Father of Mary...Joachim or Amram(Imraan) [Archive]

View Full Version : Father of Mary...Joachim or Amram(Imraan)

vdings

18th November 2004, 04:02

This is a very very interesting point

Behold! wife of Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service ... When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!" ... "... I have named her Mary ..."
-- Sura 3:35-36

Now there are early christian writings that specifically say that Marys father is Joachim

Interestingly enough Moses fathers name was Imran and he had a sister called Mary

Wonder if i could get an islamic perspective on this!

Marat786@hotmail.com

18th November 2004, 10:49

Mughirah Ibn Shu-bah (r), a companion of the Prophet Muhammad(s) relates that He was receiting the Qur'an before Christians in Najran and whilst reciting the Ayah:

~At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! "O sister of Aaron"!Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"~

~{Qur'an 19:27-28}~

The Christians confronted Him and said:

~"You read "O sister of Harun" (i.e. Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus."~

Mughira Ibn Shu-bah(r) did not know the answer so when He came back to the Prophet(s) He asked Muhammad(s) about it, where upon Muhammad(s)said:

~"The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them."~

~{Sahih Muslim-Kitaab al adab-vol 3-Hadeeth#[2135]-}~

This Hadeeth of the Prophet opens up 2 avenues of explanation:

1} Some Islamic scholars say that Mary(r) had a brother named after Prophet Aaron(a) which could have been possible as many of us (like the Prophet(s) says) give names to our children after the names of Apostles and pious persons.

2} Some Scholars say Mary is a blood descendant of Prophet Aaron(a) and Moses(a)and She was given a title of honour after a name of an Apostle of which lineage She came from.

Even though Mary could possibly had a brother in her lifetime named after Prophet Aaron(a) the second explaination weighs in with more evidence.
However i have found orienlentalists not to be satisfied with the satisfactory answer that the Prophet (s) has given and furthermore they still accuse the Prophet (s) of anachronism.

Anachronism means something that is out of harmony with the period in which it was placed in which the oreinlentalists accuse Muhammad(s) of confusing 2 different personality's (Miriam(r) and Maryam(r)) and the time periods they lived in.

The Bible tells us that the a man by the name of Amram bore 3 chidren, Moses(a), Aaron(a) and Miriam(r):

~"And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister."~

{Numbers 26:59}

And Miriam(r) was also addressed in the Bible as the sister of Aaron:

~"And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances."~

{Exodus 15:20}

*} In the Bible we have the sister of Aaron(a) called Miriam(r) who has a father called Amram(r)

*} In the Qur'an we have Maryam(r) the mother of Jesus(a) being addressed by Her people "o sister of Aaron" who also happens to have a father called Imran.

for the person without knowledge this can be quite confusing, however as i have stated before the Prophet(s) was asked about this alleged anachronism and He(s) said:

~"The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them."~

~{sahih muslim}~

*Meaning Maryam(r) was named after Miriam(r) which i do not think any learned Christian would disagree due to the fact that the actual name Mary derives from Miriam which in the Hebrew language means "strong"

*Likewise the father of Mary(r) "Imran" was named after a pious person who had gone before Him called 'Amram' so really i do not see any problem here it is exactly how the Prophet(s) has put it:

~"They was given names after pious persons who had gone before them"~

{Sahih Muslim}

And even today we have many people around the world called Imran, Aaron ,Mary and so forth so i wonder how many familys past , present and future has a father called Imran with a son called Aaron and a daughter called Maryam? it is a very high possibility.

for example if my name was Jesus and i had a mother called Mary it doesnt mean im the Prophet Jesus [a] from his age, it would be that i was named after him just like Mary was named after the Sister of Moses [a].

So the charge of Anachronism has been clearly refuted by the Prophet(s) over 1400 years ago.

Mary(r) the Levite

There is another problem if an orienlentalist wishes to pursue further with the charge of anachronism against the Prophet(s) and that problem is that the Bible does not give us the name of Mary's(r) father due to the fact that the Jewish law does not allow genealogys for females to be recorded in the scriptures, infact the closest record of Mary's(r) ancestry was spoken by the Arch Angel Gabriel(a) when He visited Mary(r) to give the glad tidings of the birth of a righteous son and the news of John the Baptist:

~"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren".~

{Bible luke 1:36}

And Marys(r) cousin Elizabeth(r) was married to Prophet Zechariahs(a) who were both Levite's descending from the noble ancestry of Prophet Moses(a) and His brother Aaron(a),

Elizabeth was also addressed as the daughters of Aaron:

~"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth."~

{Bible Luke.1.5}

Furthermore the Prophet Muhammad(s) confirmed that Mary and Jesus were from the Levite ancestry in another Hadeeth, whilst explaining to His Companions about what happened on His miraculous night journey through the seven heavens He said:

~"..... When I entered (the heavens) I saw Jesus the son of Mary and John the son of Zachrais who are (2nd) cousins from the maternal side (meaning through their Mothers) and they prayed for My well being....."~

{Sahih Muslim , Vol 1, Kitab al iman, chapter 74, Hadeeth #[162]}

So if John the Baptist(a) was a Levite and Jesus(a) was His cousin related from the maternal side that means Mary(r) must have been a Levite and not a descendant of Judah like many Christians think, due to the fact intermarrying was forbidden between the 12 tribes of Israel ,Judites were not allowed to marry Levites.

Why sister of Aaron?

So why is Mary addressed in the Quran as the sister of Aaron? And why is She not addressed as the sister of Moses, Solomon, Judah etc, etc?

*} After Mary(r) had given birth to Jesus(a) She went back to Her people carrying the baby in Her arms and with Mary(r) being unmarried Her people started accusing Mary(r) of doing a shameful act and dishonouring Her Levitical ancestry, so they said "O sister of Aaron Your Father was not a man of evil nor was your Mother unchaste!" but She pointed to the baby and by miracle baby Jesus defended His mother against the charge of Her people {Surah Maryam 19 ayah's 27-33} which could not be said if the Jews would have called Her "O sister of Judah"

(a)[13] And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep.
[14] And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.
[15] When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.
[16] And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?
[17] And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?
[18] And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.
[19] And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood.
[20] And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand: but he found her not.
[21] Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place.
[22] And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in this place.
[23] And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her.
[24] And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.
[25] When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff.
[26] And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.
[27] And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.
[28] And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first,
[29] And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez.
[30] And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.

(Genesis 38:13-30)

we see that pharez and zarah are children of incest which arcording to the new testament are the ancestors of Jesus Christ:

[1] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[2] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[3] And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
[4] And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
[5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
[6] And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
[7] And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
[8] And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
[9] And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
[10] And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
[11] And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
[12] And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
[13] And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
[14] And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
[15] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
[16] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

(matthew 1-16)

Now Jesus according to the new testament is within 10 generations of his ancestors Zarah and phares which according to the Bible makes him a bastard:

[2] A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

(Deuteronomy 23:2)

But the fact that the Jews even allowed Jesus into the temple and he sat there as a child teaching and preaching to the Jews confirms he was not of the Judites otherwise that would have been the Jews perfect excuse to turf him out of the temple, but yet we read in the Bible they had to find certain excuses in which they had difficulty doing so, so in reality this confirms that Jesus was not from the line of Judah but from the line of Levi.

In the Bible Elizabeth(r) is given the title "daughters of Aaron" and it is common sense that She is not the actual daughter of Aaron but this title is a title of respect and honour because of Her noble ancestry, now why is not Elizabeth(r) called the daughters of Moses(a) and so forth?

Another problem the orienlentist has difficulty understanding is why is Mary(r) called the sister of Aaron(a) and not the Daughter of Aaron(a) and they claim that "In those days people were only named as sons or daughters (never brothers or sisters, incidentally) of people from whom they directly descended" but according to the Bible God(s) says to Moses(a):

~"I shall raise them up a Prophet from amongst their brethren (meaning brothers)"~

{Deuteronomy 18:18}

Now according to Christian theologians this prophecy is referring to Jesus(a), "Their" refers to the Judaic tribe and "brethren" refers to the generations to come, so if this prophecy is in concordance with Jesus(a) then Jesus(a) is the "Brethren of Judah" in Biblical terms
So why does it say that this prophet is to come from amongst their Brethren/brothers and why not from amongst their sons? Should not it say, "I will raise them a prophet from amongst their sons"?

~All praise to God(s) and infinite peace and blessings be upon Muhammad(s), His companions and His family~

Marat786@hotmail.com

18th November 2004, 11:27

Brother you said:

Now there are early christian writings that specifically say that Marys father is Joachim.

without no offense to you i doubt your sources due to the fact that the Jews never ever recorded the geneologys for females and neither did the early christians, infact if we was to look at the earlyest Jewish writings about Jesus and Mary you would find nothing but sour comments and secondly the new testament did not exist at all in the early christian days and all and i say all of the earlyest scriptures from around the time of Jesus are totally destroyed, so again witout dispute i have no doubt whatsoever that there is no source which has Marys geneology recorded but we have only clues in which the Christians themselve are in dispute about, many Christian Scholars are not in agreement about your statement about marys father and they are not in agreement about the Bible either so we can not take the sources you take from as authentic just as much as a Muslim can not say the gospel of barnabus is authentic though there is truth in there. and plus some Christian Scholars say that Jesus was not born miraculous and that Joseph was his father, but yet with the Islamic doctrines i have found them again and again straightening these disputed matters out. so my dear brother with all sincerity i ask you to study Islam with the intention of seeking guidance , not like im judging your intention that is not my intention to do so, it is advisable to read books to seek guidance from the Lord of the Worlds, He has said "O servant ask guidance from Me and I shall give you" and the Bible reflects this "seek and you shall find"
so on this path of knowledge our intention must be for the best so we can seek the truth to gain our salvation and help others to salvation as the Holy Prophet Muhammad [s] said " I swear by the One Who holds my soul, none of you truly believe until you desire for your neighbour (or he said brother) what you desire for yourself)

peace be with you and i will use the same prayer as you did to end with

"O Lord, My God, In you alone do I put all my trust.
Guide me aright! Let my every work, reflect your Infiniteness!"

ameeen

Marat786@hotmail.com

18th November 2004, 11:33

also just to throw one last thing in the translator of the Qur'an Muhammad Pickthall has done justice to this subject in his introduction to Surah Imran so to increase your knowlegde on this subject you will find that a good read and a way better explaination than mine is

peace

vdings

18th November 2004, 12:39

we see that pharez and zarah are children of incest which arcording to the new testament are the ancestors of Jesus Christ:

[1] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[2] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[3] And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
[4] And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
[5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
[6] And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
[7] And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
[8] And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
[9] And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
[10] And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
[11] And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
[12] And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
[13] And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
[14] And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
[15] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
[16] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

(matthew 1-16)

Now Jesus according to the new testament is within 10 generations of his ancestors Zarah and phares which according to the Bible makes him a bastard:

[2] A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

If we are arguing technicalities.
Jesus wasnt within 10 generations of Phares!

Its like, sure the explanation about Marys father being Imran, is possible (even though the accepted infancy gospel of thomas (not the gospel of thomas) clearly states that his Name is Joachim
and as far i know there is no dispute within chrisitan scholarship to that point
I really think you should read this,
cos this isnt about geneaology, these book were written within (at most) a 100 years form the death of Joachim, and maybe even within the lifetime of Mary
There would have been too many people alive, at the time, who would have disputed, the use of Joachim as the father, if infact his name was Imran.
So the explanation about the father doesnt hold water.
as to descending from aaron, how can we assume the desecent from aaron to mary without some chain of descendants.
Are you familiar with any such chain?
And then too why would she be called the sister of aaron, when in semitic languages, its most common to refer to someone as Mary daughter of Imran, son of Aaron.(establishing lineage, if the need arose) or even directly Mary daughter of aaron
(this would have been more plausible)
However consider the alternative
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) actually got the 2 Marys confused, and so simply mixed up times and places, and relations , and then there is no need for Circuitous explanations

vdings

18th November 2004, 12:40

By your argument King David, should have been shunned by the Lord, cos he is within 10 generations of Phares...
What do you think of that?

Marat786@hotmail.com

18th November 2004, 14:56

[1] I dont believe that any of the sons of Jacob would do that in the first place.

[2] Gospel of Thomas is a disputed source disputed by many Scholars , evidence of that being thrown out in 325 a.d at the council of nicea ...they didnt deem it fit, so that has something to say really doesnt it, what is the word of God ? thee Bible or the gospel of Thomas(infancy or uninfancy is still got thrown out)

[3] and on the point about Hebrew language and they refered to there people as sons or daughters of well actually youre wrong but its probaly not your fault, in Hebrew and Arabic Grammar people of the past are reffered to as Sister of and Brother of even if it be by faith, even citys and locations are refered to as sister thats why you will never hear a Hebrew speaking Jew criticising the O Sister of Aaron verse in the Qur'an, it will only be people without the knowledge of the Grammar.

[4] Even though i could have made a blunder on the 10 generations thing, yet you failed to reconize that the above geneology was not Marys geneolgy but Josephs and yet again in luke 3 we have another geneology of Joseph which is totally contradictive, therefore Marys geneology is not here at all so there is no Biblical link between Jesus and Judah which i find a bit weird because all male Jews will be able to tell you their geneology because it has been recorded by the Jews, so why not for Jesus? reason being the Jews destroyed it and the Christians were persecuted that much that it was impossible to write and record many things. the Christians in Jesus's time were very small in number b'cos many did not accept him.

[5] the fact you did ignore is that Mary is Elizabeths cousin and Elizabeth was a levite and the tribes were not permitted cross marriages as the Jews are very tribal so how could that be? this is a very important clue for the chain!

[6] Jochim - point him out in Biblical scripture , infact does the Bible go into what name Marys mother was? how she got to the temple? i gurantee that the name of Marys father is not to be found in the Bible and there are reasons why they are not there... this is a point to ponder upon What was the Story of Mary in the Bible?

[7] And what type of paper was this book written on that you claim could have been written in the very lifetime of Mary? and how was it preserved when they had problems scraping together the fragments of the new testament?

these are all questions to be asked, indeed the answers are very clear

I had another point to make but right now i have to do something. i will be back soon , peace.

vdings

18th November 2004, 15:14

[1] I dont believe that any of the sons of Jacob would do that in the first place.

[2] Gospel of Thomas is a disputed source disputed by many Scholars , evidence of that being thrown out in 325 a.d at the council of nicea ...they didnt deem it fit, so that has something to say really doesnt it, what is the word of God ? thee Bible or the gospel of Thomas(infancy or uninfancy is still got thrown out)

Actually "thrown out" doesnt mean they were untrue, they were eliminated for a vareity of reasons....
The infancy gospel of thomas (not the gospel of thomas) was of the last to be eliminated from the Bible
Having said that, remember these scriptures are not heretical, they are still considered sources of valid information (especially the Infancy gospel of Thomas)
The word of God...well look at John 1:1 . you will see the word of God is Jesus.
The testaments...testify to the word of God.

[4] Even though i could have made a blunder on the 10 generations thing, yet you failed to reconize that the above geneology was not Marys geneolgy but Josephs and yet again in luke 3 we have another geneology of Joseph which is totally contradictive, therefore Marys geneology is not here at all so there is no Biblical link between Jesus and Judah which i find a bit weird because all male Jews will be able to tell you their geneology because it has been recorded by the Jews, so why not for Jesus? reason being the Jews destroyed it and the Christians were persecuted that much that it was impossible to write and record many things. the Christians in Jesus's time were very small in number b'cos many did not accept him.

Wait a minute, that is the geneology of Jesus.

[5] the fact you did ignore is that Mary is Elizabeths cousin and Elizabeth was a levite and the tribes were not permitted cross marriages as the Jews are very tribal so how could that be? this is a very important clue for the chain!

Now you have defeated yourself...
If she was Levite, and Joseph was Judite, by your own reasoning, they couldnt have been betrothed.

[6] Jochim - point him out in Biblical scripture , infact does the Bible go into what name Marys mother was? how she got to the temple? i gurantee that the name of Marys father is not to be found in the Bible and there are reasons why they are not there... this is a point to ponder upon What was the Story of Mary in the Bible?

First it is important to realise that early christian scripture , even though it was not included in the bible, is not heretical...
I would say that these sources of information are analogous to the hadith
They are no less believable , and therefore worthy of a good read.

[7] And what type of paper was this book written on that you claim could have been written in the very lifetime of Mary? and how was it preserved when they had problems scraping together the fragments of the new testament?

What kind of paper were the other christian writings written on, i believe they were skins and parchments.
Yep i believe the infancy gospel of thomas exists from very very early years
maybe 100 AD (maybe though i cant be certain, an even earlier version)

Marat786@hotmail.com

18th November 2004, 15:17

my last point for now is that Joachim was not mentioned at all in the Bible but who is this character we find in the Added books of the Bible what is known as the apocrypha and you was saying this is not disputed?

[3] And Baruch did read the words of this book in the hearing of Jechonias the son of Joachim king of Juda, and in the ears of all the people that came to hear the book,

[7] And they sent it to Jerusalem unto Joachim the high priest, the son of Chelcias, son of Salom, and to the priests, and to all the people which were found with him at Jerusalem

(Baruch, apocrypha)

notice how it says in verse 3 Jechonias the son of Joachim king of Juda

and yet we find out in the Bible the son of Joachim who was Jechonias was way out of Marys time , look closely

[1] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[2] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[3] And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
[4] And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
[5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
[6] And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
[7] And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
[8] And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
[9] And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
[10] And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
[11] And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
[12] And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
[13] And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
[14] And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
[15] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
[16] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

(matthew 1-16)

so we see that you got joachim confused, and so simply mixed up times and places, and relations.

and about the king David thing ...please note that when i have quoted i have always said according to sos ans so not according to my own believe.

peace

Marat786@hotmail.com

18th November 2004, 15:20

joachim = Josias (it is the same character)

Marat786@hotmail.com

18th November 2004, 15:26

there is no evidence for Joseph even
in Islam there is nothing at all recorded of him and he is not there in Jewish records either you should try the encylopedia of Judaism and try and see if you can find him in there but still they are both NOT jesus geneolgys but they are both Josephs, maybe thats a dileberate attempt they made to discredit Mary

Who knows but God

Marat786@hotmail.com

18th November 2004, 15:32

So in reality why is there a Judah geneology in the Bible both claiminmg to be Jesus geneology when they are not
and still youre ignoring the vital clue that Mary was Elizabeths cousin and Elizabeths Zachrias wife and they were levites ..............youre response was to throw Joseph into the picture when all the time i have been trying to throw him out of the picture by telling you Jesus is not related to Joseph nor was Mary married to Joseph

vdings

18th November 2004, 15:33

Im not sure what you are trying to say about Josias...so i shall refrain form commenting
Howver i shall comment on one thing...
If Mary was a Levite, and Joseph was a Judite...
They cant have been betroth to each other!
At least form what you have told me....
So for sure Mary couldnt have been Levite

Marat786@hotmail.com

18th November 2004, 15:51

Well what im trying to say in Islam there is no report whatsoever of Joseph and to tell you the truth the geneologys that claim to be Jesus's are both Josephs and yet they contradict each other and they cant be Marys especially if Marys father is not metioned there and we both believe that Mary had no sexual relationship and therefore Joseph was not the father,

look without offending you, i have seen youre posts you are quite a humble person and thats a good thing but you see the Bible is very confusing and unclear and only with the Islamic doctrine did i manage to straighten out who what where and why, but at the end of the Day there is no evidence of any of Marys lineage except

~"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren".~

{Bible luke 1:36}

Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron and Aaron was a levite :

~"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth."~

{Bible Luke.1.5}

Furthermore the Prophet Muhammad(s) confirmed that Mary and Jesus were from the Levite ancestry in another Hadeeth, whilst explaining to His Companions about what happened on His miraculous night journey through the seven heavens He said:

~"..... When I entered (the heavens) I saw Jesus the son of Mary and John the son of Zachrais who are (2nd) cousins from the maternal side (meaning through their Mothers) and they prayed for My well being....."~

{Sahih Muslim , Vol 1, Kitab al iman, chapter 74, Hadeeth #[162]}

and this evidence i accept b'cos it is so clear and all the evidence falls into place.

of course Muhammad [s] knew that amran and Imran were different people just like Mary and Miriam are
i would have been worryed if the Quran said

Moses went to Pharoah and Jesus threw his rod

but it does not say that.

For me the evidence is clear cut

peace

JoeChristian

18th November 2004, 16:44

Vdings,

I would simply note that it wasn't uncommon for a Jewish man in those days to be known by more than one name. After all, the apostle Matthew was also known as Levi.

--Joe

JoeChristian

18th November 2004, 17:09

Marat,

Now Jesus according to the new testament is within 10 generations of his ancestors Zarah and phares which according to the Bible makes him a bastard....From where do you get that number of generations? According to Matthew 1:17 there are more than 30 generations between Perez and Jesus.

Matthew 1:17 -- So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

...you failed to reconize that the above geneology was not Marys geneolgy but Josephs and yet again in luke 3 we have another geneology of Joseph which is totally contradictive....Some say that the genealogy presented in Luke's is actually Mary's, not Joseph's, and that Luke used Joseph's name instead of Mary's because the proper form at the time was to include no women's names in a genealogy.

...the tribes were not permitted cross marriages as the Jews are very tribal....I know of nothing of Jewish law which states that Jews must marry within the same tribe.

--Joe

JoeChristian

18th November 2004, 17:13

Vdings,

The infancy gospel of thomas (not the gospel of thomas) was of the last to be eliminated from the Bible....Eliminated when? By the 2nd century the number of gospels had been established at four (namely, the four we have today).

--Joe

vdings

18th November 2004, 18:18

candidates for being in the bible,
actually at nicea, they were trying to figure out which ones should be included and which ones shouldnt.

JoeChristian

18th November 2004, 18:23

Vdings,

The gospels were a slam-dunk, though. There were no other accepted gospels for the last 125 years or so before Nicea. Some of the letters may have been in question, but the four gospels were indisputably accepted by that time as the only ones inspired.

--Joe

vdings

18th November 2004, 18:35

JoeChristian

18th November 2004, 19:52

Vdings,

For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia....It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are....the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.

--Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, written c. 185 AD

Just so you know I'm not just talking out of my behind. :D

--Joe

Marat786@hotmail.com

18th November 2004, 19:54

Joe

i accept i was wrong on the generation thing and infact you are right that is my blunder and i should have analysed that a bit more in depth before making such a stupid mistake ....however im human and these things happen

you also said

Some say that the genealogy presented in Luke's is actually Mary's, not Joseph's, and that Luke used Joseph's name instead of Mary's because the proper form at the time was to include no women's names in a genealogy

im glad you have said some say and yes you are correct in a way except they do not mark down the womens geneology at all and that was how the Jews practiced their law which had influence on the new testament.

and about the Jews being Tribal this is how they were Judaites would marry Judites and Levites would marry Levites, unless you can show me from the Bible where the 12 Tribes of Jacobs sons intermarried with each other

however on whole, without boast , I strongly feel i have answered satisfactorily to the threads topic.

but like i have said Muhammad pickthall in his translation of the Quran has done more Justice to this subject in his introduction to Surah Imran.

peace

JoeChristian

18th November 2004, 20:13

Marat,

and about the Jews being Tribal this is how they were Judaites would marry Judites and Levites would marry Levites, unless you can show me from the Bible where the 12 Tribes of Jacobs sons intermarried with each otherCheck out 1 Samuel 18, where David (Judah) marries Michal, the daughter of Saul (Benjamin).

--Joe

Marat786@hotmail.com

18th November 2004, 21:43

im reading and i cant believe what im reading

the Bible is telling me king David chopped off forskins of a 100 palestinians ...

i cant swallow this story here

i dont believe any Prophet of God would go round taking snippets of palestinians penis's to please his future wife, i know its besides the point but in my view this is a fabricated lye, and therefore the marriage and this happening could have been fabricated to discredit Prophet Dawud [a]

please can you find another example not so disturbing

nowzoo Billah , its disgusting what i have just read, right now i dont know what to think about the Bible.

vdings

19th November 2004, 03:06

dont believe any Prophet of God would go round taking snippets of palestinians penis's to please his future wife, i know its besides the point but in my view this is a fabricated lye, and therefore the marriage and this happening could have been fabricated to discredit Prophet Dawud

Try sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3371:
for an idea of what prophets of god, are really capable of

JoeChristian

19th November 2004, 18:05

Marat,

You really have no idea what the Bible says, do you? Hoo boy. I may as well disillusion you.

You see, one of the tenets of Islam that neither Judaism nor Christianity holds to be true is that God's prophets must be near-perfect people. We believe that a prophet can sin seriously just like anyone. However, as in Islam, we also believe that God deals more seriously with the sins of his prophets so as to demonstrate his righteousness. But the point is, we do believe that God's prophets can sin and, what's more, [u]have[u] sinned, sometimes in very disturbing ways. (This is not to say that every prophet committed serious sins, and certainly Jesus himself committed no sins at all, but by and large, you can find records of the prophets' sins in the Bible.)

So, here's a sampling of prophets at some of their worst moments, according to the Bible. (Keep in mind that in spite of these gaffes, both Jews and Christians still consider these men to be prophets or otherwise righteous men.)

NOAH

Genesis 9:20-23 -- And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.

ABRAHAM

Genesis 12:11-19 -- And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, "Indeed I know that you are a woman of beautiful countenance. Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, 'This is his wife'; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you."

So it was, when Abram came into Egypt, that the Egyptians saw the woman, that she was very beautiful. The princes of Pharaoh also saw her and commended her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken to Pharaoh's house. He treated Abram well for her sake. He had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female servants, female donkeys, and camels.

But the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife. And Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, 'She is my sister'? I might have taken her as my wife. Now therefore, here is your wife; take her and go your way."

LOT

Genesis 15:30-36 -- Then Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters were with him; for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar. And he and his two daughters dwelt in a cave. Now the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us as is the custom of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father." So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.

It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, "Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father." Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.

Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.

ISAAC & JACOB

Genesis 27:15-23,30-35 -- Then Rebekah took the choice clothes of her elder son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them on Jacob her younger son. And she put the skins of the kids of the goats on his hands and on the smooth part of his neck. Then she gave the savory food and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.

So he went to his father and said, "My father."

And he said, "Here I am. Who are you, my son?"

Jacob said to his father, "I am Esau your firstborn; I have done just as you told me; please arise, sit and eat of my game, that your soul may bless me."

But Isaac said to his son, "How is it that you have found it so quickly, my son?"

And he said, "Because the Lord your God brought it to me."

Isaac said to Jacob, "Please come near, that I may feel you, my son, whether you are really my son Esau or not." So Jacob went near to Isaac his father, and he felt him and said, "The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau."

And he did not recognize him, because his hands were hairy like his brother Esau's hands; so he blessed him....

Now it happened, as soon as Isaac had finished blessing Jacob, and Jacob had scarcely gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting. He also had made savory food, and brought it to his father, and said to his father, "Let my father arise and eat of his son's game, that your soul may bless me."

And his father Isaac said to him, "Who are you?"

So he said, "I am your son, your firstborn, Esau."

Then Isaac trembled exceedingly, and said, "Who? Where is the one who hunted game and brought it to me? I ate all of it before you came, and I have blessed him--and indeed he shall be blessed."

When Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with an exceedingly great and bitter cry, and said to his father, "Bless me--me also, O my father!"

But he said, "Your brother came with deceit and has taken away your blessing."

DAVID

2 Samuel 11:2-5,14-17,26-27 -- Then it happened one evening that David arose from his bed and walked on the roof of the king's house. And from the roof he saw a woman bathing, and the woman was very beautiful to behold. So David sent and inquired about the woman. And someone said, "Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" Then David sent messengers, and took her; and she came to him, and he lay with her, for she was cleansed from her impurity; and she returned to her house. And the woman conceived; so she sent and told David, and said, "I am with child."...

In the morning it happened that David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah. And he wrote in the letter, saying, "Set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retreat from him, that he may be struck down and die." So it was, while Joab besieged the city, that he assigned Uriah to a place where he knew there were valiant men. Then the men of the city came out and fought with Joab. And some of the people of the servants of David fell; and Uriah the Hittite died also....

When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when her mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.

SOLOMON

1 Kings 11:1-8 -- But King Solomon loved many foreign women, as well as the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites-- from the nations of whom the Lord had said to the children of Israel, "You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you. Surely they will turn away your hearts after their gods." Solomon clung to these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not fully follow the Lord, as did his father David. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the hill that is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the people of Ammon. And he did likewise for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.

--Joe

vdings

19th November 2004, 21:27

Excellent post Joe...
Thank you very much

Marat786@hotmail.com

27th November 2004, 18:58

peace

I will refrain from personal comments and insulting behaviour as it is very unenlightening and turns many discussions sour time and time again, however whilst we are on this point lets discuss the following:

ANGELS

Christians as well as Jews believe that Angels have sins as well as disobey the Lord, commit offences, rape, criminal acts and so on.

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority, but abandoned their own home, these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgement on the Great Day…they serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire

[Book of Jude, verse 6]

However, the Lord has always told us that the angels are sinless and that they never disobey Allah.

They do not disobey Allah in what He has ordered them and they do as they are told.

[Surat ut-Tahrim (66), ayah (verse) 6]

In fact, angels are in charge of bringing the scriptures.

Say, whoever is an enemy to Jibril (Gabriel), for he is the one who brings down the revelation to your heart by the permission of Allah…

[Surat ul-Baqarah (2), ayah (verse) 97]

Therein the angels and the spirit descend by the Permission of their Lord with every decree.

[Surat ul-Qadr (97), ayah (verse) 4]

With the understanding of this doctrine of sinning angels, there is a theological problem with the Christian. Since angels sin, then how can we be sure that the texts that we have, be they the Bible, the Qur’an or any other book, is from God and not Satan, who himself was an angel according to the Christian texts.

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

[2 Corinthians 11:14]

How then can we know that the texts that we have are from God at all, for how are we sure that the angels did not change it, alter it or even lie and lead the human race astray. As a Christian, you may say, ‘If you look at the Bible, then you will know what is the truth.’ However, who revealed the Bible? God has entrusted a great deal of revelatory data to ANGELS, who then gave it unto us through messengers or visions. But the main point is that the angels are in many instances the intermediaries in the process of revelation.

Therefore, to repeat the question again, how will you know truly the definition of salvation, revelation, truth, righteousness and many other spiritual necessities if you cannot even be sure whether the angels that you are trusting are part of the one third that Satan took with him when he was expelled from heaven or they are righteous ones? How will you trust the angels and in which angels will you put your trust when you hold the belief of sinning angels?

And then the Prophets ...Glory be to God, Prophets bring guidance not misguidance.

Allah guides whom He wills to the straight path.

JoeChristian

29th November 2004, 20:33

Marat,

With the understanding of this doctrine of sinning angels, there is a theological problem with the Christian. Since angels sin, then how can we be sure that the texts that we have, be they the Bible, the Qur’an or any other book, is from God and not Satan, who himself was an angel according to the Christian texts.Christians and Jews don't believe that their holy books were given to them by angels, so this isn't an issue. Rather, Christians and Jews believe that their holy books were produced by men who spoke as the Holy Spirit of God (not the angel Gabriel, but God's own Spirit) moved them. Since God never lies, then neither do the scriptures, as they are God-breathed.

--Joe

Ron

29th November 2004, 23:33

Peace JoeChristian,

Some say that the genealogy presented in Luke's is actually Mary's, not Joseph's, and that Luke used Joseph's name instead of Mary's because the proper form at the time was to include no women's names in a genealogy.
The two geneologies are not a match, this is quite obvious. As for the claim that it is Mary's geneology but her name was not mentioned is wrong because there are 4 women's names in Jesus' geneology: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheeba. Clearly no one was shy to mention these names why would they shy from naming Mary? As for Joseph we all agree that he is not the father of Jesus so what is the significance in giving his lineage?

Regards

JoeChristian

30th November 2004, 00:05

Ron,

As for the claim that it is Mary's geneology but her name was not mentioned is wrong because there are 4 women's names in Jesus' geneology: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheeba. Clearly no one was shy to mention these names why would they shy from naming Mary?What I said was that in Luke's genealogy there were no women mentioned. It's Matthew's genealogy that contains women, too.

As for Joseph we all agree that he is not the father of Jesus so what is the significance in giving his lineage?Because he's still Jesus' father by levitical law.

--Joe

Ron

30th November 2004, 02:13

Peace JoeChristian,

Because he's still Jesus' father by levitical law.
Please show me the basis for this claim.

Regards

JoeChristian

30th November 2004, 17:09

Ron,

What kind of basis are you looking for? I can find several web sites that say this is so, but I don't know if you're looking for a particular kind of proof.

--Joe

Ron

30th November 2004, 22:30

Peace JoeChristian,

What kind of basis are you looking for? I can find several web sites that say this is so, but I don't know if you're looking for a particular kind of proof.
If it is "Levitical law" then it should be in the Old Testament maybe the Talmud. Web sites are irrelavant.

Regards

JoeChristian

30th November 2004, 23:15

Ron,

I found two things of interest online.

First, I have found a dozen or so web sites which say, "The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4)," but I cannot find the Jerusalem Talmud itself online to verify this. The verse in the Talmud is apparently part of a Jewish vision of the damned which reads, "I saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades." Can't be sure this is the same Mary we're talking about, however.

Second, while I can't find anything specific to the first century, I did find an article at JewishEncyclopedia.com which reads, "From Abraham, the father of Mordecai ("Lebushim"), came the Jaffe branch proper, while another Mordecai, the son of Moses Jaffe, settled in Cracow, where he married the daughter of Joel Singer and assumed the name of his father-in-law, in accordance with the custom current among the Jews of Poland." If anything, this is an instance in which the son-in-law assumed the name (and lineage) of the father-in-law in modern times, which lends some credence to the notion of Joseph's legitimately claiming the lineage of Mary's father Heli in 1st-century times.

--Joe

The_Other_Admin

3rd December 2004, 02:18

hawk

26th February 2005, 02:53

I haev just one point to make,

Doesnt it sound like too much of a coincidence that in the Koran

The father of Mary is called Imraan
and called sister of Aaron.
in the same verse.

But the Father of Miriam (moses sister) was really Imraan.
And she was the sister of Aaron.

Also I have often heard the explanation as being that the Prophet said people of Old , were named this way.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html

But apparently the Arabic word really only means blood sister.
Can someone clarify this?

Hischam Khan

26th February 2005, 10:17

Hawk,

“Doesnt it sound like too much of a coincidence that in the Koran

The father of Mary is called Imraan
and called sister of Aaron.
in the same verse.

But the Father of Miriam (moses sister) was really Imraan.
And she was the sister of Aaron.”If I were to say that I know a friend whose name is Jafar, who has a brother named Ali and that this brother has sons named Hassan and Hussain, would you say that this is "too much of a coincidence"? Nevermind “too much”, would you even call it a “coincidence”? This should answer your doubts.

“But apparently the Arabic word really only means blood sister.
Can someone clarify this?”Says who?

hawk

26th February 2005, 17:01

Hawk,

If I were to say that I know a friend whose name is Jafar, who has a brother named Ali and that this brother has sons named Hassan and Hussain, would you say that this is "too much of a coincidence"? Nevermind “too much”, would you even call it a “coincidence”? This should answer your doubts.

Interesting ,except that in the Bible we are told she is the daughter of Heli, to my mind, and because the people living at that time, the gospel writers saw no reason to lie about such a thing, even if you consider that they lied about the divinity of Christ.
Thus I see no reason to not trust them, and see more reason to not trust the Koran in this regard, after all Mohammed could have made a mistake.

Also this is backed up by Jerusalem Talmud, Haggigah, Book 77,4.

Hischam Khan

27th February 2005, 18:35

“Interesting ,except that in the Bible we are told she is the daughter of Heli, to my mind, and because the people living at that time, the gospel writers saw no reason to lie about such a thing, even if you consider that they lied about the divinity of Christ.
Thus I see no reason to not trust them, and see more reason to not trust the Koran in this regard, after all Mohammed could have made a mistake.”Most Christians according to my understanding reject the interpretation that says that she was the daughter of “Heli”. There are many interpretations on all this and I have my own which I reckon might be quite sound. Still, I am not so much interested in giving it because it seems obvious that we will never know with much certainty what the case was. For us Muslims, this is no problem because Muhammad (p) unlike the gospel writers whom I consider “historians” was receiving revelation direct from God and thus it is nothing but the truth. The Qur’an however does not give much detail and it was obviously not connected to its message and thus unnecessary. However, the Gospel writers also give very little detail which is why Christians also have felt that we should not probe into this thing relying too much on assumptions. If the person who started this thread was attempting to point out an “error” in the Qur’an then this hardly cuts seeing as he himself cannot say much on the topic with any degree of certainty.

If however, you do want to probe further into this, let me know and I’ll see what I can do Inshallah. Heck, I’m sure you will anyway.

Only my view…

Guest

14th June 2005, 23:02

Vdings mentioned this hadith:

Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Now, can someone please explain how this doesnt show our prophet in a negative light? Ron?

*hoping*

Exioce

14th June 2005, 23:52

hawk

15th June 2005, 01:55

i want to take you on a mental journey, if you will allow...

there's been a battle between the Muslims and non-Muslims, in which the former are victorious. the women of the latter - whose husbands, brothers and fathers have just been killed - now find themselves at the mercy of the Muslims. they are traumatised, extremely afraid, and by the way the victorious men are looking at them they have an idea of what's coming next.

but maybe, just maybe, the man commanding the victors is a good man who will not allow them to be violated. they hope and pray to whatever gods they believe in that he keep them safe.

"oh Prophet of Allah, we are 'suffering' the absence of our wives" someone says :rolleyes:

"but if we get them pregnant their ransom value will decrease" adds another.

and so the man commanding the victors thinks a moment, while the women wait terrified hoping for the lesser of two evils - to be ransomed back rather than raped. except the man commanding the victors hits upon an ingenious solution.

"do what you want with them, but pull out before you ejaculate"

if the ordeal suffered by the women of Bosnia made you burn in anger, so should this. these women were no less human, they suffered no less. how can a man who is good ever condone the violation of women?

Actually he says...dont bother pulling out, since every child that must be born will be born, the truth is that he allows the violation with no restrictions.

But why bring this up...these are ahadith, and they are not infallible as every muslim will tell you.
In short they will say that this event never occurred.
Or occurred differently, and the people narrating it are liars.

However this ahadith is supported by the Koran, whcih says "And you may have those women that your right hand possesses"

Thus the victims of Bosnia, and they are victims of a horrendous crime, by my estimation, can not be considered victims by muslims, since the Koran supports the idea.

Some muslims will say "right hand possesses , means slaves"
Others will say "if you must have sex with them, then you must marry the slaves"

None of these things is true, we must look at the meaning of what right hand possesses means, and whether bounty prizes would fall under this defintion.

The "right hand" is the hand of strength, any thing you possess by your strength is considered under your right hand. Certainly women prisoners of war are possessed by your strenth

I rest my case!

Ron

15th June 2005, 03:12

Salam Haroon,

Please understand that I am not going to try to ease your mind about this. I will try to explain it and you may ponder over it. In situations like these I'd prefer that you inquire about it on the main site but I'll try.

Firstly, you must understand that the 7th century Arabs had some good customs and some really vile and disgusting ones. Burying new born girls, dividing women as inheritance of a dead man, taking women as they please, slavery, etc...These were their norms. Today things have changed, it's obvious. We read these things with distaste in our mouths as if swallowed something foul when we mouthed the words. So if you hold onto that you can begin to analyze the hadith. Remember, I'm not saying that this hadith is the truth. I am only explaining to my understanding.
The Muslims were in a battle in which women were taken captive. As was the custom the victors took their prisoners of war and made them their slaves. Since these were women slaves they were freed, ransomed, or kept as concubines. In this case the men wanted to perform `azl so that they could ransom the women. So they went to the Prophet (P) to ask about this. His reply was that regardless of what they did a pregnancy will occur or not occur with the will of God.

Now let us take Exioce's journey:

they are traumatised, extremely afraid, and by the way the victorious men are looking at them they have an idea of what's coming next.
This is quite true. All the combatants and even the women who joined them to see the fight knew the result of a win or loss. This was a matter of reality for all at that time in that place. This may not be a good analogy but it's like deciding to go into a lion's den. Even the Crocodile Hunter knows the danger and potential outcome of such a thing. So it was not secret and no surprise...besides the Arab woman had a particular role that they played in the battle. One of them is to urge their warrior men on, so they knew the stakes.

but maybe, just maybe, the man commanding the victors is a good man who will not allow them to be violated. they hope and pray to whatever gods they believe in that he keep them safe.
Impossible. Such an expectation of any man would not only destroy the very mission but could possibly result in detriment to the very message that would end this completely. It is not a realistic request based on the international norms of that era. This was too widespread to simply cut off.

and so the man commanding the victors thinks a moment, while the women wait terrified hoping for the lesser of two evils - to be ransomed back rather than raped. except the man commanding the victors hits upon an ingenious solution.
Unfortunately, the journey has taken a wrong turn. No one asked the Prophet what they should do, whether to ransom or otherwise. This was not the matter. It was in regards to `azl that they approached him. So to place the women's destinies in the Prophet's hands is not true and unfair. Their outcomes were dictated by the norms which all were party to.

"do what you want with them, but pull out before you ejaculate"
Yet again, the misdirection of the journey. The Prophet neither says "do what you want with them" as in do whatever, nor does he say make sure you "pull out." These statements are not even implicit. In the first, he's not saying do what you want, rather he is saying whether you "pull out" or not the result in not a matter for them to decide. And as for the second he does not in any way suggest "pulling out." He says the matter is for God.

if the ordeal suffered by the women of Bosnia made you burn in anger, so should this. these women were no less human, they suffered no less. how can a man who is good ever condone the violation of women?
Any suffering such as this to any persons should make us "burn" inside. We don't want suffering for anything. In today's times our sensibilities have changed. We see things differently. Slavery is an awful thing, but ask someone a few hundred years ago or more...they'd think you're wierd. The point is that it depends on perspective. As for the women in Bosnia, though I understand, it's a bit different. Firstly, this was in the 1990's. It was against international norms not the norms of society. Secondly, those committing the crimes were doing so as a part of a campaign for ethnic cleansing. They wanted to wipe out the Muslim populace by raping and impregnating women so that either no one would marry them and/or their offspring would somehow wash away who they were. Thirdly, the battle was brought to these women...they did not join the battle. Though this may sound awful, one has to keep in mind the reality of the situation of Arabia and why women joined men in war.

I think one should not despair and see things in perspective. I personally rely on the Qur'an and its attitude towards slavery. If this story doesn't sit well with you and it seems unlikely, no one can force you to believe it.

Regards

Dragonlady

15th June 2005, 04:39

Joe/Vdings
This may be helpful
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/geneal.htm

Vdings,
Mary's father as Joachim was actually referred to in the 'Infancy gospel of JAMES' not the 'Infancy gospel of Thomas'.

I think that Mohammed confused the names.
Consider the Hadith from Sahih Muslim, related by Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, #5326, which says:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "Sister of Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: "They (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them." [Sahih Muslim, translated by Abdul Siddiqi].

Wouldn't the Christians of Najran realise that 'sister of Aaron' was metaphorical if it was common for 'people of the old age' to give names 'after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them'? They knew the Christian and Jewish religious stories. If this metaphorical naming was common, why did they not recognise it? Why did they object?

How come Shu'bah did not know that it was common for 'people of the old age to give names after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them'? He had to ask Mohammed, because he didn't know how to answer these people.

It seems that both the Christians of Najran and Shu'bah took the 'Sister of Harun' to be literal only. And why Aaron, why not Moses, who was more famous and pious then Aaron?

Can anyone show other instances of people being called brother or sister of " " in the Quran where there are several generations seperating them? (Excluding 'brotherhood' etc) Where in the Bible can we find a 'sister' of someone, where they are seperated by hundreds of years?

:confused:

newsX

15th June 2005, 06:04

hawk

15th June 2005, 06:27

You know, I cannot believe that this thread went on for so long without a single Muslim realizing that the verse vdings gave:

"Behold! wife of Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service ... When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!" ... "... I have named her Mary ..."
-- Sura 3:35-36 "

...is wrong...another woeful example of TMS!

You muslims are a krack job, I must say.

PS: I've made bold the relevant section for those who are still clueless. And TMS means Typical Muslim Scholarship.

(Remember) when the wife of 'Imran said: My Lord! I have vowed unto Thee that which is in my belly as a consecrated (offering). Accept it from me. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower!

--Pickthall

When a woman of Imran said: My Lord! surely I vow to Thee what is in my womb, to be devoted (to Thy service); accept therefore from me, surely Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing.

--Shakir

Behold! a woman of 'Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: For Thou hearest and knowest all things."

--Yusuf Ali

I thought I would post 3 popular translations, to show how muslims have understood it.

It might be helpful to examine the arabic words too...just to get a good idea of what it might really mean.

Ron

15th June 2005, 13:13

Hello Dragonlady,

Where in the Bible can we find a 'sister' of someone, where they are seperated by hundreds of years?
I'll give you a hint and then you have to look it up. Jesus is the son of David right? How many years separate them?

Regards

hawk

15th June 2005, 14:22

Hello Dragonlady,

I'll give you a hint and then you have to look it up. Jesus is the son of David right? How many years separate them?

Regards

Salaam Ron,

He would then be known as Brother of David, right?

Peace

Ron

15th June 2005, 14:41

Hawk,

He would then be known as Brother of David, right?
Are you trying to be simple? What does the Bible say?

Regards

hawk

15th June 2005, 16:22

Hawk,

Are you trying to be simple? What does the Bible say?

Regards

17 verses in the New Testament describe Jesus as the "son of David". What does this mean? How could Jesus be the son of David if David lived approximately 1000 years before Jesus? The answer is that Christ was the fulfillment of the prophesy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:14-16). Jesus was the promised Messiah, which was of the seed of David. Matthew 1 gives the genealogical proof that Jesus was a direct descendant of Abraham, and David through Joseph, Jesus' legal father. The Jews would question the lineage and Jesus' right to the throne of David, although not fulfilled until the Millennial Kingdom. So when Christ was referred to as the Son of David it was meant to refer to His Messianic title as the Old Testament prophesied concerning Him.

I dont know where you are going with this.

But Son of Something meant that you have a close connection with that thing.

It meant something to the jews, it had a connotation.

However Sister of Something...means nothing.
It never meant anyhting to the jews, or the christians that confronted Mohammed.

Abrarur

15th June 2005, 17:04

Consider the Hadith from Sahih Muslim, related by Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, #5326, which says:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "Sister of Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: "They (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them." [Sahih Muslim, translated by Abdul Siddiqi].

Wouldn't the Christians of Najran realise that 'sister of Aaron' was metaphorical if it was common for 'people of the old age' to give names 'after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them'? They knew the Christian and Jewish religious stories. If this metaphorical naming was common, why did they not recognise it? Why did they object?

The People of Isreal used to call people by either their last names, or by adding words such as you "Son of..." or "Brother of...." or "Sister of...." When they called people "O Son of...." they didn't mean for that person to be the actual biological son of the person whom they used his name. The other person could be a simply in the family tree or a last name.

umm.does the people of Israel include the Christians of Najran?I think the people of Israel is meaning the Jews who have been described as people of the old age.

They knew the Christian and Jewish religious stories. If this metaphorical naming was common, why did they not recognise it? Why did they object?

if they had known the religious stories of Christians and Jews they wouldn't have objected.

Dragonlady

16th June 2005, 04:37

umm.does the people of Israel include the Christians of Najran?I think the people of Israel is meaning the Jews who have been described as people of the old age.

Are you addressing this question to me? If so, why? You are using a quote WHICH DID NOT COME FROM ME...If you wish to address what I actually said, that's great, if not please don't waste my time.

if they had known the religious stories of Christians and Jews they wouldn't have objected.

Obviously this shows they did know the religious stories of the Jews and Christians, which is why they objected! They didn't recognise the term as being metaphorical.
Can you show an example of anyone else being called 'sister of'... in the Bible?

Yahya Sulaiman

16th June 2005, 04:39

Dragonlady

16th June 2005, 04:46

Did it not occur to you that the "sister of" figure of speech may not have (and indeed, I'm pretty sure did not) come about in the time in which the Bible was written, but later on, between the time when the Bible was written and the time when the Koran was dictated?

Hello Yahya,
Did it occur to you that if that were correct, the people of the old age would never in fact have said 'Sister of Harun' as that term would not have been invented then...

hawk

16th June 2005, 05:09

Hello Yahya,
Did it occur to you that if that were correct, the people of the old age would never in fact have said 'Sister of Harun' as that term would not have been invented then...

You go girl!

:strong: :strong: :strong: :strong: :strong: :strong: :strong:

:)

Peace Yahya, I dont mean to offend you.

Salah al-Din

16th June 2005, 07:16

It is clear that Mary WAS figuratively
a "O SISTER OF AAROON" - WHY?
Because both the Bible and Quran agree she was a LEVITE i.e. a member of the tribe of hereditary "cohens" or "priests" in Judaism. (All
ultimately descendants of Aaroon)

How do I know this? Mary's cousin was Elizabeth
whom we are told "belonged to a priestly family"
(Luke 1:5, 36). See also Quran 3:35-36 (stating
Mary was descendent of priestly line of Imran).

A female descendent of the hereditary priesthood could quite properly be called a "sister of Aaroon!

NOW!!!LET US SEE THE REAL ERRORS IN UR "PERFECT BIBLE" SHALL WE???!!!

II Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
I Chronicles 1:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen

I Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
I Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses

Ezra 2:5 talks about an exile Arah having 775 sons.
Nehemiah 7:10 talks about the same exile Arah having 652 sons.

II Samuel 24:13 So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I Chronicles 21:11 SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

Who was Josiah's successor?
Jehoahaz - 2 Chronicle 36:1
Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11

AND LET US SEE WHAT THIS CHRISTIAN FELLOW SAID:

"Christians readily admit, however, that there have been 'scribal errors' in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist."

"Because we are dealing with accounts which were written thousands of years ago, we would not expect to have the originals in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated long ago. We are therefore dependent on the copies taken from copies of those originals, which were in turn continually copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the copying were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names, and the other had to do with numbers."

"Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us." (http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html) (http://)

WOULD U STILL BELIEVE IN YOUR "PERFECT BIBLE"???

Salah al-Din

16th June 2005, 07:38

TO ALL TRINITARIANS:

WHERE DID JESUS A.S EVER MENTIONED THAT ACCEPTING HIM AS YOUR SAVIOR CAN FREE ALL OF YOU FROM THE BONDAGE OF SIN??WHERE???

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right. (From the NIV Bible, James 2:8)"

"The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (From the NIV Bible, Galatians 5:14)"

READ:

Luke 10
25. On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26. "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27. He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " 28. "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

and another person asked Jesus A.S:

Luke 18
18. A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 19. "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
20. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.' "
21. "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.
22. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
23. When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.
24. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!
25. Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
26. Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
27. Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."
28. Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"
29. "I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God
30. will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

YOU SEE.....did Jesus A.S ever mentioned that believing in your concept of Salvation can save a person from entering Hell???

hawk

16th June 2005, 12:51

For the Son of man also has not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as redemption for many.
Mark 10:35-45

Ron

16th June 2005, 13:53

Dragonlady,

Can you show an example of anyone else being called 'sister of'... in the Bible?
First let us understand how "sister" is used in the Old Testament. According to The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon it is used as thus:

'achowth - Noun Feminine - Strong's 0269
sister
a. sister (same parents)
b. half-sister (same father)
c. relative
1. (metaph) of Israel's and Judah"s relationship
d. beloved
1. bride
e. (fig.) of intimate connection
f. another
Now considering that "sister" can be used in various ways, then we should support that with Biblical scripture.

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold. -Job 42:11 (KJV)

Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman: -Proverbs 7:4

We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for? -Song of Solomon 8:8 (KJV)

And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. -Jeremiah 3:7

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. -Jeremiah 3:8

And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD. -Jeremiah 3:10

As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. -Ezekiel 16:48

I think this should suffice that the word "sister" can be used in various ways indicating descendants, family, relative, even wife.

Regards

hawk

16th June 2005, 14:17

I think this should suffice that the word "sister" can be used in various ways indicating descendants, family, relative, even wife.

Peace Ron,
Sister is used for contemporaries of various nature.

But daughter is used for descendants.

Ron

16th June 2005, 15:32

Peace Ron,
Sister is used for contemporaries of various nature.

But daughter is used for descendants.
When Judah or Israel is referred to as "sister" does it not mean descendants? If you noticed "sister" can mean "beloved" thus it could refer any number of people or group of people, past or present. Regardless, the point I think is clear that "sister," "brother" connote different things.

Regards

Salah al-Din

16th June 2005, 17:59

hey hawk ....regarding the sister of Aaron issue....u can get the answers here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html

now....can u please respond as to why are there errors in your PITIFUL BIBLE???hmmm??

II Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
I Chronicles 1:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen

I Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
I Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses

Ezra 2:5 talks about an exile Arah having 775 sons.
Nehemiah 7:10 talks about the same exile Arah having 652 sons.

II Samuel 24:13 So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I Chronicles 21:11 SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

Who was Josiah's successor?
Jehoahaz - 2 Chronicle 36:1
Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11

CAN YOU???? come on....be honest.....U CANNOT!!!!!!

Salah al-Din

16th June 2005, 18:50

hawk....could u do me a favor???when did Luke lived??at what period??

Ron

17th June 2005, 01:56

Salam Salah al-Din,

now....can u please respond as to why are there errors in your PITIFUL BIBLE???hmmm??
Please refrain from such insults. You are welcomed to have a discussion but please no slurs.

Regards

hawk

17th June 2005, 02:33

When Judah or Israel is referred to as "sister" does it not mean descendants? If you noticed "sister" can mean "beloved" thus it could refer any number of people or group of people, past or present. Regardless, the point I think is clear that "sister," "brother" connote different things.

Regards

Ron,
Both you and I know that Judah and Israel are sister nations.

It does not refer to the people living in them, or descendants.

Peace.

Salah al-Din

17th June 2005, 02:49

heheh sorry bout that Ron...just can't help it....he called the Holy Quran silly........i'll try not to be harsh though....... :guilty:

Ron

17th June 2005, 02:54

Salam Salah al-Din,

heheh sorry bout that Ron...just can't help it....he called the Holy Quran silly........i'll try not to be harsh though.......
Thank you for understanding. As for calling the Qur'an any names...then it is my belief that he will bear the burden of his insults.

Regards

Ron

17th June 2005, 02:59

Hawk,

Both you and I know that Judah and Israel are sister nations.
What is your point? The word sister is used for other than blood female relative who is the daughter of your mother and father.

It does not refer to the people living in them, or descendants.
First of all you're wrong. It's talking about Judah and Israel but not referring to the people? Who is it referring to the other creatures? Don't go to lengths that are unprovable just because you are wrong about something. Admit it and move on. Second, I showed you all those examples of usage and this is all you can come up with? Do you think there is an expression in the entire Hebrew language that may not have been spoken in the Bible? Think about it.

Regards

hawk

17th June 2005, 03:10

hawk

17th June 2005, 03:13

First of all you're wrong. It's talking about Judah and Israel but not referring to the people? Who is it referring to the other creatures? Don't go to lengths that are unprovable just because you are wrong about something. Admit it and move on. Second, I showed you all those examples of usage and this is all you can come up with? Do you think there is an expression in the entire Hebrew language that may not have been spoken in the Bible? Think about it.

Regards

Ron,

The USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Enterprise are sister ships.
We are referring to the Ships are entities, in the same way that we refer to the nations of Judah and Israel as sister nations!

Come now, realise that you are tilting at windmills, believe what you want, but you cannot show that "sister of Aaron" should be a title applied to Mary.

Peace.

Ron

17th June 2005, 03:27

Hawk,

The USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Enterprise are sister ships.
We are referring to the Ships are entities, in the same way that we refer to the nations of Judah and Israel as sister nations!
If you would pause for a moment your over-zealousness you'd realize you're arguing with yourself. Did I say it didn't refer to that? Aren't I the one that posted the meaning and the verses...so here you come repeating what I said and making it seem as if you made a point. Pause.

Come now, realise that you are tilting at windmills, believe what you want, but you cannot show that "sister of Aaron" should be a title applied to Mary.
Why shouldn't it? Have you proved otherwise? Can you tell us the geneology of Mary? I'll give you a hint, she was a relative of Elizabeth. After you figured all this out come back and tell me if the title "sister of Aaron" fits or not.

Regards

hawk

17th June 2005, 04:24

Why shouldn't it? Have you proved otherwise? Can you tell us the geneology of Mary? I'll give you a hint, she was a relative of Elizabeth. After you figured all this out come back and tell me if the title "sister of Aaron" fits or not.

Regards

Mary's mother was a levite, I am not seeing the connection at all, you will forgive me!

Hannah, a levite married Heli a Judite.

So you want me to call her "Sister of Aaron"

Dont you understand, "Sister of Something" doesnt mean anything!

Ron

17th June 2005, 05:28

Hawk,

Why didn't you give me the geneology? Did you look up what I asked? When you do I'll continue for now you can say it doesn't mean anything all you want. If you just want to talk then go ahead, if you'd like to an actual dialog which maybe beneficial to both and whoever else is reading then let's do this right.

Dragonlady

17th June 2005, 06:13

Quote
" If you would pause for a moment your over-zealousness you'd realize you're arguing with yourself. Did I say it didn't refer to that? Aren't I the one that posted the meaning and the verses...so here you come repeating what I said and making it seem as if you made a point."

Hawk,
I don't get it...it now sounds as though Ron is saying that the people on board the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Enterprise are in fact 'sisters'. Or at the very least related!

:confused: :confused: :confused: ;)

Salah al-Din

17th June 2005, 06:24

what are the mistakes??

and:

hawk....could u do me a favor???when did Luke lived??at what period??

Dragonlady

17th June 2005, 06:59

what are the mistakes??

and:

hawk....could u do me a favor???when did Luke lived??at what period??

C'mon, stick to the topic, which is about a mistake in the Quran! :)
Start your own thread on Luke if you like or errors in the Bible...

Now, can you or anyone show me other instances in the Quran of people being called brother or sister of " " where there are several generations seperating them? (Excluding 'brotherhood' etc) Where in the Bible can we find a 'sister' of someone, where they are seperated by hundreds of years to show they are a descendant and/or have been named after a prophet etc?

Ratatosk

17th June 2005, 06:59

Salam Salah Al-Din,

There aren't any die hard facts available, but it is generally considered that the apostle Luke lived around 35-90 BCE, approximately. Why you wanna kno?

Wa'salam

Ron

17th June 2005, 13:21

hawk

17th June 2005, 14:42

Dragonlady,

You must be ignoring my posts. Does every expression have to be in the Bible for it to be valid? "Sister" is used in various ways, much like daughter is used, especially if you look up the root of the word. Did you do the research?

Yes Ron, sister is used in many ways, but it is used for contemporaries.

That has been my whole point, and when you want to establish a connection with something you say "Son/Daughter of Something"

That establishes the closeness.

If you want to go genealogical way, i suppose I would refer you to Luke's Gospel. We believe that this gospel gives the genealogy of Mary.
But I am not sure what you are trying to show!

Yahya Sulaiman

17th June 2005, 15:06

The Gospel clearly states that it is giving Joseph's geneaology. But from what I've learned there is actually a different bloodline going for that from the one in Matthew because one goes through Heli and the other through Jacob, and one of these two (I can't remember which for sure) was supposed to be Joseph's father-in-law if you compare the bloodlines with the OT ones, and the other his actual father by birth.

hawk

17th June 2005, 15:10

II Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
I Chronicles 1:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen

I Chronicles 1:18 is a genealogy

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chron.%201:18;&version=31;

I Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
I Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses

Ezra 2:5 talks about an exile Arah having 775 sons.
Nehemiah 7:10 talks about the same exile Arah having 652 sons.

These two are somewhat more complicated so I will deal with them in the next post, and at least they are somewhat meritorious, unlike the others which just nonsense.
It is evident from a cursory glance that Salah, or who ever did not even chaeck a Bible before posting those.

II Samuel 24:13 So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I Chronicles 21:11 SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

Here is the correct verse from Samuel, once again what shocks me , is that salah goes to such great lengths to try to show contradictions that he is willing to lie and misquote scripture,
This is strange since they are trying to prove that Jews and Christians have changed scripture, by lying and twisting scripture himself, how low can you sink, salah?

13 So Gad went to David and said to him, "Shall there come upon you three [a] years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me.

Simply pathetic

Who was Josiah's successor?
Jehoahaz - 2 Chronicle 36:1
Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11

Shallum = Jehoahaz

They refer to the same person, check the commentary in any Bible
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2022:11;&version=31;

hawk

17th June 2005, 15:12

Exioce

17th June 2005, 15:18

Ron,

my apologies for the delay in replying. in addition, i realise that this is not the topic of the thread so if you would prefer to take this to another thread or privately i should be more than happy to.

the problem with the 'international norms' line of thought is that it doesn't mix with religion. if alcohol, gambling, fornication et al were wrong 1400 years ago they are wrong forevermore, irrespective of what is internationally acceptable. similarly, if the taking of women captives in wars and sex with them without their consent is fine 1400 years ago it is fine forevermore, irrespective of what is internationally acceptable.

if consistency is not maintained on such matters there is a danger of going down the Anglican Church route, elements of which today accept female and gay clergy because is it socially acceptable, even though the Bible forbids it.

moreover, it is not true that just because something is socially acceptable, men aren't able to recognise that it shouldn't be that way. take Saladin, for instance - in a time where the enslavement and slaughter of innocents was still the international norm in wars he rose above such practices. Muhammad had similar opportunities to display such mercies against innocents. at times he took it, and at times he allowed those under his command free rein. do you not think he should have done the former each and every time?

Abrarur

17th June 2005, 17:10

at times he took it, and at times he allowed those under his command free rein.

After a war his soldiers wanted to have sex witht their captives.Since Islam or Mohammad(PBUH) did not allow sex without marriage or rape he told them to marry them.I heard this story somewhere and never heard the story you posted previously.I was surprised when you guys missed the marriage part.Can you give me the source where you found that the Prophet(PBUH) allowed rape?

EDIT~hope this helps.

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

and I also found this.

Slavery in the Bible Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word "servant", "bondservant", or "manservant" instead of "slave" to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock. The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock. However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated. If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these? The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave? When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them! What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing. When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong. The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Is this true?

Exioce

17th June 2005, 17:40

the reference is Sahih Muslim Book 8 Number 3371, the whole of which can be viewed at the link below -

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html

rape is the act of intercourse without the consent of an individual. women who have just experienced the death of their loved ones do not consent to sex with their killers.

Abrarur

17th June 2005, 17:51

found one more.

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

"Book 008, Number 3371:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

from my previous post
http://www.answering-christianity.c..._possession.htm

Quoting from my link:
'Even though Allah Almighty wanted the Muslim men to honor their slave women's desires to refusing to have sex, but He at the same time did not deprive the Muslim men the right from having sex with their slave women when they desire them. If all of the man's slave women desire to not have sex with him, and he is prohibited to enter upon any of them because of that, then this would be a total deprivation for the man and his rights. So, if a man makes it clear to the slave woman or women that he could and would have sex with them if he desires them, and uses some physical force if he needed to, then the message will be sent clearly to the women and he will find Allah Almighty Forgiving and Merciful for him.

However, if the man abuses his power, and forces himself upon his slave women excessively, then he is violating Allah Almighty's command to honor the women's desires to remain chaste.'

Lamp Of Light

17th June 2005, 18:18

May Peace and Truth be with us always !

Abrarur,
I have not read this whole thread, but i had a quick comment on somthing you quoted in your post. The author of your quote is obviously ignorant (at least in some aspects) to the truth. The bible is not immoral(nor could it ever be...it is an inanimate object), rather it is people that are immoral. He should also rather have said it teaches immorality, but then he would be hard up against it in making that case... or you don't agree ?

It is because of the hardness of mens hearts that slavery existed, not because God ordained it. Likewise moses granted divorce, not because God condoned or ordained it, but because of the hardness of mens hearts. From the beginning there was never to be divorce, or even slavery. It is the wickedness of mens hearts and their distance of understanding the Lord God that bring such things about, and we must not forget that some of us are fitted to destruction...and this is to the Glory of God .... yet of we are fitted to destruction for the Glory of God, then we must be blessed despite being fitted for destruction... or you would not agree ?

We also know it is not God who changes, but people who change. It has been only recently that slavery has not been a universally accepted practice, and, in all honesty, it is still practiced even today, although it is no longer universally accepted. That sounds a positive note in my heart, that mankind, despite his wickedness, seems to be moving (in general) in the right direction, by seemingly universally admonishing the act of slavery.

All things in their due time. As human beings, we must learn to crawl, then to walk, then to run. So it is not any different with us and our spirit in relation to God. Men have to learn to crawl, to walk, then to run. I posit that when all mankind is running the race, it will be near the end time, for no longer will there need to be prophets or holy men at that stage, because all men will know and love God to some degree and teach one another. I suggest we have a long walk yet...or maybe not...but what do I know. I am just an ignorant man.

May the Glory of God fill your heart forever !

Edit:

Did I just read your last post right Abrarur ? Did you just say that it is okay for them to rape women because they are their property ? This is still the muslim outlook today ? :confused:

Salah al-Din

17th June 2005, 19:48

hawk....when did Luke lived???

Exioce

17th June 2005, 20:42

Quoting from my link:
'Even though Allah Almighty wanted the Muslim men to honor their slave women's desires to refusing to have sex, but He at the same time did not deprive the Muslim men the right from having sex with their slave women when they desire them. If all of the man's slave women desire to not have sex with him, and he is prohibited to enter upon any of them because of that, then this would be a total deprivation for the man and his rights. So, if a man makes it clear to the slave woman or women that he could and would have sex with them if he desires them, and uses some physical force if he needed to, then the message will be sent clearly to the women and he will find Allah Almighty Forgiving and Merciful for him.

However, if the man abuses his power, and forces himself upon his slave women excessively, then he is violating Allah Almighty's command to honor the women's desires to remain chaste.'

i guess it's settled then - Serbian men had a right over their Bosnian slave women. likewise, Pakistani men had a right over their Bangladeshi slave women in the 1971 war. who am i to deny these men their sexual rights over non-consenting women, which make them suffer so much? after all, it's not like their "suffering" is some kind of retarded excuse to justify rape - it's been scientifically proven that not having sex often leads to trauma and death in men.

hawk

17th June 2005, 21:31

hawk....when did Luke lived???

Salah, when you apologise for lying!

I gave you a chance, to change your post, yet you didnt bother.

Instead you ask me, where is the mistake in my post?

You have to be blind and lazy to not see the mistakes I have pointed out.

I will tell you what, for penance, you find out when luke lived, and I shall do my own research, I will not deal with you until you show some desire to post sensibly and do some research.

Salah al-Din

18th June 2005, 02:19

this is what i read:

Luke, a physician whose skills healed many of his suffering comrades, joined St. Paul on his second missionary journey, as recounted in the Acts of the Apostles. Their odyssey began in Troas, about 50 A.D...............

From:

http://members.tripod.com/~shtyetz_john/life-of-st-luke-evangelist.html

which means that he lived somewhere in the 1st century ....correct me if i'm wrong....??

Ron

18th June 2005, 04:08

Exioce,

my apologies for the delay in replying. in addition, i realise that this is not the topic of the thread so if you would prefer to take this to another thread or privately i should be more than happy to.
No problem. If that is your preference then by all means, I don't mind. I'm just going to answer here for now.

the problem with the 'international norms' line of thought is that it doesn't mix with religion. if alcohol, gambling, fornication et al were wrong 1400 years ago they are wrong forevermore, irrespective of what is internationally acceptable. similarly, if the taking of women captives in wars and sex with them without their consent is fine 1400 years ago it is fine forevermore, irrespective of what is internationally acceptable.
I don't think I disagreed with this or said anything to the contrary. In fact, this is what I have been saying. The only difference is that dealing with this wrong has to be calculated correctly. Think of it this way, being an alcoholic 1400 years ago was wrong then and it's wrong now but slowly relieving the person of this addiction then is no different than now. So whatever wrong was there then it's not that it was ok, it was that it needed to be dealt with correctly to eventually eliminate it completely. Not everything can be done cold-turkey style.

if consistency is not maintained on such matters there is a danger of going down the Anglican Church route, elements of which today accept female and gay clergy because is it socially acceptable, even though the Bible forbids it.
This implies that Islam accepted such "wrongs," which is not true. Had it been true why would such things be gradually eliminated? Drinking, gambling, slavery etc... Hence, unlike the Anglican things that were wrong did not become right or vice versa. They remained wrong all along and were eliminated.

moreover, it is not true that just because something is socially acceptable, men aren't able to recognise that it shouldn't be that way. take Saladin, for instance - in a time where the enslavement and slaughter of innocents was still the international norm in wars he rose above such practices. Muhammad had similar opportunities to display such mercies against innocents. at times he took it, and at times he allowed those under his command free rein. do you not think he should have done the former each and every time?
Where does it say it wasn't recognized as being wrong? Had it not been wrong there wouldn't be the changing of the standards of war or the example of how people are supposed to be treated as prisoners. As for Saladdin, one of the greatest warriors, then I would argue he followed in the footsteps of who he thought was greater. He didn't commit those things because that's what the religion espoused, just not in the immediate way you may like. As for the Prophet (P) you may not approve of what he did or how he did it and that's your right, but I can't argue an opinion that you hold. Afterall, it's your opinion and if you don't like something I really can't say much about that.

i guess it's settled then - Serbian men had a right over their Bosnian slave women. likewise, Pakistani men had a right over their Bangladeshi slave women in the 1971 war. who am i to deny these men their sexual rights over non-consenting women, which make them suffer so much? after all, it's not like their "suffering" is some kind of retarded excuse to justify rape
The situations don't match, I think I have explained it pretty clearly that even the Arab women knew what the outcome would be. It's simply not the same.

it's been scientifically proven that not having sex often leads to trauma and death in men.
Now that is funny.

Regards

hawk

18th June 2005, 05:24

Abrarur

18th June 2005, 06:17

The bible is not immoral(nor could it ever be...it is an inanimate object),

that's why I asked you whether those verses were true or not.Because I knew there was a chance of a presence of a mistake or mistranslation.I respect the Bible.I did not say its immoral.

[/QUOTE]Did I just read your last post right Abrarur ? Did you just say that it is okay for them to rape women because they are their property ? This is still the muslim outlook today ?[QUOTE]
I did not say it is okay to rape women .I was trying to say why the Prophet(PBUH) allowed his soldiers sex or rape with their captives after that particular battle.I am against rape and also the Shariah strictly forbids it.this is not the Muslim outlook today and it also not supposed to be the Muslim outlook today.Islam also said to free slaves.There were many slaves during the time of the prophet.And slavery could not totally be abolished.Yet it has to be so the Prophet told to free the slaves one by one.