Thread: Evidence of prophecy

Greetings Sarah, you asked why a Christian believes you disrespect Jesus by referring to Him as son of Mary. I gave you an answer according to the Bible why it is so disrespectful. You do not like or agree with the answer that is your choice and one upon yourself to pay for. The Bible is the authority on Jesus weather you like it or not.

Quote

Originally Posted by sarah_

Referring to Jesus as the son of Mary, is absolutely correct and in no way disrespectful, because Jesus, may peace be upon him had no father. God created him in a miraculous way, without a father. You say // Everyone has a father...// Not true. Adam, may peace be upon him, had no father and no mother. God does what He wills, He just says “Be” and it is.

It may seem correct to you because you have always believed it. May I ask how many other prophets in the Quran are referred to as sons of their mothers and not sons of their fathers? The fact Adam was created without a mother or father is totally irrelevant to the point in hand. To infer by the fact that because God created Adam without any parents somehow elevates him in importance to Jesus who had a human mother shows a lack of understanding about why the virgin birth was necessary or why Jesus was born of a human mother. I can understand your confusion because the Quran does address this most important issue. It recognises the fact of the birth but does not tell you why it had to be this way. Do you think God could have created Jesus as Adam was created as a fully grown man without recourse to either man or woman? Of course He could, because we understand that nothing is impossible with God. There's is a lot more behind the birth of Jesus than God just saying Be and it is.

Quote

//However, as the Quran recognizes the virgin birth and Jesus as the Messiah whilst at the same time cannot accept that the father of Jesus was God.//

Quote

The father of Jesus was not God. Jesus was created miraculously without a father. The term son of God is used metaphorically in the Bible as an expression to magnify people or to glorify someone on a certain occasion. Other people in the Bible are called sons of God too.

yes of course there are :) However, that does not detract from the way the term Son is used in relation to Jesus. Or even Jesus' own claims by speech and actions.

Quote

I’ll leave you with these verses from the Quran for now :)

Quote

They said, "The Most Gracious has begotten a son"! You have uttered a gross blasphemy. The heavens are about to shatter, the earth is about to tear asunder, and the mountains are about to crumble. Because they claim that the Most Gracious has begotten a son. It is not befitting the Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Every single one in the heavens and the earth is a servant of the Most Gracious. He has encompassed them, and has counted them one by one. All of them will come before Him on the Day of Resurrection as individuals. [19:88-95].

You do indeed utter blasphemy by making this claim. Begotten as it implies the term here is not how the term begotten is understood in the Bible. I am at least grateful that you did not share Sura 72:3 where it mentions wife in relation to God...!!!! That is blasphemy, and no Christians have ever believed it. Which strangely I think God would have known that fact.

Quote

"He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' Such was Jesus the son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is" [19:30-35].

That's why I believe the words of Jesus in the Bible over the Quran. Unless the translation suffers from Arabic to English, this sura makes no sense why Jesus would say such things. Jesus and Isa in the Quran bear no resemblance to each other that I can tell. Jesus was the only sinless being to walk this earth... As lying is a sin we can take it as read that Jesus never lied and always told the truth. So I will have to go with the words of Jesus Himself on this one. :)

Anyway, this thread is about the evidence of prophecy... I feel we have gone off on a tangent here.. Oops .. I'm always doing that. My bad. :)

blessings

Quote

Originally Posted by pandora

yes of course there are :) However, that does not detract from the way the term Son is used in relation to Jesus. Or even Jesus' own claims by speech and actions.

You do indeed utter blasphemy by making this claim. Begotten as it implies the term here is not how the term begotten is understood in the Bible.

Dear Pandora,

this tells me that you don’t know much about the Bible :) . It’s ok, this forum will be a good opportunity to learn :). "Jesus own claims"? Jesus never called himself the son of God in the Bible. Find one verse where Jesus says “I am the son of God” You can’t! There is NONE!!!

Also Jesus in the Bible tells us that his father is also our father, :
[John 20:17] Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'

Now let us check about the word “begotten” .
You say: “begotten as it implies the term here is not how the term begotten is understood in the Bible.” Here I bring you information from the dictionary for what does the word “begotten” mean:

Adj. 1. begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child".

I hope you realize how wrong and blasphemous is to use this word. The Greek word, from which this was translated is “monogenes” and it means, one kind, special unique etc. This word “monogenes” is used in other verses in the Bible such as in Hebrews 11:17 where Abraham’s son is mentioned. Abraham had two sons and if we were to translate the word “monogenes” that is used here to “begotten” we can see it doesn’t make sense because Abraham had two sons. The correct translation is “unique"or "one kind", meaning unique in a way. Jesus may peace be upon him was unique in many ways, one of those is that he was created without a father and also he will come back again before the judgment day etc.

May Allah guide you :)

Quote

Originally Posted by sarah_

Dear Pandora,

this tells me that you don’t know much about the Bible :) . It’s ok, this forum will be a good opportunity to learn :). "Jesus own claims"? Jesus never called himself the son of God in the Bible. Find one verse where Jesus says “I am the son of God” You can’t! There is NONE!!!

Greetings Sarah, first off, just to say being patronising will get you nowhere.. :) in order to understand what Jesus claimed, you have to know Jesus through His mission. You will not find this in the Quran, because Isa of the Quran is a pale imitation of Jesus... Has none of His charisma or qualities. There are many ways making a declaration of something than just coming out with a bold claim or direct statement. A selection of verses for your perusal.. If you check the web site link you can view the verses in more detail.. Or not as you prefer.

Does Jesus in fact say that He is God’s Son, not just infer it?


Mark says it at the outset of his gospel (1:1).


The angel told Mary her child would be the Son of God (Luke 1:35).... (Btw .. This was Gabriel.. The very same angel that brought Mohammed his revelation.. Are we to assume that this Angel of The Lord is a liar and deceiver? )


John the Baptist said the same thing (John 1:34).


Nathanael said it (John 1:49).


Martha believed it (John 11:27).


The centurion said so (Matthew 27:54).


Jesus claimed that He said so (John 10:36).


Jesus clearly implies it in John 11:4.


The demons called Jesus the Son of God (Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:41; Mark 3:11).


The charge against Jesus was that He claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:43; John 19:7), a claim He never denied, and virtually admitted (Luke 22:70).


The Gospel of John was written to convince the reader that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31).


Why, you might ask, does Jesus not say so plainly. I think the answer is found in Matthew 16:15-17: ... (I think I like this one best.. :) )


15 He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!” (Matthew 16:15-17).


Jesus did not want Peter and His disciples to believe He was the Son of God just because He said so. He wanted God to bring them to this conclusion, based upon the overwhelming evidence of Scripture and our Lord’s life and teaching.

https://bible.org/question/does-jesu...-just-infer-it

Quote

Also Jesus in the Bible tells us that his father is also our father, :
[John 20:17] Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'

and.. ? Your point is? Jesus taught that through Him we are adopted into Gods "family". We are all sons and daughters of God. Not slaves like you.. ;)

Quote

Now

Quote

let us check about the word “begotten” .
You say: “begotten as it implies the term here is not how the term begotten is understood in the Bible.” Here I bring you information from the dictionary for what does the word “begotten” mean:

Adj. 1. begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child".

I hope you realize how wrong and blasphemous is to use this word. The Greek word, from which this was translated is “monogenes” and it means, one kind, special unique etc. This word “monogenes” is used in other verses in the Bible such as in Hebrews 11:17 where Abraham’s son is mentioned. Abraham had two sons and if we were to translate the word “monogenes” that is used here to “begotten” we can see it doesn’t make sense because Abraham had two sons. The correct translation is “unique"or "one kind", meaning unique in a way. Jesus may peace be upon him was unique in many ways, one of those is that he was created without a father and also he will come back again before the judgment day etc.

May Allah guide you :)

It's good that you have brought this up.. Begotten and monogenes .. "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is usually translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten." It's the "only begotten" translation that gives the wrong impression that Jesus was begotten in the human sense of procreation.. When it is very clear that no one ever thought it meant this.. As that would not have been construed from the term "monogenes". You could ask yourself why the Quran admonishes Christians of the time for believing Jesus was " begotten" when they certainly would not have inferred that idea from the scriptures. They would have inferred from the term monogenes the uniqueness of Jesus in that their was no one like unto Him.
In early Christian Literature, monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." You are correct in your information about is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son". Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. So it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.


The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John, which was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption. Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.

You are correct when you say Jesus was unique in many ways.. Where you are maybe in error is that you don't ask the important question... Why? Why was only Jesus out of all the prophets unique? Could it be He was the promised Messiah? The one sent to redeem mankind and correct the fall of Adam.. So making us once more right before God.. I believe He was... Jesus was everything He said He was. Never a lie was found on His lips, do you think He would have accepted worship as God and let people believe He shared a unique relationship with God if it were not so?

May God guide you.

Pandora,

Jesus identified himself as a son of man, others called him the son of God. In The verses you have brought, others call him the son of God. You said Jesus himself claimed to be the son of God, but he didn’t.

Quote

Originally Posted by pandora

and.. ? Your point is? Jesus taught that through Him we are adopted into Gods "family". We are all sons and daughters of God. Not slaves like you.. ;)

In the Bible, not only other people are called slaves of God, but also prophets including Jesus are called slaves of God. The Hebrew word from which the Bible was translated is "ebed" which really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it " servant” an expression of humility used by the righteous before God.
Investigating the manuscrpts we find this words in greek “pais” and “huios” which sometimes are translated to “son” which derive from the Hebrew word “ebed” -according to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which meaning is slave or servant.
This same word has been translated to “servant” in some verses, while it has been translated to “son” in other verses. They have the same connotation which means, righteous before God.

Quote

Originally Posted by pandora

It's good that you have brought this up.. Begotten and monogenes .. "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is usually translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten." It's the "only begotten" translation that gives the wrong impression that Jesus was begotten in the human sense of procreation.. When it is very clear that no one ever thought it meant this.. As that would not have been construed from the term "monogenes". You could ask yourself why the Quran admonishes Christians of the time for believing Jesus was " begotten" when they certainly would not have inferred that idea from the scriptures. They would have inferred from the term monogenes the uniqueness of Jesus in that their was no one like unto Him.
In early Christian Literature, monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." You are correct in your information about is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son". Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. So it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.


The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John, which was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption. Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.

You are correct when you say Jesus was unique in many ways.. Where you are maybe in error is that you don't ask the important question... Why? Why was only Jesus out of all the prophets unique? Could it be He was the promised Messiah? The one sent to redeem mankind and correct the fall of Adam.. So making us once more right before God.. I believe He was... Jesus was everything He said He was. Never a lie was found on His lips, do you think He would have accepted worship as God and let people believe He shared a unique relationship with God if it were not so?

Again the word “begotten” is wrong and blasphemous and it is not to be used.
The word “begotten” for ancient Greek is “GENNAO”, and the correct translation of the word “MONOGENES” is “unique”. The word “begotten” has been removed from Christian scholars of highest eminence, as it had been detected as a mistranslated word. Other more honest translations of the Bible have removed this word along with some other serious errors found in the King James Version!
And I’ve explained earlier why is Jesus referred to “unique” or “one kind” in this verse. It’s because he was created miraculously without a father.
Jesus did not accept worship as God. To this question and some other questions you have made will continue in another thread.

Quote

Originally Posted by sarah_

Pandora,

Jesus identified himself as a son of man, others called him the son of God. In The verses you have brought, others call him the son of God. You said Jesus himself claimed to be the son of God, but he didn’t.

He did..also in all the many Bible verses that imply Jesus was the Son of God... All the times He was directly addressed as such.. not once is it recorded that Jesus ever said He wasn't the Son of God or denied it. Do you not think if Jesus was the sinless being He is widely believed to be He would have put the record straight on this point? The common understanding is that "Son of God" implies his deity ... which it does ... and that "Son of Man" implies his humanity, which it does. He was a son of man, that is, a human being. And he is the Son of God, in that he has always existed as the Eternally Begotten One who comes forth from the Father forever. He always has, and he always will. Begotten in this instance has nothing to do with the act of procreation.

~15 He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!” (Matthew 16:15-17).~

Quote

In the Bible, not only other people are called slaves of God, but also prophets including Jesus are called slaves of God. The Hebrew word from which the Bible was translated is "ebed" which really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it " servant” an expression of humility used by the righteous before God.

Quote

Investigating the manuscrpts we find this words in greek “pais” and “huios” which sometimes are translated to “son” which derive from the Hebrew word “ebed” -according to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which meaning is slave or servant.
This same word has been translated to “servant” in some verses, while it has been translated to “son” in other verses. They have the same connotation which means, righteous before God.

Interesting points, generally when the term "ebed" is used in the Old Testament it refers to servant, there are occasions when it is used to convey the meaning of slave. So I guess it's how you distinguish between slave and servant. A slave I always feel is under another persons obligation.. Whereas a Servant is one who serves willingly usually with some recompense. In terms of obedience before God then either option works. So I don't see this as a big deal particularly. However, saying that I do find the term slave has unpleasant overtones if you view how slavery is viewed in today's world.

I can find no evidence to show the term "Huios" is derived from "ebed". Huios is universally used in the New Testament to mean "Son". Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying here?

Peace

Quote

Originally Posted by sarah_

Again the word “begotten” is wrong and blasphemous and it is not to be used.
The word “begotten” for ancient Greek is “GENNAO”, and the correct translation of the word “MONOGENES” is “unique”. The word “begotten” has been removed from Christian scholars of highest eminence, as it had been detected as a mistranslated word. Other more honest translations of the Bible have removed this word along with some other serious errors found in the King James Version!
And I’ve explained earlier why is Jesus referred to “unique” or “one kind” in this verse. It’s because he was created miraculously without a father.
Jesus did not accept worship as God. To this question and some other questions you have made will continue in another thread.

Sarah, Did you even read what I said? It is only muslims when using the term begotten in relation to the birth of Jesus who are committing blasphemy. Because it is the Quran and not the Bible that interprets "begotten" to imply the act of procreation in human terms. Christians have always believed it refers to the uniqueness of Jesus. As in "monogenes". Gennao refers to production through birth when referred to the woman. As the mans role was not involved in the creation of Jesus then only this meaning is applicable.

Honestly, a tip for you. Do not use the King James Version..at least not the original version if you have to use it at all choose the revised version. King James no doubt meant well, but there are many textual errors.. Hence why it's been revised :) you should cross reference with other translations if you wish to compare. I doubt you would find any great degree of difference in the central message. Which is what Gods word is about.. The message.. And that is something that cannot be corrupted by the hands of men. I know that because God makes that claim.

You say the reason Jesus was unique was being created miraculously without a father. Really? Is that the only reason you can see? You totally miss the point, and I can understand why because the Quran does not explain it to you. The point is WHY? Mankind had been witness to Gods greatness through miracles for a millennium before the Birth of Jesus. There was no need for the Messiah to be born this way just to offer another miracle to mankind. The reason is deeper than that. God could have created Jesus in the way of Adam.. With no mother or father!! Would that have seemed a greater miracle if a miracle was needed? But the need for a human mother was required.

You are asking the wrong questions.. As muslims you are so intent on tearing down the previous scriptures because they do not agree with the Quran.. For the only way the Quran can stand by its claims is if the previous scriptures were in error. As the Quran claims the words of God cannot be changed whilst at the same time acknowledging the previous scriptures as from God then claiming they were changed by men.. It seemingly contradicts itself. You cannot prove the previous scriptures were ever changed.. So I really don't know where that leaves you. You get tied up with the minutiae of textual Biblical errors and minor details whilst choosing to ignore the bigger picture. Don't forget the devil is in the detail.

If I were to ask you what is the main aim and objective of Satan? What would your answer be?

Peace.

Quote

Originally Posted by pandora

Sarah, Did you even read what I said? It is only muslims when using the term begotten in relation to the birth of Jesus who are committing blasphemy. Because it is the Quran and not the Bible that interprets "begotten" to imply the act of procreation in human terms. Christians have always believed it refers to the uniqueness of Jesus. As in "monogenes". Gennao refers to production through birth when referred to the woman. As the mans role was not involved in the creation of Jesus then only this meaning is applicable.

Honestly, a tip for you. Do not use the King James Version..at least not the original version if you have to use it at all choose the revised version. King James no doubt meant well, but there are many textual errors.. Hence why it's been revised :) you should cross reference with other translations if you wish to compare. I doubt you would find any great degree of difference in the central message. Which is what Gods word is about.. The message.. And that is something that cannot be corrupted by the hands of men. I know that because God makes that claim.

You say the reason Jesus was unique was being created miraculously without a father. Really? Is that the only reason you can see? You totally miss the point, and I can understand why because the Quran does not explain it to you. The point is WHY? Mankind had been witness to Gods greatness through miracles for a millennium before the Birth of Jesus. There was no need for the Messiah to be born this way just to offer another miracle to mankind. The reason is deeper than that. God could have created Jesus in the way of Adam.. With no mother or father!! Would that have seemed a greater miracle if a miracle was needed? But the need for a human mother was required.

You are asking the wrong questions.. As muslims you are so intent on tearing down the previous scriptures because they do not agree with the Quran.. For the only way the Quran can stand by its claims is if the previous scriptures were in error. As the Quran claims the words of God cannot be changed whilst at the same time acknowledging the previous scriptures as from God then claiming they were changed by men.. It seemingly contradicts itself. You cannot prove the previous scriptures were ever changed.. So I really don't know where that leaves you. You get tied up with the minutiae of textual Biblical errors and minor details whilst choosing to ignore the bigger picture. Don't forget the devil is in the detail.

If I were to ask you what is the main aim and objective of Satan? What would your answer be?

Peace.

This is an excellent post. It is interesting to note that no Muslim on the forum have been able to gainsay that the virgin birth of Jesus was borrowed from our NT Bible by Muhammad. He probably learned of it through oral tradition. There is no other place that story was recorded ever before Muhammad's Quran came on the seen. The irony is he rejected the reason for Jesus virgin birth, but accepted Jesus was born of a virgin. That is why Muslim don't have a reason for why Jesus had to have been born of a virgin.

Muhammad could have done more damage to Christianity if he had denied the virgin birth instead of the death and resurrection of Jesus, because if Jesus wasn't virgin born, his death would've been useless. Muhammad didn't understand Christianity and neither did his god. These misconceptions are, IMHO, apparent discrepancies in Muhammad's Quran.

I will say, however, even though Muhammad was unread, he was very intelligent and creative. Had he dug or research a little further he would have own that Christians never considered Allah (God the father) the third of three nor did Christians ever believe Mary was God which would have to have made her one of the three Allah said say not three about.

Too many misconception for a supposedly all knowing god. My comments here prove to me that Muhammad's Quran is contrived and what further lends to it is how Allah abrogates verses to bring one better or like. That is ridiculous. God gets it right the first time, and He never has to change or modify it. That is what humans do. Man does that he has to edit his work, because he doesn't get it right a first. I see the work of a man in the Quran.

God bless you