Who is Isa of the Quran?

[swariffin]

Jesus spoke Aramaic. Thus, the New Testament would have to be dependent upon it. Much of the Old Testament was in Aramaic as well, and the earliest Christian societies throughout Arabia from Palestine, to Syria, to Nabataea spoke Aramaic. So what is Jesus’ name in Aramaic?

• “Eesho M’sheekha” in Aramaic, taken directly from the “Peshitta”. The “Peshitta” is the Aramaic New Testament and closely resembles the language of Jesus.

Thus, Jesus would have even called himself “Eesho” or more specifically “`Eesaa” since the Northern Palestinian Jews pronounced the letter “shin” as “seen”.

The name “YASO’A” () for Jesus (pbuh) in the Arabic Bible is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew name “YESHUA” () and is therefore fallacious to claim that this is the correct Arabic name of Jesus (pbuh) since as originally said, Hebrew is not Jesus’ native tongue.

Hebrew is not Jesus’ native tongue??? You must be comparing my Indonesian language to English, my friend. In Indonesia, most of us speaks two languages, the Bahasa Indonesia, and any one of the local language (a Javanese for instance). The Javanese and Indonesian language are quite different both in vocabulary and grammar. But, the Bahasa Indonesia is the lingua franca. The same thing is Jesus time. He speaks Aramaic for sure as Jesus’ daily local language. The Hebrew is the lingua franca. Jesus must be capable of speaking Hebrew, because it was written that Jesus read a passage from the book of Iasaiah, and quoted many other verses from the Torah, as well as the books of the prophets. Jesus must be able to speak in Greek, because it was written that He spoke to a Sino-Ferosian lady. The educated or well socialized people in the land of Judea at that time should also capable of speaking, reading and writing in Greek, because Greece under Alexander the Great conquered the land of Judea from about 200-100 BC. During the Roman occupation, the Jewish, especially Herodian, must also be able to speak, write and read Latin.

The written language in Jesus time, definitely Hebrew. There is no record of Jewish holy book ever written in other language, other than Hebrew. Jesus who spoke Aramaic as His native tounge does not mean that He was not a Jew, nor a Jew born in foreign land. The same thing in Indonesian language. There is no such thing of Indonesian character. We use the Roman character. The Javanese language, for instance, has no original written character. The Javanese language uses Sanskrit as the basis for Javanese character (called Ha Na Ca Ra Ka or Ho No Co Ro Ko). That means the existance of a spoken language, does not necessarily bears the existance of a written language particular to such language. So, as Jesus spoke Aramaic as the tribal language, does not mean that there must be an Aramaic bible written by Him.

We believe that the law of God given to human being, as a “written law within the heart of humans”. And, Jesus was the “law of God” itself. So, the most importance and the “soul” of God’s law is the law it self, not the character nor the book in which God’s law is written on. In this case, you can burn as many Bible as you want. No Christian ever condemn you for such action. In fact, I challenge you to do so. At least you will help the publisher of the bible by buying as many bible as you want to burn.

Name? what is so important about name translated into other language? The name John in English is the same as Joni in Bahasa Indonesia, and perhaps Yono in Javanese. If a Javanese parent give the name of John to their son, instead of Yono, does it means that their son becomes an Englishman?

 

[elwill]

Name? what is so important about name translated into other language? The name John in English is the same as Joni in Bahasa Indonesia, and perhaps Yono in Javanese. If a Javanese parent give the name of John to their son, instead of Yono, does it means that their son becomes an Englishman?

i thought your question about name
you said forget about jesus , and tell me about Isa

may be i don’t understand exaclty your question !

 

[elwill]

Hebrew is not Jesus’ native tongue??? You must be comparing my Indonesian language to English, my friend. In Indonesia, most of us speaks two languages, the Bahasa Indonesia, and any one of the local language (a Javanese for instance). The Javanese and Indonesian language are quite different both in vocabulary and grammar. But, the Bahasa Indonesia is the lingua franca. The same thing is Jesus time. He speaks Aramaic for sure as Jesus’ daily local language. The Hebrew is the lingua franca. Jesus must be capable of speaking Hebrew, because it was written that Jesus read a passage from the book of Iasaiah, and quoted many other verses from the Torah, as well as the books of the prophets. Jesus must be able to speak in Greek, because it was written that He spoke to a Sino-Ferosian lady. The educated or well socialized people in the land of Judea at that time should also capable of speaking, reading and writing in Greek, because Greece under Alexander the Great conquered the land of Judea from about 200-100 BC. During the Roman occupation, the Jewish, especially Herodian, must also be able to speak, write and read Latin.

The written language in Jesus time, definitely Hebrew. There is no record of Jewish holy book ever written in other language, other than Hebrew. Jesus who spoke Aramaic as His native tounge does not mean that He was not a Jew, nor a Jew born in foreign land. The same thing in Indonesian language. There is no such thing of Indonesian character. We use the Roman character. The Javanese language, for instance, has no original written character. The Javanese language uses Sanskrit as the basis for Javanese character (called Ha Na Ca Ra Ka or Ho No Co Ro Ko). That means the existance of a spoken language, does not necessarily bears the existance of a written language particular to such language. So, as Jesus spoke Aramaic as the tribal language, does not mean that there must be an Aramaic bible written by Him.

actually , i’m talking about pronouncing , if you want to pronounce the name correctly so it must be derived from his native language

if my name in my native language is Isa then it will be still ***pronounced ***as Isa with whatever languge i spoke
may be if i wrote my arabic name in english languages then asked someone american to pronounce it , then i will hear another name

do you know that some arabic charcters have no equiveleants in English , for example "mohammed " this character “H” in the fact not pronounced in arabic as you pronounced it , the equivelent character for “H” in arabic is "هـ"while the character used in the name of mohammed is “ح” but their is no equivelent for it in english , so that it’s written “H”

 

[schaick]

…
And so face it dear Christians, the fact that Prophet Isa (pbuh) and his mother Mariam are indeed mentioned and accorded the utmost reverence in the Qur’an, is really the strongest and most compelling evidence there is that the both of them really did exist in history.

The Quran *“mentioned and accorded the utmost reverence” *1?1? When it denies the truth of who JESUS is- GOD’s Word incarnate and the sacrific of GOD and JESUS for us sinners.

As Abraham was about to sacrific his son, GOD did sacrific HIS SON.

LOL! What compelling evidence exists in the Quran?

Mohammad was a self proclaimed prophet. There are no witnesses that he was even visited by an angel.

JESUS’ life, teaching, miracles, death and ressurection was witnessed by hundreds of people as recorded in the New Testament.

 

[schaick]

I think that people are deliberately missing the point that I was making here.

Again, I ask the question:

Why would a whole chapter in a scripture revealed and written in Arabic, be named after a Jewess, bearing in mind the deep mistrust and animosity between Jews and Arabs that already existed at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)?.. And if indeed the Qur’an was created or copied by Arab tribesmen, then why was not this same high honor of having a whole chapter named after her be given to the mother of Muhammad (pbuh) who of course was a member of an Arab tribe herself?

The answer is clear and simple i.e. the Jewess in question and her son named Isa (pbuh) did indeed exist in history and for them to be accorded the utmost reverence in an Arabic scripture is extremely strong and compelling evidence of the truth of their existence.

By comparison, what undeniable evidence if any can Christians provide of the historical existence of Mary of Nazareth?

Even satan knows who Jesus is.

Luke was a learned man, a physician, a historian, his writing an example of Greek historiography.

Luke 1
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

[schaick]

Jesus spoke Aramaic. Thus, the New Testament would have to be dependent upon it. Much of the Old Testament was in Aramaic as well, and the earliest Christian societies throughout Arabia from Palestine, to Syria, to Nabataea spoke Aramaic. So what is Jesus’ name in Aramaic?

• “Eesho M’sheekha” in Aramaic, taken directly from the “Peshitta”. The “Peshitta” is the Aramaic New Testament and closely resembles the language of Jesus.

Thus, Jesus would have even called himself “Eesho” or more specifically “`Eesaa” since the Northern Palestinian Jews pronounced the letter “shin” as “seen”.

The name “YASO’A” () for Jesus (pbuh) in the Arabic Bible is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew name “YESHUA” () and is therefore fallacious to claim that this is the correct Arabic name of Jesus (pbuh) since as originally said, Hebrew is not Jesus’ native tongue.

aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Peshittainterlinear/1_Matthew/Mattich1.pdf

 

[schaick]

It would be pointless to engage in discussion which is based solely on circular reasoning as to which between the Bible and the Qur’an is the Truth.

Suffice to say however that the Christian belief in the historical existence of Mary of Nazareth is based entirely on faith alone and no other evidence.

Muslims, on the other hand, believe in the existence of Mariam the mother of Isa (pbuh), based not just on faith but also on sound logic which dictates that it is quite unimaginable that Arab tribesmen would willingly accept and revere a Jewess to be one of the greatest women who ever lived were it not for the fact that this Jewess and her son Isa (pbuh) really did exist in history.

Funny you say that because that is all Muslims have.

Self proclaimed prophet - Mohammad, says he is recieving revelations no eyewitnesses or miracles or prophecies fufilled. The revelation is that Mohammad is a prophet. The Quran says it is from allah so it is!?

 

[sedonaman]

One claim Muslims have made in this forum is that Jesus was the Messiah. I asked one what that meant precisely. I never got an answer, much less a precise one.

 

[schaick]

One claim Muslims have made in this forum is that Jesus was the Messiah. I asked one what that meant precisely. I never got an answer, much less a precise one.

I have been told it means annointed one- nothing more.

 

[sedonaman]

I have been told it means annointed one- nothing more.

Since there is no claim that Mohammed was anointed, one wonders what its significance is in Islam. I know what it was to the ancient Jewish people.

 

[elwill]

Funny you say that because that is all Muslims have.

Self proclaimed prophet - Mohammad, says he is recieving revelations no eyewitnesses or miracles or prophecies fufilled. The revelation is that Mohammad is a prophet. The Quran says it is from allah so it is!?

i think it will be fool for anyone to believe in a prophet without reasons , every prophet came with proofs that he is prophet , and followers of the prophets always have reasons to believe in him

 

[MontChevalier]

i think it will be fool for anyone to believe in a prophet without reasons , every prophet came with proofs that he is prophet , and followers of the prophets always have reasons to believe in him

My problem with Muhammad is that he came spilling blood. That’s not exactly something to rely on. And then there’s the promises he offers. Dying for Islam means water, sex, sex with children, sex with little boys, wine and other such things. I keep hearing more and more about Islam, and I’ve even studied it a bit, and the whole thing, including the way Muslims have been behaving, has been quite shocking.

It’s a fact that 1 in 3 Muslims came from Christians families which were forced to become Muslims.

 

[sedonaman]

i think it will be fool for anyone to believe in a prophet without reasons , every prophet came with proofs that he is prophet , and followers of the prophets always have reasons to believe in him

I know lots of people who believed øbama because of his speaking ability. It never occurred to them that eloquent oratory and quality of ideas are two distinct entities, and that it could be used for evil as well as good. So he created a reason to believe him, phony as it was.

Regardless, there are proofs, and then there are proofs. The first test of a true prophet is whether or not he contradicts prior revelation. Not only does Mohammed contradict prior revelation, but he goes further and states it is in error. If he had not made that claim, he would have to answer the question, “Why do we need you, Mohammed?” He is smart enough to avoid that question. But then, in what can be described only as logical flim-flammery, he proceeds to use it to verify his own prophethood. Like using 3 for pi instead of 3.14159… , any idea that uses error to prove itself will necessarily be in error itself, and that is what Mohammed did, i.e., used what he claimed was error to prove himself. Another logical error that he made was in concluding that because the Jews rejected the prophets of old, and the Jews were rejecting him also, voilà! He must be a prophet, too.

We’ve been over this ground before, and there is no way out of the dilemma Mohammed has painted himself into for using prior scripture for two different and mutually exclusive ends.

 

[swariffin]

i thought your question about name
you said forget about jesus , and tell me about Isa

may be i don’t understand exaclty your question !

Do you believe that Isa in Quran equals to Jesus?

 

[swariffin]

actually , i’m talking about pronouncing , if you want to pronounce the name correctly so it must be derived from his native language

if my name in my native language is Isa then it will be still ***pronounced ***as Isa with whatever languge i spoke
may be if i wrote my arabic name in english languages then asked someone american to pronounce it , then i will hear another name

do you know that some arabic charcters have no equiveleants in English , for example "mohammed " this character “H” in the fact not pronounced in arabic as you pronounced it , the equivelent character for “H” in arabic is "هـ"while the character used in the name of mohammed is “ح” but their is no equivelent for it in english , so that it’s written “H”

Surely, non equivalence of a certain character of a language compared to others, can not be used as a justification of an existence or non existance of a particular person. You insist from the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic means that the story of Jesus must be in Aramaic, and consequently, the original true bible of Jesus must be in Aramaic. You are dead wrong, since Jesus and the apostles around him and the people all around him in fact speaks very positively 3 languages including Greek. While one of the apostle was a former Roman tax collecter, Matthew could be able to speak 4 languages including Latin (if he came from Galilea and spoke Aramaic too). Paul must be able to speak (read and write) Hebrew, Greek and Latin very fluently, but perhaps not Aramaic. Given the fact that many Hebrew in the land of Judea could speak Greek, especially the Hebrew living outside the land of Judea, it is very and highly logical that all written story about Jesus should have been written in Greek.

Any “Aramaic bible” you mentioned, should be verified the date of the origin, because it must be a translation of the existing bible, instead of the original bible. It just cannot logically and possibly occur that Jesus spread the words of God for everybody, but write it down Himself in a local and limited language. It is against of what is written in Acts 2:7-11.

 

[swariffin]

i think it will be fool for anyone to believe in a prophet without reasons , every prophet came with proofs that he is prophet , and followers of the prophets always have reasons to believe in him

So, what was the proof that Muhammad brought? I agree that the follower of the prophets must have reasons to believe in them. Not just prophets, even a political leader has followers, and they have some reason to believe in such leader. But, I am not asking about the reason that you believe in Muhammad. Logically, before anybody followed Muhammad, he must have shown any proof that he is infact a prophet. And that is my question. What was the proof(s).

 

[elwill]

My problem with Muhammad is that he came spilling blood. That’s not exactly something to rely on. And then there’s the promises he offers. Dying for Islam means water, sex, sex with children, sex with little boys, wine and other such things. I keep hearing more and more about Islam, and I’ve even studied it a bit, and the whole thing, including the way Muslims have been behaving, has been quite shocking.

It’s a fact that 1 in 3 Muslims came from Christians families which were forced to become Muslims.

don’t you think that it’s biased view ?
you can’t rely on writing of nonmuslims about islam alone , you have to read either from muslims themselfs about islam

 

[elwill]

The first test of a true prophet is whether or not he contradicts prior revelation. Not only does Mohammed contradict prior revelation, but he goes further and states it is in error.

i think that christianity beliefs are in more contradiction with prior revelations than islam , in another word it’s the christianity which differs much then islam and judaism

by the way , scholars of christianity themselfs admitted the existence of errors and contradiction in the bible

If he had not made that claim, he would have to answer the question, “Why do we need you, Mohammed?” He is smart enough to avoid that question.

if the thoery of muslims about the comforter is true , then you need to believe in mohammed (pbuh) to obey jesus
jesus said according to John
Again, I have many other things to tell you, but you cannot grasp them now. But when the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth: for he will not speak from himself, but what he hears, that he will speak: and he will make known to you things which are to come in the future. He will glorify me; because he will take of my own and show to you.

 

[swariffin]

i think that christianity beliefs are in more contradiction with prior revelations than islam , in another word it’s the christianity which differs much then islam and judaism

by the way , scholars of christianity themselfs admitted the existence of errors and contradiction in the bible

if the thoery of muslims about the comforter is true , then you need to believe in mohammed (pbuh) to obey jesus
jesus said according to John
Again, I have many other things to tell you, but you cannot grasp them now. But when the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth: for he will not speak from himself, but what he hears, that he will speak: and he will make known to you things which are to come in the future. He will glorify me; because he will take of my own and show to you.

To put it in another way, Judaism failed to recognized God’s promise to mankind, and Islam has chosen the wrong side.

 

[elwill]

So, what was the proof that Muhammad brought? I agree that the follower of the prophets must have reasons to believe in them. Not just prophets, even a political leader has followers, and they have some reason to believe in such leader. But, I am not asking about the reason that you believe in Muhammad. Logically, before anybody followed Muhammad, he must have shown any proof that he is infact a prophet. And that is my question. What was the proof(s).

read this article

missionislam.com/quran/challenge.htm