why do jews reject jesus?

[danny ski]

Hi

Loammi and Danisky,

Whilst it is true that the Tanach is clear that everyone is responsible for their own sins, vicarious atonement is a later Christian teachings, as is trinity and literal sonship. Jesus did not teach them such things. So these erroneous doctrines cannot prove that Jesus wasn't the Israelite Messiah. The Nazarenes and Ebionites remained true to Judaism whilst accepting Jesus as Messiah. What happened in councils such as that of Nicea and how the message of Jesus got corrupted in time in the Roman Empire is another story.

Also, Jesus is reported to have been seen alive by his disciples after the attempted crucifixion, and it is also clear that he is avoiding other Jews and Romans. His behaviour is that of one who has survived crucifixion and does not want to be captured again and killed for certain this time. There is sufficient evidence to show he travelled to the lost tribes of Israel (who were taken into captivity by the Babylonians and Assyrians over have a millenium before Christ (721BC is one date), and many of them settled in Kashmir. Here is a Jewish website mentioning this:

The Mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes

It is reported that Jesus travelled there, preached to the lost tribes, got married and had children and lived to a ripe old age. Hence the prophecy in Isaiah 53:10 about seeing his offspring was fulfilled.

Peace.

Ingathering of the exiles is the core prophecy for us. Did not happen. The Temple is not standing. There's no peace. The new covenant promised through a prophet is nowhere to be seen. That's how simple it is for us.

 

[LoAmmi]

Ingathering of the exiles is the core prophecy for us. Did not happen. The Temple is not standing. There's no peace. The new covenant promised through a prophet is nowhere to be seen. That's how simple it is for us.

Yep. These are clear prophecies in the text written unambiguously.

 

[Dialogues]

Hardly, given that I only just read about what Loki is supposed to be.

 

[TG123]

salaam alaikum and shalom, Dialogues, LoAmmi and Danny Ski. I will do my best to reply to your answers in the next few days. Sorry for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

 

[TG123]

No precedent for this in the Tanach. We were told that HaShem told the prophets his intentions and didn't do things without telling them. The people were supposed to be ready for His actions. He did not say He would come as a human nor did He say He was three-in-one.

Can God not change His mind?

He could, but He would be breaking the Covenant He made with my people in doing so. So, if He did, He is a liar and not to be trusted.

I don't know if I would agree. I think God has a right to change His instructions for His people.

To the best of my ability. I make mistakes.

If you were part of a Judaic state and it went to war and committed genocide against certain people groups, you would be OK with it?

Deuteronomy 20:10-18

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

Why did people follow Joseph Smith and why were they willing to die for him? Do you believe Mormonism because of that?

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but Joseph Smith was the only one who claimed he had angels talking to him. Many of Christ's followers claimed to have seen Him.

Highly unlikely though. The authors do not identify themselves and there are enough inconsistencies that I think it's pretty obvious these were not people who witnessed events but those who recorded what they have been told with perhaps some embellishments.

I think the inconsistencies lay weight to the credibility of the Gospels. The different authors provide different narrations of the same event.

 

[TG123]

Wa alaikum salaam.

Peace be unto you also.

I have been through this already. I understand you disagree. But like I said, the Jews can and do likewise insist that the prophecies talk of the return of Elijah himself. So do they not have a valid point?

Please paste the text, and we can look at it together.

And he became 'a great nation' after their acceptance of the message of Muhammad s.a., as I said, but I understand you disagree with my explanation.

I disagree because the text makes it clear that the prophet will come from the brothers, and that the brothers are Israel. To insert Muhammad as the prophet, it is necessary to change the text.

Because, for one, the prophecy did not say Elijah will return in a vision. Secondly, some pious people see visions of Prophet Muhammad s.a., and not one of them claims that it was 'a return' of Prophet Muhammad s.a. I am sure Israelite prophets and saints were shown such visions from time to time. Thirdly, the vision was only seen by Jesus a.s. and a few disciples.

Is this the verse you are referring to?

Malachi 4:5-6

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse."

The prophecy does not say in what form Elijah will return. It says he will return before the Day of the Lord, and that he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers. There is no mention in the New Testament of people becoming reconciled by Elijah, but there certainly is record of him appearing with Jesus. The Day of the Lord has not came yet. I don't see why the appearance of Elijah could not be the fulfilling of the prophecy in Malachi.

My point was that he had followers before the attempted crucifixion, so it becomes meaningless to say he will see his offspring after a prolongation of his life, as he saw them before anyway.

He saw His spiritual offspring before and after the crucifixion and Resurrection.

Sure. Again, the point is that IF one were to take their testimony as true, it is clear evidence that Jesus survived the cross without being killed on it.

Which early Christians stated that Jesus survived the crucifixion?

First of all, let us make clear that the correct meaning of crucifixion is death on the cross. A person who is placed on a cross and taken down alive is not said to have been crucified. This is true in English as well as in Arabic. However, it is a common misunderstanding to think crucifixion means merely placing someone on the cross even if he didn't die on it, or perhaps people just aren't careful in their usage of the term.

Anyway, I believe Jesus was placed on the cross but didn't die on it. The people who are supposed to be eyewitnesses had fled the scene according to the Bible. Peter even denied and cursed Christ three times. The other disciples fled. There was a darkness in the land according to the Bible. People were afraid of their lives perhaps because of tremors and left. The vital signs were not checked in any case. So, there was no proper confirmation of death.

The only thing was the head bowing down, but this happened immediately after receiving a drink on the cross. If he died, then it would be very logical to conclude that the drink was poisoned. If however one takes into account his being seen physically alive afterwards, then one would logically conclude that the drink was drugged, most probably with an opiate, to render him unconscious so that he would appear to have died, and hence his legs would be spared and not broken, which is what happened.

The disciples fled Jesus, but evidently came back, since they witnessed His death. All of Jesus' acquaintances witnessed Him die.

Luke 23:44-49

44 It was now about the sixth hour,[e] and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour,[f] 45 while the sun's light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last. 47 Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, saying, “Certainly this man was innocent!” 48 And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts. 49 And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things.

Jesus Himself foretold that He would die on the cross.

Matthew 20:17-19
17 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, 18 “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death 19 and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”

I do not believe He would have lied to His disciples like this.

Right, so the most one can say from his account is that Jesus was placed on a cross and he appeared to have died on it.

The Gospels clearly say that He died. So does Tacitus.

How is it easy to prove when it necessitates a study of the historical and archaelogical data?

There is nothing wrong with doing some research. Go ahead, take your time.

I could do, but again, even before looking into it, it seems to me that it will end in a stalemate.

How do you know that if you don't look? The Quran states that the Thamud carved their homes out of mountains, and that the dwellings of these people can be seen and will make clear what the Quran says. There are indeed remains of large buildings that were carved out of rock in Petra and Al Hijr. Read up on them and see who made them.

Good.

Tamaam

This argument comes from not properly understanding Arabic grammar and usage. The verse doesn't say "Everything" (kulli); rather it says "from/of everything (min kulli)". It's an Arabic expression which means "many/ a lot of".
​

Let's examine other verses where this expression is used:

Indeed, I found [there] a woman ruling them, and she has been given of all things, and she has a great throne. [27:23]

And Solomon inherited David. He said, "O people, we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given from all things. Indeed, this is evident bounty." [27:16]

The expression in the verses means that all necessary things were given to them. In contrast, when the Qur'an wishes to include all things, the word from/of (min) is missing, and everything (kulli) is used on it's own, meaning there are no exceptions, viz:

"And we made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? [21:30]

Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned. [21:35]
​

I don't see why 27:23 and 27:19 are referring only all things that were given to them, and not all things in general without exceptions. Why could Solomon and the queen not have been given all things by God?

Also, if "min kulli" does not mean all things without exception, how would you explain 42:12, which states that God is knowing of all things (bi kulli)?

To Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth. He extends provision for whom He wills and restricts [it]. Indeed He is, of all things, Knowing.

We don't see "kulli", but "bikulli". So does that mean God is Knowing of most things but not all things?

28:75 states

And We will extract from every nation a witness and say, "Produce your proof," and they will know that the truth belongs to Allah , and lost from them is that which they used to invent.

The word "min kulli" is used, not "kulli". Does that mean that witnesses will be extracted from most nations, but not all nations? Who will get to avoid God's questioning, and why?

What about 50:7?

And the earth - We spread it out and cast therein firmly set mountains and made grow therein [something] of every beautiful kind,

"min kulli" is used here also. So does that mean that God made from the earth grow most, but not all, beautiful kinds of plants? If He didn't cause all of the plants to grow, who caused the other ones to take root? Is the Quran saying that God has a co-creator, who made the other beautiful plants take root?

I don't think that your explanation of "min kulli" meaning "a lot of" and not "every", is a correct one.

Again, the misunderstanding stems from not properly understanding Arabic grammar. In Arabic, there are two tenses, the past (which is perfect) and the imperfect, which applies to both the present and the future. The context will determining whether the tense is present or future or both. In the verse under consideration, it can only be the future tense (they will meet), because it is made clear there currently exists a barrier between them (which will one day be removed so they will encroach/transgress, i.e. meet.

I have yet to see a non-Ahmadiyya translation of the Quran that inserts a future, not present, tense. Corpus.quran, which provides a word-by-word Arabic translation, also states present tense.

Then the problem is the understanding of some Muslims, and not a problem with the Qur'an itself.

I have yet to see evidence that the verse says "will".

Because there was a barrier between the two seas, and they met through the canals.

Does the water not mix when it meets? Also, I don't think that either Canal was around when the Quran was written.

I have already explained that it can only be the future tense that is used, not the present.

And I have yet to see evidence, aside from your words (no offense to you) that suggests that the Quran is using future tense. I see many Muslim sources which use the present tense, including Corpus.Quran.

Peace.

You too my friend.

 

[light upon light]

The prophecy does not say in what form Elijah will return. It says he will return before the Day of the Lord, and that he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers. There is no mention in the New Testament of people becoming reconciled by Elijah, but there certainly is record of him appearing with Jesus. The Day of the Lord has not came yet. I don't see why the appearance of Elijah could not be the fulfilling of the prophecy in Malachi.

Except the Lord Jesus said explicitly that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the return of Elijah.

 

[Dialogues]

I disagree because the text makes it clear that the prophet will come from the brothers, and that the brothers are Israel. To insert Muhammad as the prophet, it is necessary to change the text.

Not really. It is quite correct linguistically to refer to the Ishmaelites as brethren or relatives of the Israelites. And this is how the prophecy was indeed fulfilled. Your insistence is based on the usage employed in other verses of the Bible, but there is nothing which clearly states that this is the only possible usage of the term. So, people who use this excuse will, one may expect, be held accountable for it.

Is this the verse you are referring to?

Malachi 4:5-6

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse."

The prophecy does not say in what form Elijah will return. It says he will return before the Day of the Lord, and that he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers. There is no mention in the New Testament of people becoming reconciled by Elijah, but there certainly is record of him appearing with Jesus. The Day of the Lord has not came yet. I don't see why the appearance of Elijah could not be the fulfilling of the prophecy in Malachi.

Because it is merely a vision shared by a few people, as already mentioned. This is a very simple point to grasp but you ignored it. Did the Elijah of the vision reconcile the hearts of fathers and children unto one another? I would say that John did so, by calling people to repentance, for if fathers repented and so did their children, and were therefore reconciled with God, they would likely be reconciled with one another as well.

He saw His spiritual offspring before and after the crucifixion and Resurrection.

Then the prophecy becomes meaningless. There remains no significance to it. Besides, the Hebrew word in it is used for one's own flesh and blood offspring.

Which early Christians stated that Jesus survived the crucifixion?

It is understandable they would avoid doing so lest they be accused of aiding and abetting a criminal in his escape.

The disciples fled Jesus, but evidently came back, since they witnessed His death. All of Jesus' acquaintances witnessed Him die.

Even if they did, not a single one of them would be close enough to be certain of his death.

Jesus Himself foretold that He would die on the cross.

It is well known that death is a metaphor for sleep (or unconsciousness).

I do not believe He would have lied to His disciples like this.

If he made it clear that he was indeed going to be killed, why did Peter not show an awareness of this? So it is questionable, as his own words of prophecy are not quoted. He is known to have spoken in parables anyway.

The Gospels clearly say that He died. So does Tacitus.

I don't recall reading anywhere that Tacitus or the people who took the story from checked the vital signs of Jesus. And even if they did, there are cases on record of people whose vital signs were checked and they were certified dead, yet they 'rose from the dead'. It is then realised that they didn't actually die; they were only presumed dead; they were mistaken for dead.

There is nothing wrong with doing some research. Go ahead, take your time.

How do you know that if you don't look? The Quran states that the Thamud carved their homes out of mountains, and that the dwellings of these people can be seen and will make clear what the Quran says. There are indeed remains of large buildings that were carved out of rock in Petra and Al Hijr. Read up on them and see who made them.

Ok, I've read some of your post on it in the other thread. What evidence do you have that the Nabateans didn't simply inhabit the dwellings of the Thamud?

I don't see why 27:23 and 27:19 are referring only all things that were given to them, and not all things in general without exceptions. Why could Solomon and the queen not have been given all things by God?

It cannot be literally ALL things anyway. They didn't have cars and helicopters or televisions for example. Even of the things available in their times, I cannot imagine where they would have kept ALL things anyway. So it is not reasonable to understand that it means literally ALL things.

Also, if "min kulli" does not mean all things without exception, how would you explain 42:12, which states that God is knowing of all things (bi kulli)?

Bi kulli is different from min kulli. I should not have had to say this to you; you should have realised it yourself.

28:75 states

And We will extract from every nation a witness and say, "Produce your proof," and they will know that the truth belongs to Allah , and lost from them is that which they used to invent.

The word "min kulli" is used, not "kulli". Does that mean that witnesses will be extracted from most nations, but not all nations? Who will get to avoid God's questioning, and why?

It is not unknown for prophets being sent nations other than their own, such as Jonah a.s. going to Ninevah for example. Moses a.s. and Aaron a.s. were not sent only to the Israelites, but also to Pharaoh and his people. Joseph a.s. was also a Messenger for the Egyptians.

What about 50:7?

And the earth - We spread it out and cast therein firmly set mountains and made grow therein [something] of every beautiful kind,

"min kulli" is used here also. So does that mean that God made from the earth grow most, but not all, beautiful kinds of plants? If He didn't cause all of the plants to grow, who caused the other ones to take root? Is the Quran saying that God has a co-creator, who made the other beautiful plants take root?

There is no cause at all for suggesting a co-creator. Not all types of vegetation grow on mountains.

I don't think that your explanation of "min kulli" meaning "a lot of" and not "every", is a correct one.

It is clear you would like it to be so, as otherwise your argument falls apart.

I have yet to see a non-Ahmadiyya translation of the Quran that inserts a future, not present, tense. Corpus.quran, which provides a word-by-word Arabic translation, also states present tense.

I have already explained that the Arabic tense used may refer to the present or the future, and why it cannot be the present tense. I am an Ahmadi Muslim, so I am not answerable for the errors of non-Ahmadis.

I have yet to see evidence that the verse says "will".

Yet I have explained it. If you know basic Arabic grammar as I do, you would have no problem with it. If you think I am being dishonest about Arabic grammar, then go ahead and prove me wrong.

Does the water not mix when it meets?

I suppose you could use that as an argument against those non-Ahmadis who erroneously think that is what it means.

Also, I don't think that either Canal was around when the Quran was written.

Precisely the point! It was a prophecy that was later fulfilled.

Peace.

 

[LoAmmi]

Can God not change His mind?


I don't know if I would agree. I think God has a right to change His instructions for His people.

He does not break His word. He gave us the Torah, told us that it was eternal, and then said that He would never divorce us. Your claim would be that He did divorce us and setup a new covenant with new people. That goes against what He said. If He is a liar, I want nothing to do with Him as I don't simply worship a being because they are powerful.

If you were part of a Judaic state and it went to war and committed genocide against certain people groups, you would be OK with it?

Deuteronomy 20:10-18

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

Were all the conditions met that this would be valid, I would be ok with it. But those are a lot of conditions that, to be honest, couldn't happen again without Messiah coming and after that I don't see that kind of war happening.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but Joseph Smith was the only one who claimed he had angels talking to him. Many of Christ's followers claimed to have seen Him.

The New Testament, written years and years later, claim that his followers made the claim. It's second hand information.

I think the inconsistencies lay weight to the credibility of the Gospels. The different authors provide different narrations of the same event.

One of whom thinks the death of Jesus happened on a different day than the other three. So, do you wish to keep John and get rid of the other three or get rid of John and keep the other three since people not knowing which day Jesus died seems to be a complete problem.

 

[smaneck]

delete

 

[TG123]

Salaam Alaikum.

Not really. It is quite correct linguistically to refer to the Ishmaelites as brethren or relatives of the Israelites. And this is how the prophecy was indeed fulfilled. Your insistence is based on the usage employed in other verses of the Bible, but there is nothing which clearly states that this is the only possible usage of the term. So, people who use this excuse will, one may expect, be held accountable for it.

Deuteronomy 18:1-3 clearly states that "brothers" is a reference to Israel. There is no reason to assume that the author who wrote Deuteronomy 18:15 wasn't the same one who also wrote Deuteronomy 18:1-3. If you can find evidence of that, please present it.

Because it is merely a vision shared by a few people, as already mentioned. This is a very simple point to grasp but you ignored it. Did the Elijah of the vision reconcile the hearts of fathers and children unto one another? I would say that John did so, by calling people to repentance, for if fathers repented and so did their children, and were therefore reconciled with God, they would likely be reconciled with one another as well.

You are correct, the Elijah in the vision did not reconcile the hearts of fathers and their children. There is no record of John the Baptist doing that either, we just know that he called many to repentance and that many were baptized.

Then the prophecy becomes meaningless. There remains no significance to it. Besides, the Hebrew word in it is used for one's own flesh and blood offspring.

Perhaps Jesus did have a wife and children that the Bible does not mention.

It is understandable they would avoid doing so lest they be accused of aiding and abetting a criminal in his escape.

By claiming this, they invited further persecution on themselves. If they wanted to protect themselves, they could have more easily disassociated themselves from Him. Yet they did not, and instead, continued to suffer persecutions.

Even if they did, not a single one of them would be close enough to be certain of his death.

His side was punctured with a spear. The Roman soldiers who were the executioners knew that Jesus was dead, so they did not break His legs.

Also, if Jesus did not die, why do you think this was never mentioned anywhere in the Bible?

It is well known that death is a metaphor for sleep (or unconsciousness).

How do you know He was speaking metaphorically? When Islam and Christianity teach that we will all die and be judged, do you believe this also means we'll just have a nap? Clearly, Jesus said He will die, and that He will resurrect.

If he made it clear that he was indeed going to be killed, why did Peter not show an awareness of this?

Peter got so upset, he tried to tell Jesus He is wrong. Jesus told him "get behind me, Satan".

Let's look at Matthew 16:21-23
21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord![e] This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance[f] to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

If Jesus was just telling His disciples that He will be going to sleep or be getting knocked out, why would Peter get so upset that he would try to rebuke Him? Why would Jesus tell him he is is setting his mind on the things of man, and not God?

Dying, especially willingly, is something that is not normal for people. People all across the ages have feared and continue to fear death, and try to prolong their lives. Human reaction to sleep and even unconsciousness, is a bit different.

So it is questionable, as his own words of prophecy are not quoted. He is known to have spoken in parables anyway.

Jesus is not quoted in Matthew 16 that He is going to be killed. But you can find Him saying that in Mark 9.

Mark 9:30-32

30 They went on from there and passed through Galilee. And he did not want anyone to know, 31 for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.” 32 But they did not understand the saying, and were afraid to ask him.

I don't recall reading anywhere that Tacitus or the people who took the story from checked the vital signs of Jesus. And even if they did, there are cases on record of people whose vital signs were checked and they were certified dead, yet they 'rose from the dead'. It is then realised that they didn't actually die; they were only presumed dead; they were mistaken for dead.

Going by that logic, there is no way to conclusively prove that anyone who is described as having died in either the Bible or Quran actually did so. We have no evidence of anyone's vital signs being checked. For all we know, the She-Camel described in Al Hijr was only wounded, went to sleep, and crawled off later.

The Bible clearly states that Jesus died. He foretold His death. The Roman soldiers stabbed Him while He was on the cross. His followers claimed He died and rose from the dead. Even Tacitus, who was a respected historian, made that claim.

Ok, I've read some of your post on it in the other thread. What evidence do you have that the Nabateans didn't simply inhabit the dwellings of the Thamud?

The buildings were dated by archaeologists to early BC and early AD. Also, it turns out that they were not homes but tombs.

It cannot be literally ALL things anyway. They didn't have cars and helicopters or televisions for example. Even of the things available in their times, I cannot imagine where they would have kept ALL things anyway. So it is not reasonable to understand that it means literally ALL things.

I think if God said He gave someone all things, it is reasonable to assume that is the case. I see no reason to believe why Solomon and the queen did not have all things that were available in their time.

Bi kulli is different from min kulli. I should not have had to say this to you; you should have realised it yourself.

So "bikulli" means the same as "kulli"?

It is not unknown for prophets being sent nations other than their own, such as Jonah a.s. going to Ninevah for example. Moses a.s. and Aaron a.s. were not sent only to the Israelites, but also to Pharaoh and his people. Joseph a.s. was also a Messenger for the Egyptians.

Sorry, I don't see how that answered the question. Is the Quran saying that only some nations will be questioned, but not all? Which ones will not be questioned, and why? After all, weren't messengers sent to all nations?

There is no cause at all for suggesting a co-creator. Not all types of vegetation grow on mountains.

The verse is saying that all vegetation grows on the earth, it didn't say vegetation grows on mountains.

And the earth - We spread it out and cast therein firmly set mountains and made grow therein [something] of every beautiful kind,

The "therein" is a reference to the earth, not the mountains.

If God created most of the plants on the earth, who created the other ones?

It is clear you would like it to be so, as otherwise your argument falls apart.

I showed you an example of where "min kulli" meant "of everything" and not "most/some".

Here is another example of "min kulli"

16:84

And [mention] the Day when We will resurrect from every nation a witness. Then it will not be permitted to the disbelievers [to apologize or make excuses], nor will they be asked to appease [Allah].

The term "min kulli" is used. So instead of from all nations, only from most nations will a witness be resurrected? From which ones will witnesses not be resurrected?

Remember, the Quran states that all nations ("kulli") were sent a messenger... 16:36.

I have already explained that the Arabic tense used may refer to the present or the future, and why it cannot be the present tense. I am an Ahmadi Muslim, so I am not answerable for the errors of non-Ahmadis.

Interestingly, only the Ahmadi translated Quran uses the future tense. All other translations use present tense. Why is the Quran so ambiguous, that it is unclear from the text whether it is present or future?

Yet I have explained it. If you know basic Arabic grammar as I do, you would have no problem with it. If you think I am being dishonest about Arabic grammar, then go ahead and prove me wrong.

I don't know Arabic grammar, but I know that all non-Ahmadi translations I have read describe this in the present tense. Corpus Quran seems to have been made by the University of Leeds Language Research Group. It is an academic source.

I suppose you could use that as an argument against those non-Ahmadis who erroneously think that is what it means.

Can you provide a scholarly site that translates the verse as referring to future tense?

Precisely the point! It was a prophecy that was later fulfilled.

How has the prophecy been fulfilled?

Peace.

Peace not police. LOL sorry I volunteer with kids in the inner city and have some friends who are very leftwing, so sometimes I hear that phrase.

Alaikum salaam my friend.

 

[smaneck]

You might the following excerpt from the book 'Ar-Raheeq al Makhtum' (The Sealed Nectar) of some interest. It is about the Jewish expectations of a prophet at the time (according to Deut 18:18), which they had told the Arabs around them, and their subsequent attitude after they recognised Muhammad s.a. as being the very prophet whom they were expecting:

Is there any reason that a Jew would accept a Muslim account of what the Jews of Medina supposedly believed?

 

[smaneck]

Because he failed.

At what?

 

[LoAmmi]

At what?

Nobody has yet to complete the messianic task. So, everybody in history who has ever died failed at it.

 

[smaneck]

I think that we have historical evidence from Tacitus that Jesus was crucified. This is also attested to in early Christian writings, even the heretical ones. Even those who rejected that He was crucified claimed that His body was put up on the cross, while His spirit remained.

Tacitus' statement made about 116 A.D. almost certainly reflects what Christians believed about Christ at the time. I don't see any indication that he had external information on this matter. But obviously the Christians believed this was the case and if Jesus existed at all we can reasonably say that he was crucified.

Why do you think people would go around saying that Jesus resurrected, if He didn't? They had a lot to lose, facing not only ostracism but also persecution for their stance.

That's a bit more complicated. Early Christians had different visions of the resurrection. I'd say they saw something.

 

[smaneck]

Did anybody mention that the idea of the messiah-as-God-Incarnate is utterly alien to Jewish theology, both before and after the 1st century CE?

In fact, there had already been several "Anointed Ones" (which is what messiah - or its Greek equivalent "Christos" - actually means) in the Bible, among them King David, and the messiah that was prophecied was pretty much expected to be a mortal leader - touched by god, sure, achieving great deeds, most certainly. But a man, not a deity.

It seems to me that the idea of Messiah got conflated with Daniel's Son of Man figure during the Hellenistic period. The Son of Man in Daniel may not have been a deity but he was clearly seen as having supernatural power.

The whole idea of the One God impregnating a virgin and becoming a part of his own creation is utterly alien to Judaism, has never been part of the messianic prophecies, and sounds a lot more like the hellenic mystery religions that existed at approximately the same time throughout the Roman empire.

I think it more likely came from Zoroastrianism. The Sayoshant or messianic figures of Zoroastrianism are supposed to all be born of virgins miraculously impregnated with the seed of Zoroaster. That is where the story of the Magi bringing gifts to the Christ child comes in.

The same goes for the whole "restoring cosmic balance by means of divine sacrifice and resurrection"-motif

Or maybe those things are part of a perennial divine truth?

 

[smaneck]

He does not break His word. He gave us the Torah, told us that it was eternal, and then said that He would never divorce us. Your claim would be that He did divorce us and setup a new covenant with new people. That goes against what He said. If He is a liar, I want nothing to do with Him as I don't simply worship a being because they are powerful.

My reading of Romans 11 is that God is still said to have a Covenant with Israel which will eventually be fulfilled.

 

[TG123]

Tacitus' statement made about 116 A.D. almost certainly reflects what Christians believed about Christ at the time. I don't see any indication that he had external information on this matter. But obviously the Christians believed this was the case and if Jesus existed at all we can reasonably say that he was crucified.

Tacitus referred to early Christians arrogantly, calling their (actually, mine also, so I will use the term "our") faith a "most mischevious superstition", "evil", and said they were a class "hated for their abominations". He said that "Christus" was the one from whom the name Christians had their origin, and that He "suffered the extreme penalty".

Why do you think Tacitus would be basing his Annals on what the Christians believed? If he did, he would have also mentioned the resurrection.

He clearly hated them. There would be no reason for him to base his account on their words.


[15.44] Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

I'm glad you acknowledge the fact Jesus was crucified. That is an important first step to becoming a Christian.

That's a bit more complicated. Early Christians had different visions of the resurrection. I'd say they saw something.

What do you think they saw? Why would Jesus not have kept His word to resurrect after dying?

 

[Dialogues]

Salaam Alaikum.

Wa alaikum salaam wa Rahmatullaah.

Deuteronomy 18:1-3 clearly states that "brothers" is a reference to Israel. There is no reason to assume that the author who wrote Deuteronomy 18:15 wasn't the same one who also wrote Deuteronomy 18:1-3. If you can find evidence of that, please present it.

It seems we are just going round in circles. I understood your point without you having to repeat it, and iirc, I said so even before you elaborated on it. But you do not seem to acknowledge even understanding my point, even if you disagree with it.

You are correct, the Elijah in the vision did not reconcile the hearts of fathers and their children. There is no record of John the Baptist doing that either, we just know that he called many to repentance and that many were baptized.

Then if you don't accept my explanation of how the reconciliation took effect, how else did it happen? Or do you believe the prophecy remained unfulfilled, and that Elijah will come to fulfill that task before the second coming of Christ, this time in person, himself, as some Christians suggest will happen, and precisely as Jews believe now as well as at the time of Jesus? If so, why didn't Jesus make this clear to the Jews that their objection was valid, but that Elijah will actually come physically later?

Perhaps Jesus did have a wife and children that the Bible does not mention.

I believe he did. But that happened in Kashmir where he went to preach to the lost tribes of Israel after his survival from the cross.

By claiming this, they invited further persecution on themselves. If they wanted to protect themselves, they could have more easily disassociated themselves from Him. Yet they did not, and instead, continued to suffer persecutions.

If they stated so clearly, they would probably have been arrested there and then, and would not have been able to do any preaching at all, so they couched it in metaphor. And if they had said it whilst Jesus was still amongst them, they would have searched and arrested him and killed him for sure this time. So it was wise of them not to declare it openly, just as it was wise of Jesus not to appear before the Jews or Romans openly after his escape from death on the cross.

His side was punctured with a spear. The Roman soldiers who were the executioners knew that Jesus was dead, so they did not break His legs.

Ever wondered why he was punctured with a spear in the first place? Was it standard Roman practice? Even if so, why and when would it be done?

Also, if Jesus did not die, why do you think this was never mentioned anywhere in the Bible?

[Hebrews 5:7] says his prayer to be saved from (actual) death was heard.

How do you know He was speaking metaphorically? When Islam and Christianity teach that we will all die and be judged, do you believe this also means we'll just have a nap? Clearly, Jesus said He will die, and that He will resurrect.

Jesus died later, like all people must die, but not on a cross. In Arabic, the word tawaffa normally means a natural death (involving the taking away of the soul from the body), but if and when qualified by the word layl (night) or naum (sleep), does not mean actual/literal death but sleep. I don't recall Jesus anywhere using the word 'resurrection' for himself at any time when talking about what would be done to him by the Jewish leaders, or even after his survival from the cross, about what had happened to him.

Peter got so upset, he tried to tell Jesus He is wrong. Jesus told him "get behind me, Satan".

No proof that it was meant to be a literal killing. Killing in Arabic as well as in English, and I am sure in Aramaic and Hebrew as well, does not necessarily have to mean a literal killing. It can refer to an attempt to kill, and is also used in the sense of boycott, as well as to reduce the effect of something.

Dying, especially willingly, is something that is not normal for people. People all across the ages have feared and continue to fear death, and try to prolong their lives.

People are willing to be martyred for their cause. Some of the disciples were crucified or stoned themselves later, and there is no mention of them beseeching God to be saved from such a death. Jesus prayed earnestly against it because he did not think it was God's will for him to be literally killed.

Going by that logic, there is no way to conclusively prove that anyone who is described as having died in either the Bible or Quran actually did so. We have no evidence of anyone's vital signs being checked. For all we know, the She-Camel described in Al Hijr was only wounded, went to sleep, and crawled off later.

Every living thing dies at some point. Everyone who was alive 200 years ago is certainly dead, as it is certain for people who walked the earth 2 millenia ago. But vital signs are required to confirm death in medical circles in our time, even if they are not absolutely sure criteria for death.

The Bible clearly states that Jesus died. He foretold His death. The Roman soldiers stabbed Him while He was on the cross. His followers claimed He died and rose from the dead. Even Tacitus, who was a respected historian, made that claim.

Tacitus did not know that the Romans failed to kill him, or that Pilate didn't want him crucified and did his best to try to save him openly. When Pilate wasn't able to succeed in his efforts openly, why would you think he would not do what was within his power to save him secretly if he could?

The buildings were dated by archaeologists to early BC and early AD. Also, it turns out that they were not homes but tombs.

They are built like homes. If they were tombs, where are/were their actual dwellings? As for dating, they may have done so on those parts of the buildings that were renovated later on by the Nabateans.

I think if God said He gave someone all things, it is reasonable to assume that is the case. I see no reason to believe why Solomon and the queen did not have all things that were available in their time.

I just have to show one verse to prove that min kulli does not have to mean 'absolutely all'. Consider this verse where the expression min kulli is used along with fruits just the same way as it is used in the verse about the honey bee concerning which you raised your original objection:

[2:266] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Does any of you desire that there should be for him a garden of palm trees and vines with streams flowing beneath it, and with all kinds of fruit for him therein — while old age has stricken him and he has weak offspring — and that a fiery whirlwind should smite it and it be all burnt? Thus does Allah make His Signs clear to you that you may ponder.

Can anyone's garden have literally and absolutely ALL kinds of fruit? [/FONT]Infact, even in the verse originally cited by you in reference to the honey bee, which also refers to all kinds of fruit, it is not possible for every bee to eat absolutely all types of fruit.

The same expression min kulli is also used in [11:40] and [23:27] for the animals that Noah was to take with him on the ark, and it is not possible for two of each and every species of (land) animals in the world to be taken on the ark. How for instance would the various land species have crossed the oceans to reach Noah in the first place (for not all species inhabit every continent)? Rather, it meant to refer to all those domesticated animals that were absolutely necessary for him to take with him on the ark (perhaps for milk).

How and with what would he have fed all the animals (a huge amount of food would be required, and storage facilities were not endless either), and how would he even have handled/kept the wild animals (would it not have required taking more than just a pair of all herbivores to feed all the carnivores)? And if you were to imagine that I am suggesting min kulli means something else only so as to counter your criticism, here is a link to a commentary which discusses a few relevant verses:

http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1077&region=E1&CR=EN,E2

Read the second paragraph of the Commentary. It is an English commentary which doesn't go into details about Arabic grammar, but it should suffice to make the point.

So, there is no question in my mind whatsoever that the Arabic expression min kulli means 'many of' or 'a lot of'. It becomes absurd to take it literally as translated by translators who wish to remain faithful to the Arabic wording (even if it compromises the meaning of the verses - it is widely recognised that a translation cannot be 100% accurate anyway, more so by Qur'an scholars). If you wish to argue that it does not necessarily mean 'many of' in all verses, even then such a meaning could still apply to the verse about the honey bee, and your original criticism is satisfactorily answered.

So "bikulli" means the same as "kulli"?

Different particles have different effects on words. What is so strange and surprising about that concept?

I showed you an example of where "min kulli" meant "of everything" and not "most/some".

Even if you were right, I just need to show one example where it doesn't mean absolutely all things. So I don't need to explain every verse where min kulli is used to your satisfaction.

Interestingly, only the Ahmadi translated Quran uses the future tense. All other translations use present tense. Why is the Quran so ambiguous, that it is unclear from the text whether it is present or future?

Not everyone understands the Qur'an correctly. The Qur'an says:

'None shall touch it save the purified ones' [56:79].

Are the academic scholars purified of heart and soul before God to the required standard?

How has the prophecy been fulfilled?

I have already explained this and can only wonder why you have a problem with understanding my explanation; whether you agree with it or not is a separate issue.

Alaikum salaam my friend.

Wa alikum salaam wa Rahmatullaah, buddy.

 

[smaneck]

Of all those cults, Christianity is the only "cult" where the person died for another's sins.

Not so sure about that.

"That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men. The purpose of God, moreover, was to sacrifice him as a ransom for the sins and iniquities of all the peoples of the earth. This same honor, Jesus, the Son of Mary, besought the one true God, exalted be His name and glory, to confer upon Him. For the same reason was Husayn offered up as a sacrifice by Muhammad, the Apostle of God.
No man can ever claim to have comprehended the nature of the hidden and
manifold grace of God; none can fathom His all-embracing mercy. Such hath been the perversity of men and their transgressions, so grievous have been the trials that have afflicted the Prophets of God and their chosen ones, that all mankind deserveth to be tormented and to perish. God's hidden and most loving providence, however, hath, through both visible and invisible agencies,
protected and will continue to protect it from the penalty of its wickedness.
Ponder this in thine heart, that the truth may be revealed unto thee, and be
thou steadfast in His path." Baha'u'llah, Gleanings 75-76.