Quran/NT parallelism & Jesus' birth

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I’d like to make the following point. The parallelism between the Arabic Infancy Gospel and Surahs 19:29-31 and 3:46 is plainly evident. There are three logical reasons for this:

1. The Quran has ‘corrected the omission’ of the talking baby Jesus tale from the New Testament.
2. The Quran has ‘corrected the consigning of the tale to the apocrypha,’ and that the Arabic Infancy Gospel should be included in the canonical NT.
3. Muhammad heard the story and mistakenly included it in the Quran, thinking it to be canonical and not apocryphal.

The Arabic Infancy Gospel is widely regarded as apocryphal. It is believed to be a 6th century invention and was quite popular among the Syrian Nestorians. Perhaps that was how Muhammad heard it – from someone like Bahira.

Joseph_Alison speculates that the reason why the talking baby Jesus tale was included in the Quran was because it convinced the Jews of the miracle of the virgin birth, rather than just Mary’s word. This is mere speculation, but we can both play the speculation game. One might ask Joseph if Allah knew that enabling Jesus to speak from the cradle would convince the Jews or not. That tactic obviously failed as Jesus was never considered the Messiah from birth but only when he began his ministry. This is clear from the NT. Peter was the first follower and that was only in Jesus’s adulthood, not infancy.

So, did Allah know that tactic would fail? If he did, then why do it? If not, then he is no God? See the paradox?

Also note that the Sahih Bukhari hadith 4:55:645 has Muhammad claiming three babies spoke. However, it is clear the other two talking babies weren’t the result of virgin births. So, why that explanation for Jesus?

I know I’ve made some pretty subtle points which I hope Joseph_Alison will take the time to think about. In the mean time, if I might trouble him for a re-evaluation of the meaning of masih with two questions:

1. How do you explain “al-masih ad-dajjal”? What does masih mean there?

Bukhari 2:23:459:
Narrated Abu Huraira : Allah’s Apostle used to invoke (Allah): “Allahumma ini a’udhu bika min 'adhabi-l-Qabr, wa min 'adhabi-nnar, wa min fitnati-l-mahya wa-lmamat, wa min fitnati-l-masih ad-dajjal. (O Allah! I seek refuge with you from the punishment in the grave and from the punishment in the Hell fire and from the afflictions of life and death, and the afflictions of Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal.”

1. How do you explain ‘masih ibne Maryam’?

Allah will send Maseeh ibne Maryam (Messiah son of Mary). Thus he will descend near the White Eastern Minaret of Damascus, clad in two yellow sheets, leaning on the shoulders of two angels. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 8, P. 192-193)

Gracias y hasta luego,
Rodrigo

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam Brother Reuben;

I’ve just read thru this thread and hope you don’t mind if I comment on your post (if you’re still around here).

No at all. I must say I was really happy to see your post.

Your rationales for the inclusion of the talking baby Jesus in the Qur’an are as follow. (Please correct me if I understand wrongly):-

1. To save Mary from the scandal of adultery and its consequences, like stoning and badmouthing of her and Jesus’ reputation.

Correct.

1. To be a sign to the Jews that Jesus was chosen by God as a prophet. His virgin birth showed this uniqueness.

Correct also. Since it did not happen in the human history that a baby spoke, then only God can be at the origin of such miracle; what the baby had to say about who he was, was the absolute truth :“I am indeed A servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me A prophet; (Qur’an 19:30).

There was however one more thing, but only afterwards we know what it is:
Jesus (PBUH) was the beginning of the end to the special favors Allah (SWT) bestowed on the children of Israel (NEH 9:9-37). He was the last prophet to be sent to the Children of Israel, they received a great number of prophets and messengers; they even killed some of them (NEH 9:26) and if someone asks for the name of those killed prophets, I say the names are not important, however killing the prophet of God, knowing they are sent by Him is important. Is not killing a messenger considered an act of war?

Despite all the wonders Jesus (PBUH) accomplished amongst them, the Children of Israel rejected him and even sought to kill him.
What kind of miracles are left after raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, giving life to clay birds and speaking while a child? What type of prophet would the Jews believe after Jesus, and with what type of miracles should they be convinced? Would they believe if God Himself comes down to them? According to the Muslim view, as well as to the view our Christian Brethren have of him, the Jews rejected Jesus (PBUH). It was time to shift the prophet hood from the Jews to their Brethren, the Arabs, and Allah (SWT) knows where to put his message and Allah (SWT) knows best, this is only me speculating.

1. Mary was betrothed to Joseph. She was saved from the negative scandal of adultery because of Joseph, who was gracious to own responsibility to take Mary as his wife at the behest of the angel of God. Similarly, later on, the child Jesus was saved from being murdered by King Herod. Thus God saved His chosen one to enable His plan to be carried out.

I agree; the betrothal of Mary to Joseph and the Angel’s request to keep her did not expose her to scandal; however, big between the two accounts is the difference in the way she is saved, but in both accounts she did nothing of her own to justify her virgin giving birth, she simply could not.

1. The fact of virgin birth to be made known to the Jews. Is this really necessary?

The virgin birth was a supposedly written prophecy in their books. If we believe prophesies to be from God, then why would God inspire a prophecy only to hide it and inspire someone to write it down only 70 years afterwards? It does not seem in the Biblical account that people knew of Jesus’ virgin birth. Was not that virgin birth to be established as prophesized to those waiting for that prophesy to come true?

Moreover; how can Jesus claim to be son of God (if he really did, unless son of God had other meanings in those times) while everyone around him viewed him as the supposedly son of Joseph? How can he claim God to be his father (if he really did, unless father had other meanings in those times) while everyone around him viewed Joseph as his father? Would that claim be believable?
In other words and honestly, if today in the bible, the virgin birth is removed from the picture, would the claim of son chip of Jesus to God be tenable? If we do that (remove the virgin birth from the picture) we fall into the same situation the Jews in Jesus’ time were living, they did not know of his virgin and therefore they had no other choice but to reject any claim of son ship to God or any claim from him to have God as father unless in those times those attributes had other meanings.

To Christians, is not that virgin birth a corner stone to their belief of the son ship of Jesus to God? If that birth was to establish the belief of the son ship of Jesus to Him, Why would God, at that time, not make it known to people that Jesus was a virgin birth?

Contimued…

 

[Joseph_Alison]

…Continued and end.

If people knew of his virgin birth, I think the claim of son ship to God or God to be his father would have been more believable. That is why, for people not to believe such a thing, Jesus (PBUH), by the will of Allah (SWT), established who he was at his very birth, when he spoke saying:” :“I am indeed A servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me A prophet” (Qur’an 19:30). If there was ever a prophecy of virgin birth, then it is the holy Qur’an account which clearly establishes it.

But the question I ask is: were the Jews expecting a virgin birth? Some say yes, and argue that the Jews did not understand properly their scriptures.

From what we know, Jesus’ life as a child, a youth and a young man was but a normal son, who assisted his father to work as a carpenter. There was nothing extraordinary about his youthful life. He did not perform any miracle because “his time had not yet come” (JN 2:4).Thus it is rather puzzling why the Qur’an says otherwise.

To my knowledge, apart from talking to people as a child in defense of his mother, the holy Qur’an does not give the age of Jesus (PBUH) when he performed miracles.

On the other hand, just imagine what would happen if the whole Jewish nation knew that here is this young child destined to be the Messiah! He would not likely to live long enough to do what he ought to do. Remember, Herod was a ruthless competitor! There probably would be a nasty civil war as Jewish nationalists would be inspired to take up arms to fight for the cause of the Messiah whom they thought would deliver them from the Romans and to set up a Jewish nation. In fact, it is this very act that caused the destruction of the temple and the remaining whatever it was of the Jewish entity by the Romans in AD 70.

You would be right if to the Jews the virgin birth was a sign of Messiah ship; it is one point of discordance they have with the Christians, they say the Christians twisted the prophecy (Isaiah 7:14) to let it say what they wanted it to say, to which the Christians answer that the Jews did not understand their scriptures.

1. A number of times, in the 3 years of Jesus’ public ministry, whenever it was revealed that he was the messiah or the Son of God, he would warn his disciples not to tell anybody else. Why? Because his mission had not been accomplished yet. In order to achieve it, timing is everything. The premature disclosure of the uniqueness of Jesus’ birth would surely contravene this. And rightly so that this is not made known to the people of Israel.

Brother Reuben, may I ask you when did Jesus decide to tell people of his Messiah ship and his son ship to God?
I read in the Bible that, early on, Jesus confirmed to the Samaritans he was the Christ (JN 4:25-26 and JN 4:41-42).

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Reuben_J]

Peace bro Joseph.

Thanks for your response to my post. Here I will make a general reply to your post (due to its length) but address specific issue if need be.

Humanly speaking your rationale makes sense. You may like to know, I have better understanding now regarding the Quran’s position on the talking baby Jesus after reading your explanation. In fact I must admit that it was all like Jesus to obediently do whatever his mother wanted him to do. So it is not surprising if he came to her defense even as a baby.

But looking at the bigger picture and of course since it is not in the Bible, so this is entirely from a Christian’s perspective, the episode of the talking baby Jesus did NOT likely to occur due to the following reasons as I had mentioned:-

1.There is no need anymore to defend Mary on the charge of adultery/suspicion that she bears a child outside marriage. Her fiancé Joseph solved that when he agreed to take her as his wife, albeit after the angel told him.

For your information, Christians honor Mary and Joseph not just because they together with Jesus constituted the holy family but also because they submitted themselves to the word of God in His plan to bring the Messiah. Hypothetically we can ask, what would have happened had Mary or Joseph said “no”?

Though you have covered this, I’m not sure whether Joseph was in the picture in the Quran. To save me the time to look for it now, maybe you can enlighten us on this. If I am not wrong, in one of your earlier posts you were of the opinion that Joseph was a convenient addition by the biblical writers so as to fit into the prophecy of the Messiah being descended from the lineage of King David. Now this is a possibility – first decide Jesus to be the promised Messiah and then insert in persons/incidences/situations/verses so that he complies with the messianic prophecies.

Now, if Joseph is not in the picture, then we have Mary as a single mother … This situation is unsustainable in the light of the Jewish society then and the purpose of what Jesus was going to do, because there would be too much unwanted controversial attention on him.

• He was exposed as the Messiah.

• He was considered a bastard.

In any case, this will bring only problems as his people “accept him not” and he would be considered troublesome to be dispensed with.

1. To avoid premature disclosure of whom Jesus truly was. You might question this, but this is important and in line with what Jesus himself said, “Do not tell anyone else”.

He only went “public” at the age of 30 after the baptism in river Jordan by John the Baptist. Events happened relatively fast (3 years) after that and culminated at Calvary. This is interesting and we can ask why. He could not possibly last with the messages he preached and the actions he did. These also were done in stages sequence but the conclusion was never in doubt when he decided to go to Jerusalem to be given to the high priest and the elders to be killed. The fatal messages:-

• He was claiming equality with God. Examples being the Lord of the Sabbath and being able to forgive sins.

• He was King.

All these categories of people would instantly present themselves as obstacles to him:-

• The High priest and the elders. They considered his teaching a deviant from Judaism and would want to eliminate him.

• The Herod clan. They have all to lose from a charismatic leader or an appointed king.

• The Roman governor and officials. They kept the peace and stability in this Roman colony and would not tolerate chaos brought about by the presence of the Messiah.

• Jewish “brigands” (nationalists). Likely to take matter into their own hands and use the Messiah as rallying cry for an uprising against the Romans.

to be contd …

 

[Reuben_J]

continue and end.

Joseph_Alison:

There was however one more thing, but only afterwards we know what it is:
Jesus (PBUH) was the beginning of the end to the special favors Allah (SWT) bestowed on the children of Israel (NEH 9:9-37). He was the last prophet to be sent to the Children of Israel, they received a great number of prophets and messengers; they even killed some of them (NEH 9:26) and if someone asks for the name of those killed prophets, I say the names are not important, however killing the prophet of God, knowing they are sent by Him is important. Is not killing a messenger considered an act of war?

Yes. That’s why it called for prudence in introducing the Messiah to the people.

Joseph_Alison:

To Christians, is not that virgin birth a corner stone to their belief of the son ship of Jesus to God? If that birth was to establish the belief of the son ship of Jesus to Him, Why would God, at that time, not make it known to people that Jesus was a virgin birth?

I think, bro, this I have covered unless you want me to further elaborate. Your point is: does the people really need to know this virgin birth at the birth of Jesus?

As regard to Jesus as the Messiah, actually John the Baptist did reveal him, only that most Jews did not understand it. “I baptise with water, but among you stands the one you do not know. He is coming after me, but I am not good enough even to undo his sandals.” Jn 1:26.

He said when he saw Jesus “Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This si the one I was talking about when I said. ‘A man is coming after me, but he is greater than I am, because he existed before I was born.’ I did not know who he would be, But I came baptising with water in order to make him known to the people of Israel.”

“I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from heaven and rest on him. I still did not know that he was the one, but God, who sent me to baptise with water, had said to me, ‘You will see the Spirit come down and stay on a man; he is the one who baptises with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen it, and I tell you that he is the Son of God.” (emphasis mine). Jn 1:29-34.

You can say that these verses are no conclusive proof that Jesus is divine, but like I said, and you said too, that no amount of blunt revealation in words would suffice if people choose not to believe. Many Jews chose not to, then.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Rodrigo Bivar:

1. Muhammad heard the story and mistakenly included it in the Quran, thinking it to be canonical and not apocryphal.

Hi ya professori.

I don’t think Muhammad thought it to be cannonical. Most likely he honestly thought that the OT was insufficient (thus corrupted) and so corrected it by including the talking baby Jesus, as you mentioned. In this case he might think that the apocryphal was the better source. As it was then and today, there were arguments on which documents should be accepted as cannonical.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben J:

Hi ya professori.

I don’t think Muhammad thought it to be cannonical. Most likely he honestly thought that the OT was insufficient (thus corrupted) and so corrected it by including the talking baby Jesus, as you mentioned. In this case he might think that the apocryphal was the better source. As it was then and today, there were arguments on which documents should be accepted as cannonical.

Correction.

OT should be NT

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam Brother Rodrigo;
I am glad you joined the discussion.

One might ask Joseph if Allah knew that enabling Jesus to speak from the cradle would convince the Jews or not.

The Virgin Mary was not stoned; we conclude that the talking Jesus baby convinced the Jews that he was not an evil doing and that his mother was not an unchaste woman.

That tactic obviously failed as Jesus was never considered the Messiah from birth but only when he began his ministry

The Jews never believed that the prophecy about the virgin birth would be a sign of Messiah ship. It is one point of contention they have with Christians as I said in my answer to Brother Reuben. As to the meaning of the term Messiah, Muslims take to prove that he was the Messiah those same characteristics which our Christians brethren take to prove Jesus to be God.

Raising the dead and giving life are the sole attributes of Allah (SWT) and it did not happen that Allah (SWT) gave these powers to someone else before; He anointed (appointed to high office) Jesus (PBUH) by giving him these powers, is there any better office? He also raised him to Himself, something Allah (SWT) never did to another human before; is there any better office? He selected him to be the one by who the world will come to an end; is there a better office? He gave him the power to heal the blind and the leper, something no one did before; is there a better office? Jesus (PBUH) was the true Messiah in every sense of the word.

So, did Allah know that tactic would fail? If he did, then why do it? If not, then he is no God? See the paradox?

The tactic did not fail. As I said before, Mary was saved from being stoned to death for adultery, and those who wanted Jesus (PBUH) to be crucified did indeed believe that he was the prophet of Allah (SWT) :” That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (Qur’an 004.157)

Also note that the Sahih Bukhari hadith 4:55:645 has Muhammad claiming three babies spoke. However, it is clear the other two talking babies weren’t the result of virgin births. So, why that explanation for Jesus?

Jesus (PBUH) spoke to defend his mother and to claim his future prophet hood, if he did not claim his status as future prophet at his birth, people may have believed something else about him, so he made it clear from the start what he really was.

I know I’ve made some pretty subtle points which I hope Joseph_Alison will take the time to think about.

Brother Rodrigo, you comments are welcome.

In the mean time, if I might trouble him for a re-evaluation of the meaning of masih with two questions:
2. How do you explain “al-masih ad-dajjal”? What does masih mean there?

He is called Al Massih because he will perform some of the same miracles Jesus (PBUH) performed. Dajjal comes from the Arabic verb “dajala” or “dajjala” which means to deceive, to fake, to dupe, to swindle, to misled or can also means “to gild” which is to cover something with a thin layer of gold. He will claim to be the true Massih and deceive many, but the true believers will not be deceived.

1. How do you explain ‘masih ibne Maryam’?
   Allah will send Maseeh ibne Maryam (Messiah son of Mary). Thus he will descend near the White Eastern Minaret of Damascus, clad in two yellow sheets, leaning on the shoulders of two angels. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 8, P. 192-193)

Jesus (PBUH) was the son of his mother because he did not have a father. In the Jewish tradition, the son is called after his father, whom Jesus (PBUH) did not have. I too am wondering why, in the Bible, people called Jesus, the son of Mary?

Brother Rodrigo, I have a question if you don’t mind.
In the Bible Jesus is reported to have said:” For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Mt 24:24).
What does the term false Christs mean in this verse? Does it mean some people who:

• Will be born from virgin birth,
• Be from the lineage of King David and,
• Who would fulfill the many supposed prophesies about the Christ?
  Many Thanks.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam Brother Reuben;
As always, it has been nice talking to you. I am glad my posting was of something positive in your understanding of the Muslim position on Jesus. You too gave me with your answers a better view on the Christian position and I thank you for that.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[exoflare]

Joseph_Alison:

The tactic did not fail. As I said before, Mary was saved from being stoned to death for adultery, and those who wanted Jesus (PBUH) to be crucified did indeed believe that he was the prophet of Allah (SWT) :” That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (Qur’an 004.157)

Wait… the Jews refuse to believe in Jesus’ divinity or even prophethood, but here they refer to him as “Christ” and “the Messenger of Allah”?

 

[Shenango]

exoflare:

Wait… the Jews refuse to believe in Jesus’ divinity or even prophethood, but here they refer to him as “Christ” and “the Messenger of Allah”?

When you study the Qur’an for a long time you will recognize that when it quotes people as saying things, it’s nearly always in paraphrase fashion, and in God’s own words and from His perspective. In other words, they’re not verbatim…otherwise they wouldn’t be the word of God. Even the line God quotes Muhammad (PBUH) as saying to Abu Bakr in the cave they hid in when they fled Mecca at the start of the Hijrah in Surah 9:40 is not verbatim what Muhammad (PBUH) is actually recorded as saying in authentic Hadiths.

The verse you are asking about in this case can be seen that way as well, or in the mocking fashion that the Jews and Romans spoke of Jesus (PBUH) in the Gospels, calling him “King of the Jews” and what not only intending it in ridicule.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam Brother Rodrigo;
I am glad you joined the discussion.

Gracias.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

One might ask Joseph if Allah knew that enabling Jesus to speak from the cradle would convince the Jews or not.

The Virgin Mary was not stoned; we conclude that the talking Jesus baby convinced the Jews that he was not an evil doing and that his mother was not an unchaste woman.

I think you’ve missed my point which is that according to the Quran the Baby Jesus said he was the prophet.

19:29-31 The people said, “How shall we talk with him, who is but an infant in the cradle?” Whereupon the child spoke out, "I am a servant of Allah: He has given me the Book and He has appointed me a Prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I may be. He has enjoined upon me to offer Salat and give Zakat so long as I shall live. (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 3, p. 67)

So, Allah made Jesus tell the people (i.e. the Jews) that he was a prophet. Did the Jews believe him or not? Clearly they didn’t.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

That tactic obviously failed as Jesus was never considered the Messiah from birth but only when he began his ministry

The Jews never believed that the prophecy about the virgin birth would be a sign of Messiah ship. It is one point of contention they have with Christians as I said in my answer to Brother Reuben. As to the meaning of the term Messiah, Muslims take to prove that he was the Messiah those same characteristics which our Christians brethren take to prove Jesus to be God.

Raising the dead and giving life are the sole attributes of Allah (SWT) and it did not happen that Allah (SWT) gave these powers to someone else before; He anointed (appointed to high office) Jesus (PBUH) by giving him these powers, is there any better office? He also raised him to Himself, something Allah (SWT) never did to another human before; is there any better office? He selected him to be the one by who the world will come to an end; is there a better office? He gave him the power to heal the blind and the leper, something no one did before; is there a better office? Jesus (PBUH) was the true Messiah in every sense of the word.

A lot of words but you didn’t address the issue. I will say this again:

The Baby Jesus said that he was the prophet. I never claimed that the virgin birth was the sign of Messiahship. I’m asking if the Jews believed baby Jesus when he said he was a prophet.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

So, did Allah know that tactic would fail? If he did, then why do it? If not, then he is no God? See the paradox?

The tactic did not fail. As I said before, Mary was saved from being stoned to death for adultery, and those who wanted Jesus (PBUH) to be crucified did indeed believe that he was the prophet of Allah (SWT) :” That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (Qur’an 004.157)

You don’t get my point which has nothing at all to do with Mary being stoned or not. It has do to with Baby Jesus telling the Jews that he was a prophet.

Since the Jews didn’t believe him, Allah’s tactic failed.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

Also note that the Sahih Bukhari hadith 4:55:645 has Muhammad claiming three babies spoke. However, it is clear the other two talking babies weren’t the result of virgin births. So, why that explanation for Jesus?

Jesus (PBUH) spoke to defend his mother and to claim his future prophet hood, if he did not claim his status as future prophet at his birth, people may have believed something else about him, so he made it clear from the start what he really was.

You don’t understand. You claimed Baby Jesus speaking was Allah’s proof that Mary had a virgin birth. Now, I pointed out to you that Muhammad said two other babies also spoke – yet they were clearly not the results of virgin births. Why baby Jesus speaking should be proof of his virgin birth when it wasn’t for the other two babies? That is the point.

You seem to be totally missing what I’m saying.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

I know I’ve made some pretty subtle points which I hope Joseph_Alison will take the time to think about.

Brother Rodrigo, you comments are welcome.

And I welcome your comments too.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

In the mean time, if I might trouble him for a re-evaluation of the meaning of masih with two questions:

1. How do you explain “al-masih ad-dajjal”? What does masih mean there?

He is called Al Massih because he will perform some of the same miracles Jesus (PBUH) performed. Dajjal comes from the Arabic verb “dajala” or “dajjala” which means to deceive, to fake, to dupe, to swindle, to misled or can also means “to gild” which is to cover something with a thin layer of gold. He will claim to be the true Massih and deceive many, but the true believers will not be deceived.

Hmmm. I thought you said Masih means anointed, not someone who performs miracles.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

1. How do you explain ‘masih ibne Maryam’?
   Allah will send Maseeh ibne Maryam (Messiah son of Mary). Thus he will descend near the White Eastern Minaret of Damascus, clad in two yellow sheets, leaning on the shoulders of two angels. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 8, P. 192-193)

Jesus (PBUH) was the son of his mother because he did not have a father. In the Jewish tradition, the son is called after his father, whom Jesus (PBUH) did not have. I too am wondering why, in the Bible, people called Jesus, the son of Mary?

I was actually after the meaning of ‘masih’ – trying to contrast masih meaning Jesus with al-Masih ad-Dajjal. But you apparently missed my point.

Joseph_Alison:

Brother Rodrigo, I have a question if you don’t mind.
In the Bible Jesus is reported to have said:” For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Mt 24:24).
What does the term false Christs mean in this verse? Does it mean some people who:

• Will be born from virgin birth,
• Be from the lineage of King David and,
• Who would fulfill the many supposed prophesies about the Christ?

I’m actually not a Christian but will endeavor to answer you. I think Christ in Matthew 24:24 is also translated as Messiah in some translations. The word Christ is the English representation of the Greek word Χριστός (transliterated as Khristós), which means anointed. It’s etymology is the Hebrew word Mashiach which means anointed. Thus, it does not mean any of the above. The true Messiah is clearly one who possess certain characteristics according to Hebrew prophecies, but I think those definitions don’t apply to the false Messiahs. Otherwise, one should think that there would be no way to tell the difference between true and false Messiahs.

The False Messiah is a specific term with its own characteristics:

• he will proclaim himself the Messiah.
• He will claim to spread peace but will cause destruction instead.
• He will rebuilt the Temple but will enter it and proclaim himself God.
• He will rule over the world in a dictatorship that none may buy or sell without his mark.

Joseph_Alison:

Many Thanks.

Salaam.
Joseph.

Thanks for answering.

Ciudate,
Cid

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Rodrigo Bivar:

I’m actually not a Christian

I am surprised to hear this.
Rodrigo Bivar: A central figure in the struggle between Christianity and Islam in medieval Spain.
Is your screen name a coincidence?

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph_Alison:

I am surprised to hear this.
Rodrigo Bivar: A central figure in the struggle between Christianity and Islam in medieval Spain.
Is your screen name a coincidence?

Salaam.
Joseph.

No. My nom de guerre is in honor of Charleton Heston. My other choices were Moses, Judah Ben Hur or Michaelangelo.

 

[Han_Ji_Hye]

I think Rodrigo Bivar is a pretty cool name (despite of history).
Rodrigo Bivar:

The False Messiah is a specific term with its own characteristics:

• he will proclaim himself the Messiah.
• He will claim to spread peace but will cause destruction instead.
• He will rebuilt the Temple but will enter it and proclaim himself God.
• He will rule over the world in a dictatorship that none may buy or sell without his mark.

It reminds me of someone though.

 

[Reuben_J]

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam Brother Reuben;
As always, it has been nice talking to you. I am glad my posting was of something positive in your understanding of the Muslim position on Jesus. You too gave me with your answers a better view on the Christian position and I thank you for that.

Salaam.
Joseph.

My pleasure too, bro Joseph. I guess I did not have the time to address some of the issues you brought yesterday, so here …

Joseph_Alison:

Moreover; how can Jesus claim to be son of God (if he really did, unless son of God had other meanings in those times) while everyone around him viewed him as the supposedly son of Joseph? How can he claim God to be his father (if he really did, unless father had other meanings in those times) while everyone around him viewed Joseph as his father?

Joseph_Alison:

Brother Reuben, may I ask you when did Jesus decide to tell people of his Messiah ship and his son ship to God?
I read in the Bible that, early on, Jesus confirmed to the Samaritans he was the Christ (JN 4:25-26 and JN 4:41-42).

His claim certainly does not dependant on others’ view of him.

Admittedly, **Son of God ** is not a messianic title in Judaism. The title becomes a means by which the early church expressed its faith in the absolutely unique character of Jesus. It is not obvious that the title always meant precisely the same thing an all the NT writings. The confession of the centurion is probably to be conceived in Helenistic terms (Mt 27 and MK 15); but the gospels place this confession at the summit of the life of Jesus, the moment his redeeming work is accomplished.

This becomes significant when Jesus applies the title to himself. In the attestation demanded by the high priest, Jesus accepts the title, and adds a prediction of His second coming in order to remove all doubt of its meaning (Mt 26:63, Mk 14:61). This obviously signifies a unique and supernatural sonship.

Regarding the term **Jesus Christ/the Messiah/the Anointed One ** in your discussion with Senor Bivar.

Christ=Kristos (Greek)=Masiah (Hebrew)=Messiah=the Anointed.

To anoint with oil as a refreshing unguent was very common in the ancient world, the purpose was to make sacred the person or thing anointed. In OT Kings were anointed.

In general, messianism includes those ideas which represent the Israel of the future as identical with the universal Kingdom of Yahweh. The unique character of Hebrew messianism arises from biblical conception as a process which moves toward a final term, which is the Kingdom of Yahweh. Israel, and in particular its king, is the medium through which this Kingdom will be established. In the so called messianic prophecies by both exilic and post exilic prophets, examples Jeremiah 23, and Exekiel 34, the conception of the Messiah was as a returning David, not in person but the restoration of the fallen dynasty and kingdom through a king who will exhibit the traits of the ideal king, which David exemplifies.

By Jesus’ times this concept appears to be thoroughly secularized into a hope of a Jewish empire established by the intervention of God. This is the reason for Jesus great caution in using this term. The messianic future looked to the restoration of the kingdom of Israel and to the consummation of the world. The Messiah himself is not consistently understood; but often he is a preexistent being who comes from heaven. He is the conqueror of the nations and the ruler of the earthly kingdom. But when Jesus came, he was to be a Messiah who conquers sins and ruler (King) of the eternal kingdom. Thus it is easy to understand how he could be so easily misunderstood by the Jews of his time.

Now if the Quran uses this term for Jesus, you need to ask this question. What is he anointed for? If it does not fit the biblical understanding of this concept, I am afraid Christians will rightly say that Muhammad used this term unknowingly of its implication. This will strengthen the Christians’ argument that he copied from earlier writings unwittingly.

God bless.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam Rodrigo;
Rodrigo Bivar:

I think you’ve missed my point which is that according to the Quran the Baby Jesus said he was the prophet.

Sorry Brother; but I humbly believe I missed nothing.
Your question was:“One might ask Joseph if Allah knew that enabling Jesus to speak from the cradle would convince the Jews or not”
Brother, I don’t see the word prophet is your above question; I am surprised you made such a conclusion.
I answered to the above question that yes, he convinced them that his mother was unchaste, the proof is that she was not stoned for adultery.

How many witnessed him speaking? Obviously; not all the Jews.
Mary used to live in a place of worship, probably the temple; she had a dwelling there. When she brought the baby, she brought him there, and who was she going to meet in the temple? The priests, who had the authority to judge her, those priests were silenced by Jesus (PBUH), who defended his mother and at the same time announced his future prophet hood.
The question is irrelevant to whether those guys believed him or not when he announced his prophet hood when he was still a baby.
The very fact that he announced it at his birth (a miracle impossible to deny) would be a heavy charge against them if they ever reject him when he would start ministering in his adulthood. Allah (SWT) established a strong proof against those who were leading the rest of the community in matters of faith, if some would believe in him, good for them, if some others would deny him, then the proof has been established against them and they could not deny it before Allah (SWT).
The end reason of a divine miracle is to convince and in the same time to establish a proof against those who would deny it, but I know you know that.

You don’t understand.

It suffices me one of us understands, I am glad you are the one who does.

You claimed Baby Jesus speaking was Allah’s proof that Mary had a virgin birth. Now, I pointed out to you that Muhammad said two other babies also spoke – yet they were clearly not the results of virgin births. Why baby Jesus speaking should be proof of his virgin birth when it wasn’t for the other two babies? That is the point.

The two other babies spoke to establish the truth about who they were in order to wash someone else from a false charge.
What is the charge which was brought against Mary? It was a disguised charge of adultery, meaning the child she brought was illegitimate: “O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!” (Qur’an 19:028).
By speaking to those who accused his mother of being unchaste, Jesus (PBUH) washed his mother from that accusation. He furthermore announced his future prophet hood. Would Allah (SWT) give prophet hood to an illegitimate child? Conclusion; not being married (everyone knew that, if not they would not accuse her) the pious Mary had a virgin birth.

You seem to be totally missing what I’m saying.

Sorry, that is probably because I am not your caliber.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Hmmm. I thought you said Masih means anointed, not someone who performs miracles.

I did not say someone who performs miracles, I said someone who performs “the same miracles Jesus (PBUH) performed”. For example Ad-Dajjal will be able to raise the death something only Jesus (PBUH) did. Ad-Dajjal will be a trial, a Fitnah.

Joseph_Alison:

I was actually after the meaning of ‘masih’ – trying to contrast masih meaning Jesus with al-Masih ad-Dajjal. But you apparently missed my point.

Silly me, I always miss your point. See above.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Dear Joseph,
I’m sorry you have missed so many of my points. Maybe I didn’t make my points clear enough for you.

As for baby Jesus talking: it is clear that he did say he was a prophet to the people (meaning Jews). Yet not a single person believed him. So, why would Allah make him tell them he was a prophet? Didn’t Allah know that nobody would believe him until he had grown up and met Peter? Didn’t Allah know that Peter was his first follower? If so, why did Jesus waste his breath telling people things they refuse to believe?

As for the two other babies – it is clear their talking didn’t mean they were the results of virgin births, so why is it the case for Jesus? That is the question you still haven’t come to grips with, I gather.

As for the charge of adultery against Mary, please note that the baby Jesus didn’t actually defend his mother. He didn’t say, ‘hang on people, my mother is not an adulterer. I was born of a virgin birth.’

This is what he said, ‘I am a servant of Allah: He has given me the Book and He has appointed me a Prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I may be. He has enjoined upon me to offer Salat and give Zakat so long as I shall live.’

So, how can baby Jesus claiming to be a prophet prove his mother was not an adulterer? It’s a non-sequitur.

Hasta Luego,
Cid