Jump to content
Islamic Forum
andalusi

Muslim-Christian Debate, Here

Recommended Posts

So then what is it talking about if not the Messiah?

 

As a Muslim, it really does not matter from a theological/religious perspective as I don't see evidence of the book of Isaiah being traced back to the alleged author, Isaiah. However, if you want to know who the servant is, read Isaiah. Who gets referred to as the servant throughout the book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Isaiah is referring to israel as well as Jesus, but Jesus is the culmination of all israel. israel's days have been prolong. Many have tried to wipe them off the face of the map but they never succeed and never will. The Jew behind the rock the Quran commands to kill may be killed but israel as a nation will not be killed; therefore their days are prolonged. Isaiah 53 although denied by Jews and Muslims is a prefect portrait of Jesus Christ and what He came to do. As far as betulah and almah they both mean virgin. A young maiden is considered to be chaste. Besides, Islam believes in the virgin birth of Jesus. They borrowed that from Christianity for it can be found in no other religion.

 

Man, I should never have participated in this thread because I don't want to get pulled into these debates, but your above post is riddled with misconceptions.

 

First, there is no Jew behind the rock that the Qur'an commands to be killed.

 

A young maiden can be married, had sex with her husband and still be chaste. Are you suggesting that a young maiden who is married and has had intercourse cannot be considered chaste? There are other problems with the Isaiah passage. 

 

"Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned. The Lord shall bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house, days which have not come, since the day that Ephraim turned away from Judah, namely, the king of Assyria. And it shall be on that day, that the Lord shall whistle to the "fly" that is at the edge of the canals of Egypt, and to the "bee" that is in the land of Assyria. And they shall come and all of them shall rest in the desolate valleys and in the clefts of the rocks and in all the thornbushes and in all the shrines. On that day, the Lord shall shave with the great razor on the other side of the river, on the king of Assyria, the head and the hair of the legs, and also the beard shall be entirely removed.

 

These are the verses that come after the Isaiah 7:14. Who are the two kings in question? 

 

Let's also not forget that in Isaiah, chapter 7, before verse 14, Ahaz is asked to ask for a sign. When he says that he won't, Isaiah says that the Lord will give him a sign. Ahaz dreaded two kings. Those two kings got removed.

 

Islam did not borrow the virgin birth of Jesus, peace be upon him, from Christianity. Besides, you are wrong about the concept of  virgin birth being found in no other religion. Horus, Krishna, Buddha, Mithra, etc.  http://www.lawofattractiongps.com/living-law-of-attraction/not-just-jesus-other-virgin-births/#axzz2WmreQEMs These are supposed to be deities, like the the Christian version of Jesus, peace be upon him. So, did Christianity borrow this from these other older religions that preceded it, since you implied that a virgin birth is found in no other religion beside Christianity, therefore, it is obvious from whom it was borrowed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Muslim, it really does not matter from a theological/religious perspective as I don't see evidence of the book of Isaiah being traced back to the alleged author, Isaiah. However, if you want to know who the servant is, read Isaiah. Who gets referred to as the servant throughout the book?

Is there any evidence that it was not Isaiah? From what I know it has been traditionally attributed to him.

 

I read an article on interpretation of Isaiah. It is by a messianic Jew so take what you will.

 

http://lcje.net/papers/2003/bartelt.doc

 

It mentions whether servant meant israel or an individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I should never have participated in this thread because I don't want to get pulled into these debates, but your above post is riddled with misconceptions.

 

First, there is no Jew behind the rock that the Qur'an commands to be killed.

 

A young maiden can be married, had sex with her husband and still be chaste. Are you suggesting that a young maiden who is married and has had intercourse cannot be considered chaste? There are other problems with the Isaiah passage.

 

"Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned. The Lord shall bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house, days which have not come, since the day that Ephraim turned away from Judah, namely, the king of Assyria. And it shall be on that day, that the Lord shall whistle to the "fly" that is at the edge of the canals of Egypt, and to the "bee" that is in the land of Assyria. And they shall come and all of them shall rest in the desolate valleys and in the clefts of the rocks and in all the thornbushes and in all the shrines. On that day, the Lord shall shave with the great razor on the other side of the river, on the king of Assyria, the head and the hair of the legs, and also the beard shall be entirely removed.

 

These are the verses that come after the Isaiah 7:14. Who are the two kings in question?

 

Let's also not forget that in Isaiah, chapter 7, before verse 14, Ahaz is asked to ask for a sign. When he says that he won't, Isaiah says that the Lord will give him a sign. Ahaz dreaded two kings. Those two kings got removed.

 

Islam did not borrow the virgin birth of Jesus, peace be upon him, from Christianity. Besides, you are wrong about the concept of virgin birth being found in no other religion. Horus, Krishna, Buddha, Mithra, etc. http://www.lawofattractiongps.com/living-law-of-attraction/not-just-jesus-other-virgin-births/#axzz2WmreQEMs These are supposed to be deities, like the the Christian version of Jesus, peace be upon him. So, did Christianity borrow this from these other older religions that preceded it, since you implied that a virgin birth is found in no other religion beside Christianity, therefore, it is obvious from whom it was borrowed?

I'm not commenting on most of your post, I'm just looking for some clarification. What was that part on Ahaz about? I don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

 

On an unrelated note, with the beginning of your first sentence, I couldn't agree with you more.

Edited by Heavens Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The onus of proof is on the claimant. I don’t have to prove
a negative before a positive is established. Yes, I know that the book of
Isaiah has been traditionally ascribed to Isaiah. However, the question is can
it be traced back to him. Isaiah must have taught his book to a disciple or a
group of disciples. Who were they? Whom did they teach? Is there a chain of
narration. A chain of narration goes like this, “Isaiah taught X who taught Z
who taught Y…all the way until the present day.


 

I read the article you posted. By the way, a messianic Jew
is a Christian. Anyway, the article tries to be balanced, but I don’t think the
argumentation is that good. For example, there is no mention of why the verse
does not say that the servant’s life will be prolonged forever. Secondly, it
does not address the part about the servant seeing offspring. I know you tried
to address it, but I found it to be sophistry. Your argument was that the verse
does not use the pronoun “his”. The fact is that we don’t always use the
pronoun “his”. For example, we say he will have children. We don’t say he will
have his children. We can say he will have his children depending on the
context, but that changes the meaning.


 

Your argument about Psalm 22:31 is quite weak. The Jews say
that the seed that worships YHWH is israel, i.e. real people. The reason nobody
says that the seed is YHWH’s is quite simple. The verse does not say that YHWH
will see offspring. Your argument about the offspring of falsehood is even
weaker. It’s quite obvious that it is a metaphor. However, just because in
Isaiah 57:4 it’s a metaphor, it does not mean that it is also a metaphor in
chapter 53. There is no indication that it is a metaphor. If you try to argue
that it has to be a metaphor because Jesus, peace be upon him, did not or won’t
have offspring, then that’s called circular reasoning. We are trying to discuss
Isaiah 53 based on its own merits.


 

I have heard most of the stuff in the article you posted.
One thing new was the part about “his deaths”. I kind of find anti-climactic
that the person goes on to ask questions like “according to verse 8, he was
stricken “for the transgression of my people.” How can the servant as israel be
stricken for “my people” israel?”, but does not go on to address the problems concerning
Jesus, peace be upon him. For example, how can the servant be struck by God if
he is God. That’s the same exact argument.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I believe that Jew is meant to mean Jesus  I am not saying that is what Muslims believe."

 

LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry younes. I will be out of town for the next week. I will reply to your stuff when I get back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes. I have a little time. I am asking you for evidence since both the Church and the Jews(at least until recently, now there is some disagreement) accepted Isaiah as being written by him. Since you are challenging this assertion I expected you to give evidence to back up your claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes. I have a little time. I am asking you for evidence since both the Church and the Jews(at least until recently, now there is some disagreement) accepted Isaiah as being written by him. Since you are challenging this assertion I expected you to give evidence to back up your claims.

 

All I am saying is that the book of Isaiah cannot be properly traced back to the Prophet. We don't know whom Isaiah taught nor do we have an unbroken chain going back to him. If we believe that the book of Isaiah was written by him, we are doing so based on an assumption without evidence. As I said, I don't have to prove a negative before a positive is established. If you can tell me whom Isaiah taught and give me a chain of narration, then that's a different thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I never said Jesus was God (The father) He is the son of God"

 

Well, it's too bad Isaiah 53 does not speak about the Father nor the Son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I am saying is that the book of Isaiah cannot be properly traced back to the Prophet. We don't know whom Isaiah taught nor do we have an unbroken chain going back to him. If we believe that the book of Isaiah was written by him, we are doing so based on an assumption without evidence. As I said, I don't have to prove a negative before a positive is established. If you can tell me whom Isaiah taught and give me a chain of narration, then that's a different thing.

I'm not basing it on a modern day assumption. I am basing it on the tradition. Jews and Christians agreed, until the Middle Ages when a Jew challenged this, that it was written by Isaiah. If it had not been written by Isaiah, why did it take that long for doubt to spring up? Younes, you are saying that this tradition is wrong. Thus it is expected for you to give evidence.

 

I am leaving now so I will reply in a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes, you are saying that this tradition is wrong. Thus it is expected for you to give evidence.

 

No, as I said, I don't have to prove a negative. You have to show that this tradition has evidence to back it up. I won't try to prove a negative before a positive is established. What I am saying is that this tradition does not have scholarly proof to back it up. I am asking you whom did Isaiah teach, how was his book preserved, who were the men who preserved, and you answer me that Jews and Christians believed that it was written by him. Christians came hundreds of years after Isaiah. What does it matter if they believed that the book was written by him or not? The fact that Jews believed that the book was written by him is not scholarly proof. It's a mere belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you are asking me to prove a negative proves that Jews and Christians - okay, maybe just Christians - are operating based on assumptions. You assume that the book of Isaiah was written by him until proven otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unlike Muslims today, we believe that God's power to introduce and preserve Scripture is greater than man's power to corrupt or forge.

 

 

How do you know it was Gabriel that dictated the Quran to Muhammad? How do you know it wasn't a spirit impersonating Gabriel? How do you know that Uthman didn't recompile the Quran with abrogation? Who gave Uthman the authority or mandate to recompile the Quran? Quran means recite not write and yet Uthman didn't use memory or recitation to recompile it. He used the help of text that was destroyed as well. Uthman was no prophet who made him Allah's editor and how do we know Muhammad would have accepted the changes he made in the Quran Muslims use today?"

 

Muslims don't believe that man's power to corrupt or forge is greater than God's. We believe that God made no promise to protect the Torah. He entrusted its protection to the Jewish scholars, who subsequently failed. The same goes for the Gospel. There are lost books mentioned in the Bible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible Do you believe God's power was somehow lacking if these Scriptures weren't preserved? 

 

How do we it was Gabriel, peace be upon him, who revealed the QUr'an to the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon. Well, there are many reasons. Here are some: http://www.gawaher.com/topic/734272-who-is-a-believer/?p=1229733

 

As for the Qur'an's compilation, read this book: http://individual.utoronto.ca/fantastic/The_History_of_the_Quranic_Text_from_Revelation_to_Compilation.pdf It's a comparison between the Qur'an's textual preservation and that of the Bible's, both Old and New Testaments'.

 

I will just answer briefly. 'Uthman did not make any changes to the Qur'an. I don't know what you are talking about when you say that 'Uthman did not use memory when compiling the Qur'an, because he did. The Qur'an means recitation but the Qur'an also calls itself the Book, but I seriously fail to see how Qur'an being the Recitation has got to do with anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have heard of the legend of Satanic
verses. Here’s the refutation:  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html


 

You are right that ‘Uthman (ra) used Hafsah’s
copy. However, you don’t have the full story. In reality, ‘Uthman (ra) did not
compile the Qur’an, Zaid bin Thabit (ra), one of the major scribes of the
Prophet (pbuh) did. He had prepared the copy that was in Hasfah’s possession.
Honestly, read the book I linked you. Memory was used in the compilation of the
Qur’an. I am not going to waste my words when you can read the book . If you
don’t read it, it is a sign that you are really interested in learning.


 

Yes, there is abrogation in the Qur’an. For
example, at one point Allah had allowed the consumption of wine and then He
later forbade it. Abrogation is not a problem.


 

The Qur’an calls itself the Book. The
Prophet (pbuh) ordered the Qur’an to be written down. He had dozens of scribes.
All of this information is in the book I linked.


 

When you say that God has promised to
establish His Word forever, how do you know He meant the Bible?

The word "Word" can be used for other Scripture...

Even if it was the Bible, the Bible cannot be shown to be the Word of God. Thus, if the Bible
was not properly preserved albeit it saying that God would preserve it forever,
it does not reflect badly upon God. It reflects badly upon the people who wrote
the Bible and attributed lies to God. In the Qur’an, God says He entrusted the
protection of the Torah to the Rabbis. If they failed, that’s not God’s fault. By the way,

you never addressed these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

If we go by your logic, God failed to preserve these Scriptures.


 

Pluralis Majestatis (royal We) is not an
issue. It is used by kings yet nobody thinks the kings are plural.


 

“This question was obviously a reaction to
Catholicism and not a word from my Creator.” Yet Catholics make up the majority
of Christendom… The Qur’an never says that Mary was part of a Trinity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, don't get hung up on Jesus (pbuh) being created by Allah saying, "Be!". 

 

The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was. (3:59)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, the fact that Allah considers himself the best of deceivers or at doing what the unbelievers were doing (Using evil scheming, planning and plotting) and proves it by

making something appear to be what it is not (namely the death of Jesus) which result in a religion greater than Islam seems like a self-defeating plan. This is me using my brain to think like we are supposed to.

 

Actually the illusion of Jesus, peace be upon him, getting crucified did not result in the false religion. The fact that men made up lies did. Jesus, peace be upon him, never said he was crucified for anybody's sins nor did he claim to be God. Thus, if people decided to make up a theology behind the appeared crucifixion, it does not mean that God's plan was self-defeating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus' alleged predictions of his own crucifixion aren't true. He didn't make such predictions. The doubting Thomas passage and the Father and I are one quote are not true, either.

 

Let's also keep in mind that God in the Bible deceives and works with evil spirits:

 

22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 
22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

 

(1 Kings)

 

Nobody should feel safe from the makr of Allah. 

 

 

(None feels secure from Allah's plan except the people who are the losers.) (7:99)
 
Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, "The believer performs the acts of worship, all the while feeling fear, in fright and anxiety. The Fajir (wicked sinner, or disbeliever) commits the acts of disobedience while feeling safe (from Allah's torment)!''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More deception:

 

Ezekiel

14:7 For every one of the house of israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself: 
14:8 And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. 
14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Allah is not a deceiver. The
verse where it says that Allah is the best of Makiriin, the disbelievers were
planning to kill Jesus. Thus, Allah also planned to save his Messenger and to
bring the plan of the disbelievers to naught. This is nothing new. God in the
Bible also plans against His enemies. Nothing new there.


 

Allah never calls Himself  الْغَرُورُ, which means the deceiver. Allah never uses a
word, i.e. the verb or another noun, that is associated with it. That word is
only used for Satan, this life (since it leads people astray) and false hope.
There might be other things, but it is never used in association with Allah.


 

Abu Bakr (ra) did not fear the Makr of Allah because he feared injustice on Allah’s
part. Rather he feared he may commit sin and Allah will punish him. Fear of
Allah is a good thing. It is commanded in the Bible. We trust in Allah and we
don’t fear injustice on His part. We fear injustice on our part, which may lead
Allah to plan against us.


 

The appeared crucifixion did not lead billions of people astray since Jesus never
claimed that he would get killed as a sacrifice nor that he was the son of God
or God Himself. The lies of men led billions of people astray.


 

“A person might tell a lie that doesn't make him a liar”. LOL. Good one.


 

“thought those that memorized it were killed and Uthman burned originals with the excuse
to put them in the Qurash language.”


 

The fact that you continue on babbling about ‘Uthman (ra) and still haven’t read the
book shows me that you are insincere.


 

By the way, the Jews used to destroy their manuscripts when they got old. Besides,
there are a lot of textual problems, which affect creed, in the Bible. The book
I linked discusses both the Qur’an and the Bible. Read it.


 

I have a question for you. Which Old Testament do you follow, i.e. the Masoretic or the
Septuagint?


 

The royal We is used for one person. You are the one who is being obtuse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural
A king used it to refer to himself. For example, the Tsar of Russia would say, “We,
Nikolai II, …”.


 

Guess what? You can’t be a Muslim if you don’t believe in Moses, Jesus and the rest
of the Prophets, peace be upon them. So, you are right they are associated with
God, but not in the sense that the Qur’an talks about partners. The Arabs used
to believe that Allah had partner deities. Totally different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it. (2:75)

 

Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (2:79)

 

Actually, the Qur'an mentions that the Bible got corrupted. Furthermore, the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, told us not to consult the people of the Book lest they tell us something false and we accept it, and lest they tell us something true and we reject it.

 

"After all, "we sent down the Torah to you..."", the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not receive the Torah. The story in the modern day Torah is of no importance. It goes on to show the envy of the Jews who changed it.

 

If you were to read the book I linked, you would see evidence of the Bible's corruption. However, here is some evidence for you: 

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/735929-christian-and-jewish-scriptures/?p=1238433

 

You read Protestant translations. What do you think of the fact that the Old Testament translation you read is not in accordance with the New Testament you read?

 

More corruption: http://www.gawaher.com/topic/734248-jesus-resurrection-Islam/?p=1229980

 

Add to the list that the ending of Mark is missing in the earliest manuscripts. Also the famous "Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing" is missing from the earliest manuscripts. So is the story of the adulteress.

 

What do you think about the fact that the NT misquotes the OT?

 

Answer: Matthew 2:13-15 makes the claim that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus fled to Egypt until recalled by an angel. This is supposedly in fulfillment of a prophecy: "Out of Egypt did I call My son." The source of the so-called prophecy is Hosea 11:1. However, in the context of the verse as found in Hosea there is no prophecy, but simply a restating of israelite history.



What is more, the following verse in Hosea is a continuation of the prophet's statement. It says of those called out of Egypt that they sinned against God: "The more they [the prophets] called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed to Baalim, and offered to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). The application of Hosea 11:1 to Jesus would, on the basis of verse 2, describe him, as well as Mary and Joseph, as sinners. If one reads Matthew's so-called fulfillment of prophecy within the context of that "prophecy" then one must consider that Jesus was a sinner."

 

Add to this the fact that Matthew 27 supposedly quotes Jeremiah as a fulfilled prophecy when in fact the verse (similar one) is found in Zechariah. 

 

This is by no means an exhaustive list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.(3:59)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isaiah 7 poses no absolutely no problem to Islam. Islam did not quote Isaiah 7. 

 

As for Matthew 27, please stop this sophistry. 

 

It's quite evident the word "spoken" means "written" just like it does in all these instances.

 

 

12:17    That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 12:18    Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

 

If you do a search on the word "spoken" in Matthew, it is quite obvious he uses the word spoken interchangeably with written. 

 

1:22    Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 1:23   

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

 

For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

 

 

4:14    That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 4:15   

The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew does not present a problem for Islam, either. The virgin birth of Jesus, peace be upon him, is not taken from the Gospels. It is the Truth from Allah. The fact that the author Matthew was eager to use a passage from Isaiah as prophecy for the virgin birth presents no problem. The fact that Jesus, peace be upon him, virgin birth is recorded in the Bible does not pose a problem. 

 

When somebody starts giving a lot of excuses, like you are doing, it is not a good sign. In the Rabbinical order of Prophetic books, the book of Joshua is listed first. Thus, your explanation amounts only to conjecture without evidence. Show evidence to back your proof regarding your claim that the entire Prophetic category was referred to as "Jeremiah". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevi'im

 

The passage I read from Mark has two variants. One is Even as it is written in the prophets, i.e. no mention of Isaiah, which is fine. If you want to insist on the passage which reads, even as it is written in Isaiah, well, that's another mistake. 

 

The passages which quote Zechariah but don't mention his name aren't a problem. Funny that they aren't referred to as "Jeremiah" in those instances.

 

By the way, I looked into this issue on my own. There are a lot of "explanations". The sad thing is that is not based on evidence. One of the explanations though was that Matthew erred, which I find to be the likeliest explanation thus far. I don't know how that sits with you, but it doesn't sit well with me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×