews then....

The law of food with the children of Israel ,according to the Quran, had stages:


1- Pre-torah era:

Holy Quran 3:93 All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel(Jacob) had forbidden to himself, before the Taurat was revealed.


up till the revelation of the law of the torah , All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel(Jacob) had forbidden to himself....

but what does that mean?

It seems that the children of Israel imitated their father Jacob,avoiding some food he had forbidden to himself ....

2- Torah revelation till other new strict laws :

Holy Quran 4:160
And because of the iniquity (or injustice) of the Jews, We have forbidden them the good things which We had made lawful for them.


the verse refers to 1- a time when God revealed a law (Torah) making a distinction between the good and the bad and

2- later time when God revealed a strict law a s a part of his punishment on the Jews due to their injustice ,aggression ....

3- afterwards, some strict laws :

the Quran - 6:146 And for the Jews We have forbidden all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We forbade their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.

all beasts ,birds etc that have nails,claws were forbidden .... pigeons,rabbits ,falcons, chickens, sparrows,ducks  etc...
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 10, 2012, 08:34:58 AM
How far his mission succeeded ?

1- The Jewish reaction to the message of Jesus.


The reactions to the message of Jesus were varied ,due to the varied Jewish expectations of those who are supposed to be sent by God.

The holy Qur'an tells that during his life time A group from the Children of Israel believed, and another group disbelieved ,verse [61:14],it refers to a third group of disbelievers would emerge after his Earthly mission terminated as well ! .

Details:

Those who believed?


1- The disciples ,without exception, believed & supported him :

the Quran - 3:52 When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.


and that verse not only negates the idea of a disciple believing in a divinity of Jesus,but also one of the reasons to question the "the substitution theory"  of a traitor from the disciples (so called Judah or whatever) who sold his prophet for a sum of money....

(details on that points in my next study on the crucifixion, inshallah)...



2- a section among the Jews during the life time of Jesus:

The Quran - 61:14 O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved.


There is no wonder that some Jews accepted Jesus as a prophet of God :

traces of what have been Jesus's original claim as prophet remain in the Gospel texts.

"A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house" (Mark 6:4).

A Pharisee thought to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is" (Luk 7:39). Why would the Pharisee wonder if Jesus was a prophet unless this was Jesus's claim or at least a claim made for him by his followers?

On the way through the district of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus "asked his disciples, 'Who do men say that I am?' And they told him, 'John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others "one of the prophets'" (Mark 8:27).

as I said before,the different opinions regarding Jesus, is due to the different expectations by the Jews ....

When Jesus announced his resolve to go to Jerusalem, he is reported by Luke to have said, "Nevertheless I must go on my way …; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33).


there are Jews who believed in Jesus as a prophet and nothing more during his lifetime, after his departure eg; those represented others who already quoted in NT ,and the Ebonite's etc.....  they simply saw nothing he said ,did ,or was done to him, to exclude him from that category of prophet nor to elevate him beyond a prophet.

[/size]
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 10, 2012, 08:52:39 AM

Those who disbelieved?


they are 2 kinds

1- The first kind of disbelievers are those part believed in him as a false prophet , ascribing to Him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death ......
"... the Jewish Encyclopœdia admits :
Quote from:  
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8616-jesus-of-nazareth.
The Jewish legends in regard to Jesus are found in three sources, each independent of the others—(1) in New Testament apocrypha and Christian polemical works, (2) in the Talmud and the Midrash, and (3) in the life of Jesus ("Toledot Yeshu'") that originated in the Middle Ages. It is the tendency of all these sources to be-little the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death. In view of their general character they are called indiscriminately legends. Some of the statements, as that referring to magic, are found among pagan writers and Christian heretics; and as the Ebionites, or Judæo-Christians, who for a long time lived together with the Jews, are also classed as heretics, conclusions may be drawn from this as to the origin of these legends.


1- illegitimate birth:

the Quran - 4:156
And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny.


Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/7 "someone ... whispered to him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera"

In some of the texts, the father produced a son with a woman named Mary (Miriam in Hebrew). Several of the texts indicate that the mother was not married to Pandera, and was committing adultery and - by implication - Jesus was a basta*d child.(wikipedia)

2- Magic:

the Quran - 5:110
And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'


Babylonian Sanhedrin 107b - "The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic (Editions or MSs: Firenze II.1.8-9, Barco )

3-Shameful death:


Holy Quran [4:157] That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him

Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a-b -"on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Karlsruhe 2)



Reasons for their rejection and attacks?

the Quran - 2:87 And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?



The things that the Jews desired Jesus to be? is the golden key to understand not only why most of the Jews rejected him, but also the cornerstone to understand everything about the origin of Christianity...


[/size]
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 12, 2012, 10:01:53 AM

Jesus came with noble purposes " affirming monotheism,warning against shirk, abolishing the hard laws ,coming to a common word in some religious conflicts).

Is that something that should get those Jews that angry with Jesus, accusing him and his mother ?!

The fact is that ,those Jews weren't interested in receiving such usual prophets ,who would criticize them and their community ...

Those Jews ambitioned more than what is mere a social preacher. they had the desires of the character that when God will send ,they would be freed from the political depression and humility,getting back the glory of their past during the kingdom of David, and turning the whole world into paradise...

Those are the real desires that made them reject Jesus ,Allah calls those desires as vain..

Holy Quran 28:50 If they do not respond to you, you will know that they follow only their own desires. Who is further astray than the one who follows his own desires with no guidance from God?
 
Holy Quran 47:14 Can those who follow clear proof from their Lord be compared to those whose foul deeds are made to seem alluring to them, those who follow their own desires?


The Jewish (and christian as well) desires are based all on a figure was foretold  in the old testament ,it is (the awaited king messiah) ... 

investigating the issue of that figure is the golden clue to understand almost everything regarding the New Testament and Christianity ,getting clue of where the problem of Christianity all began.

1- The analysis of that problem will enable the readers to understand the reasons why the Jews from the time of the New Testament till now,reject Jesus (as depicted in the New Testament) .

2- That is the most solid arena of examining the trustworthy of the writings of the new testament ,we will find out later in the study how the vain desires of the messiah made the writers of the new testament intentionally distort,pervert lots of passages from the old testament for the purpose of of indoctrination ,which clearly refute the concept that the New testament theologies are truly inspired by God.

3- Through exposing such problem,  Muslims are invited the safest ,most solid way to test the claim of Jesus divinity ...., I will invite the readers to test the trinity in the laboratory of the Messiah !?

In other words ,If Jesus is believed by the writers of the new testament as the long awaited Davidic messiah king (will be proved to be false) ,and "assuming" it is believed by them to be God as well..... Isn't proving the first to be false strongly requires the second to be false too? If Jesus is not the so called Davidic messiah,that logically leads to him not being the so called incarnated God ,as well.....isn't it?
test the so called divine Jesus ,if he failed as the davidic messiah he would fail as God as well....
Have you realized the tremendous importance of the issue? that is why I made it my first study here ...

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 12, 2012, 10:30:20 AM
What is the concept of the messiah ? in one word it is a wish , desire,such desire didn't begin with the New testament but much older ......

we need to get an outline of the ancient Jewish history before we go to define the term "davidic king messiah":

Quote from: http://ancienthistory.about.com
The period of the Judges begins after the the 40 years in the wilderness described in Exodus. Moses dies before reaching Canaan. Once the Hebrews reach the promised land, they find they are in frequent conflict with the neighboring regions. They need leaders to guide them in battle. The leaders are the judges who also handle more traditional judicial matters as well. Joshua comes first.There is archaeological evidence of Israel at this time. It comes from the Merneptah Stele, which is currently dated to 1209 B.C.......
The period of the united monarchy begins when the judge Samuel reluctantly anoints Saul as king of the tribes of Israel. During Saul's kingship, the Philistines attack and a young shepherd named David volunteers for a one-on-one with the fiercest of the Philistines, a giant named Goliath. With a single stone from his slingshot, David fells the Philistine and wins a reputation that outshines Saul's. When Saul dies, David replaces him as king and when David dies, his son by Bathsheba becomes the wise King Solomon. This information is basically from the Bible, with only occasional support from archaeology.
After Solomon, the United Monarchy falls apart.Jerusalem is the capital of Judah, the southern Kingdom, which is led by Rehoboam. Its inhabitants are the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon (and some Levi). Simeon and Judah later merge.
Jeroboam leads a revolt of the northern tribes to form the Kingdom of Israel. The 9 tribes that make up Israel are Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Menasseh, Ephraim, Reuben and Gad (and some Levi). The capital of Israel is Samaria. (Israel falls to the Assyrians in 721; Judah falls to the Babylonians in 597.)In 722 - Assyrians, under Shalmaneser, and then under Sargon, conquer Israel and destroy Samaria. Jews are exiled.In 612 - Nabopolassar of Babylonia destroys Assyria.In 587 - Nebuchadnezzar II seizes Jerusalem. The Temple is destroyed.In 586 - Babylonia conquers Judah. Exile to Babylon.Diaspora: 722 (Israel) and 586 (Judah). In 539 - the Babylonian Empire falls to Persia which is ruled by Cyrus. In 537 - Cyrus allows Jews from Babylon back into Jerusalem.
From 550-333 - The Persian Empire rules Israel.From 520-515 - Second Temple is built.After Alexander dies, Ptolemy I Soter takes Egypt and becomes king of Palestine in 305.250. - The beginning of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.
198. - Seleucid King Antiochus III (Antiochus the Great) ousts Ptolemy V from Judah and Samaria.63 B.C. - Pompey makes the region of Judah/Israel a client kingdom of Rome.6 A.D. - Augustus makes it a Roman province (Judaea).
66 - 73. - Revolt.70. - Romans occupy Jerusalem. Titus destroys the Second Temple.

During that history that is rich with political glory and disasters , appeared in the Jewish sacred books predictions of various figures...
what were the Jewish expectations before the mission of Jesus ?
In order to check the varied expectations of the Jews before the mission of Jesus we need to visit the sources of Jewish thought before 70 C . E ,and the new testament .

The Jews were expecting a prophet who could be :

1- A special prophet ;one like Moses :

Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

The Jews used to include such expectation alongside the hope of the messiah king up till the time of Jesus

John 1:21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.”

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 12, 2012, 10:37:57 AM
some Jews after seeing the signs Jesus performed thought of him (wrongly) as such special prophet ...

John 6:14 After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.”

John 7:40  On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”

Acts 3:20 and He may send Jesus Christ who before hath been preached to you, whom it behoveth heaven, indeed, to receive till times of a restitution of all things, of which God spake through the mouth of all His holy prophets from the age. 22`For Moses, indeed, unto the fathers said -- A prophet to you shall the Lord your God raise up out of your brethren, like to me; him shall ye hear in all things, as many as he may speak unto you; 23and it shall be, every soul that may not hear that prophet shall be utterly destroyed out of the people.


2- Old prophet came back to the scene:


Luke 9:8 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on. And he was perplexed because some were saying that John had been raised from the dead, 8 others that Elijah had appeared, and still others that one of the prophets of long ago had come back to life.

Mark 8:28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah."

Matthew 16:14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

3- A prophet:

the way some Jews reacted with Jesus according to the new testament ,shows that they were open to accept the idea of a new prophet ,and it seems that they wouldn't make it conditional that the prophet must has been mentioned in a prediction in the old testament...

Matthew 16:14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

John 9:17 Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” The man replied, “He is a prophet.”

John 4:19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet.

Luke 7:16 Then he went up and touched the bier they were carrying him on, and the bearers stood still. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!” 15 The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. 16 They were all filled with awe and praised God. “A great prophet has appeared among us,” they said. “God has come to help his people.” 17 This news about Jesus spread throughout Judea and the surrounding country.


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 13, 2012, 07:05:53 AM

what were the other Jewish expectations?

It is the keyword for the problem of christianity: It is?


4- The Messiah:



The Jewish texts have to be discussed(skipping the christian text for the moment) ..in order to understand the term as originally was thought to be ,also visiting the term in its original Jewish context would enable us to understand the basic problem between Jews and Christians aka ( "From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology) ......


The term messiah has both technical and non- technical use....

The non-technical use of the term is simply to designate "one anointed” [with oil and/or the Holy Spirit], but especially one who had been set apart by God and enabled for a special task.

The technical use of the term , a future King of Israel, physically descended from the Davidic line, who will rule the united tribes of Israel and herald the Messianic Age of global peace.

before reading the scriptural requirements concerning the Messiah, what he will do, and what will be done during his reign ...

No doubt ,during the Davidic kingdom the Jews were in their Glorious Days ....

Holy Quran [34:10] We endowed David with blessings from us: "O mountains, submit with him, and you too, O birds." We softened the iron for him. "You may make shields that fit perfectly, and work righteousness. Whatever you do, I am Seer thereof.

Holy Quran 27:16 And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed  of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest "




The bible describe that period of the united monarchy under David and Solomon. Then Israel had been saved by David's exploits from any immediate danger of wars and vassaldom to other nations, and had achieved in the days of his son an unmatched State of peace and well-being: The people of Judah and Israel were countless as the sands of the sea(shores);they ate and they drank and enjoyed life. Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms

from the river Euphrates to Phüistia as far as the frontier of Egypt; they paid tribute and were subject to him all his life . . . For he was paramount over all the land vvest of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, ruling all the kings west of the river; and he enjoyed peace on all sides. All through his reign Judah and Israel lived securely, every man under his vine and his fig-tree, from Dan to Beersheba .


but the fact

Holy Quran 3:26Say: O Allah, Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest.


The monarchy falls apart and Israel falls to the Assyrians in 721; Judah falls to the Babylonians in 597.
logically there has been (and still) a Jewish longing for the golden days of the Davidic empire ........
Israelite royal theology, at least as transmitted in Judah, regarded the Davidic dynasty
as eternally guaranteed by God, in times of severe crisis the tradition of Yahweh's
eternal covenant with David could serve as basis for the hope that God would soon restore the monarchy to its former glory by raising up a new scion of the Davidic line.

the political disasters of the late eighth century, including the destruction of the northern kingdom and the deportation of a significant portion of the population of the Southern kingdom, produced widespread longing for the unity,strength, and justice of the idealized united monarchy of the past. Isaiah reflects that longing in a number of oracles dating from the period of the Syro-Ephraimite war,' it is clearly expressed in Isa 1:21-26.


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 13, 2012, 07:12:17 AM
such wish seduced the writers of the Bible to produce encouraging ,hopeful texts for the masses ....a future Earthly king who will turn the Earth into Paradise ....
One hoped for and foresaw a restoration of the splendor of old, realized in the in gathering of the dispersed in the Land of Israel so as to reconstitute the monocentricity of the monarchic age, and the restoration of national sovereignty under a Davidic Anointed. The spiritual dimension of Jewish messianism continued to manifest itself in historical realism and societal factuality.
The memory of those days inspired later biblical writers, and upon it they modeled their vision of the future. They described such so called messiah with all the wishful thinking a human being may imagine ..

He will be
a descended from King David via Solomon (Isaiah 11:1)  (1 Chronicles 22:8-10, 2 Chronicles 7:18).and during his era all the Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12) ,  Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5),All the peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23),the whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:11-17), death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8), There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8), All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19), The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11),The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55) , Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9), He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3)...

He won't be:

1- The Messiah is not portrayed in Early Judaism as a miracle worker .
2- No evidence that Jews during the time of Jesus considered that God's Messiah would come and suffer.
3- The reference to the death of the Messiah in 4 Ezra 7:29 is not a Christian interpolation into this Jewish apocalypse.But the death of the Messiah here is not efficacious and is clearly distinct from the Christian affirmation about Jesus. According to 4 Ezra 7, the Messiah's death serves to mark the end of a set period of time and history.
4- The rabbinic references to two Messiahs, one of whom will die, postdate the second Century C . E . , and, therefore, are too late to be used to portray the messianology of the early Jews.
5-  Nowhere in the Old Testament has the term (messiah) O'tra acquired its later technical sense as an eschatological title.

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 13, 2012, 03:56:19 PM
I think the previous points are the important outline of  how the Jews viewed the promised messiah to be .....
The following are additional detailed points on the picture of the messiah before Jesus ,quoted from the greatest and most valuable work on the topic of messiah (THE MESSIAH Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity by James H. Charlesworth, ), read them if you are interested for academic details ,or skip them and follow reading the topic...


Quote from: James H. Charlesworth, The Messiah Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity
1- Besides the Old Testament, We have numerous early Jewish sources that portray the Messiah, variously,as one who will serve as the eschatological high priest (the Dead SeaScrolls, the T12P), or as the consummate benevolent and all-powerful king(PssSol 17). Numerous functions are sometimes attributed to the Messiah:He will judge the wicked (PssSol 17, 4Ezra 12, 2Bar 40), destroy them(PssSol 17, 18; 4Ezra 12, 2Bar 72; c f Isa 11), deliver God's people (PssSol17, 4Ezra 12; c f Zech 9), and/or reign in a blessed kingdom (PssSol 17, 18;2Bar 40; c f Ps 2).

2 - Old Testament expectations of a new David are probably to be understood in terms of a continuing Davidic line. There is little indication that any of these prophets envisioned a final Davidic ruler who would actually rule for all time to come,thus obviating the need for the continuation of the dynastic line. The language of some of the prophecies is open to that interpretation, and such a reading was eventually given to them, but such passages as Jer 33:14-26 and Ezekiel 4 0 - 4 8 indicate that the dynastic understanding was the dominant interpretation of such promises as late as the exihc period, and the repeated references to  "the house of David," in Third Zechariah (Zech12:7-12; 13:1) suggest that this interpretation remained dominant well into the postexilic period.

3- The new Jerusalem is far more prominent in prophetic visions of the future than the Davidic king, but such eschatological hopes are not specifically messianic.

4- There are number of passages as not really envisioning a future king in their original contexts, Once the expectation of a new Davidic king became an important hope in large circles of the Israelite people, these passages would be subject to eschatological reinterpretation, to new readings that were genuinely prophetic.

5 - The later expectations of a priestly Messiah can be traced back to the promises of the restoration of the priesthood found in Jeremiah 33 and in Zechariah's oracles concerning the high priest Joshua.


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 13, 2012, 04:05:32 PM
Quote from: James H. Charlesworth, The Messiah Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity

6- analysing the Enthronement Texts ,we find out The mythological language of the royal protocol,influenced as it was by Egyptian conceptions of the royal office, provided a textual base for the development of later, far more mythological conceptions of the awaited Messiah. Though strong mythological component, the language was understood in the enthronement ceremony, Ps 2:7 speaks of God giving birth to the king; Ps 110:3, though textually difficult, also appears to refer to the divine birth of the king; and Isa 9:5-6, after referring to the king's birth, assigns divine qualities to the king in the series of names that are given to him. These names in Isa 9 : 5 -6 are best explained as royal names given to the new king in the coronation ceremony on the analogy of the five royal names given the new Pharaoh in the Egyptian enthronement ceremony,' and this suggests a strong Egyptian influence on the Judean coronation ritual. This influence may go back to the formative period of the Israelite State when Egyptian influence was quite strong. As is well known, Solomon married a daughter of the Pharaoh (IKgs 3:1; 7:8; 9:16), and even  David appears to have adopted Egyptian models for many of the high offices in his empire.« In any case, the Egyptian influence on the Israelite royal ceremony brought with it the strongly mythological language of the Egyptian royal protocol. This language was probably not taken literally in the Israelite court—the language of divine sonship, for instance, was presumably understood in Israel as adoptive sonship—but once this mythological language had been deposited and preserved in texts whose original roots in particular court ceremonies were forgotten, the possibility for new, literalistic readings of this mythological language arose. Much of the mythological dimension in the later messianic expectations can be traced back to the remythologization of this borrowed mythological language of the royal protocol.

7- Under the chapter, MESSIAHS AND MESSIANIC FIGURES IN PROTO-APOCALYPTICISM :
The period extending from the Exile to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah was one of transition within the religious and political structures of the Jewish people. This was certainly true of programs and visions of cultic and national restoration, for the clash between traditional forms and contemporary realities placed a great strain upon attempts to formulate plans for the future.
Haggai could promise that once the Temple had been restored,God would secure all aspects of peace, from fertility of the land (Hag 2:18-19) to safety from enemy hostilities (Hag 2:20-22).

8- Analyzing (Ezek 37:24-28; 43:18-27).(Zech 4:14).Zech 6:9 etc.....
after detailed analysis to such texts he concludes :
those traditions stemming from the Exile and the early Second Temple Period which later were drawn into various types of messianic speculation originally arose within a Situation rife with tension and change. All of the groups involved sought to explain the contradiction between a corporate identity understood in terms of a people living under God's rule and the experience of living under the sovereignty of a pagan emperor Given the co-existence of rival claims to leadership informed by different backgrounds and party affiliations, it is not surprising that the eschatological traditions arising from the period are characterized by wide diversity.Though the subsequent interpretation and reapplication of these traditions developed quite independently of their original meaning and setting,an awareness of origins is the proper starting point for the study of the history of interpretation of all traditions. The traditions developing the messianic themes discussed throughout this volume are no exception.


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 13, 2012, 04:13:44 PM


Quote from: James H. Charlesworth, The Messiah Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity

9- concluding the chapter MESSIANOLOGY IN EARLY JUDAISM AND EARLY RABBINICS :

In this authoritative compilation of Jewish laws that determine the individual's and the community's way of life,the Messiah as a supernatural or eschatological figure does not make an appearance. The figure of messiah remains rooted in sociopolitical realities—viz. in the realities of post-70 Judaism."' There is hardly a trace of a utopian superstructure. Viewed against the backdrop of later configurations of the messianic idea in Judaism, and the more so in Christianity, we may indeed define that phenomenon with W D. Davies' "a paradoxical messianism."'It may be surmised that this inherent realism caused those Jewish sources not to offer a particularized description of the messianic age. Due to its predominant restorative thrust the future eon is in essence conceived as a vastly improved replica of a Status experienced in the past which is imprinted in the collective memory. Therefore it does not stand in need of being spelled out in detail. The messianic era is not characterized by a total revamping of man's nature and societal structures, nor of the Constitution of the universe. Rather it is seen as a sublime reenactment of the favorable conditions which obtained in the idealized period of the united monarchy under David and Solomon.
The memory of those days inspired later biblical writers, and upon it they modeled their vision of the future. In doing so they drew explicidy on past experience:Was it not this that YHWH proclaimed through the prophets of old, while Jerusalem was populous and peaceful, as were the cities around her, and the Negeb and the Shephelah?. . . These are the words of YHWH I will rescue my people from the countries of the east and the west, and bring them back to live in Jerusalem . . . [unlike] before that time . . . [when] no one could go about his affairs in peace because of enemies . . . but now . . .there shall be sowing in peace, the vine shall yield its fruit and the seil its produce . . . with all these things I will endow the survivors of this people.You, house of Judah and house of Israel, . . . I will save you, and you shall become the symbol of a blessing. Courage! Do not be afraid. (Zech 7:7-8:13,cf. Gen 12:2-3)


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 13, 2012, 04:47:48 PM
now we are on our way to investigate the next step of exposing the origin of Christianity ....    From Judaism to Christianity or FROM MESSIANOLOGY TO CHRISTOLOGY,THE PROBLEM ?

After we examined objectively,using the whole Jewish sources before Jesus ,the term of the Messiah as thought to be ,as an Earthly king who would get the Davidic monarchy back and getting back the Jews  etc.......

Though the writers of the gospel included the traditions of calling Jesus a prophet ,yet they felt it wasn't sufficient weight to embody the significance of Jesus,Though the writers of the gospel included the traditions of calling Jesus a prophet ,yet they felt it wasn't sufficient weight to embody the significance of Jesus,their vain desires and hopes motivated them to claim that Jesus is that Davidic king messiah,son of God.

Matthew 1:1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David.
Matthew 2:4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Mark 27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” 28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” 29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”

.Is there a problem ,that the writers of the New testament calls Jesus the promised king messiah ,the seed of David ? yes, actually there are gross problems with that concept !!!

By comparing what Jesus said ,did (according to the narratives of the new testament ) and what is believed by the Jews as the Qualifications for the king messiah ,as based on the text of the Old Testament ,one find out easily that the picture of Jesus in the New testament is radically different from that hoped-for Davidic ,royal messiah !........

none of the events prophecised of the so called king messiah occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards)..

Jesus lived while the Second Temple was standing, and not while the Jews were exiled. He never reigned as King, and there was no subsequent era of peace or great knowledge. Jesus departed without completing or even accomplishing part of any of the messianic tasks. Rather than being redeemed, the Jews were subsequently exiled from Israel.

Maimonides"one of the most prolific and followed Torah scholars" states, "But if he did not succeed in all this or was killed, he is definitely not the Messiah promised in the Torah."
and
"Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel. So that it was said, “And the members of the outlaws of your nation would be carried to make a (prophetic) vision stand. And they stumbled” (Daniel 11.14). Because, is there a greater stumbling-block than this one? So that all of the prophets spoke that the Messiah redeems Israel, and saves them, and gathers their banished ones, and strengthens their commandments. And this one caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God."
...............

the writers of the New Testament redefined the term king messiah , They were  zealously motivated to include him in the king messiah category ..... may be some of them were disappointed by the Jewish propaganda that they killed Jesus ,and shifted their hope of him as the king messiah to a prophet but others modified the term davidic king messiah to fit a slaughtered messiah ...
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 13, 2012, 04:56:58 PM
As Wayne A. Meeks:Woolsey "Professor of Biblical Studies Yale University" notes:

Quote from: Wayne A. Meeks:Woolsey
"They couldn't go away as they were supposed to ... have to deal with that fundamental question, - what does this mean that the one that we had all of these expectations about has been crucified? How do we deal with this, not merely the end of this life, but the shameful end of this life? And, the amazing thing is, they said, "Hey, Pilate's right - he was the King of the Jews, and moreover, God has vindicated this claim, that he is the King of the Jews, by raising him from the dead." Now, this is where the Jesus movement properly understood, which is to become Christianity, begins, with trying to explain that hard fact.... And so the early Christians, as proper Jews, they begin to search the scriptures, [looking for] what clues are hidden here which no one has noticed before.... They begin to find promises in scripture of an anointed king who will come at the end of days, a notion which they share with many other Jews, at the same time. So, this is where it all begins, with this kind of interpretive process, which of course goes in many different directions."

Those words are not conjecture or assumptions, we have the new testament and the old testament within our hands, and we can easily compare both .....to find out how the writer of the new testament misused it and imposed Jesus on it.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 14, 2012, 10:14:26 AM
Hm, good article, but i will read it later, inshaAllah  ;D
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 21, 2012, 03:35:44 PM
welcome Brother Final Overture ,and I will be pleased for any comment ,correction.


we knew that before the mission of Jesus , generally the Jews thought the messiah would be a warrior who would drive out the roman occupiers; some others saw the messiah as a heavenly being and others expected him to be a great priest. yet no prove that any Jew expected that the messiah would be a crucified criminal.

so what happened? why Those writers of the new testament ,digested the idea of a crucified messiah? Were they paid to make such propaganda for a crucified messiah?!  Not at all ...

all what happened is that they after receiving the Jewish propaganda that they killed Jesus ,they searched the old testament for some passages that would explain the current events , Is it possible that the messiah be killed? they asked themselves!!......

They came to see Jesus as the messiah in spite of his execution after their reading of passages in the Jewish scriptures that talk about one of Cod's righteous ones suffering for the sins of others (cf. Isaiah 53: Psalm 22) S. These passages don't explicitly refer to the Messiah but those Christians claimed they did. they reasoned that Jesus' death must have had a divine purpose and concluded that Jesus death was the way God deals with sin.... it brought a right relationship with God.
still remained another problem for their new theory ,If the  true Messiah die,then how about the events that must accompany his arrival according to prophecy? eg; the arrival of Elijah , during his era all the Israelites will be returned to their homeland ,  Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel ,the whole world will worship the One God of Israel , death will be swallowed up forever , There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease, All of the dead will rise again... etc  etc ?

They solved that problem by two strategies:

1- Searching the old testament for some verses to quote and be included in their writings, that they believed, would show some significance for the traditions they received regarding Jesus and the present society they lived in.
It seems that they did the opposite as well "historicizing The old testament prophecies" ,some UN-historical elements of the Gospels appear to be based on the the Hebrew scripture .
in other words ,  as Neil Godfrey describes: The gospels were theological constructions built on Old Testament and other stories as a result of a need for some 'biographical' narrative to illustrate an emerging Christian sect rooted in mysticism and other theological and philosophical roots in both the Diaspora Jews and Hellenistic philosophy.....

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 21, 2012, 04:10:33 PM

2- Devising the belief of a first century second coming of Jesus , they conceded that the arrival of Jesus did not usher in that which was predicted and his credentials seem tarnished, but another appearance will rectify the situation. What wasn't fulfilled the first time will be completed during his second time around.
leading New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman :

Quote from:  Bart Ehrman
The one thing we
know about the Christians after the death of Jesus is that they turned to their scriptures to try and make sense of it. They had believed Jesus was the Messiah, but then he got crucified, and so he couldn’t be the Messiah. No Jew, prior to Christianity, thought that the Messiah was to be crucified. The Messiah was to be a great warrior or a great king or a great judge. He was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not somebody who’s squashed by the enemy like a mosquito. How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal? Christians turned to their scriptures to try and understand it, and they found passages that refer to the Righteous One of God’s suffering death. But in these passages, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 61, the one who is punished or who is killed is also vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their scriptures that Jesus was the Righteous One and that God must have vindicated him. And so Christians came to think of Jesus as one who, even though he had been crucified, came to be exalted to heaven, much as Elijah and Enoch had in the Hebrew scriptures.How can he be Jesus the Messiah though, if he’s been exalted to heaven? Well, Jesus must be coming back soon to establish the kingdom. He wasn’t an earthly Messiah; he’s a spiritual Messiah. That’s why the early Christians thought the end was coming right away in their own lifetime. That’s why Paul taught that Christ was the first fruit of the resurrection. But if Jesus is exalted, he is no longer dead, and so Christians started circulating the story of his resurrection. It wasn’t three days later they started circulating the story; it might have been a year later, maybe two years. Five years later they didn’t know when the stories had started. Nobody could go to the tomb to check; the body had decomposed. Believers who knew he had been raised from the dead started having visions of him. Others told stories about these visions of him, including Paul. Stories of these visions circulated. Some of them were actual visions like Paul, others of them were stories of visions like the five hundred group of people who saw him. On the basis of these stories, narratives were constructed and circulated and eventually we got the Gospels of the New Testament written 30, 40, 50, 60 years later.


The way they applied such strategies ,is the best chance for us to investigate the truthfulness,legitimacy and status of those writers and Christianity .....

when it comes to the first previously mentioned strategy, objective study to their writing would expose their misleading quotations ,their misuse of the old testament ... they selected some of old testament passages and tried to convince the readers, that those passages were predictions of Jesus' life and mission, while in fact ,they are nothing but misquotations, non-quotes, and misinterpretations.

[/size]


before we visit the old and new testament analyzing those passages ,we would quote some scholars who noted such serious problem ,that shakes the foundations of Christianity ,and destroy the concept that the new testament is divinely inspired and not a human made collection of some of the true words of Jesus accompanied by false traditions,misleading exegesis.


Dennis McKinsey ,Author of "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" and  "Biblical Errancy (A Referance Guide)".wrote

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 21, 2012, 04:29:27 PM
Quote from: ACCOMMODATIONS ,Dennis McKinsey
One of the most egregious violations of intellectual integrity by the founders of Christianity is shown by their gross distortions of the OT for purposes of indoctrination. In their never-ending quest for religious legitimacy and status, they have not hesitated to twist, distort, pervert, and concoct OT verses as expediency dictated. Here, as much as anywhere else in the Bible, the true colors of the creators of Christianity come through in all their radiant splendor. Examples of their perfidious display of propagandistic propensities are abundantly evident to anyone with a reasonably critical eye.


Quote from: MESSIANIC PROPHECIES  ,Dennis McKinsey
With the possible exception of eschatology (biblical predictions of what is to come) in no area of scripture does the Christian imagination wander more wildly and irresponsibly than in that of messianic prophecy (OT predictions of the coming Messiah). Christian apologists have diligently searched the OT for any verse, any text, any word, that could possibly be twisted, distorted, or perverted in such a manner as to link Jesus with the foretold Messiah. With what can only be described as reckless abandon, they have interpreted sizable portions of the OT for purely partisan theological purposes. Regardless of relativity, anything and everything of a positive or uplifting nature has been depicted as a type or harbinger of Jesus and everything of a negative, but equally applicable import, has been ignored or minimized. Hundreds of verses have been interpreted either literally or figuretively, as conditions dictate, with little regard for context or original intent. Except in the arena of eschatology, here, more than anywhere else, the full breadth and depth of Christian duplicity rears its ugly head. Perversion, prevarication, and pathetic prognostication are only some of the descriptive terms one could apply to their strategy of deception. "Everything in the Jewish books is perverted and distorted into meanings never intended by the writers." ("Examination of the Prophecies", The Life and Works of Paine, Vol. 9, p. 241) and "...whoever will take the trouble to read attentively, will find in all those passages where the OT is cited, only an obvious abuse of words, and the seal of falsehood on almost every page" (Voltaire on Religion by Ken Applegate, p. 147). Interestingly enough, apologists rely heavily and freely upon the very tactic--taking out of context--which they so readily attribute to their opponents. As Paine said, "The practise which the writers of the books (gospels--Ed.) employ is not more false than it is absurd. They state some trifling case of the person they call Jesus Christ, and then cut out a sentence from some passage of the OT and call it a prophecy of that case. But when the words thus cut out are restored to the places they are taken from, and read with the words before and after them, they give the lie to the NT" (The Life and Works of Paine, Vol. 9, p. 269).
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 21, 2012, 04:35:22 PM
Quote from: MESSIANIC PROPHECIES  ,Dennis McKinsey
Not long ago we heard a debate in which a noted fundamentalist contended Jesus had to be the Messiah because no one else could fulfill so many of the OT prophecies. From his perspective there was no one else who could "fill the bill." A few of the prophecies may fit certain individuals but no one else could fit so many. The odds were just too great. Josh McDowell expressed the attitude typical of most apologists when he said, "Now the OT was written over a period of a thousand years and contains over 333 messianic prophecies....all of the prophecies that were fulfilled in one person, Jesus Christ, were written down at least 400 years before he was born because the OT was completed around 450-400 B.C...there are 60 major prophecies and 270 ramifications, all fulfilled in one person, Jesus Christ....Let's apply the modern science of probability. For only 48 of these prophecies to be fulfilled in any one individual using the modern science of probability, is one in every 1 X 10 to the 157th power. That means 157 zeroes" (Evidence for Faith, Practical Apologetics by Josh McDowell, pages 159 & 161). The importance of this entire field lies not only in its alleged "proof" that Jesus is the long-sought Savior of the world but in the constant reliance upon accurate biblical prophecy as proof of the Bible's uniqueness. As the apologist in the debate said with reference to the Bible's predictive accuracy in general, "There aren't that many atoms in the universe." In other words, pure mathematics not only proves Jesus is the Messiah but the Bible is God's Word. No other book even comes close to having so many accurate prophecies; at least that's the theory. When asked how their book differs from the writings of the Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., the most common reply by biblicists is that the Bible contains hundreds of accurate prophecies which the others lack. The ability to predict the future is seen as proof that the Bible alone is God's word because only God knows the future.
So what's the problem biblicists ask. The problem is quite simple. Not one of the prophecies cited clearly pertains to Jesus. The entire messianic structure is built on conjecture, speculation, and interpolation. Ingersoll stated. "There is no prophecy in the OT foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one word in the OT referring to him in any way--not one word. The only way to prove this is to take your Bible, and wherever you find these words; 'That it might be fulfilled' and 'which was spoken' turn to the OT and find what was written, and you will see that it had not the slightest possible reference to the thing recounted in the NT--not the slightest" (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 277). Because this topic is of such importance to the Bible's validity in general and the messiahship of Jesus in particular, an all but exhaustive critique of the "Messianic prophecies" is in order.
.....

Farrell Till (ex-christian missionary and preacher),wrote:


Quote from:  Farrell Till (PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED).
Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 22, 2012, 11:43:15 AM
You don't believe Jesus is the Messiah?! :o
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 22, 2012, 01:38:57 PM
You don't believe Jesus is the Messiah?! :o

I wrote before in that study that The term messiah, has both technical and non- technical use....

(the non- technical use) we can correctly call Jesus the messiah "aka the anointed" ,as one of the several messiahs been sent by God , one who had been set apart by God and enabled for a special task.

but It would be incorrect calling Jesus "The messiah" (the technical use) ,claiming him as such imagined special Messiah who is predicted in the old testament as descended from King David via Solomon , during his era all the Israelites will be returned to their homeland , Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel ,All the peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance ,the whole world will worship the One God of Israel . etc etc etc .....

The Quranic view of Jesus is not in accordance with the old testament view of the predicted davidic king messiah .... 

what does that mean? It simply means that such predicted character exists only in the imaginations of some of the bible writers.

I mentioned before the reasons for the Jews to fake such character,after the destruction of the Jewish kingdom ,the Jews were longing for the unity,strength, and justice of the idealized united Davidic monarchy of the past , so the Jewish writers of the bible ,started to wrote their wishes in the form of prophecies of a great king who will restore the golden times for the Jews etc etc...


I know , most "if not all" the Muslims who read the study will be surprised when they read me arguing against Jesus being THE MESSIAH ...

I understand such reaction , because they simply don't understand the difference between the term messiah, when applied to any Jewish religious figure who had been set apart by God and enabled for a special task.
and the term messiah as applied to ONE special figure been predicted that with his arrival the Jews will be back to their times of glory etc etc....

that term was applied to other characters before Jesus:



Quote from: Wikipedia,messiah
The literal translation of the Hebrew word moshiach (messiah) is “anointed,” which refers to a ritual of consecrating someone or something by putting holy oil upon it.[1 Sam. 10:1-2] It is used throughout the Hebrew Bible in reference to a wide variety of individuals and objects; for example, a Jewish king,[1 Kings 1:39] Jewish priests,[Lev. 4:3] and prophets,[Isa. 61:1] the Jewish Temple and its utensils,[Ex. 40:9-11] unleavened bread,[Num. 6:15] and a non-Jewish king (Cyrus king of Persia).[Isa. 45:1]



Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 22, 2012, 02:03:08 PM
Jesus didn't meet such qualifications to such predicted king messiah ....
so what does that mean?

for Islam ,no problem at all ,as nothing in the Quran says that Jesus was supposed to fulfill such predictions about the king messiah , actually the very basic prediction  of such messiah (as the seed of king David via Solomon), would exclude the born of a virgin ,Quranic Jesus ....
all that we have in the Quran is that Jesus had a title"the messiah" lots of others had.

for Christianity , calling Jesus with the technical use of the title "THE MESSIAH" ,is not just a problem ... it is a disaster that shakes and destroy the trustworthy of the writers of the new testament , turning the whole theology of the new testament to nothing but human fantasies...

ALL of the writers of the new testament agree with each others that Jesus was the promised Davidic king messiah ..

if we compared the promises of the messiah in the old testament and the descriptions and actions they attributed to Jesus in the new testament ,and found out that what Jesus said or done "according to the new testament" ,are against what the predicted messiah must do ,then we can safely say that Jesus isn't such predicted messiah. that means :

ALL of the writers of the new testament were wrong when they claimed that Jesus is such predicted king messiah ,hence proving themselves as non-inspired men ,and their writing not fully the word of God.

that leads to another serious conclusion as well...
The trouble the writers of the new testament have with their believes in Jesus as the king messiah would extend logically to their believes in him as God "assuming some or all of them believed in him as God" .....

If they erred assuming Jesus the predicted king messiah,then that necessarily require they erred assuming God as well .isn't it?

 kill two birds with one stone  ;D .

...............................

thank you Bro Final Overture for your comment any other comments ,objections are welcome.

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 23, 2012, 05:26:27 PM
Quote
They came to see Jesus as the messiah in spite of his execution after their reading of passages in the Jewish scriptures that talk about one of Cod's righteous ones suffering for the sins of others (cf. Isaiah 53: Psalm 22) S. These passages don't explicitly refer to the Messiah but those Christians claimed they did
Actually, Jesus himself quoted Psalms 22 in Mark 15:34.
Quote
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
And Psalms 22:1
Quote
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me
Now let's read some more of this chapter:
Quote
4 In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them. 5 To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame. 11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near, and there is none to help. 19 But you, O LORD, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen! 23 You who fear the LORD, praise Him! 24 For He has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and He has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to Him.
So, surely, Jesus didn't die.

We know from Qur'an that Jesus is the Messiah. We are also told of his second coming.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: QuranSearchCom on August 23, 2012, 05:31:08 PM
As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers and sisters,

The Old Testament declares in many places that Jesus Christ will never be killed, nor be crucified.  Please visit:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_53.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/psalm_91.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/psalm_116_117_118.htm


For ample references and details.  Isaiah 53, Psalm 91 and Psalm 116, 117 and 118 have ample claims that Christ will never be harmed or killed.

Your brother,
Osama Abdallah
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 23, 2012, 05:50:13 PM
As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers and sisters,

The Old Testament declares in many places that Jesus Christ will never be killed, nor be crucified.  Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_53.htm for ample references and details.  Isaiah 53, Psalm 91 and Psalm 116, 117 and 118 have ample claims that Christ will never be harmed or killed.

Your brother,
Osama Abdallah

There is much more: Luke 23:46
Quote
"Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last" 
Jesus quoted Psalms 31
Quote
5 Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O LORD, faithful God. 7 I will rejoice and be glad in your steadfast love, because you have seen my affliction;you have known the distress of my soul, 8 and you have not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; you have set my feet in a broad place. 9 Be gracious to me, O LORD, for I am in distress; 13 For I hear the whispering of many— terror on every side 15 My times are in your hand; rescue me from the hand of my enemies and from my persecutors! 22 I had said in my alarm, â€œI am cut off from your sight.” But you HEARD the voice of my pleas for mercy when I CRIED to you for HELP.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 24, 2012, 05:34:03 AM
Quote from: Final Overture
Actually, Jesus himself quoted Psalms 22 in Mark 15:34.
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
And Psalms 22:1
Quote
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me

Notes:

1st : we are Muslims and don't believe that Jesus was crucified,isn't it? If so , I think no sense to use words that are claimed to be uttered by Jesus while he was crucified ,to make a point negating Jesus crucifixion.

2nd: The language in psalms ,is not a language of predictions if read carefully objectively ,it simply conveys the message of David that was assured that the Lord would preserve his life in the face of death. He rejoiced because God enabled his body to rest securely even when confronted with death.

I think cutting any psalmist passage out of context ,to make a prophecy, means that anyone can accommodate the psalm to contemporary fancies !

we blame(rightly) the christians for taking some passages out of context from the psalms applying it to Jesus,claiming they predicted his crucifixion. yet we do the same exact thing when we take some passages out of context from the psalms applying it to Jesus,claiming they predicted him not killed,nor crucified.!
...

3rd: Even,for the sake of argument, we ignore what a valid language of a prophecy should be,assuming the passages quoted as a prediction of crucifixion ,or a protection from death to be used as prophecies, still remains the problem of exclusiveness !!!
in other words how do you know that such (so called) prophecies are applied to Jesus and not anyone else ? how many righteous been exposed to dangers and some been executed and others were saved? their experiences are all valid as a fulfillment to such prophecy ,isn't it?!

............................................................

Brother Final Overture wrote:  We know from Qur'an that Jesus is the Messiah.

As a title (that lots of others before him had), or as the messiah that is predicted in the old testament?

 if you believe the second ,then I need elaboration with authentic textual support for that ,plz.?


Thank you Bro Final Overture ,QuranSearchCom for your input ....

though I disagree with you on the means to disprove the crucifixion "I disprove it with another approach"  ,yet we all held to the same conclusion...
Thank you for your patience reading ...May Allah bless you always.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 25, 2012, 05:54:51 PM
Quote
1st : we are Muslims and don't believe that Jesus was crucified,isn't it? If so , I think no sense to use words that are claimed to be uttered by Jesus while he was crucified ,to make a point negating Jesus crucifixion.

2nd: The language in psalms ,is not a language of predictions if read carefully objectively ,it simply conveys the message of David that was assured that the Lord would preserve his life in the face of death. He rejoiced because God enabled his body to rest securely even when confronted with death.

About the first: Jesus said that before he was crucified, when he was pierced. Crucified = died. He was just peirced as written in the Psalms.
About the second: Luke 24:44
Quote
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 25, 2012, 06:06:12 PM
Quote
in other words how do you know that such (so called) prophecies are applied to Jesus and not anyone else ? how many righteous been exposed to dangers and some been executed and others were saved? their experiences are all valid as a fulfillment to such prophecy ,isn't it?!

Yeah, Psalms 22 even deals with this "
Quote
how many righteous been exposed to dangers and some been executed and others were saved?"

Quote
4 In you our ancestors put their trust;
    they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;
    in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

Surely, Psalms 22 tell us that Jesus won't die.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: QuranSearchCom on August 25, 2012, 08:24:56 PM
As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers and sisters in Islam,

I have just uploaded a 3-hour debate between Dr. Zakir Naik and Pastor Rukni on "Was Jesus Christ Crucified?":

(http://www.answering-christianity.com/was_jesus_crucified_debate_between_dr_zakir_naik_and_pastor_rukni.jpg)

The debate is located at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/was_jesus_crucified_debate_between_dr_zakir_naik_and_pastor_rukni.wmv.  This is yet another wonderful 3-hour debate and video by Dr. Zakir Naik where he thoroughly demonstrated from the Bible's New Testament that Jesus Christ was never crucified, nor did he ever rise from the dead.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 26, 2012, 03:59:10 AM
Quote
in other words how do you know that such (so called) prophecies are applied to Jesus and not anyone else ?
Jesus himself quoted it, so why not?
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 26, 2012, 01:41:18 PM
peace


Quote from: Final Overture
About the first: Jesus said that before he was crucified, when he was pierced. Crucified = died..


1- Do you believe as a Muslim,that Jesus was put on the cross?
2- What do you mean by "Crucified = died" ?




.................................
 
Quote from: Final Overture
He was just pierced as written in the Psalms, Luke 24:44 said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”


1- Do you trust the writers of the new testament putting passages in the mouth of Jesus ,making him claiming that the old testament made predictions fulfilled in his mission? If you do trust them ,I don't. you ask why?

eg: Do you believe the writer of Luke (whom you just quoted) when he said,that Jesus said not only he will be resurrected after 3 days ,but also such resurrection is predicted in the old testament ?

 Then he [Jesus] opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day… (Luke 24:45-46)

Do you believe the writer of Mark when he said that Jesus said ,that the execution of John the baptist was predicted in the old testament ?

Mark 9:13
    But I (Jesus) say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.

the fact that nowhere in the old testament it is written that the messiah will be resurrected from the dead after 3 days,neither a prediction of John the baptist as being executed.!!

2- Even if we ignore the previous examples of deceptive ,imaginary claims of prophecies ,and go to the verse under discussion, Psalm 22:16,  It is a verse Christians use it as a textual support for a claimed prophecy fulfillment ... that is a kind of misleading exegesis of some old testament  quotations ....

read the following quotation addressing the problem:


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 26, 2012, 01:48:56 PM
Quote from:  [b
Farrell Till.  Prophecy Fulfillment: An Unprovable Claim[/b]
]
1- There is no proof that the reference in Psalm 22:16 to pierced hands and feet was a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus. Contextually, there is nothing in this psalm to indicate that the writer intended the statement to be so understood. An objective reading of the psalm should be enough for any reasonable person to see that the writer was referring to himself and certain abuses that he was suffering at the hands of his enemies. "Many bulls have surrounded Me," the psalmist said in verses 12 and 13. "Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me. They gape at Me with their mouths, like a raging and roaring lion." Was this some kind of prophecy of the suffering that Jesus would endure or was it a reference to some personal abuse that the psalmist felt he was experiencing in his present condition? Not even the overly imaginative mind of the writer of Matthew in his endless quest for prophecy fulfillments tried to relate this statement to the life of Jesus, yet the gospel writers took the reference to pierced hands and feet just three verses later and exclaimed, "Aha, prophecy fulfillment!" What is the rationale for distorting the scriptures so flagrantly? Well, the answer, of course, is obvious: the gospel writers were desperate to prove that their man Jesus was the Messiah who had been promised in the Old Testament. Since there really were no prophecies of a virgin-born, crucified, resurrected Messiah in the Old Testament, they had to twist and distort to give the appearance that Jesus was the long-awaited one.
Absurdity in the claim that the reference to pierced hands and feet in this psalm was a prophecy about Jesus becomes even more evident when the obscurity of the statement is considered. A footnote in many reference Bibles will point out that use of the word *pierce* in Psalm 22:16 follows the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate versions but that the original word is pointed in the Hebrew Masoretic text to read *lion*, and despite the loss of an important prophecy-fulfillment text some English translations recognize the uncertainty of the text. The REB and NEB, for example, render the statement like this: "Hounds are all about me; a band of ruffians rings me round, and they have bound me hand and foot." The GNB says, "A gang of evil men is around me; like a pack of dogs they close in on me; they tear at my hands and feet." This translation has a footnote to point out that the last statement in the Hebrew reads, "Like a lion, they tear at my hands and feet." Some reference Bibles also have footnotes to indicate that the latter statement may mean, "They tie my hands and feet," as the REB and NEB actually translate it.
The point is that the original text is very uncertain in its meaning, and on the basis of the Septuagint translation of a controversial word, the gospel writers have twisted this statement into a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus. What Dr. Ross is actually claiming, then, is that the odds are 1 in 10^13 that a controversial, uncertain text in a psalm about the writer's personal suffering was a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus. It is just such nonsense as this that biblicists must resort to in their desperate search for something--*anything*--to support their irrational belief that the Bible is the "inspired word of God." Then there is that strange plea to be saved from the sword!  Deliver me from the sword . . . (Psalms 22:20)Always worth remembering to ask God to deliver you from a sword when he lets you experience the niggling inconvenience of being crucified.


.

.........................
 
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 26, 2012, 01:56:13 PM
Quote from: Farrell Till, Prophecy Fulfillment: An Unprovable Claim

-Then there is that strange plea to be saved from the sword!  Deliver me from the sword . . . (Psalms 22:20)Always worth remembering to ask God to deliver you from a sword when he lets you experience the niggling inconvenience of being crucified.

2- So is this proof that prophecy was fulfilled when the hands of Jesus were pierced during his crucifixion and when lots were cast for his garments? Not at all! To so argue is again to assume the historical accuracy of the New Testament documents. There are absolutely no contemporary non biblical records of the crucifixion of Jesus, so to accept as absolute fact everything reported in the gospels, which flagrantly admit that they were written for propaganda purposes to further the belief that Jesus was the son of God
.
.........................

Quote from: Final Overture
how many righteous been exposed to dangers and some been executed and others were saved?"   In you our ancestors put their trust;  they trusted and you delivered them.5 To you they cried out and were saved; in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
Surely, Psalms 22 tell us that Jesus won't die.

In another place, you suppose in one hand that Jesus was nailed to the cross and had his hands and feet been pierced ,on the other hand you  said "Surely, Psalms 22 tell us that Jesus won't die, or were put to shame.."

Well :

1- Nothing from the verses ,nor other verses ,suggests that mere dying or being killed dishonor the prophets .

that some prophets were killed is a fact supported by the Quran ...

Holy Quran 4:155 Because of their breaking the covenant, and of their rejecting the signs of Allah, and of their killing the Prophets unjustly.

If mere killing wouldn't dishonor the prophets, so what shame Jesus was protected from ?
the answer is that ,for the Jews the one who is hanged crucified ,is claimed to be" accursed of God" .....

“And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day for he who is hanged is accursed of God...” (Dt. 21:22-23).

so crucifixion is not a mere killing,but very humiliating and shameful...

....... so it is improper to say the verses of Psalms are prophecies , they are mere the words of David (according to the old testament assuming it was him David to be the author) referring to himself and certain abuses that he was suffering at the hands of his enemies .etc...

If you want to make a point suggesting some similarities between his case and Jesus ,that shouldn't be called a prophecy fulfillment ... but a typology ..

If you want to make a typology between David of the old testament and Jesus of the new testament , your typology would fail (they have hardly anything in common) .

If you want to make a typology between the Quranic David and the Quranic Jesus , then again your typology would fail !!
David in the Quran was a king that crushed his enemies and had a great kingdom ,he wasn't in danger of being killed by the Jews or crucified . etc...


Asslamulaikom
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 26, 2012, 02:06:51 PM

Quote from: QuranSearchCom
As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers and sisters in Islam,

I have just uploaded a 3-hour debate between Dr. Zakir Naik and Pastor Rukni on "Was Jesus Christ Crucified?"

Take care,
Osama Abdallah


Thank you bro Osama for uploading that debate...I haven't watched it yet ...

but as a matter of fact ,I find a surprising description " Dr. Zakir Naik where he thoroughly demonstrated from the Bible's New Testament that Jesus Christ was never crucified, nor did he ever rise from the dead."

with such description ,I guess I will have a critical word against Dr Naik's approach in that debate.
let me first watch it inshallah....

Thanx again brother Osama ,for your never ending efforts.

Assalamualaikom.


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 26, 2012, 04:49:17 PM
Quote
1- Do you believe as a Muslim,that Jesus was put on the cross?
2- What do you mean by "Crucified = died" ?

1 - Yes
2- Definition http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crucify
to put to DEATH by nailing or binding the hands and feet to a cross.
Quote
In another place, you suppose in one hand that Jesus was nailed to the cross and had his hands and feet been pierced ,on the other hand you  said "Surely, Psalms 22 tell us that Jesus won't die, or were put to shame.."
Being nailed or pierced to the cross won't make you die!

Quote
1- Nothing from the verses ,nor other verses ,suggests that mere dying or being killed dishonor the prophets .
Right,
Quote
2 Chronicles 36:15 The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place. 16 But they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD rose against his people, until there was no remedy.

Nehemiah 9:26 Nevertheless, they were disobedient and rebelled against you and cast your law behind their back and killed your prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to you, and they committed great blasphemies.

1 Kings 19:10 He said, “I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away.”
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 26, 2012, 04:57:50 PM
Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azKmKhwz5AE ;D
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 26, 2012, 10:09:51 PM
Quote from: Final Overture
Being nailed or pierced to the cross won't make you die!


That depends on how they nailed him ,and the time he stayed like that...

anyway though one being nailed or pierced to the cross won't necessarily make him die , there is a word that we can surely that man with. that he was "crucified"..

whether he died on the cross, escaped it etc.... that doesn't change the fact that he was crucified .  If so ,then the swoon theory(that Jesus was crucified but later escaped the cross) which you believe in ,is clearly against the Quran.

4:157 He was neither killed nor crucified .

Then my advice is that you revise again your believe that Jesus was put on the cross.
you should revise ,as well, your words (Crucified = died ), actually you have just corrected that ,and said " Being nailed or pierced to the cross won't make you die!"....


GF Haddad Qasyoun wrote :

Quote from:  
In Arabic the verb "Salaba , crucify" does not denote automatically a death on a cross , but only hoisting or being hoisted up on a cross or plank or pole for the purpose of defamation and humiliation.

Abu Nu`aym in Hilya al-Awliya' (1985 ed. 10:154=1997 ed. 10:161) narrates with his chain that when al-Daylami -- one of the early Sufis -- was captured by the Byzantines "he was crucified" (fa salabuh), and "when the Muslims saw him crucified (fa lamma ra'ahu al-Muslimuna masluban) they freed him after a raid and brought him down alive. He came down and asked for water, etc."

Al-Tabari in his history Tarikh al-Muluk wa al-Umam (1987 ed. 5:414) in the chapter of the year 252 describes the events of `Abdan ibn al-Muwaffaq's demise: "He was crucified alive (fa suliba hayyan)... and was left crucified (turika masluban) until the midafternoon prayer. Then he was thrown into jail and remained there for two days. He died on the third. It was ordered that he be crucified again..."

There are also examples using the term salaba or crucify for defamation-displays taking place _after_ the death of the crucified, as alluded to in the Qur'anic sequence: "They never killed him, and they never crucified him."

When Caesar's governor over Amman at the time of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- Farwa ibn `Amr al-Judhami declared his Islam, he was imprisoned until he died. After his death, he was crucified. Narrated by Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat (7:435) May Allah be well-pleased with him, he believed in the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- in the Prophet's time, yet never met him, like Uways al-Qarani.

In the hadith of Salman al-Farisi about the corrupt episcopus of the Syrian church who died, then it was discovered that he had amassed a treasure out of the people's alms, Salman narrates: "They said we shall never bury him. Then they crucified him on a plank and stoned him." Narrated by Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat (4:77), al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad (1:167) and Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya (2:311).

In 231 Imam Ahmad ibn Nasr al-Khuza`i -- may Allah be well-pleased with him -- was decapitated in Samarra. "When his head was brought to the authorities [in Baghdad], they [literally] crucified it (salabuh)." Al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad (5:179). It is evident that the meaning here is "They displayed it on top of a pole."

In 317 the caliph al-Muqtadir's chamberlain, Nazuk, was killed then crucified as stated by Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya (11:159 Dar al-Ma`arif ed.): "They went to Nazuk and killed him while he was enebriated, then they crucified him" (thumma salabuh).

So the focus in crucifixion is not on execution but on advertising defamation. In the above examples the maslub or crucified may or may not be dead but in the event he is dead, his death is immaterial to the definition or connotations of crucifixion.




still I have a comment on the youtube videos ,later inshalah.

peace
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: QuranSearchCom on August 27, 2012, 01:18:38 AM
Quote
Thank you bro Osama for uploading that debate...I haven't watched it yet ...

but as a matter of fact ,I find a surprising description " Dr. Zakir Naik where he thoroughly demonstrated from the Bible's New Testament that Jesus Christ was never crucified, nor did he ever rise from the dead."

with such description ,I guess I will have a critical word against Dr Naik's approach in that debate.
let me first watch it inshallah....

Thanx again brother Osama ,for your never ending efforts.

Assalamualaikom.

As'salamu Alaikum dear brother,

Yes, Dr. Zakir Naik demonstrated very thoroughly from the NT that Christ never died on the cross.  And he also never resurrected from the dead either.  IN fact, he challenged Christians to show one verse where it says that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead.  Yes, that boldly. :)  I know, it sounds surprising, but seriously, the brother did an awsome job demonstrating his points.

May Allah Almighty bless you akhi.  Yes, please watch the debate :).

Your brother,
Osama Abdallah
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 27, 2012, 11:53:49 AM
Are you really in doubt that Psalms 22 is about Jesus?
Psalms 22:
Quote
7 All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
8 “He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”
Matthew 27
Quote
42“He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
(In Luke the Christ of God)

Psalms 22:
Quote
18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.

Luke 23:
Quote
34And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.

Quote
whether he died on the cross, escaped it etc.... that doesn't change the fact that he was crucified .  If so ,then the swoon theory(that Jesus was crucified but later escaped the cross) which you believe in ,is clearly against the Quran.
Really? I believe that Jesus was on cross but didn't die.

Quote
In Arabic the verb "Salaba , crucify" does not denote automatically a death on a cross , but only hoisting or being hoisted up on a cross or plank or pole for the purpose of defamation and humiliation.
It doesn't really matter, if the word has two meanings. Jesus, surely didn't die.



Psalms 22:
Quote
23 You who fear the LORD, praise Him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify Him, and stand in awe of Him, all you offspring of Israel!
24 For He has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and He has not hidden His face from him, but has heard, when he cried to Him.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 28, 2012, 11:24:21 AM
Quote from: QuranSearchCom
Yes, Dr. Zakir Naik demonstrated very thoroughly from the NT that Christ never died on the cross.  And he also never resurrected from the dead either.  IN fact, he challenged Christians to show one verse where it says that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead.  Yes, that boldly. :)  I know, it sounds surprising, but seriously, the brother did an awesome job demonstrating his points.


Assalamualaikum

 I watched only some of the debate , and have some notes:

1- The title should have been "Was Jesus Really Crucified,according to the new testament? instead of "Was Jesus Really Crucified?"....  the second title requires bigger complicated task than the task of addressing whether the New testament teaches that Jesus was crucified or not.


2- Brother Zakir naik provided nothing new ,he repeats again the points ,Brother Ahmed Deedat highlighted in his book "crucificion"  !!  where he said that ,according to the bible, Jesus was crucified yet didn't die on the cross "the swoon theory" ....

3- Though I didn't watch the whole debate , still I can say that I disagree with Dr Naik's approach to disprove the crucifixion ....


If one would like to claim that the new testament doesn't teach that Jesus was crucified,resurrected then one shouldn't ignore the following verses from the new testament where Jesus not only predicted his own crucifixion,death and resurrection ,but also after his (so called resurrection) he reminded them of his prediction !!

Matthew 20:17-19 " And Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside along the way, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify Him. And the third day He shall rise again."

Luke 24 :36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day


Jesus (according to the new testament) ,said with his own mouth (others said that as well) that he will be crucified ,resurrected from dead ,and that he was crucified ,resurrected from the dead .
 I don't know ,how Dr Naik would make such easy challenge to Christians to show one verse where it says that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead !!! 

If one has some points showing that some of the narratives suggest Jesus not dying ,and the fact in some other passages suggest Jesus as crucified,died,resurrected ..then the title of the debate should be " Is the bible contradicting itself regarding Jesus crucifixion,death and resurrection?"

Though I disagree with Dr Naik in his approach in that debate ,still I admire his approach in other debate : The Quran and the Bible in the Light of Science(available on youtube).

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 28, 2012, 11:37:39 AM
Again thank you brother Osama for not only sharing such material ,but also giving the chance for us here in the forum to evaluate the material ,and learning from our mistakes and the mistakes of others.

...................................................................................................


Now let's address some of Final Overture 's points...
 
Quote from:  Final Overture
Are you really in doubt that Psalms 22 is about Jesus?


as I said before, Psalm is not a prophecy,to begin with. It is nothing but an experience by its writer ,an experience that millions others of righteous believers had,they had been exposed to sufferings and been vindicated by God. religious zeal is the only reason to turn such passages into prophecies!.

Quote from:  Final Overture
Matthew 27:42“He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”


1- Do you believe that the accounts of the so called crucifixion,or the other account in the new testament eg: the massacre of the babies in Bethlehem , to be historically accurate? do you believe the new testament was written by eyewitnesses? If your answer is yes ,then show us the reasons,plz.

2- Do the similarities between the gospel narratives and the Psalms ,seem astonishing for you?

well , have you heard of the term "Plagiarize" or to commit literary theft ?

the writers of the gospels (who copied from each others) , Plagiarized the psalms ... that is not only my opinion ,but the opinion of many scholars:

Many scholars would suggest that the earliest layer of traditions concerning the death of
Jesus was created by historicizing Old Testament prophecies, and that this prophetic tradition was later developed into a single extended story through the narrative pattern of "The Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent One" (see Crossan 1995, 1; A. Dewey 199(1, 108).

most detail of the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospels relates back to some prior Hebrew scripture, mostly from the scriptures that we now call the Old Testament, though some elements of the Gospels appear to be based on other non-scriptural works as well.
Clearly the story of the crucifixion of Jesus doesn't require a real event for its inspiration, all of the ideas needed to inspire the story already existed in the scriptures (the old testament) that the writers of the new testament, used as food for their thoughts .


Quote from:  Final Overture
I believe that Jesus was on cross but didn't die.”


The Holy Qur'an affirms  that Jesus was not crucified, 4:157 He was neither killed nor crucified .
and you believe that Jesus was crucified ! ... Just why don't you believe the Qur'an !?

The trouble with the "swoon theory" , that no Muslim or even christian should buy it .... 
the Qur'an denies that Jesus was crucified, and the bible affirms that Jesus was crucified .there is no between.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 29, 2012, 01:49:45 PM
Quote
as I said before, Psalm is not a prophecy,to begin with.
As I said before, Jesus said that Psalms have prophecies.
Quote
2- Do the similarities between the gospel narratives and the Psalms ,seem astonishing for you?

well , have you heard of the term "Plagiarize" or to commit literary theft ?

the writers of the gospels (who copied from each others) , Plagiarized the psalms ... that is not only my opinion ,but the opinion of many scholars:

Many scholars would suggest that the earliest layer of traditions concerning the death of
Jesus was created by historicizing Old Testament prophecies, and that this prophetic tradition was later developed into a single extended story through the narrative pattern of "The Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent One" (see Crossan 1995, 1; A. Dewey 199(1, 108).

most detail of the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospels relates back to some prior Hebrew scripture, mostly from the scriptures that we now call the Old Testament, though some elements of the Gospels appear to be based on other non-scriptural works as well.
Clearly the story of the crucifixion of Jesus doesn't require a real event for its inspiration, all of the ideas needed to inspire the story already existed in the scriptures (the old testament) that the writers of the new testament, used as food for their thoughts .
So, Jesus didn't even exist?

Quote
and you believe that Jesus was crucified ! ... Just why don't you believe the Qur'an !?
I don't believe that Jesus was crucified.

Psalms 40:4 Blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust
Psalms 9:10 you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 29, 2012, 05:00:34 PM
Quote from: Final Overture
I believe that Jesus was on cross .


versus

Quote from: Final Overture
I don't believe that Jesus was crucified..


as the second is the latest ,I will take it as your official opinion ,and you no longer believe that Jesus was crucified ,hence we agree.

Quote from: Final Overture
As I said before, Jesus said that Psalms have prophecies.


2 questions:

1- Did you read carefully what the writers of the new testament wrote regarding what Jesus said about the psalms and other old testament books?

here is  reminder:

Luke 24 :44 He(Jesus) said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.

If you still believe that Jesus said that Psalms have prophecies, then you have no choice but to believe that the old testament (psalms etc..) has prophecies of his resurrection on the third day ..

would you accept ,as a Muslim, Jesus being resurrected 3 days after crucifixion and death ?

the second question ,where is it written in old testament ,psalms or whatever,that the messiah will be resurrected from the dead after 3 days?

actually, and away from the opinion of the Qur'an regarding Jesus end of mission , the passage of Luke if read objectively ,fells short the test of truthfulness !!! 
As nothing in the old testament were indeed predicting that the Messiah would rise from the dead.

IF you want to find out the falsehood of the passage you don't need ,necessarily, to go consulting the Qur'an .. just to compare what the writer claimed that Jesus said ,and the old testament . after doing that you will have two options :

1- Either Jesus was a liar ,imagining non-existed prophecies.

2- or the writer of the gospel put in his mouth something he never said ,hence giving the lie to the new testament,not Jesus peace be upon him.

Quote from: Final Overture
So, Jesus didn't even exist?.


I didn't say that ...

the historical research could reveal very little about the historical Jesus.The scholars position regarding the historical Jesus is varied .....some denied his existence ,others believe that all of  the narratives  in the new testament are true ... the fact that they are are Christians, so their certain bias is inevitable . the third group are moderate , they believe that some of the narratives in the new testament possibly true,other are certainly false.that moderate third opinion,is our Islamic position,as well.


Quote from: Final Overture
Psalms 40:4 Blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust
Psalms 9:10 you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you
.


Indeed ,God won't forsake THOSE (plural) who seek him.

that is not a prophecy but a reward available for all those who seek God ,whether prophets David,Job,Moses , Jesus ,Mohamed, etc ..... or any ordinary pious believer as well ,whether in past,present or future...

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on August 30, 2012, 03:56:56 AM
Quote from: Final Overture
I believe that Jesus was on cross .


versus

Quote from: Final Overture
I don't believe that Jesus was crucified..
Nothing really different. I said he was on cross but didn't die.

Quote
Luke 24 :44 He(Jesus) said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer (Not die) and rise from the dead on the third day.

Rise from the dead doesn't mean that he will die and be resurrected. How? Well, the video which i sent you before, why didn't you watch it? It has answers. Hebrews 11:19
Quote
He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
Yet, we know Abraham's son didn't die there.
Psalms 31:12
Quote
I have been forgotten like one who is dead;

Quote
the second question ,where is it written in old testament ,psalms or whatever,that the messiah will be resurrected from the dead after 3 days?
Rise? Again, watch that video, it has answers to your questions
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 30, 2012, 06:27:15 PM
Quote from: Final Overture
Nothing really different. I said he was on cross but didn't die.

The Qur'an  affirms  "they neither killed him NOR CRUCIFIED him" ...  , If one has basic knowledge in Arabic ,one realizes easily that "salaba" means " to be put on a cross" , not "to die on a cross".
If you disagree with that linguistic fact ,then provide your counter linguistic input,plz.
till you do ,your statement  "Jesus was on cross but didn't die" clearly against the Qur'an statement "they didn't put him on the cross aka crucify him" .

to make the matter worse ,for the swoon theory ,

The Holy Quran 5:110 Then God will say, Jesus, son of Mary, remember My favour to you and to your mother: how I strengthened you with the holy spirit, so that you could speak to people in childhood and in maturity; and how I taught you the Book, and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel; how by My leave you fashioned from clay the shape of a bird and blew upon it, so that, by My leave, it became a bird, and healed the blind and the leper by My permission, and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and how I prevented the Children of Israel from harming you when you came to them with clear signs, when those of them who denied the truth said, This is sheer magic.


According to the Quran, Jesus was not only protected from being put on the cross ,but also from any harm . including necessarily, being scourged violently, being nailed in the wrists that sever the median nerve resulting in a burning pain , The body gradually drains of blood causing the heart to beat faster and faster.  Dehydration is occurring.  The breathing becomes more labored and intense as well as frequent, adding to the agony.  The blood loss results in extreme thirst as the body craves water to restore the lost blood.  The heart beats so hard trying to compensate for the loss of oxygen (due to the lack of blood) in the body, that it eventually ruptures.  At this point the chest cavity fills with fluid. to add ,a soldier pierced Jesus' side and out came blood and water, signifying that the heart had stopped beating and the blood was settling in the chest cavity. A crown of thorns was placed on his head . then his  body was wrapped in linen (Matt. 27:59).  This wrapping was done tightly around the whole body from head to toe.remaining in a dark,cold tomb for three days .

If that was the protection from harm ,I wonder how could have been the case if God decided not to protect him from harm !!!!.....

also ,if we suppose that the verse reference to "protection from the Jews' harm" is not the protection from what happened before and after the cross,but merely "protection from death" . that would be, indeed, an absurd reading to the noble verse ... as death in itself is no harm ... all the prophets experienced death ,yet we can't say such experience of mere death was a harm that God decided not to protect the prophets from.

The protection refereed to in the noble verse 5:110, is not a mystery, it is referred to ,in the other noble verse "they neither killed him NOR CRUCIFIED him" ..




Quote from: Final Overture
Rise from the dead doesn't mean that he will die and be resurrected. How?. Hebrews 11:19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
Yet, we know Abraham's son didn't die there.
Psalms 31:12
Quote
I have been forgotten like one who is dead;


I have no problem with that in rare figurative cases death and life can be used metaphorically ,but with the condition of providing a STRONG contextual support. using the metaphorical language randomly ,recklessly ,could lead to disastrous, deceptive exegesis . 

The random use of metaphor was a channel through which the deceivers twisted the sacred texts,poisoned the mentalities of the simple men, for their agenda and their purpose of indoctrination . remember always that rule: When the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest you come up with nonsense.

In every instance those who been resurrected in the new testament were literally resurrected  eg: Lazarus; the son of the widow of Nain,the daughter of Jairus ...   yet the fans of the swoon theory would make Jesus the exception !  . but the fact is that ,In every instance the death and resurrection of Jesus is mentioned in The new testament ,is clearly literal .

"Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, `The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up." Matthew 17:22-23

Note ,jesus is claimed that he said "they will kill Him"  not "they will try to kill him" ..

Now none of the fans of the swoon theory ,would ever argue that the betrayal in the verse is metaphorical ,but when it comes to killing or death ,mentioned in the very same verse ,their double standard is ready , shifting immediately from the literal to the metaphorical application to satisfy their own agenda.

again in   Luke 24 :46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.

when you ask the fans of that theory whether the suffering(Six trials ,Scourging,Crown of thorns,Crucifixion ,Burial ) in the previous verse literal or metaphorical ,they won't deny the literal meaning ,but then again shifting immediately from the literal resurrection to the metaphorical, to satisfy their own agenda.

the same game they would apply again to : Matthew 20:17 they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify Him. And the third day He shall rise again."

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on August 30, 2012, 06:34:23 PM
again in  (John 19:30). “Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit ... So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs”

The metaphorical reading is of no help this time ,"death" in the verse is clearly literal ,so this time they are forced to be selective . selecting from their (inspired) writer of John ( they trust his narratives in the crucifixion) the part they like" Jesus received the sour wine.etc..." and ignore him when he said "that Jesus literally gave up the spirit and died."


In sum and substance, the Swoon Theory can be totally rejected as fantasy . the crucifixion narratives as well (I add).
..............................

Quote from: Final Overture
  the second question ,where is it written in old testament ,psalms or whatever,that the messiah will be resurrected from the dead after 3 days?
Rise? Again, watch that video, it has answers to your questions.

If you (mistakenly) insist that the resurrection was metaphorical ,then let me rewrite the question:

where is it written in old testament ,psalms or whatever,that the messiah will be resurrected  METAPHORICALLY from the dead after 3 days?


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on September 01, 2012, 03:19:36 PM
Quote from: Final Overture
Nothing really different. I said he was on cross but didn't die.

The Qur'an  affirms  "they neither killed him NOR CRUCIFIED him" ...  , If one has basic knowledge in Arabic ,one realizes easily that "salaba" means " to be put on a cross" , not "to die on a cross".
If you disagree with that linguistic fact ,then provide your counter linguistic input,plz.
till you do ,your statement  "Jesus was on cross but didn't die" clearly against the Qur'an statement "they didn't put him on the cross aka crucify him" .

to make the matter worse ,for the swoon theory ,

The Holy Quran 5:110 Then God will say, Jesus, son of Mary, remember My favour to you and to your mother: how I strengthened you with the holy spirit, so that you could speak to people in childhood and in maturity; and how I taught you the Book, and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel; how by My leave you fashioned from clay the shape of a bird and blew upon it, so that, by My leave, it became a bird, and healed the blind and the leper by My permission, and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and how I prevented the Children of Israel from harming you when you came to them with clear signs, when those of them who denied the truth said, This is sheer magic.


According to the Quran, Jesus was not only protected from being put on the cross ,but also from any harm . including necessarily, being scourged violently, being nailed in the wrists that sever the median nerve resulting in a burning pain , The body gradually drains of blood causing the heart to beat faster and faster.  Dehydration is occurring.  The breathing becomes more labored and intense as well as frequent, adding to the agony.  The blood loss results in extreme thirst as the body craves water to restore the lost blood.  The heart beats so hard trying to compensate for the loss of oxygen (due to the lack of blood) in the body, that it eventually ruptures.  At this point the chest cavity fills with fluid. to add ,a soldier pierced Jesus' side and out came blood and water, signifying that the heart had stopped beating and the blood was settling in the chest cavity. A crown of thorns was placed on his head . then his  body was wrapped in linen (Matt. 27:59).  This wrapping was done tightly around the whole body from head to toe.remaining in a dark,cold tomb for three days .

If that was the protection from harm ,I wonder how could have been the case if God decided not to protect him from harm !!!!.....
That is not what the verse is saying, is it? http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=5&verse=110 I didn't see 'harm' there.

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/%D8%B5%D9%8E%D9%84%D9%8E%D8%A8%D9%8F/ar-en/ just crucifixion.
http://www.dicts.info/ud.php?w=%D8%B5%D9%8E%D9%84%D9%8E%D8%A8%D9%8F&l1=Arabic

Quote
Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, `The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up." Matthew 17:22-23

Note ,jesus is claimed that he said "they will kill Him"  not "they will try to kill him" ..

Now none of the fans of the swoon theory ,would ever argue that the betrayal in the verse is metaphorical ,but when it comes to killing or death ,mentioned in the very same verse ,their double standard is ready , shifting immediately from the literal to the metaphorical application to satisfy their own agenda.

again in   Luke 24 :46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.

when you ask the fans of that theory whether the suffering(Six trials ,Scourging,Crown of thorns,Crucifixion ,Burial ) in the previous verse literal or metaphorical ,they won't deny the literal meaning ,but then again shifting immediately from the literal resurrection to the metaphorical, to satisfy their own agenda.

the same game they would apply again to : Matthew 20:17 they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify Him. And the third day He shall rise again."

Well, when you compare this to another verses i.e. let this cup be taken from me, it looks like the Gospelish Jesus can't choose whether he wants to die or not.

Quote
(John 19:30). “Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit ... So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs”
This is just what they saw. They thought he was dead. So what? I tell you according to Psalms 22 Jesus won't die, so he shouldn't.

Quote
If you (mistakenly) insist that the resurrection was metaphorical ,then let me rewrite the question:

where is it written in old testament ,psalms or whatever,that the messiah will be resurrected  METAPHORICALLY from the dead after 3 days?
Hosea 6?


P.S. Watch that video
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 01, 2012, 09:32:59 PM
Quote from:  Final Overture
That is not what the verse is saying, is it?That is not what the verse is saying, is it? http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=5&verse=110 I didn't see 'harm' there.

Harm or violence ,should be automatically understood..   

the verse literally :

Holy Quran 5:110 and how I prevented,restrained the Children of Israel from (harming,doing violence;evil to ) you when you came to them with clear signs, when those of them who denied the truth said, This is sheer magic.



Muhammad Asad and how I prevented the children of Israel from harming thee

M. M. Pickthall I restrained the Children of Israel from (harming) thee

Yusuf Ali And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee

Wahiduddin Khanand how I prevented the Children of Israel from harming you

Abdel Haleem how I restrained the Children of Israel from [harming] you

Ali Quli Qara'i and when I held off [the evil of] the Children of Israel from you

Shabbir Ahmed how I prevented the Children of Israel from harming you

Syed Vickar Ahamed when I did restrain the Children of Israel from (harming) you


You ask why all those previous translators put the word harm,violence in their translation ?

1- logically the context of the verse about those disbelieves who accused Jesus with magic ,would require a protection from harm , God didn't restrain them from giving him eg; a medal of honor ,or a noble prize,isn't it?

2- second and most important ,is the Arabic word "كففت ,kafaftu" means "I restrained,prevented"

this word is mentioned in other verses in the quran :


Holy Quran 4:84 Then fight in Allah's cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself - and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the Unbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment.

Holy Quran 5:11 O you who believe, recall God's blessings upon you when a group desired to aggress against you, and God restrained their hands from you. And reverence God. And in God the believers should put their trust.


In sunna and Arabic literature ,the word , once read (even if out of context),once the Arab reader understand immediately that the discussion is about a protection,prevention from harm.

by reading the previous verse and  "they neither killed him NOR CRUCIFIED him" , it doesn't require a scientific discovery to realize that the Qur'an affirms Jesus wasn't harmed let alone crucified.



Quote from:  Final Overture
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/%D8%B5%D9%8E%D9%84%D9%8E%D8%A8%D9%8F/ar-en/ just crucifixion.
http://www.dicts.info/ud.php?w=%D8%B5%D9%8E%D9%84%D9%8E%D8%A8%D9%8F&l1=Arabic.


so what is your point?!! if the word "salaba" means "to crucify",how that would help your position?!   ...... 

If you need me to take your position seriously, you need to provide from a dictionary the word "salaba" as meaning "to die by means of crucifixion" ...

you have another option too.. to provide me any Arabic text ,that suggests someone heard the word salaba "or any of its derivation" followed by an object, without getting the context ,and he understood ,that such object was a live or dead before being put on the cross, also whether died or escaped the cross....

believe me, the mention of the verb "salaba" (put on a cross) besides  "Qatala" (killed) ,in the same verse should bury the swoon theory forever for a true Muslim.


Quote from:  Final Overture
Well, when you compare this to another verses i.e. let this cup be taken from me, it looks like the Gospelish Jesus can't choose whether he wants to die or not.


Don't forget ,our discussion is not about supposed contradictions in the new testament . it is whether the new testament teaches that Jesus was crucified ,died,resurrected ....  If you would like to say the new testament teaches in some places the death of Jesus and others the opposite ,then ,plz,open a thread of gospels' contradictions.


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 01, 2012, 09:44:44 PM
Quote from:  Final Overture
(John 19:30). “Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit ... So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs”

 This is just what they saw. They thought he was dead. So what?

They erred thinking him dead ,  but did Jesus err as well ,if others err in describing him ,would he err describing what happened to himself as well?

the man repeatedly predicted that he is going to be killed and be resurrected from the dead eg;


"Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, `The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up." Matthew 17:22-23


after the so called crucifixion and resurrection ,he announced :

Luke 24 :44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.


How many times I quoted the previous?! and you still deny the obvious.!!
The gospelish Jesus insists that he was killed,and resurrected ,just why don't you believe him?!!

Quote from:  Final Overture
where is it written in old testament ,psalms or whatever,that the messiah will be resurrected  METAPHORICALLY from the dead after 3 days? Hosea 6?





Hosea 6


Israel Unrepentant

6 “Come, let us return to the Lord.
He has torn us to pieces
    but he will heal us;
he has injured us
    but he will bind up our wounds.
2 After two days he will revive us;
    on the third day he will restore us,
    that we may live in his presence.


well , Hosea 6 ..  where is it mentioned that the promised messiah will be killed and resurrected from the dead after 3 days?

Hosea 6:2 refers to the people living at the time ,about the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and how they could be healed of their sins and live in God's ways. No resurrected Messiah there. No prophecy of Jesus....

Hosea 5:15 sets the scene and explains the situation very clearly:
I (God) will go, I will return to My place until they will acknowledge their guilt and seek My face; in their distress they will seek Me."

Hosea explains in verse 15 that God sent a clear-cut message to Israel through His prophets; you heard and refused to repent, so My offer resulted in your death sentence. How could I vindicate you after such defiance? Then Hosea says in Hosea 6:1-2:  "Come let us return to God for He has mangled us and He will heal us; He has smitten and He will bandage us. He will heal us after two days; on the third day He will raise us up and we will live before Him."
We, of course, refers to the nation of Israel. and therefore cannot be fulfilled by the the death and resurrection of Jesus..[/size]

Are you amazed if Allah resurrected a group of Jews ?

don't be surprised ...   How about The Qur'an telling us about a situation of mass resurrection ?...

Holy Qur'an 2:55. And remember ye said: "O Moses! We shall never believe in thee until we see Allah manifestly," but ye were dazed with thunder and lighting even as ye looked on.56. Then We raised you up after your death: Ye had the chance to be grateful.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on September 02, 2012, 07:22:48 AM
Quote
"Holy Quran 5:110 and how I prevented,restrained the Children of Israel from (harming,doing violence;evil to ) you when you came to them with clear signs, when those of them who denied the truth said, This is sheer magic.



Muhammad Asad and how I prevented the children of Israel from harming thee

M. M. Pickthall I restrained the Children of Israel from (harming) thee

Yusuf Ali And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee

Wahiduddin Khanand how I prevented the Children of Israel from harming you

Abdel Haleem how I restrained the Children of Israel from [harming] you

Ali Quli Qara'i and when I held off [the evil of] the Children of Israel from you

Shabbir Ahmed how I prevented the Children of Israel from harming you

Syed Vickar Ahamed when I did restrain the Children of Israel from (harming) you"
From... Killing you? Why half of these translators put 'harm' into brackets?

Quote
"Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, `The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up." Matthew 17:22-23


after the so called crucifixion and resurrection ,he announced :

Luke 24 :44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.


How many times I quoted the previous?! and you still deny the obvious.!!
The gospelish Jesus insists that he was killed,and resurrected ,just why don't you believe him?!!

The point which I made, that even according to these Gospels, we can't say that he will die, since he reffered to the prophecies, which say that he won't die. Why would Jesus refer to them in any way? Let this cup be taken from me?


Quote
so what is your point?!! if the word "salaba" means "to crucify",how that would help your position?!   ...... 
And the word crucify means to put to death.
Quote
well , Hosea 6 ..  where is it mentioned that the promised messiah will be killed and resurrected from the dead after 3 days?

Hosea 6:2 refers to the people living at the time ,about the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and how they could be healed of their sins and live in God's ways. No resurrected Messiah there. No prophecy of Jesus....
Who said that he will be killed?
Well, I expected you to say that, so watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azKmKhwz5AE&list=FLT194jl4yVfF0VnFor33r_A&index=26&feature=plpp_video till the end.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 02, 2012, 12:28:08 PM
Quote from:  Final Overture
From... Killing you?

IF you say so,then you have made a qualifier to a general case.

the verse tells :
1- Jesus performed miracles.
2- they accused him of magic .
3- God restrained them.

using the verb (kafaftu) in the verse ,is automatically (by linguistic,contextual necessity) denotes they were prevented from doing any harm,evil,violence.
actually harm comes in several forms , they could have been restrained from beating ,stoning or jailing him , not merely killing him,  the fact there is no qualifier in the verse.
now, even if we for the sake of argument narrow the meaning of restrain to a specific act of violence , still verse 4:157 teaches us where is our limit should be , as you may conjecture whatever might happened to Jesus ,but when it comes to putting him on the cross,that is where is your limit of imagination should stops ... the Qur'an simply,clearly says he wasn't put on the cross.

4:157"they neither killed him NOR CRUCIFIED him"


Quote from:  Final Overture
The point which I made, that even according to these Gospels, we can't say that he will die, since he referred to the prophecies, which say that he won't die. Why would Jesus refer to them in any way? Let this cup be taken from me?

you assume that he referred to prophecies , while me as a Muslim , don't believe that Jesus the prophet would refer to false ,imaginary prophecies.
even if we suppose he really refereed to prophecies, he according to the new testament ,referred to the prophecies say he will be killed and resurrected.


Quote from:  Final Overture
And the word crucify means to put to death.

that is a conjecture till you provide ARABIC dictionary that says the verb (Salaba aka to put on a cross) means (to put to death)......

Even if you have a hundred dictionaries that explain what (crucify) mean in English, all irrelevant and won't help your case with what the verb (Salaba ) means in Arabic.

The Quran originally in Arabic , so no one should bother what the English word could mean.

Quote from:  Final Overture
Well, I expected you to say that, so watch:

Note . I'm not fond of watching videos , so please don't post videos here in our discussion , I don't like someone answering my simple point with a full lecture that may include irrelevant stuff....
so please if you have something to say then write it (just as I always write to you) , and take all your time .

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 02, 2012, 01:52:21 PM
Bro  Final Overture conjectured a meanng for the word (salaba) ,so my duty now to quote the online Arabic dictionaries to show the true meaning of the verb (salaba)

The verb (salaba) ,according to , Almugam algani  Arabic Dictionary (the hugest Arabic dictionary,195000 items, available in pdf format online), means :

المعجم الغني "صَلْبِهِ أَيْ إِيثَاُقُ يَدَيْهِ مَمْدُودَتَيْنِ وَرِجْلَيْهِ مَشْدُودَتَيْنِ".

"to crucify him" means, to bound with force ,his stretched hands and feet .


In Almaany dictionary (available to read online)

http://www.almaany.com/home.php?language=arabic&lang_name=%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A&word=%D8%B5%D9%84%D8%A8


 صلب - صَلَبَ :
[ ص ل ب ]. ( فعل : ثلاثي لازم متعد بحرف ). صَلَبْتُ ، أَصْلِبُ ، اِصْلِبْ ( أَصْلُبُ ، اُصْلُبْ )، مصدر صَلْبٌ .
1 ." صَلَبَهُ عَلَى لَوْحٍ " : شَدَّهُ ، أَيْ أَوْثَقَ يَدَيْهِ مَمْدُودَتَيْنِ وَرِجْلَيْهِ مَشْدُودَتَيْنِ . النساء آية 157 وَمَا قَتَلُوه وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ . ( قرآن ) : الإِشَارَةُ هُنَا إِلَى السَّيِّدِ الْمَسِيحِ الَّذِي تَوَهَّمَ أَعْدَاؤُهُ أَنَّهُمْ شَدُّوا أَطْرَافَهُ وَعَلَّقُوهُ .

"to crucify hm" means, to bound with force ,his stretched hands and feet .

I mentioned in previous post ,some examples of the verb used In Arabic doesn't denote automatically a death on a cross , but only hoisting or being hoisted up on a cross or plank or pole for the purpose of defamation and humiliation. so no need here to repeat ...
If the verse 4:157"they neither killed him NOR CRUCIFIED him"

said only "they didn't kill him " then the door is open for speculations (which remain speculations till ether supported by the Qur'an or historical eyewitnesses testimony) ...

but the verse adds to "killed" the verb "crucify" ,to say that not only they didn't kill him but also didn't bound his stretched hands and feet aka crucified him ...

 
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: QuranSearchCom on September 04, 2012, 11:44:15 AM
Quote
I mentioned in previous post ,some examples of the verb used In Arabic doesn't denote automatically a death on a cross , but only hoisting or being hoisted up on a cross or plank or pole for the purpose of defamation and humiliation. so no need here to repeat ...
If the verse 4:157"they neither killed him NOR CRUCIFIED him"

said only "they didn't kill him " then the door is open for speculations (which remain speculations till ether supported by the Qur'an or historical eyewitnesses testimony) ...

but the verse adds to "killed" the verb "crucify" ,to say that not only they didn't kill him but also didn't bound his stretched hands and feet aka crucified him

As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers and sisters,

I just wanted to share my thoughts on Noble Verse 4:157:

1-  It is clear from the Glorious Quran that Jesus Christ was "neither killed nor crucified".

2-  It is also clear from the end of Noble Verse 4:157 that the Jews didn't kill Jesus Christ with clear certainty (wa ma qataloohu yaqeena).  In other words, it could mean that they thought he died when he was still alive.

To me, the Noble Verse could mean that Christ was actually put on the cross.  When Allah Almighty said that they neither crucified him nor killed him, the Noble Verse could mean that Christ not killed on the cross, nor was he killed by any other mean such as stabbing (In the Bible's New Testament, Christ did get pierced while on the cross).  Now, we Muslims also believe that the entire Bible is full of corruption.  Even the Bible's own theologians admit that most of its books and gospels were written by unknown people, in unknown dates and unknown places.  Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm.

3-  Yet, according to the Bible itself in Isaiah 53, Psalm 91 and Psalm 116 and Psalm 118, Christ will be honored, protected from harm, no harm will come upon him, the Angels will come down to protect him and lift him up from all harm, and GOD Almighty will hear his prayers and will protect him and not have him get hurt.  Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_53.htm for ample proofs.

Whatever took place and however you look at it, the final conclusion that you can always draw from reading even the Bible is that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross.  Period.  This I believe is a clear-cut fact as also Dr. Zakir Naik has thoroughly demonstrated in the link that I gave in the previous post above, which is also linked at the top of this article that I linked in this post as well.  I don't think we, the Muslims, should bang our heads too much on whether Christ was placed on the cross or not.   There is also, from the Bible, clear evidence that Christ might have been replaced by the other "Jesus son of his father" (Jesus Barraba) by Pilate.  So it's also possible that Christ was never put on the cross.  But like I said, whether he was put or not, even from the Bible alone we can easily draw a strong conclusion that Christ never died on the cross.  Visit the link that I gave for more details and proofs.

May Allah Almighty bless you.  Ameen.

Your brother,
Osama Abdallah



Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 04, 2012, 12:31:28 PM
As'salamu Alaikum

Quote from: QuranSearchCom
I don't think we, the Muslims, should bang our heads too much on whether Christ was placed on the cross or not.



peace bro QuranSearchCom , Muslims never banged their heads, even so for minute ,on whether Christ was placed on the cross or not ,from the beginning of Islam , till the last few decades when the deviant Qadini sect , propagated that the swoon theory (that rare readers to the new testament suggest) ,could also be applied to the Quran...

The Qadiani sect banged the heads of Orthodox Muslims with such theory , the danger of such theory is not questioning a specific Hadith or a tradition ,but pervert the meaning of a noble verse ,that is why it must be exposed and refuted without tolerance.


Quote from: QuranSearchCom
the Noble Verse could mean that Christ was actually put on the cross..



The verse says and clearly he wasn't actually put on the cross .
In any Arabic dictionary the word "Salaba" means " to bound with force ,his stretched hands and feet aka put him on the cross" .

how could the Quran says:

Christ wasn't actually X.

and we say

Christ was actually X .


should we take the Qur'an seriously when it says "neither killed him" and  close our eyes when it says " nor put him on the cross"... ? 

Astaghfirullah  !!!......

The Holy Qur'an[2:85]  : Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.


I hope my criticism is not offending anyone , but when it comes to the Quran,the matter is so serious.

May Allah Almighty bless you.  Ameen.

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: QuranSearchCom on September 04, 2012, 01:30:10 PM
Quote
peace bro QuranSearchCom , Muslims never banged their heads, even so for minute ,on whether Christ was placed on the cross or not ,from the beginning of Islam , till the last few decades when the deviant Qadini sect , propagated that the swoon theory (that rare readers to the new testament suggest) ,could also be applied to the Quran...

The Qadiani sect banged the heads of Orthodox Muslims with such theory , the danger of such theory is not questioning a specific Hadith or a tradition ,but pervert the meaning of a noble verse ,that is why it must be exposed and refuted without tolerance.

As'salamu Alaikum dear brother,

Please pardon my ignorance in this, but do we have Hadiths that clearly spell out what happened to Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him?  I haven't read any Hadith on this.  But I also didn't research it hard enough either.

Quote
I hope my criticism is not offending anyone , but when it comes to the Quran,the matter is so serious.

Nothing offensive dear brother.  Feel free to speak your mind, freely.  This forum is for all brothers and sisters and non-Muslims to speak their minds, freely.  We're here to discuss and to get closer to the Truth, insha'Allah (if Allah Almighty is Willing).

Take care akhi (brother),
Osama Abdallah
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 04, 2012, 08:10:03 PM
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother,Osama

and thanks for your civil discussion...

and hope the following detailed posts get some new lines into the matter..

Quote from: QuranSearchCom
do we have Hadiths that clearly spell out what happened to Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him? .

We  have few Hadiths about Jesus ,almost all of them about the belief of his second coming ,such belief itself though is held by most scholars ,yet is questioned by some Sunni scholars. in brief ,traditions is of no help to the subject.

My position on the matter is very simple ,It is to be dependent only on the Qur'an and not to be dependent on extra-Quranic legends/traditions.

let's get to the Quranic scene step by step :

1- Jesus shew them miracles ,they disbelieved, accusing him of magic . then what?

 2- they plotted to harm him ; 3:54 And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah. then what?

 3- God promised not to let the Jews harm Jesus in a physical shameful way ,raising him ,untouched ,directly to him  ...


Holy Quran 3:55 "Behold! Allah said:  O Jesus!  I will take thee And raise thee to Myself And clear thee (of the falsehoods) Of those who blaspheme.

such promise was fulfilled ,and Jesus will be reminded of such fulfillment of promise on the day of judgment ..... Holy Quran"remember ........ I restrained the Children of Israel from harming you "

Notes :

1- According to the verse ,the decision of God raising Jesus to himself ,was a response to their plot to harm Jesus ... it is logically not a decision God took after their plot was translated into actions , it is clearly unwise to suggest that God notified Jesus with his decision of raising him to heaven while he was already crucified "assuming him was crucified" ...  just what reasons for Allah,if he intend to raise him to heaven ,to let them expose him to such shameful situation ?!

In a word, what does the verse say? It says that some Jews plotted to harm Jesus,but God has failed their plans by taking Jesus alive ,untouched ,to heaven.



Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 04, 2012, 08:19:20 PM
Our next step :

Holy Quran 4:156-159 "That they said :'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.'  But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.  Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power

what does the verse say?

1- after God raised him alive to heaven ,some Jews propagated falsely that they succeeded in their plot and killed him by means of crucifixion.
2- There is repetition of the verse ,repeating again that they killed him not " that they for of a surety they killed him not." followed immediately by "Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself"
It is the same idea of previous highlighted verse 3:55 ... That God has failed their plans by taking Jesus alive .
3- there is nothing in the verse 4:156 or verse 3:55 ,to exclude a possibility of trials etc.... only the physical violence (including putting on a cross or killing) is the exception.
4- we have clues in verses 3:55 , 4:156 and 5:110 that not only Jesus wasn't crucified but also there is no drama between the plot of the Jews and the action of raising up Jesus to heaven. verse 4:156 says clearly that he wasn't put on the cross , verse 5:110 says that he was protected from harm without any modifier , and verse 3:55 says, the way Allah damaged their plans is by raising him to heaven ,hence questioning what reasons for Allah,if he intend to rise him to heaven ,to let them expose him to such shameful situation ?!upon those basis ,the swoon theory should be entirely excluded from discussion.
5- both verse 3:55 and the second part of verse 4:156,suggest that no in between the wicked plot of the Jews and the action of raising Jesus up to heaven.



6- Is there another place suggesting ,in between the plotting and the saving by raising up??

let's check again verse 4:156 But they killed him not, Nor crucifiedhim, but so it was made to appear to them.

A- what appeared to them so?

that is where the problem with the substitution theory comes ....what is the subject of the Arabic word "shubbiha" that means "seemed,appeared,imagined" ?

first: If we make Jesus the subject,then the reading would be:
But they killed Jesus not, Nor crucified Jesus, but so he was made to appear to them.

the substitution theory claims that someone or some­thing appeared to be like Jesus , hence making Jesus the subject would get the meaning the other way around ,making Jesus to be the one who had appearance not someone appeared like him!!!.

Now, If we rightly exclude the substitution elaboration on the verse ,and still wish to hold the position of making Jesus as the subject , making him appearing (visually) as crucified , killed .... again we have a problem , it is the mention of "didn't put on the cross aka crucify" before "seemed ,appeared"

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 04, 2012, 08:29:05 PM
If the word "salaba,to crucify" had been missed from the verse ,then making Jesus the subject of "appeared" could had made sense. but that is not the case.

so what is the possible meaning left ,with holding Jesus as the subject of "seemed,appeared"?

as we explained before ,we can't say he appeared visually crucified,dead while he wasn't . so we are left with the choice of helding the meaning of the verb "shubbiha" as "seemed, became a fancied image in the mind"
in other words ,they had a fancied image in their mind that Jesus was killed .

second : If we make 'the plot of crucifying,killing'  the subject ,,then the reading would be:
they killed him not nor did they crucify him, but THE AFFAIR WAS IMAGED SO TO THEM.

to sum up the point: we can safely make "Jesus" or the "the affair of crucifying,killing" as the subject of "seemed" without any problem with a condition of not getting  physical sense involved ,whether a substituter to Jesus,or Jesus himself appeared physically as dead.

Now the third step:

and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.

now the verse go on describing the mental situation of those folk, The Affair that was fancied to their mind wasn't certain ,it made them doubt ,why? 
because they had no certain knowledge except conjecture...
then Allah reveals the truth about the affair "Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power."

now our last question: Did such conjecture ,doubt, mentioned in the verse , happen before or after the raising of Jesus up?
Actually ,due to the problems previously mentioned with the substitution and swoon theory , we have to believe that such conjecture appeared after the raising up of Jesus .....
actually , the sudden disappearance of famous figures open the door for every kind of conjecture....


 Amazingly ,we have some old and modern times scholars who held the previous understanding eg;

famous hanbali scholar "Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya" wrote in his book "Hidayat al-Hiyara "


(http://i50.tinypic.com/avo7jq.jpg)

"There is a disagreement regarding the meaning of the verse , some understand it as, a likeness to him of another ,who been crucified instead,was shown to them. others understood it as " that the Christians who believed in it ,it wasn't because they witnessed it,but his enemies of the Jews propagated his killing while he was raised to Allah and they believed them ..whatever meaning ,remains the fact Jesus peace be upon him neither was killed nor crucified ..."


Muhammad Asad, author of the well acclaimed Translation of the meaning
of the Quran "The Message of the Qur'an",wrote:


" The Qur'an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist,among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas),who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur'an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical
commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at "harmonizing" the Qur'anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion. The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur'anic phrase "wa-lakin shubbiha lahum", which I render as "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so" To my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression shubbiha li is idiomatically synonymous with khuyyila 1i, "[a thing] became a fancied image to me", i.e., "in my mind" - in other words, "[it] seemed to me" (see Qamus,art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833, and IV, 1500)."




Eminent Tunisian scholar Ibn 'Ashur (1879 -1973)wrote in his Quranic commentary(is considered one of the greatest tafsirs ever ) "Tafsir Al-Tahrir Wal Tanwir"



"Another possible meaning to the verse ,is that they confused the falsehoods with the truth .Arab says "khuyyila elaika" means "became a fancied image to your mind ,seemed to you" ,there wasn't someone looked like him,but the falsehoods came through the news of being killed,which was due to their (his enemies from the Jews) absolute hatred ....."
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on September 05, 2012, 08:51:01 AM
Quote from:  Final Overture
From... Killing you?

IF you say so,then you have made a qualifier to a general case.

the verse tells :
1- Jesus performed miracles.
2- they accused him of magic .
3- God restrained them.

using the verb (kafaftu) in the verse ,is automatically (by linguistic,contextual necessity) denotes they were prevented from doing any harm,evil,violence.
actually harm comes in several forms , they could have been restrained from beating ,stoning or jailing him , not merely killing him,  the fact there is no qualifier in the verse.
now, even if we for the sake of argument narrow the meaning of restrain to a specific act of violence , still verse 4:157 teaches us where is our limit should be , as you may conjecture whatever might happened to Jesus ,but when it comes to putting him on the cross,that is where is your limit of imagination should stops ... the Qur'an simply,clearly says he wasn't put on the cross.

4:157"they neither killed him NOR CRUCIFIED him"


Quote from:  Final Overture
The point which I made, that even according to these Gospels, we can't say that he will die, since he referred to the prophecies, which say that he won't die. Why would Jesus refer to them in any way? Let this cup be taken from me?

you assume that he referred to prophecies , while me as a Muslim , don't believe that Jesus the prophet would refer to false ,imaginary prophecies.
even if we suppose he really refereed to prophecies, he according to the new testament ,referred to the prophecies say he will be killed and resurrected.


Quote from:  Final Overture
And the word crucify means to put to death.

that is a conjecture till you provide ARABIC dictionary that says the verb (Salaba aka to put on a cross) means (to put to death)......

Even if you have a hundred dictionaries that explain what (crucify) mean in English, all irrelevant and won't help your case with what the verb (Salaba ) means in Arabic.

The Quran originally in Arabic , so no one should bother what the English word could mean.

Quote from:  Final Overture
Well, I expected you to say that, so watch:

Note . I'm not fond of watching videos , so please don't post videos here in our discussion , I don't like someone answering my simple point with a full lecture that may include irrelevant stuff....
so please if you have something to say then write it (just as I always write to you) , and take all your time .

Quote
IF you say so,then you have made a qualifier to a general case.

the verse tells :
1- Jesus performed miracles.
2- they accused him of magic .
3- God restrained them.

using the verb (kafaftu) in the verse ,is automatically (by linguistic,contextual necessity) denotes they were prevented from doing any harm,evil,violence.
actually harm comes in several forms , they could have been restrained from beating ,stoning or jailing him , not merely killing him,  the fact there is no qualifier in the verse.
Not really.

Quote
you assume that he referred to prophecies , while me as a Muslim , don't believe that Jesus the prophet would refer to false ,imaginary prophecies.
even if we suppose he really refereed to prophecies, he according to the new testament ,referred to the prophecies say he will be killed and resurrected.
Where?

Quote
said only "they didn't kill him " then the door is open for speculations (which remain speculations till ether supported by the Qur'an or historical eyewitnesses testimony) ...

but the verse adds to "killed" the verb "crucify" ,to say that not only they didn't kill him but also didn't bound his stretched hands and feet aka crucified him ...
They didn't kill him in general, they didn't crucify him specifically. Crucifixion is the foundation of Christianity, so why not mention it?

Quote
Bro  Final Overture conjectured a meanng for the word (salaba) ,so my duty now to quote the online Arabic dictionaries to show the true meaning of the verb (salaba)
The verb itself has a lot meanings, harden, stiffen, crucify, etc


Quote
Note . I'm not fond of watching videos , so please don't post videos here in our discussion , I don't like someone answering my simple point with a full lecture that may include irrelevant stuff....
so please if you have something to say then write it (just as I always write to you) , and take all your time .
That video is made by Hebrew-knowing Muslims, he says there is a mistranslation there. So why not?
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 07, 2012, 01:52:53 PM
Quote from:  Final Overture
Quote
you assume that he referred to prophecies , while me as a Muslim , don't believe that Jesus the prophet would refer to false ,imaginary prophecies.
even if we suppose he really refereed to prophecies, he according to the new testament ,referred to the prophecies say he will be killed and resurrected.
Where?


If you mean, where he said that his death and resurrection are predicted in the old testament ,I mentioned that several times in my previous posts.
if you mean, where is such prophecies ,then go ask the Jesus of the new testament ,he didn't specify any ....  at any rate the writer of Acts 2:29 did the job,and distorting  Psalm 16:8 ,forcing it into a so called prophecy.
just as you distorted Psalms into prophecies ...

Quote from:  Final Overture
The verb itself has a lot meanings, harden, stiffen, crucify, etc


The verb Salaba has only one previously mentioned meaning , when the object is a human. go ask any Arab.




Quote from:  Final Overture
That video is made by Hebrew-knowing Muslims, he says there is a mistranslation there. So why not?


what mistranslation? what are you talking about?!


Quote from:  Final Overture
They didn't kill him in general, they didn't crucify him specifically. Crucifixion is the foundation of Christianity, so why not mention it?


again,what are you talking about?!

Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on September 07, 2012, 02:13:42 PM
Quote from:  Final Overture
Quote
you assume that he referred to prophecies , while me as a Muslim , don't believe that Jesus the prophet would refer to false ,imaginary prophecies.
even if we suppose he really refereed to prophecies, he according to the new testament ,referred to the prophecies say he will be killed and resurrected.
Where?


If you mean, where he said that his death and resurrection are predicted in the old testament ,I mentioned that several times in my previous posts.
if you mean, where is such prophecies ,then go ask the Jesus of the new testament ,he didn't specify any ....  at any rate the writer of Acts 2:29 did the job,and distorting  Psalm 16:8 ,forcing it into a so called prophecy.
just as you distorted Psalms into prophecies ...

Quote from:  Final Overture
The verb itself has a lot meanings, harden, stiffen, crucify, etc


The verb Salaba has only one previously mentioned meaning , when the object is a human. go ask any Arab.




Quote
Quote from:  Final Overture
That video is made by Hebrew-knowing Muslims, he says there is a mistranslation there. So why not?


what mistranslation? what are you talking about?!


Quote from:  Final Overture
They didn't kill him in general, they didn't crucify him specifically. Crucifixion is the foundation of Christianity, so why not mention it?


again,what are you talking about?!


I know, there aren't such prophecies, i only added Hosea 6, because its the only chapter he could likely refer to.

Quote
Quote from:  Final Overture
That video is made by Hebrew-knowing Muslims, he says there is a mistranslation there. So why not?


what mistranslation? what are you talking about?!


Quote from:  Final Overture
They didn't kill him in general, they didn't crucify him specifically. Crucifixion is the foundation of Christianity, so why not mention it?


again,what are you talking about?!
[/quote] Are you really serious with this? Don't you see what I quoted?





Okay, thank you Egyptian for this conversation. I guess, I'll do some more study and research on this topic, later, InshaAllah.  ;D
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Abd-Al-Rahman on September 22, 2012, 02:56:25 PM
Assalamu Aleikum brother Egyptian,

Jazak'Allahu'khair for all the great work. When you first started posting in this thread all the long posts (the character limit was the biggest hindrance I assume, I had encountered similar issues  :D) I thought that you were simply copy/pasting all of this from another site or reference, but having read last week more of it, especially in regards to the part where Isa's PBUH crucifixion issue was being debated, I realized that page 1 to page 5 had your writing style all over it, which is insane, how long did it take you to put all of this together? Masha'Allah.

I suppose this was a long-term study you had undertaken which took you at the very least many months (I had years in mind at first, but then realized this might be a bit more far-fetched) to put together or would the case be something else?

Anyways thank you for the quality posts, not only in this thread but also all over the other ones as well, they are appreciated.

Keep it up.

Wassalamu Aleikum.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 22, 2012, 08:04:02 PM

Asslamualaikom dear Bro Abd-Al-Rahman

I'm pleased you found some of the thread benefit-able ....

actually the study of the thread "the root problem of the messiah and the origin of Christianity" ,is a part of huge thread named "Qur'an VS bible", I initiated in another Islamic forum ,though I used to participate in it for years , I rarely visit recently (you are welcome there if you like) ,and instead focus on our blog here ...
I decided to pick some specific topics from my thread ,then refine ,update them and post them here..

thank you for your patience with my bad English ,and my writing style, which I think is influenced by my reading to Tafsir Alrazi ,which filled with the question -answer style..

I would like to thank indeed ,Bro Final Overture and Bro Osama for bringing the issue of crucifixion for discussion , and the disagreements we had, that ,indeed was very fruitful ....

Imagine that we all agreed from the beginning,how poor the discussion would has been? there wouldn't had been a discussion to begin with,if we agreed from the beginning !!! again ,indeed thanx Bro Final Overture for your civil discussion ...

the crucifixion issue needs additional post ,but I think it would be better to make a thread dedicated totally for it .....

and this thread "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key" ) is still in the middle way or less...


May Allah bless you always ,and strengthen the spirit of brotherhood between us Muslims...

Assalamu Aleikum
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 23, 2012, 09:27:54 AM

Peace for all


I think now is the time to resume the thread original theme inshallah....

our last posts related ,were about some opinion of bible critics on the messianic prophecies claimed to be fulfilled by Jesus...

they argue that The entire messianic structure is built on conjecture, speculation, and interpolation. and there is no prophecy in the Old Testament foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one word in the Old Testament referring to him in any way--not one word.

Ingersoll informed his readers of the simple way to support that , it really doesn't need a scientific discovery to find out that ... all what is needed to take the Bible, and wherever you find these words; 'That it might be fulfilled' and 'which was spoken' turn to the OT and find what was written, and you will see that it had not the slightest possible reference to the thing recounted in the NT--not the slightest"

let's apply that on numerous passages .... and let's begin with the famous passage Matthew 1:18 ,in which the writer(s) of Matthew claimed that the virgin birth of Jesus was predicted in the past in the old testament in Isaiah 7:9 ...

Was the virgin birth of Jesus really predicted in the old testament? let's investigate the claim ,by examining the original context of passage of Isaiah ,then expose the apparent misuse of the writer(s) of Matthew


after the writer of the gospel traced what he calls the The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah ,he goes on telling us the circumstances around the birth ,ignoring (or being ignorant) of the reaction of the people of such good un-married woman who became pregnant !....


.Matthew 1: 18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 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.”


afterwards the writer surprises us with one of his genius pieces of exegesis :


Matthew 1: 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).

that is to say,after the man read and reflected on Isaiah 7, he first got convinced that such wondrous pregnancy,birth was a fulfillment of the word of God that been revealed hundreds of years ago...
the man included such personal reflection on his work , hope that we share with him his genius exegesis!!!...

well , let's check the passage he quoted in its original context :


Isaiah 7

*1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
*2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[a] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.*3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘It will not take place, it will not happen, 8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. 9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, *and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.’”
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.” 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The young woman,virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria
.”


The reader who read that for the first time should have idea about the historical context of that passage ,Thomas Paine explained the context in the clearest of terms :

Quote from: ;Thomas Paine

On the death of Solomon the Jewish nation split into two monarchies: one called the kingdom of Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem: the other the kingdom of Israel, the capital of which was Samaria. The kingdom of Judah followed the line of David, and the kingdom of Israel that of Saul; and these two rival monarchies frequently carried on fierce wars against each other.At the time Ahaz was king of Judah, which was in the time of Isaiah, Pekah was king of Israel; and Pekah joined himself to Rezin, king of Syria, to make war against Ahaz, king of Judah; and these two kings marched a confederated and powerful army against Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed at their danger, and "their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." Isaiah vii. 3.In this perilous situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord, (the cant phrase of all the prophets,) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to assure him that this should be the case, tells Ahaz to ask a sign of the Lord. This Ahaz declined doing, giving as a reason, that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who pretends to be sent from God, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son -- Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and chose the good -- For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and chose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" -- meaning the king of Israel and the king of Syria who were marching against him.
Here then is the sign, which was to be the birth of a child, and that child a son; and here also is the time limited for the accomplishment of the sign, namely, before the child should know to refuse the evil and chose the good.
The thing, therefore, to be a sign of success to Ahaz, must be something that would take place before the event of the battle then pending between him and the two kings could be known. A thing to be a sign must precede the thing signified. The sign of rain must be before the rain.It would have been mockery and insulting nonsense for Isaiah to have assured Ahaz as a sign that these two kings should not prevail against him, that a child should be born seven hundred years after he was dead, and that before the child so born should know to refuse the evil and choose the good, he, Ahaz, should be delivered from the danger he was then immediately threatened with.


Problems with applying that passage to Jesus:


1- It is crystal clear from the original context that the prophecy is not a supernatural prediction centuries in advance. In no way is it indicated by the text that it concerns the Messiah, nor is it indicated that it would occur hundreds of years later.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin [almah] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. (Isaiah 7:14-16, NASB)



2- There is a futile common argument , while dealing with the problem of the virgin-birth prophecy ,it is the linguistic one.....
in one hand the critics argue if Isaiah wanted to say (virgin) he would have used the Hebrew word (Bethula) as it is the only word in Hebrew that denotes directly the meaning of virginity, instead of the already used word (Almah) that means a youthful spouse recently married ,the notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys .
On the other hand the christian counter argument , is that the word (Almah) never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste .....

we have 2 Notes on the previous controversy:

The first Note:

both of those opinions (whether the critics or the christian defense) mere exaggeration...

first :the critics claim that (Bethula) never used to denote sexual lose of virginity,is challenged by the the use of the word in Joel 1:8 Lament like a virgin(Bethula) girded with sackcloth for the husband (Ba'al) of her youth.
The word ba'al seems to be never used in the Jewish Scriptures of the betrothed state, but only of a married man.

second: The christian claim that the word (Almah) never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste ,is strongly challenged by the use of the word in proverb 30:18


Proverbs 30 :18 “There are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand: 19 the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with (Almah) a young woman. 20 “This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.’

Quote from: ;Kenneth E. Nahigian "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy)


"the way of a man with an 'almah" would certainly jeopardize a state of sexual purity, but more damaging than this rather obvious fact is the comparison that the writer went on to state: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (v:20, NAB). It seems odd that the author would use 'almah to denote sexual purity and then compare it to the ongoing affairs of an adulterous woman. More likely the author's point was that all these things have one element in common: they do not leave much of a trace."

also

Quote from: ;The Harper Collins Bible Commentary ( Proverbs 30:19)

"The saying about the mysterious ‘ways’ (Prov. 30:18-19) may refer to lack of visible means of propulsion or movement that leaves no trace, with ‘the way of a man with a fertile woman’ as a reference to either procreation or sexual attraction generally."


to sum up the use of both (Bethula) and (Almah) is controversial , and both of the words could be rendered (virgin and young woman ,not neccesarily virgin) ,the claim that( Almah) MUST BE translated as virgin is mere a delusion.....


The second Note:

The previous linguestic controversy is proved nonsensical ,waste of time basically because even if in the verse there is a word that means exclusively, every time, in every context (A virgin) ,the problem remains?



Quote from: ;"John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking The Historical Jesus, Vol. 1, pg. 243


"The word "Alma" is capable of being used of a woman up until the time she bears her first child. All the text need mean in Isaiah is that a young woman of marriageable age will soon conceive and bear a son. The woman may indeed be a virgin at the moment the prophecy is uttered. But that is not the point of the text, nor is there the slightest idea that she will remain a virgin when she conceives and bears the child.
."


Every virgin will one day in the future (unless she decided not) conceive and bear a child ..... no miracle in that ....
it doesn't really matter if it means virgin , if it is taken with certainity that Isaiah intended virgin, it would imply only that the girl is virgin at the time of the prophecy.not she will conceive as a virgin , "a woman who is now a virgin will (by natural means, once she is united to her husband) conceive the child Emmanuel ...... there isn't the slightest idea that she will remain a virgin when she conceives and bears the child ......
The problem of Matthew not that he understood the word as meaning virgin ,neither when Isaiah refered to the virgin (if that was the meaning he intended when he uttered the prophecy) ,it is when Matthew believed such virgin-young lady contemporary of Isaiah ,to be a reference to a virgin came hundred of years later.....


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 23, 2012, 09:57:41 AM


christian defense to the previous problems, is varied , but I would like to begin with one defense a christian member "laloumen" suggested:


laloumen wrote:


Quote from: laloumen
There is certainly a shadow or type involved in the prophecy to Ahaz.  However, language is employed which, while being partially applicable to the immediate event

support that from the original text of Isaiah ,otherwise you are making a conjecture.


Quote from: laloumen
receives its fullest, most appropriate, and exhaustive accomplishment in Messianic events.  .


That is ,the double application dodge..!!   you can't imagine how many problems associated with the double application theory....


1- Those defenders of the gross distortion of the writers of the new testament to the old testament ,don't know the BIG DIFFERENCE between Fulfillment  and Typology ?

If a writer said nothing in the context of his original prophecy denotes it to be fulfilled more than once ,then we are not going to multiple fulfillment but to the work of typology ....... there's a big difference between an event fulfilling a specific historical prediction and an event occurring in accordance with or with similarities to a figure or type.


Messianic Prophecy (New York: Sons, 1892), p. 197.  C. Briggs rightly said:
a "typical correspondence" is not a direct prediction, for if it can have a "multiple fulfillment" then it was never really a prediction as Matthew obviously regarded it.


to explain that for the Muslim readers ,

we already know that the Quranic prophecy of the victory of the Romans after defeat ( holy Quran 30:1-4) ,been fulfilled with all of its details , (within few years ,in the nearer land) during the life time of the prophet peace be upon him ......

what if after the time of the fulfillment stated ,the Roman again in other future occasions been defeated and then in few years victorious?

Is that a double fulfillment ,or just a history repeated itself? it is certainly the second unless one provides a textual support from the original prophecy that its producer intended it to be a double sense.

If an event occurred in accordance with or with similarities to a past figure or type ,doesn't mean , that it is a fulfillment of a prediction but a simple cheap work of typology ,one can play with whatever text he may like ......one can provide hundreds of cases of present events that similar in some manners to old ones .... but does that prove them to be predicted?! absolutely not.... only those with species of mental and religious delusion would think so.

some christian scholars criticized such random theory:


Quote from: Barton Payne of Wheaton College and Bernard Ramm of California Baptist Theological Seminary.

"If one read only the New Testament it would be safe to say that he would never suspect the possibility of dual-fulfillment because the New Testament indicates that the predictions refer directly to Christ."one of the most persistent hermeneuticalsins" is attempting to place two interpretations on one passage of Scripture, thereby breaking the force of the literal meaning and obscuring the picture intended.if prophecies have many meanings, then "hermeneutics would be indeterminate."


Quote from: Hengstenberg, A Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on Messianic Predictions, Vol. III (Grand Rapids: Kregal, 1956; reprint of 1829 ed.), p. 48.

the Christian church had, from the time of the Church Fathers, upheld the direct messianic explanation of Isaiah 7:14. it was not until the mid-eighteenth century that writers began to turn from this view.


Quote from: Moses Stuart on the Hebrews Excurs. xx.
"For these and such-like reasons, the scheme of attaching a double sense to the Scriptures is inadmissible. It sets afloat all the fundamental principles of interpretation by which we arrive at established conviction and certainty and casts us on the boundless ocean of imagination and conjecture without rudder or compass.".


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 23, 2012, 10:45:04 AM
Now my question to the christian member ,laloumen :


what is that such impressive typology "similarities" (don't fool me calling it fulfillment) between Isaiah 7 and the birth narratives ,according to Matthew?



1- Is it the act of the virgin birth itself? 



let's ignore the context ,and the previous linguistic analysis and assume for the sake of argument that ,there was a predictive language of a virgin birth , comes the question by the famous ex-christian missionary Farrell till:



Quote from: Farrell till ,prophecies imaginary and unfulfilled:
if so then no similarity there at all ,just who was the virgin of that generation who gave birth to a son? That is a legitimate question, because if Isaiah meant virgin in the strictest sense with reference to a woman who would give birth 700 years later, then he had to mean virgin in the strictest sense for the woman of his time who would bear a son. ? typology (similarity )here needs a type, pattern (a virgin of the old times) and antitype (Mary) if so the type is missed right here.



2- Is it the physical situation surrounding Israel or Jesus?

there is hardly any similarity between the physical situation in the past and the present as, unlike the child Immanuel there was no besiege or any kind of military danger to the house of David immediately before the birth of Jesus etc....

......

If you have another suggestions ,plz support your answers from within the specific texts themselves. again in what sense Jesus fulfilled ,or been a type of Isaiah 7 ?
again textual support plz, I want you to be a prover not a preacher.


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: laloumen on September 24, 2012, 07:15:55 PM
Jesus didn't meet such qualifications to such predicted king messiah ....
so what does that mean?

for Islam ,no problem at all ,as nothing in the Quran says that Jesus was supposed to fulfill such predictions about the king messiah , actually the very basic prediction  of such messiah (as the seed of king David via Solomon), would exclude the born of a virgin ,Quranic Jesus ....
all that we have in the Quran is that Jesus had a title"the messiah" lots of others had.



It is pretty shocking to me that supposed Muslims are so ignorant of what the Qu'ran says.  To deny the Virgin Birth of Christ is anti-Islam.

The Qu'ran says,

She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched
me and I have not been unchaste?"

He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me,
and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us.
And it is a matter [already] decreed.' "

So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.
(19:20-22)

But given that this is what the Qu'ran teaches concerning the birth of Christ, what is the reason for the strenuous argumentation against the prophecy given in Isaiah 7:14 --

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.
(Isaiah 7:14)

It's as if you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.  If you are required to believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ then what is the point of denying the prophecy that this would take place??  It is pointless.


In Christ,
Jim
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: laloumen on September 24, 2012, 10:27:33 PM

Now let's address some of Final Overture 's points...
 
Quote from:  Final Overture
Are you really in doubt that Psalms 22 is about Jesus?


as I said before, Psalm is not a prophecy,to begin with. It is nothing but an experience by its writer ,an experience that millions others of righteous believers had,they had been exposed to sufferings and been vindicated by God. religious zeal is the only reason to turn such passages into prophecies!.



What is the ground of such an assertion - that "Psalm is not a prophecy" other than merely assertion for the sake of winning an argument?  You're simply trying to eliminate a possibility by defining what a Psalm can be without considering the Psalms themselves.  But the Psalms can indeed be prophetic:

You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.”
(Psalm 2:9)

The above verse is not "nothing but an experience by its writer".  It is a prediction of a future occurrence, i.e. a prophecy.

For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol,
or let your holy one see corruption.
(Psalm 16:10)

How can this verse be "nothing but an experience by its writer"?  The future tense indicates something which has not yet happened.  And, as Peter makes clear in Acts 13, David died and remained dead and buried to that time, and to this time.  So, the statement concerning a future occurrence wasn't about David, himself, but about another.

In place of your fathers shall be your sons;
   you will make them princes in all the earth.
I will cause your name to be remembered in all generations;
   therefore nations will praise you forever and ever.
(Psalm 45:16-17)

This is a beautiful prophecy in Psalm 45.  That is clearly not "an experience by its writer" because it was future and not yet experienced by anyone.

The Lord is at your right hand;
   he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
He will execute judgment among the nations,
   filling them with corpses;
he will shatter chiefs
   over the wide earth.
(Psalm 110:5-6)

Here is another passage which is not "an experience by its writer".  It is clearly a prophecy of judgment. 

So, obviously the Psalms can be prophetic and your reply to Final Overture is bogus.  A Psalm can be or contain prophecy.  This is a simple fact and has nothing to do with "religious zeal" and everything to do with proper exegesis. 

Given this, there is no a priori reason to deny the prophetic nature of Psalm 22.  Final Overture's question is an honest acknowledgement of what ought to be perfectly obvious to everyone familiar with the facts - Psalm 22 is about the crucifixion of Jesus.  What is written there is not something that David personally experienced, in his own life.  There is no point in the life of David when they pierced his hands and feet.  There was never a time when David's garments were divided and men cast lots for his clothing. 

Your calculated rejection of the truth here is nothing more than that - a clear indication of your own dishonesty - as you show yourself willing to trample the obvious underfoot in order to win the argument at any cost.


In Christ,
Jim
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on September 25, 2012, 06:47:21 AM
Quote
So, obviously the Psalms can be prophetic and your reply to Final Overture is bogus.  A Psalm can be or contain prophecy.  This is a simple fact and has nothing to do with "religious zeal" and everything to do with proper exegesis. 

And how about this one in future tense? Psalms 118:17 I will not die but live,
    and will proclaim what the Lord has done.
18 The Lord has chastened me severely,
    but he has not given me over to death.

I don't think that Psalms 16 is about Jesus. Did he quote it anywhere? Yet he quoted Psalms 22,31,41 which surely say that he won't die.
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on September 25, 2012, 03:15:08 PM
It is pretty shocking to me that supposed Muslims are so ignorant of what the Qu'ran says.  To deny the Virgin Birth of Christ is anti-Islam.


were did I deny the virgin birth of Christ? plz quote me....


given that this is what the Qu'ran teaches concerning the birth of Christ, what is the reason for the strenuous argumentation against the prophecy given in Isaiah 7:14

The Quran affirms the virgin birth of Christ (an item that both muslims and Christians take on their faith on the quran and bible) ,yet ,unlike the writer(s) of Matthew etc ., the Quran doesn't claim, that such miraculous birth was foretold in the old testament ...

you ask what is the problem with the quotation of Matthew? The answer is quite clear ,and if you read my previous posts carefully, you would find out ,how disastrous the problem with the writers of the new testament quotations of the old testament ...

what if a man quotes from a text ,that he considers sacred,  a passage claiming it a messianic prophecy while it is clearly isn't ,and then write about a fulfillment that neither obviously a fulfillment nor can be verified ...... all that about the figure that is foundation of the whole religion he held...... that would shake the foundations of  their theologies ...  in a word ,Christianity stands or fall on the the truthfulness of the NT writers .... and they proved themselves unworthy of trust ,basically for their gross misuse of the old testament....

Mr laloumen , the importance of the topic,is that it  shakes the very foundation of your religion.................... plz read well my previous and next posts...



What is the ground of such an assertion - that "Psalm is not a prophecy" other than merely assertion for the sake of winning an argument?  .

Now you shift to another passage in psalms !!

I have explained my reasons to question the Isaiah passage , I hope that would get you again to the point and answer my question..... How could Jesus be a fulfillment to Isaiah 7:9?

I don't mean to force you into answering me..... just let me know ,if you are not interested to discuss the so called virgin birth prophecy ,and then, I promise you ,to discuss immediately the so called psalm's resurrection prophecy...fair?


Have a good day



Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on October 26, 2012, 09:14:37 AM

peace


Now a time getting back to our issue ,and exposing more and more , the place where the theologies and beliefs of the founders of christianity came from .....

After misquoting Isaiah 7 ,the zealous writer of Matthew misapplied other passages !!  he wrote:

Matthew 2:1
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: 6 ‘ But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”[/i]

Matthew quotes an old testament passage Micah 5:2:

the context of the passage:

Micah 4:11 But now many nations are gathered against you.They say, “Let her be defiled, let our eyes gloat over Zion!”12 But they do not know the thoughts of the LORD;they do not understand his plan, that he has gathered them like sheaves to the threshing floor.13 “Rise and thresh, Daughter Zion, for I will give you horns of iron;I will give you hooves of bronze, and you will break to pieces many nations.”You will devote their ill-gotten gains to the LORD, their wealth to the Lord of all the earth. 1 Marshal your troops now, city of troops, for a siege is laid against us.They will strike Israel’s ruler on the cheek with a rod. 2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,whose origins are from of old,from ancient times.” 3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor bears a son,and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. 4 He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth. 5 And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land and march through our fortresses.We will raise against them seven shepherds, even eight commanders,6 who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.He will deliver us from the Assyrians when they invade our land and march across our borders.


First: In the context of the passage in which Micah made this statement, he was speaking of "many nations [that] have gathered against you [Israel]" (4:11). In particular, there seemed to be concern about "the Assyrian com[ing] into our land" (5:5), so it makes good sense to assume that Micah, rather than predicting the coming in the distant future, was talking about a "ruler" who would arise to help Israel during the present threat to its national security,someone arising to lead Israel through its present crisis.

Second: Even if we assume that Micah did intend this to be a prophecy of a distant future ,the fact that the predicted figure will not be one ordinary Bethlehemian but must be a "ruler in Israel" who would protect Israel from military threats,according to the text.... something Jesus never fulfilled....

Third: The christian response to that is to argue for a second coming fulfillment:
eg;
Mal Couch wrote in his Dictionary of Premillennial Theology :
This will occur at the Second Coming and in the Millennium.This same Ruler will destroy Israel's military armament and fortifications so they are not dependent on them and also cut off all false worship (5: I0-14). He will also rule the nations and pour out His vengeance on them as He rules with an iron scepter This will occur during the millennial .
before we show the trouble with such argument ,let's read the next point...

Fourth: you remember the linguestic argument of Almah vs Bethula in the previous passage of Isaiah 7? here again another similar linguestic argument ?
some christians (not all) would use linguestic argument from the passage to support the concept of Messiah'e pre-existence ,deity .....
It is verse 5:2-3 most translations translated it correctly eg:

(New International version)
out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,whose origins are from of old,from ancient times.

Common English Bible
His origin is from remote times, from ancient days.

(Contemporary English Version)
But the LORD will choose one of your people to rule the nation--someone whose family
goes back to ancient times

(English Standard Version)
from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

(GOD’S WORD Translation)
from you Israel’s future ruler will come for me. His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago.

(Good News Translation)
out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times.

(The Message)
From you will come the leader who will shepherd-rule Israel.He'll be no upstart, no pretender. His family tree is ancient and distinguished.

(New Century Version)
will come one who will rule Israel for me.He comes from very old times,from days long ago."

(Young's Literal Translation)
And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth -- to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth [are] of old, From the days of antiquity.


some translations would translate (ancient times,days of old) as everlasting

eg;

whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. KJV
whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. ASV
those biased translations try to suppose the origin of the messiah as from everlasting

Professor Uri Yosef (Ph.D. and M.B.A.) notes:

The KJV correctly translates this expression in five out of the six cases as “days of old”, which is synonymous with “ancient days”, but at Micah 5:2 the KJV renders it as “from everlasting”.What could have motivated the KJV translators to change the translation at Micah 5:2, which speaks of the Messiah? A likely answer is that, by substituting “from everlasting” for “from ancient days”, the KJV translators attempted to bring this "Old Testament" prophecy into “harmony” with the accounts in the New Testament and with Christian theology. Could this be another example of "pious fraud" committed by some Christian authors?


Fifth -
Just as the( Almah,bethula controversy) , the( days of old ,everlasting) controversy is not useful as well !

As even if we accept the (everlasting) rendering, even if we understand Micah description of the messiah as divine,pre-existent remains the problem : If we accept the idea of Micah's reference to a divinity of the messiah,we then have three elements:

A- the messiah will be born through the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah..
B- the messiah will protect Israel from military threats and rules as a king.
C- he is of divine origin.
we have 2 physical aspect and 1 metaphysical ...If the second one is not fulfilled yet ,then we are left with the first and the third ...we have hundreds of thousands who were born through Bethlehem Ephrathah ,so nothing exclusive here for Jesus (assuming his birth was so,which is against what the quran says regarding his birth place,details later)......

what would be proper to be called exclusive, is the second element ,which is absent yet...
which will lead us to the conclusion:believe in Jesus as the messiah king cause he was born in Bethlehem ...believe in Jesus as God cause he was born in Bethlehem ......
and that leads us back to the Question :How could you buy a Metaphysical concept if not supported by the physical ... how could you buy the God Jesus ,before you buy the Messiah Jesus ...

If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified(whether Jesus was the promised king messiah or not), then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested (the claim of divinity).
such passage (and all the messianic passages alike) needs unconditional faith to be accepted ...



Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on October 26, 2012, 09:21:10 AM
Related point :  Jesus ,his birth place ,according to the Qur'an ,and lessons from that?

Mary was brought up in Jerusalem ,was placed under the care of the prophet Zechariah, who used to live in Jerusalem ,She conceived and moved to a shelter on a lofty ground having meadows and springs, a place far away from Jerusalem to be away from her people in such embarrassing situation and gave birth to the child in the wilderness far away from Jerusalem ....

What does that mean?

1- Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem but in the wildrness far away from Jerusalem..
2- Joseph is simply a fictional character been inserted in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Which necessarily requires the following to be inventions as well:
3- the story of Mary and Joseph travel from Nazareth to Joseph's ancestral home in Bethlehem to register in the census of Quirinius and then Mary gives birth to Jesus there .

4- Herod's intent to kill Jesus , An angel tells Joseph to flee with his family to Egypt. Meanwhile, Herod orders that all male children of Bethlehem under the age of two be killed, in the so-called "Massacre of the Innocents" and the return of Jesus from Egypt .

such Quranic attitude agress with the New testament critics who believe that the origin of most of those narratives based on all manner of creative activity by using Old Testament prophecy .

Joseph?

"Some interesting work has been done on Matthew's use of Scripture as the background to his infancy narrative. First, we may ask: is the shadowy figure of Joseph in the birth stories so named because this accords with history or for the sake of an Old Testament model (Genesis 37-50)? The name of the New Testament Joseph has often been seen as chosen for the guardian of the holy family after the model of the patriarchal joseph, who also went down to Egypt and looked after the members of his family. It is also relevant that Joseph of the New Testament was, like the Joseph of the Old Testament, a man of dreams." Andries van Aarde applies the figure of Joseph rather differently. ln a preliminary article in 2000, followed by a book in 2001, he suggests that the Joseph of the infancy stories is no more than an ethical paradigm: “To me it seems joseph was a legend. " New Perspectives on the Nativity By Jeremy Corley


The birth in Bethlehem ?

"That Jesus was son of David is a principal message of Matthew's first chapter, with its great drum-roll of Israelite history and its story of the divinely inspired adoption of Jesus into the House of David. In this case theology will have shaped quasi-history, or (to put the matter more clearly) the theological truth that jesns was the fulfillment of the promises to David and his lineage was expressed by the placing of_]esus' birth at Bethlehem. Each of the two evangelists will have used this location and decorated it in his own way, expressing in a picturesque narrative form some aspects of the theological truth about jesus that seemed to him important. "
New Perspectives on the Nativity By Jeremy Corley

- “Bethlehem was not Jesus’ birthplace but was imported from Hebrew prophecies about the future Messiah; the Star had similar origins (Numbers 24:17). Matthew’s story is a construction from well-known messianic prophecies (Bethlehem; the Star), and the Wise Men (Magi) have been added as another legend.” “Where the truth had been lost, stories filled the gap, and the desire to know fabricated its own tradition."

-“After (the crucifixion )and the belief in the resurrection, people wondered all the more deeply about Jesus’ birthplace. Bethlehem, home of King David, was a natural choice for the new messiah. There was even a prophecy in support of the claim which the ‘little town’ has maintained so profitably to this day.” So, “a higher truth was served by an impossible fiction.” [The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible(Knopf, 1992), p. 31-32].


“Luke’s real source for the view that Jesus was born in Bethlehem was almost certainly the conviction that Jesus fulfilled a hope that someday a descendant of David would arise to save Israel,” because the Messiah was supposed to come from there (Micah 5:2). [E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (p. 87.)].
...

To note, the Quranic attitude is not that radical supposing that ALL the birth narratives to be fabricated ..... eg; according to the Quran, Zachariah is a real person ,besides John the baptist ,besides the issue of the virgin birth ....  that agrees with some new testament critics who suggest that some of the narratives perhaps go back to a historical core while supposing also that the rest of the narratives were invented by either Matt or Luke, or both.

To conclude :


If we ask Did the writers of the New testament make up fictional details about the birth of Jesus (and the rest of his mission) to make it appear that he had fulfilled passages that they thought to be prophecies or they tried all the way to find references in the old testament to the traditions they received regarding the life of Jesus ?


The answer from a Quranic point of view ,and lots of new testament critics ,is that they did BOTH ......


Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: RamziBinNabil on October 27, 2012, 03:11:30 AM
What is NT and OT?
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Final Overture on October 27, 2012, 01:37:42 PM
What is NT and OT?
New Testament and Old one
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on November 05, 2012, 11:33:22 AM

thank you Bro Final Overture for the note .....

the birth narratives will be concluded in the following post inshallah soon...
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: RamziBinNabil on November 06, 2012, 12:09:19 PM
May Allah, the Most Glorified and Exalted, bless you and make you enter the highest Paradise with the Prophet (may Almighty Allah bless him and grant him peace).
Title: Re: My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"
Post by: Egyptian on November 22, 2012, 08:04:59 AM
May Allah bless you bro Ramzi ,Ameen....


I posted the following post days ago ,but it seems there was an error in the site that is why I don't find it .....  now I repost it with much additions .....

...............................................

we are still putting the writers of the new testament under trial ,examining the most important aspect of their writings " their misuse of the old testament " to get clues of their intentions and the origin of their deviant thoughts .....
we began examining the writer (Matthew) who used the old testament more than the other writers of the gospels.... 
actually ,the writer of Matthew ,from the very beginning of his writing ,in one hand, began importing ideas from the old testament to be included into his gospel ...... on the other hand he ransacked the Old Testament seeking verses which could make a meaning for the traditions he received regarding Jesus ....

First : He imported the so called genology of Jesus from the old testament:

Christopher B. Sanford ,wrote in his interesting book ; "Matthew: Christian Rabbi"

Quote from: Christopher B. Sanford

SYMBOLISM OF THE GENEALOGY

Compare this genealogy with the one in Luke starting at 3:23.
(The comparison is more difficult because Matthew starts with Abraham and counts down to Jesus, while Luke starts with Jesus and counts back, through Abraham, all the way back to Adam and then God.) Have one person start reading Luke forward (from 3:23) while another person checks off the names starting at the end of Matthew's genealogy (1:16). How do they differ?

Discussion:

Luke has, instead of the forty-two generations of Matthew, fifty-six generations to get back to Abraham. Matthew and Luke agree from Abraham down to David, but from David down to Jesus they disagree completely: They have a different number of names, and all the names are different. Each selected names for symbolic reasons Confronted with this double genealogy, some believers in Biblical inerrancy have argued that one of these genealogies is Mary's, not Joseph's. But this is not what the gospels say.
So what can we say about the two genealogies of Joseph? The possibilities are:
a-   Neither is true.
b-   one is true - but we have no way of knowing which, or
c-     it didn't matter originally, but later both authors constructed genealogies (by analogy with Hebrew Bible antecedents) because there was pressure later to specify Jesus' family connections, as well as to prove his connection to Jewish history.
But do we, in the twentieth century, care? It’s hard to see why we would or should - these are only lists of names, of men about whom we know nothing -- absolutely nothing (at least for the more recent generations) -- about personality or dates or occupation or beliefs or even place of residence.
Having challenged the historical validity of this genealogy, let us now look deeper to discern Matthew’s purpose and intention:

Table 1: Sources of Matthew's (Genealogy)

1-   Abraham: I Chronicles 1:34
2-   Isaac: I Chronicles' 1:34
3-   Israel: / Citron 1:34 (was Jacob-see Gen.35:I0)
4-   Judah: / Chronicles 2:1
5-   Pcrcz: / Chronicles 2:4
6-   I Ic/ron: / Chronicles 2:5
7-   Ram: / Chronicles 2:9
8      Amminadab: / Chronicles 2:10
9.   Nahshon: I Chronicles 2:10
10.   Salmon: or “Salma" I Chronicles 2:10
11.   Boaz: I Chronicles 2:11, 12
12.   Obcd I Chronicles 2:12
13.   Jesse: / Chronicles 2:11.12
14.   David the king: / Chronicles 2:¡3-1 S.
15.   Solomon: / Chronicles 3:5.
16.   Rchoboam: I Chronicles 3:10.
17.   Abijah: / Chronicles 3:10
18.   Asaph: or "Asa": I Chronicles 3:10
19.   Jehosaphat: I Chronicles 3:10
20.   Joram: / Chronicles 3: /1
21.   IJzziah: or “Ahaziah”: I Chronicles 3:11 Omitted: .loash: I Chronicles 3:11
        Amaziah: I Chronicles 3:12 Azariah: I Chronicles 3:12
22.   Jotham: I Chronicles 3:12
23.   Ahaz: I Chronicles 3:13
24.   Ilc/.ekiah: I Chronicles 3:13
25.   Manasseh: I Chronicles 3:13
26.   Amos: or "Anion": I Chronicles 3:14
27.   Josiah: I Chronicles 3:14-15
28.   Jechoniah: I Chronicles 3:16-17
29.   Salathiel: / Chronicles 3:17.
30.   Zerubbabel: I Chronicles 3:19
31.   Abiud: /  I Chronicles 3:19 names several sons of Zerubbabel, of whom Abiud is not one.
32.   Kliakim: the name "Eliakim " appears in Isaiah 22:20.
33.   Azor: Possibly a shortened form of Azariah. / Chronicles 6:36(21).
34.   Zadok: Zadok is the highest of priestly names. Found in I Chronicles 6:38(50).
35.   Achim: Possibly shortened form of Ahimaaz, / Chronicles 6:38(50).
36.   1:1 mil: Greek transliteration of "El-Jud." "God of Judah."
37.   Eleazar Another high priestly name. / Chronicles 6:38(50)
38.   Mat than: Possibly shortened form of Mattathias. Maccabean founder of priesthood
39.   Jacob: early patriarch appearing in Genesis 25-35: father of an earlier Joseph.
40.   Joseph the husband of Mary,
41.   Jesus, who is called Christ.


Second: He quoted Isaiah 7 ,to claim that the virgin birth of Jesus was prophecised . "we explained before the problems with his claims".


Third: The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. the writer then claimed that it was a fulfilment of an old testament  prophecy... "we explained before the problems with his claims".

Fourth The writer claimed that ,an angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I tell thee: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him,And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; 2:15and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.

Christopher B. Sanford Notes:
Do you see parallels with the story of Moses? Read Exodus 1:21-2:22. Compare Jesus' going up on the mountain in Matthew 5 (and talking about aspects of the Law) with Moses going to Mount Sinai in Exodus 19; and Jesus' ten miracles in Matthew 8-9 with the ten plagues Moses inflicts on the Egyptians in Exodus 7-10. Do you "buy" the idea that Matthew is trying to create a parallel between Moses and Jesus?
2) In verse 15. Matthew quotes the prophet Hosea (11:1), who says, "When Israel was a child 1 loved him, and I called my son out of Egypt." Read several verses preceding and following this one in order to determine the context and significance. Is it a prophecy about Jesus?

Discussion:
A favorite theme of Renaissance painters was the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt. You have certainly seen paintings of the three resting on their fearful journey, the young Mary and the aged Joseph looking exhausted, the baby Jesus with a halo around his head, their faithful donkey waiting patiently for them to gather their strength and plod on a few more miles. But there is no indication anywhere else in the Bible - or anywhere else - that Mary and Joseph and Jesus fled to Egypt. And Luke explicitly says that eight days after the birth of Jesus, the family made an offering at the Temple in Jerusalem and then made an uneventful return to Nazareth. The story seems to be there, first, to provide a fulfillment for the (non-)prophecy from Hosea (see below), and. second, to create a parallel with the story of Moses. Matthew seems at pains to create events in Jesus' life which will present him as a second Moses. There are enough of these to give support to the theory that this is what Matthew is trying to do - but the parallels are inexact enough that you can, if you prefer, reject the theory.
This quote from Hosea is part of an extended narration by Jalnveh of the relationship between the loving Jahweh and His errant people Israel. "My son" in this : Out of Egypt I have called my son. in this verse is clearly the Hebrew people, and the verse is clearly about history, not about prophecy. Hosea is saying that while the Hebrews were in Egypt, God chose them and therefore led them ("called him") out of Egypt This appears to be yet another example of "mining” the Hebrew Bible for verses which can be taken out of context and used as prophecies.

Fifth  :

The writer claims that Herod massacres children around Bethlehem :

Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the Wise-men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had exactly learned of the Wise-men. 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 2:18A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she would not be comforted, because they are not.


Herod was indeed a cruel ruler, but there is no evidence - from fairly extensive and detailed Roman records - that the massacre of the innocents ever took place. Matthew seems to have created this story to explain the flight to Egypt, which explains leaving Bethlehem, which explains the resettlement to Nazareth, and to create another parallel with the story of Moses.(remember the story of Pharaoh commanded all his people, to kill every son that is born to the Hebrews ?)