Quran 5:116

[Sister_Amy]

why?

It’s kind of weird. It’s like a superlative in its own way. You say furious instead of “very mad.” But “very furious” is awkward and diminishes the strength of the word “furious.”

Mark Twain said that authors should use the word “da–n” instead of “very” when writing so that the editors would take it out and their writing would be as it should be (i.e., without “very.”) My English teachers would always say that if you are using the word “very” it’s an excuse for using a weak word.

For example, saying very mad instead of saying furious. Furious is a strong word. Why taint it with a weak word like “very?”

(And we all use “very” in regular conversation, but reading something like “very furious” strikes me as non-native.)

 

[inJESUS]

Jesus didn’t die… so “after death” doesn’t apply.

fine, but where is Jesus now according to Islam?

 

[dzheremi]

Furious is one of those words in english that you can’t put “very” in front of. It just doesn’t work.

Yes you can. Why wouldn’t you be able to? “Very” is an adverb, “furious” is an adjective. Adverbs can modify adjectives in English. That’s exactly how English works.

Maybe you thought that adverbs only modify verbs in English?

 

[inJESUS]

(And we all use “very” in regular conversation, but reading something like “very furious” strikes me as non-native.)

well i am a non-native but strange, if you google it, you will find it everywhere…maybe it’s a common mistake.

 

[Sister_Amy]

fine, but where is Jesus now according to Islam?

Allah raised him up unto Himself.

 

[dzheremi]

inJESUS,

It’s not any kind of mistake. It strikes Sister Amy as non-native because it is not the type of construction a native speaker would be likely to use, but it is not “wrong”, from a linguistic perspective.

Adverbs can modify adjectives. That’s a basic fact of English. I doubt Sister Amy or anyone else would have a problem with a construction like “very sticky”, and that is the exact same adverb + adjective construction that you just used with “very furious”.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Yes you can. Why wouldn’t you be able to? “Very” is an adverb, “furious” is an adjective. Adverbs can modify adjectives in English. That’s exactly how English works.

Maybe you thought that adverbs only modify verbs in English?

I am incredibly picky about word choice. It’s not that very can’t go before furious but that it doesn’t typically, certainly not by refined writers.

Would you every modify the word “furious” with “very”? It seems to diminish the strength of the word to me.

 

[Sister_Amy]

inJESUS,

It’s not any kind of mistake. It strikes Sister Amy as non-native because it is not the type of construction a native speaker would be likely to use, but it is not “wrong”, from a linguistic perspective.

Adverbs can modify adjectives. That’s a basic fact of English. I doubt Sister Amy or anyone else would have a problem with a construction like “very sticky”, and that is the exact same adverb + adjective construction that you just used with “very furious”.

inJESUS, dzheremi here is right.

 

[eichenb2]

I am incredibly picky about word choice. It’s not that very can’t go before furious but that it doesn’t typically, certainly not by refined writers.

Would you every modify the word “furious” with “very”? It seems to diminish the strength of the word to me.

Diversion

 

[dzheremi]

Would I ever do it? Probably not, but that’s not my point. It is perfectly acceptable as an English construction that even a native speaker could use, were there a reason to do so (perhaps as emphasis: “Was he furious? He sure was! Very furious, in fact!”). I have no problem with you not liking it, but it’s not “wrong” on any solid linguistic grounds.

eichenb2: Sorry, that’s my fault. I will stop derailing the thread now. Apologies.

 

[jakasaki]

Allah raised him up unto Himself.

According to the Koran

4:157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

4:158 But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.



Slew Him and not crucified Him. Leave it to Islam to once again change Biblical history.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Diversion

You’re so clever.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Would I ever do it? Probably not, but that’s not my point. It is perfectly acceptable as an English construction that even a native speaker could use, were there a reason to do so (perhaps as emphasis: “Was he furious? He sure was! Very furious, in fact!”). I have no problem with you not liking it, but it’s not “wrong” on any solid linguistic grounds.

eichenb2: Sorry, that’s my fault. I will stop derailing the thread now. Apologies.

I’m not disputing your point.

 

[Sister_Amy]

According to the Koran

4:157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

4:158 But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.



Slew Him and not crucified Him. Leave it to Islam to once again change Biblical history.

Leave it to God to clarify history. Who else actually witnessed it, to tell us what happened?

And thanks for looking up these verses, in case anyone was wondering what I was basing my responses to inJESUS on.

 

[Eucharisted]

Leave it to God to clarify history. Who else actually witnessed it, to tell us what happened?
And thanks for looking up these verses, in case anyone was wondering what I was basing my responses to inJESUS on.

(bold is my emphasis)

Eyewitnesses, whom you Muslims are always discrediting. Ironicallty, your religion has no eyewitneses to Jesus’ Passion. But Christianity dose. So which, historically speaking, is more credible and believe, Christianity or Islam? It is Christianity, of course.

 

[athair_siochain]

What exactly does this verse mean:

[5:116] GOD will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, `Make me and my mother idols beside GOD?’ " He will say, "Be You glorified. I could not utter what was not right. Had I said it, You already would have known it. You know my thoughts, and I do not know Your thoughts. You know all the secrets.

What did Muhammad and/or Allah mean by this? Jesus obviously never said this. Was this Muhammad’s misinterpretation of the Trinity - that Mary was part of it? If so, why would this be in the Quran if the Quran is the infallible word of God? God, since he is omniscient, would have known that the Trinity did not include Mary and that Christians did not and had never worshipped Mary as part of the Trinity. Sometimes I am just so confused?!? Even if this is a jab at the Catholic reverence for Mary, we still don’t and have never put her “beside” God; and Muslims, I thought, had just as much reverence for Mary (although admittedly just as the mother of Jesus, the prophet and not as she is, the mother of Jesus, the Son of God.)

jay53, I see through you,

now if you were to read the verse above in Arabic, you may understand,

just as I understand your forked tongue. I see through you

The verse is about seeing through deception. understanding truth. it is not about insulting the trinity, it is Christians who assume a wrong has been done, because they believe differently, the rules of their Church do not apply to any other church,

 

[dzheremi]

Leave to God to clarify history, huh? One has to wonder then why “God” would have waited +/- 600 years to correct this incredibly important piece of Biblical history.

As a counterpoint, in the Bible, when Jesus is answering a question about the old law that permitted divorce, He tells His questioner that it is out of the hardness of man’s heart that divorce had been allowed. What reasoning is given in the Qur’an for allowing a significant portion of humanity to persist in error for so long, even to the extent of building a religion around this error?

 

[jakasaki]

Leave it to God to clarify history. Who else actually witnessed it, to tell us what happened?

And thanks for looking up these verses, in case anyone was wondering what I was basing my responses to inJESUS on.

Christianity teaches that Jesus was crucified. All four Gospels record the crucifixion. Later, He rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.

But Muhammad said that Christ was not crucified. Islam and the Quran deny the crucifixion. Muhammad appeared on the scene about 600 years after Jesus.

Muhammad claimed to receive ‘revelations’ from Allah, given to him through Gabriel. One of Muhammad’s revelations was that Jesus was not crucified. Yet the evidence from both the New Testament, and other historical sources state that Christ was crucified.

Here is what is interesting since you asked “who else actually witnessed”…

""Evidence from the JEWISH SOURCES:

Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 43a: “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged [or crucified]. … Since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.”

The Amoa “Ulla” (Ulla was a disciple of Youchanan and lived in Palestine at the end of the third century) adds: "And do you suppose that for (Yeshu of Nazareth - Jesus) there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: “Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him.” It is otherwise with Yeshu, for He was near to the civil authority.

Note here that the writers of the Talmud took their job seriously. These men were Jews, not Christians, and they documented Christ’s crucifixion.""

""EVIDENCE FROM ROMAN SOURCES:

Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals, xv. 44: “Christus … was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontious Pilate.”

Lucian of Samosata: “(Christ was) the man who was crucified in Palestine”

Note here that these men were professional historians. They researched their work before publishing it. They also documented Christ’s crucifixion.

Therefore, three types of witness all of whom are from the 1st or early 2nd century have been presented.""

 

[Booklover]

I, actually, try. (ps, there don’t need to be any commas around the word actually.)

We could say “in the grave” or better yet, “in the life of the grave” or “in barzakh” which is the barrier between a person’s death and the Day of Resurrection. Link1. Link2

Do you consider this a rational belief? People are alive in the grave? Buried alive? If he’s alive, why is he in a grave? And you want us to believe that the teachings of Islam make sense?

Vickie

 

[Sister_Amy]

(bold is my emphasis)

Eyewitnesses, whom you Muslims are always discrediting. Ironicallty, your religion has no eyewitneses to Jesus’ Passion. But Christianity dose. So which, historically speaking, is more credible and believe, Christianity or Islam? It is Christianity, of course.

This is a common myth among Christians, that it has eyewitnesses. But I am not here to argue about Christianity.

Allah is an Eye-Witness to everything in the universe. Even the life of Jesus, the plot to kill him, and what really happened.