Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hi Day,

There are enough questions about the verse to give reasonable doubt, and if you facture in that Jesus gave up His spirit, then the Jews didn't kill Him, though they called for Jesus' death. When they said to Pilate, "He deserves to die," then Pilate said, "You take Him and crucify Him."

If you look at this verse,

4:159. 'There is not one of the People of the Scriptures (this would refer to the Jews, because the Christians were not recognized yet), but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them.'

--- In other versions it says, 'There is not one of the people of the Scriptures who will not believe in "this," or who will not believe in "it" before his death.'

Now what happened before His death? --- There were 3 hours of darkness, from noon till 3 o"clock, (it seemed as though even the sun bowed its head over this period).

--- The veil of the temple was torn from the top to the bottom, signifying that God did it, to open the Holy of Holies so that people could thereafter pray directly to God without going through a priest.

--- There was an earthquake and the rocks were split and the graves were open and many of the saints which were dead arose. Matt 27:45-54.

Don't you think these things would terrify every one and the Jews would want to say, "We didn't do it."

I don't want to pursue this here but I have made mention of the sacrifice of 2:67-73 that said,

72. "Remember when you (Jews) slew a man and disagreed concerning it.

73. Then God brought the dead to life and showed you his portents (signs) so that you may understand.'*

The footnote says that Maulvi Muhammad Ali's exposition of 72-73 refers to the martyrdom of Jesus Christ.

The other interesting thing is that the Surah is called 'The Cow' after the heifer that was sacrificed in the days of Moses which relates to the Special red heifer that the Jews used for purification from sin in Numbers 19. For those who understand, the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of the world, compares with the red heifer that was sacrificed and its ashes sprinkled on the offending people for their cleansing.

When the ashes of the heifer were used up, they would have to find another unblemished heifer and reduce it to ashes to continue. --- But the sacrifice of Jesus was a final sacrifice for all time.

The Jews don't sacrifice a red heifer any more and probably don't really know why.

The Muslims don't understand the sacrifice of Jesus and don't want to know why.

But the Christians understand these Scriptures that are written in the OT and the Quran which verify what is written in the NT.

Sorry I had to throw this all in to simply say that I don't like it to be said that all this never happened,

or blame the 'wording' of 4:157 on Muhammad who believed in Jesus, and said He was of the truth.

(Day, I'm not sure if this helps. I think your divisions in the verse are good. The Jews, at night, or as a result of mob violence said, "Crucify Him." --- But in the broad daylight, or in the unnatural darkness of the day, they maybe didn't want to be responsible for it. --- What do you think?)

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Yonus,

Quote:

I heared Ahmad Deedat said once ,that this was not a miracle if he was dead for 3 days in the heart of the earth, but the miracle is to be like Jonah alive for three days in the belly of the whale

--- A good thought Yonus. The sign was that Jesus would be in the tomb three days, but it is intersting that you mention this because Peter says,

1 Peter 3:18. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being PUT TO DEATH IN THE FLESH, but made ALIVE IN THE SPIRIT,

19. By whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison (those who had died in the flood)

20. Who formerly were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

21. There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

22. Who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him.'

--- When Jesus died, His body was put in the tomb, but the spirit which never dies went the way of departed spirits to the prison of death. (I will explain this further in another topic later).

If you read my last post to Day I mentioned that at the point of Jesus' death as the sacrifice for sin, 'the graves were opened and many of the saints arose.'

These are difficult subjects to understand when you haven't studied them but, --- this is why Jesus had to die, because up to this time Satan had the power of death. When the Spirit of Jesus, 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,' went to the realm of the dead, He immediately released the saints who should have gone to heaven, but death held them till that time. --- But death couldn't hold the Spirit of Jesus as he had broken the chains of death.

Yonus, I will give you a little more 'difficult' Scripture which I may have to explain later, but ---

1 Cor 15:51. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep (in death) but we shall all be changed ---

52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we (including the living) shall be changed.

53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54. So when this corruptable has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory."

55. "O death, where is your sting? --- O Hades, where is your victory?"

56. The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.

57. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.'

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Day,

There are enough questions about the verse to give reasonable doubt, and if you facture in that Jesus gave up His spirit, then the Jews didn't kill Him, though they called for Jesus' death. When they said to Pilate, "He deserves to die," then Pilate said, "You take Him and crucify Him."

[Day] Hi Placid. Thanks for the info. Yes, The Jews wanted him dead and wanted Pilate to kill him.

If you look at this verse,4:159. 'There is not one of the People of the Scriptures (this would refer to the Jews, because the Christians were not recognized yet), but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them.'

[Day] Don't you think it may have included Christians since they first became known at Antioch somewhere in the middle of the first century? By 600 AD, I would think there were plenty of scriptures available.

--- In other versions it says, 'There is not one of the people of the Scriptures who will not believe in "this," or who will not believe in "it" before his death.'

Now what happened before His death? --- There were 3 hours of darkness, from noon till 3 o"clock, (it seemed as though even the sun bowed its head over this period).

[Day] Yes, we believe this is what happened. But from the muslim perspective, don't they believe this verse is looking to the future after Jesus returns and is then killed and resurrected?

The veil of the temple was torn from the top to the bottom, signifying that God did it, to open the Holy of Holies so that people could thereafter pray directly to God without going through a priest. --- There was an earthquake and the rocks were split and the graves were open and many of the saints which were dead arose. Matt 27:45-54.

Don't you think these things would terrify every one and the Jews would want to say, "We didn't do it."

[Day] I'm sure there was chaos and the people were terrified. Since calling for Jesus' death, and washing their hands of it, who knows if they thought that the curtain being torn and the rocks split were associated with what happened on the cross.

I don't want to pursue this here but I have made mention of the sacrifice of 2:67-73 that said,

72. "Remember when you (Jews) slew a man and disagreed concerning it.

73. Then God brought the dead to life and showed you his portents (signs) so that you may understand.'*

The footnote says that Maulvi Muhammad Ali's exposition of 72-73 refers to the martyrdom of Jesus Christ.

[Day] Interesting, but the context of the surrounding verses don't make it clear. It seems that they are speaking about Moses. Unlike the scriptures, The Quran often leaves doubt as to who is speaking.

When the ashes of the heifer were used up, they would have to find another unblemished heifer and reduce it to ashes to continue. --- But the sacrifice of Jesus was a final sacrifice for all time. The Jews don't sacrifice a red heifer any more and probably don't really know why.

[Day] Right, but it appears that the heifer sacrifices will be implemented again with the building of the new Temple, which could be soon. One has to wonder what stage this project is in. Of course, it won't happen until the Lord "gives the nod."

Sorry I had to throw this all in to simply say that I don't like it to be said that all this never happened, or blame the 'wording' of 4:157 on Muhammad who believed in Jesus, and said He was of the truth.

[Day] So you think Muhammed actually believed that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead? If he did, he didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Of course, muslims say they "believe in Jesus," but reject his Sonship, Deity and death on the cross.

(Day, I'm not sure if this helps. I think your divisions in the verse are good. The Jews, at night, or as a result of mob violence said, "Crucify Him." --- But in the broad daylight, or in the unnatural darkness of the day, they maybe didn't want to be responsible for it. --- What do you think?)

[Day] I think it would depend on how much time lapsed between the morning (Matt. 27:1) and the call for Jesus to be crucified (Matt. 27:22). It's possible that 27:1-22 happened before darkness fell on the land (Matt. 27:45). I appreciate your in depth and scholarly analysis of these verses. I'm still trying to digest your position that Muhammed believed in Jesus versus the wording of the key scriptures you've listed.

Thanks Placid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Placid,

I heared Ahmad Deedat said onece ,that this was not a miracle if he was a dead for 3 days in the heart of the earth ,but the miracle is to be like Jonah a live for three days in the belly of the whale .

I didn't start thinking what I'm about to write until I learned that crucifixion was intended to be a slow and humiliating form of torture. Take it for what it's worth.

There are two passages in the Christian bible that I think hint to the possibility that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross. The first is the request for the body. Since Jesus was executed for claiming to be the king of the Jewish people -- that is, treason -- they would normally have left the body on the cross until it was eaten by vultures and decayed. The second is where the Roman-appointed leaders of the Temple request permission to seal the tomb and post a guard. There's no mention that the guards made sure the body was actually in the tomb (really -- no where in the Christian bible does anyone, other than Jesus's followers, verify that the body was actually IN the tomb. Joseph takes the body and says he puts it in the tomb, but there is no independent verification of this -- the centurion, who oversaw the crucifixion, and who becomes sympathetic to Jesus, is the person who verifies to Pilate that Jesus was dead. The only other witnesses are all followers of Jesus. In short, there is no one who isn't sympathetic to Jesus involved in determining that he was, in fact, dead and buried.), only that they secured the tomb and posted a guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ariella,

The Scripture says,

John 19:30. 'So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

31Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross (for that Sabbath was a high day),* the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him.

33. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.

34. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

35. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.'

Luke 24:46. 'And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, into your hands I commend My spirit." And having said this, He breathed His last.

47. Now when the centurian saw what had happened, he glorified God, saying, "Certainly this was a righteous Man!"

48. And the whole crowd who came together to that sight, seeing what had been done, beat their breasts and returned.

49. But all His aquaintences, and the women who followed Him from Galilee, stood at a distance watching these things.'

* This 'high day' was believed to be the 14th of Nisan which is the beginning of the feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread (in our April), is that right? And it was possibly a Wednesday. Normally a body would remain on a cross for a long time, but to quicken the death they would break the legs so that there was no support for the body and they would quickly suffocate, I believe.

--- (For that Sabbath was a high day). This 'high day' which was called a Sabbath was in accordance with the Passover in Exodus 12, I believe.

Others saw the tomb as well as, no doubt, the soldiers, before they sealed it.

John 19:38. 'After this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that He might take away the body of Jesus.

39. And Nicodemus, who first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes.

40. Then they took the body of Jesus and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.'

Luke 23:53. 'Then he (Joseph) took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever lain before.

54. That day was the Preparation and the Sabbath drew near.

55. And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid.'

Notice, --- The women from Galilee watched the crucifixion as well as the burial.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to have strayed so far from the topic of the Injeel.

I agree with Son in Post 22.

Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7 are called 'The Sermon on the Mount,' and is, I believe, the greatest sermon in the Bible.

It starts with the 'Beattitudes' from 2-12, which correspond with the ones in Post 10 from the time of Imam Ali, which were no doubt translated from Greek to Arabic, before being translated to English.

The Bible took a different route. It was translated from Greek to Latin, --- translated by Jerome about AD 400, and remained in use till the 16th century when the Douay version of the Catholic Bible was translated from Latin to English.

About the same time King James of England commissioned some 47 scholars to make a Bible that the common people could read, and they produced the King James Bible.

The Sermon on the Mount was not repeated in the other Gospels as Matthew wrote for the benefit of the Jews. (Mark, to the Romans; Luke, to the Greeks; and John's was a general Gospel).

Notice, --- Ch 5 deals with what the believer should be, to verse 16. The rest of 5 deals with the law and His fulfillment of it. The Law of Moses would only be of interest to the Jews.

Notice, --- Ch 6 deals with attitudes of giving alms, the model prayer, fasting, and wealth.

Notice, --- Ch 7 deals with the 'ways of life' and the way into the kingdom of God.

I agree with Son, that if anything was part of the Injeel it would be ch 5, --- which he wrote out in Post 22, --- and I believe most likely, the Injeel (first Gospel writing) could be all three chapters.

This is why. --- Chapter 7 ends with this:

24. "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock;

25. And the rain descended, the floods came, and the wind blew and beat upon that house; and it did not fall for it was founded on the rock.

26. Now everyone who hears these saying of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand;

27. And the rains descended, the floods came, and the wind blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was the fall of it."

Matthew was a tax collector, a businessman, used to keeping records. It is suggested that he would know the shorthand of the day, and that he was the 'recorder' or secretary for the disciples.

They believe that Matthew's first writing, made for distribution to the people were called, "The Sayings of Jesus," in Aramaic. --- Jesus said, "Whoever hears THESE SAYINGS OF MINE, and does them."

Do you think that may have been what he wrote and why he would title it, "The Sayings of Jesus"?

I dare say, --- that if we had these three chapters only and followed them, we would find the way to eternal life. Do you agree?

Do you think this may have been the Injeel that was lost? Could it have contained anything better?

They have found no copies of the book but have references to it. Also they believe that Matthew wrote an earlier Gospel in Aramaic, but there are no copies of it either.

I guess the greatest single verse is what is called 'The Golden Rule,'

7:12. "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so the sign was meant for the house of David, this sign from ABOVE was that a virgin would give birth.

the word used is `almah which is a young woman of a very young age basically a young virgin.

almah means a young unmarried woman in fact every young unmarried woman were considered to be a virgin. in every instant the word is used you can see it means a young unmarried woman for instance Rebekah and Moses's sister which were virgins at the time of the mentioning.

those times were not like these times were woman have intercourse even without marriage in those times it was strict you were required to be married before you had intercourse.

Your assertion is false.

There is no sin of fornication in the Torah. The sin is adultery -- which is a married person having sexual intercourse with a person to whom they are not married. Adultery does not cover two unmarried people having sexual intercourse.

The Mishnah (I don't study the Talmud nearly as much as the Mishnah (because I'm a woman and women have a hard time finding people to study Talmud with), but I'm sure Mamonidies can read Ketubot and find the same thing) makes it clear that marriage can be contracted in various ways, including when two people, neither of whom are married, have sexual intercourse -- but that it is not required that if two people, neither of whom are married, have sexual intercourse, that they are thereby married. I think that Islam codifies this as a "temporary marriage", but I don't claim to know Islam nearly as well as Judaism or Christianity. But I'm learning -- soon I'll be annoying in all three Abrahamic faiths!

The problem with this Christian mistranslation is that it is a classic Christian excuse for mistranslating the Hebrew bible. The second problem is that if you read the surrounding verses for context, you see that Jesus failed to fulfill many of them -- meaning, either Isaiah wasn't a prophet (in which case, who cares what Isaiah said about Jesus's birth), or Isaiah wasn't writing about Jesus (in which case, who cares what Christians think Isaiah said about Jesus's birth). Either way, that supposed prophecy about Jesus is something that can be ignored.

Jesus having a no father creates more problems that it solves. One problem is that it would make Jesus a mamzer -- a [Edited Out], in modern English (I could be wrong -- mamzerut is not an area of law I've studied much). Another problem is that he wouldn't be of the House of David. Christians try to get around this by claiming that Miriam (Mary) was of the House of David, but tribal affiliation goes by the father, not the mother. Without a father, Jesus wasn't a member of the tribe of Judah, and he was inelligible to be king, which means he wasn't elligible to be the messiah, since "Messiah" just means "Annointed", as if he were the king or something.

(Edited because I had the wrong name for where marriage laws are discussed ...)

Edited by Ariella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your assertion is false.

There is no sin of fornication in the Torah. The sin is adultery -- which is a married person having sexual intercourse with a person to whom they are not married. Adultery does not cover two unmarried people having sexual intercourse.

I never said it was a sin of fornication I said that there was no intimate encounters in judaism until marriage as far as I have been told from jewish sources.

The Mishnah (I don't study the Talmud nearly as much as the Mishnah (because I'm a woman and women have a hard time finding people to study Talmud with), but I'm sure Mamonidies can read Kiddushin and find the same thing) makes it clear that marriage can be contracted in various ways, including when two people, neither of whom are married, have sexual intercourse -- but that it is not required that if two people, neither of whom are married, have sexual intercourse, that they are thereby married. I think that Islam codifies this as a "temporary marriage", but I don't claim to know Islam nearly as well as Judaism or Christianity. But I'm learning -- soon I'll be annoying in all three Abrahamic faiths!

I will ask some Jews I know who are well learned about Judaism whether sex before marriage in Judaism was allowed, I have heard the custom was that they would get married before they had any sort of intimate encounter.

all of the almah's in the tanach were unmarried young virgins, I know because I have studied the tanach and all the passages that include almah'.

that is good that you are learning we all learn especially in forums and being around others who love to study.

The problem with this Christian mistranslation is that it is a classic Christian excuse for mistranslating the Hebrew bible. The second problem is that if you read the surrounding verses for context, you see that Jesus failed to fulfill many of them -- meaning, either Isaiah wasn't a prophet (in which case, who cares what Isaiah said about Jesus's birth), or Isaiah wasn't writing about Jesus (in which case, who cares what Christians think Isaiah said about Jesus's birth). Either way, that supposed prophecy about Jesus is something that can be ignored.

can you illustrate to me the sorrounding verses ane the context and how it does not add to Jesus, I have given you a reply corcerning the sorrounding verses using jewish sources and words(judaic press complete tanach) of the almah giving birth the sign from the depths and heights above which was given to the house of David to show that God would destroy the Kings of Israel, Syria and Ephraim had to be a miracle sign.

an ordinary young woman giving birth is no sign at all. the almah (young unmarried woman) giving birth was the sign witnessed by the House of David.

Jesus having a no father creates more problems that it solves. One problem is that it would make Jesus a mamzer -- a [Edited Out], in modern English (I could be wrong -- mamzerut is not an area of law I've studied much). Another problem is that he wouldn't be of the House of David. Christians try to get around this by claiming that Miriam (Mary) was of the House of David, but tribal affiliation goes by the father, not the mother. Without a father, Jesus wasn't a member of the tribe of Judah, and he was inelligible to be king, which means he wasn't elligible to be the messiah, since "Messiah" just means "Annointed", as if he were the king or something.

can you show me the verse where it says tribal affiliations can only come from the Father. I have studied the quotes from the tanach which Jews have given me and it only describes in context to count the affiliations by the Father for the purpose of war, but if you can show me eitherwise I would be very happy.

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said it was a sin of fornication I said that there was no intimate encounters in judaism until marriage as far as I have been told from jewish sources.

According to Jewish sources, Abraham and Hagar weren't married. So, I'm sorry, but either you made up your response, or your source was woefully uneducated. I can name quite a few other examples if you'd like.

As for the others, I'm sorry, but all you do is ask questions. I've given you plenty of answers for today. Besides, I'm busy today :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Baqar,

Sorry to be slow in responding.

Quote:

The Holy Spirit and any reference to the Trinity are indeed alien to Islam. But we do believe in the miracle of the Virgin Birth. What baffles me is how Christians believe in the Virgin Birth if Jesus' mother was living with Joseph at the time.

Islam does, however, accept the miracle of the Virgin Birth, in that there was no male involved in the birth of Jesus. There is no mention of Joseph in Islamic scriptures.

--- The last first. --- In Judaism the lineage was always from the father, and Joseph was engaged to Mary, but not living with her. I am sure you have read Matthew 1:18-25, that explains it.

'Before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.'

Joseph could have had her put to death for infidelity, or break off the engagement, but an angel appeared to him in a dream and said,

'Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.'

24. 'Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife.

25. And did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.'

Jesus was recorded in the census as being the Son of Joseph the carpenter, thus in the line of David.

Matthew follows the lineage of Joseph starting with Matthew 1:1 where he says, 'The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.'

--- Then the lineage continues from David through Solomon, his son, to Joseph, Jesus' foster father.

In Luke 3, the genealogy follows the lineage of Mary who was a descendant of David through his son Nathan. In writing to the Greeks, Luke gave the lineage through the mother, which was accurate, because of the virgin birth. And both being of the household of David, they went to Bethlehem to be registered for the census in Luke 2, and Jesus was recorded as Joseph's Son.

In the Quran it gives the hint that Mary had been immoral in 19:27-28 but it doesn't elaborate on it, except perhaps the slander of Mary in 4:156, which is not explained, but may have referred to it.

However, as you say, --- THE HOLY SPIRIT --- is alien to Muslims, --- and that has been a detriment.

Notice, --- twice in the Scripture above in Matthew it mentions the Holy Spirit in the virgin birth.

Notice, --- twice in the Quran it mentions the Holy Spirit in the virgin birth.

While in 3:47, and 19:35 it says, 'When God decrees a thing He only says "Be!" and it is.'

--- In 21:91. 'And she who was chaste, therefore We breathed into her something of OUR SPIRIT (the Holy Spirit), and made her and her son a token for all people.'

Notice, --- 'made her and her son a token (sign) for all people.' --- This is why Jesus will always be the centre of attention and controversy, because until you understand the 'sign,' it is confusing.

--- In 66:12. 'And Mary, daughter of Imran, whose body was chaste, therefore We breathed therein something of OUR SPIRIT (the Holy Spirit). And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was of the obedient.' --- Notice, --- 'she put faith in in the Scripture' that predicted that a virgin would conceive and have a Son.

Baqar, --- when I read these verses in the Quran a few years ago and realized that it said the same thing, about the Holy Spirit coming on Mary to impregnate her, as it did in Luke, I wanted to study it all to see how much of the Gospel is repeated in the Quran.

Now you will understand why I have been such an 'annoyance' to this forum ever since.

I would like to introduce you to more concepts in the Quran that involve the Holy Spirit, but for now I will just give you one more verse to consider.

2:87. 'And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers (the Prophets) to follow after him. And We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs of God's sovereignty, and We supported him with THE HOLY SPIRIT. --- Is it ever so, that, when there comes unto you a messenger from God with that which you yourselves desire not, you grow arrogant, and some you disbelieve and some you slay?

The prophesy said that Jesus would be 'rejected of men,' and would be a 'sign' spoken against.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Jewish sources, Abraham and Hagar weren't married.

[Day] I think you are right about this. Their relationship was nothing more than an "arrangement" so Sarah and Abraham could have a son. But they still only had a 50/50 chance since this arrangement excluded God, who had already promised them (Abraham and Sarah) they would have a son, but only in His timing.

Where the scripture says Sarah gave Hagar as a "wife," that doesn't make it a marriage because she had no authority to make anyone her husband's wife and God had no say in the matter. Also, the hebrew for "wife" (Ishah) can mean "woman." All Sarah did was give another woman to Abraham for the reason stated.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Jewish sources, Abraham and Hagar weren't married. So, I'm sorry, but either you made up your response, or your source was woefully uneducated. I can name quite a few other examples if you'd like.

As for the others, I'm sorry, but all you do is ask questions. I've given you plenty of answers for today. Besides, I'm busy today

well as far as scriptures Abraham and Hagar were married.

Berei[Edited Out] 6:3. So Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, at the end of ten years of Abram's dwelling in the land of Canaan, and she gave her to Abram her husband for a wife.

this shows more that sexual relations only occured after marriage or else Sarah would not give Hagar to Abraham for a wife.

Daystar is right Abraham and Hagar's marriage was done without the permission of God but basically sexual relations between a jewish man and his wife only occured after marriage.

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well as far as scriptures Abraham and Hagar were married.

Genesis 16:3. So Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, at the end of ten years of Abram's dwelling in the land of Canaan, and she gave her to Abram her husband for a wife.

this shows more that sexual relations only occured after marriage or else Sarah would not give Hagar to Abraham for a wife.

And Daystar pointed out, "אשה" can also mean "woman", or just plain "female", as in a female animal. That Hagar was not a "wife" is obvious from how Sarah retains control over Hagar, and the subsequent language used to describe her -- Hagar was still Sarah's slave.

See Genesis 7:2 -- the language there is "איש ואשתו" (male and his female). Do you want to claim that animals also marry?

Daystar is right Abraham and Hagar's marriage was done without the permission of God but basically sexual relations between a jewish man and his wife only occured after marriage.

Do you have a source for that claim?

More to the point, Abraham wasn't a Jew.

Edited by Ariella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Daystar pointed out, "אשה" can also mean "woman", or just plain "female", as in a female animal. That Hagar was not a "wife" is obvious from how Sarah retains control over Hagar, and the subsequent language used to describe her -- Hagar was still Sarah's slave.

See Genesis 7:2 -- the language there is "איש ואשתו" (male and his female). Do you want to claim that animals also marry?

the word 'ishshah means wife (woman married to a man) and female of animals.

Do you have a source for that claim?

More to the point, Abraham wasn't a Jew.

yes Jewish sources

Maimonides writes that non-marital intercourse falls under the Biblical prohibition of “there shall not be any promiscuous men among the Jewish people; nor shall there be any promiscuous women among the Jewish people” Deut. 23:1

Nachmanides disagrees with this derivation, maintaining that the prohibition is implicit in the Biblical injunction “And the earth shall not be filled with immorality” (Lev. 19; 29).

The Raavad, according to most authorities, deduces it directly from the command to marry. Implicit in the command to marry, he says, is a prohibition of all nonmarital intercourse. This is technichally referred to as an "Issur assei", a Biblical prohibition implicit in a positive commandment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the word 'ishshah means wife (woman married to a man) and female of animals.

No, it means all of those things -- as well as "woman". Hebrew is a small language. Context matters.

yes Jewish sources

You need to work on your sources, or since you've provided excellent ones, you need to learn how to read them.

Maimonides writes that non-marital intercourse falls under the Biblical prohibition of “there shall not be any promiscuous men among the Jewish people; nor shall there be any promiscuous women among the Jewish people” Deut. 23:1

And the laws of most nations say that murder is illegal. Yet it keeps on happening. Go figure.

Nachmanides disagrees with this derivation, maintaining that the prohibition is implicit in the Biblical injunction “And the earth shall not be filled with immorality” (Lev. 19; 29).

This has the same problem. There's is a difference between "ought to be" and "is". A young woman may or may not be a virgin. The only thing you can tell from the use of "almah" is that she is a young woman. Indeed, if she is a young woman who is not an Israelite the assumption is that she is not a virgin. The law gets even more complex when it comes to issues of women taken captive, women who were converted past various ages, etc.

There is an entirely different word which definitely means "virgin" -- see here virgin -- בתולה. It wasn't used by Isaiah, not that it matters since that person was long since born and died by the time Jesus was born.

The Raavad, according to most authorities, deduces it directly from the command to marry. Implicit in the command to marry, he says, is a prohibition of all nonmarital intercourse. This is technichally referred to as an "Issur assei", a Biblical prohibition implicit in a positive commandment.

Is there a biblical commandment to refrain from murder? Was no one ever murdered, then?

(Edited to add)

I just realized that there is a strong argument to be made against "sex only happens inside marriage", and that is the existence of concubines.

Also, in the case of Abraham and Hagar, Genesis (I can't believe the Hebrew name gets auto-edited) 25:12, where Hagar is again referred to as Sarah's handmaid.

There's also Gen 24:5 -- "And the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman ("האשה") will not be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest?"

Edited by Ariella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it means all of those things -- as well as "woman". Hebrew is a small language. Context matters.

yes it does, yet I dont see what point you have with this, if it is true and it is not wed, my original point was that the jewish custom was for marriage before sex which God is for, I have showed this with jewish sources.

by you showing Abraham and Hagar this was not condoned by God and both Hagar and Abraham were not Jews as you yourself stated.

And the laws of most nations say that murder is illegal. Yet it keeps on happening. Go figure

I am not saying people did not sin what I am saying is that, it was a custom by God and the people they were for marriage before sex, sex is a holy thing between a man and a woman. pre-marital sex removes the holyness and makes it into an animalistic act.

This has the same problem. There's is a difference between "ought to be" and "is". A young woman may or may not be a virgin. The only thing you can tell from the use of "almah" is that she is a young woman. Indeed, if she is a young woman who is not an Israelite the assumption is that she is not a virgin. The law gets even more complex when it comes to issues of women taken captive, women who were converted past various ages, etc.

all almahs in the tanach were unmarried young virgin for instance David as a tot (boy) was mentioned as an almah and Rebekah and Moses' sister. all the woman mentioned were unmarried young virgins there is no almah mentioned in the tanach which was married or had any sort of intimate encounter basically an almah was according to the context a young woman of marriable age which is not married.

There is an entirely different word which definitely means "virgin" -- see here virgin -- בתולה. It wasn't used by Isaiah, not that it matters since that person was long since born and died by the time Jesus was born.

the word Bethulah has been used to describe woman who are not virgins for example Joel 1.8 and Esther 2:8-17.

Joel 1:8 says mourn like a bethulah in sackcloth grieving for the husband of her youth.

theres also the point that the septuagint an older jewish translation made in pre-christian Alexandria does in fact take almah to mean virgin by using parthenos.

Is there a biblical commandment to refrain from murder? Was no one ever murdered, then?

(Edited to add)

I just realized that there is a strong argument to be made against "sex only happens inside marriage", and that is the existence of concubines.

Also, in the case of Abraham and Hagar, Genesis (I can't believe the Hebrew name gets auto-edited) 25:12, where Hagar is again referred to as Sarah's handmaid.

There's also Gen 24:5 -- "And the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman ("האשה") will not be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest?"

thanks for this Ariella I will certainly ask the jewish sources I know about the concubines and thanks for continuing in this healthy dialogue.

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes it does, yet I dont see what point you have with this, if it is true and it is not wed, my original point was that the jewish custom was for marriage before sex which God is for, I have showed this with jewish sources.

If "almah" is not "virgin" than all you have is "ought to be" and not "is always".

by you showing Abraham and Hagar this was not condoned by God and both Hagar and Abraham were not Jews as you yourself stated.

Okay, then King Solomon and all his concubines.

I am not saying people did not sin what I am saying is that, it was a custom by God and the people they were for marriage before sex, sex is a holy thing between a man and a woman. pre-marital sex removes the holyness and makes it into an animalistic act.

Yes, of course -- people should obey G-d and refrain from sin. This doesn't mean that people do. So, if all that's said is "person", or "man" or "young woman", you can't say "From this we know that the young woman was a virgin". There's a way to say "virgin" -- if that's what's meant, that's what should be used.

all almahs in the tanach were unmarried young virgin

That's incorrrect -- the only thing you can say about them is that they are all, at least, young women.

Psalm 68:25 -- do you think all those women really were virgins? Not a sinful women in that verse?

Proverbs 30:19 -- do you think those woman all stay virgins?

the word Bethulah has been used to describe woman who are not virgins for example Joel 1.8 and Esther 2:8-17.

Joel 1:8 says mourn like a bethulah in sackcloth grieving for the husband of her youth.

Yes, and if someone says "Cry like a baby" they don't mean the person is a baby, or is still a baby.

theres also the point that the septuagint an older jewish translation made in pre-christian Alexandria does in fact take almah to mean virgin by using parthenos.

thanks for this Ariella I will certainly ask the jewish sources I know about the concubines and thanks for continuing in this healthy dialogue.

Ignore the Septuagint -- stick with the original Hebrew. Anything that's been so heavily utilized by Christians will have been corrupted by them for their purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello Ariella, sorry for responding late I had a big day.

If "almah" is not "virgin" than all you have is "ought to be" and not "is always".

the context show it's a virgin because all almahs written in the tanach are unmarried young virgins for instance David when he was a tot was called an almah and Rivkah and Moses sister.

let me show you all the almahs in the bible..

first there's Genesis 24:43 in here it talks about Abraham's servant looking for a wife for Isaac, Rebekah was the woman and she was certainly a virgin.

in Exodus 2:8 the word is used in reference to Miriam who was in fact a young virgin.

Psalms 68:25 mentions young girls playing timbrel.

Song of Solomon 6:8 contrasts virgins with queens and concubines, showing almahs have not had sexual relations.

another reason that it is a literal virgin besides the use in the tanach for all other almahs is because of context you have to read the context of Isaiah and understand. this was a sign for the House of David to show that God would deliver Ahaz and Judah from the sorrounding armies this was a sign so big that Ahaz refused to ask God because in doing so he would be tempting God.

to say that sign was for a normal young woman to give birth is plain unconcievable.

Okay, then King Solomon and all his concubines.

I have received a response from Jewish sources I know.

pretty much the same thing. A concubine is just a "lesser" wife

Ariella you have to understand that Solomon was a man who practiced polygamy that's why he had many wives.

Yes, of course -- people should obey G-d and refrain from sin. This doesn't mean that people do. So, if all that's said is "person", or "man" or "young woman", you can't say "From this we know that the young woman was a virgin". There's a way to say "virgin" -- if that's what's meant, that's what should be used.

the one that gave the sign was God not a fallible human, if God says this almah would give birth he means it. God doesn't commit sin to say so would be unwise.

almah is a virgin by the sorrounding context and by the word almah used in the tanach yet the word bethulah has been used in context to show non virgins.

That's incorrrect -- the only thing you can say about them is that they are all, at least, young women.

can you name me one almah that had sexual relations or was married at the time or before they were called almahs ?

Psalm 68:25 -- do you think all those women really were virgins? Not a sinful women in that verse?

can you show me where it says they had any sort of intimate encounters ? there is no evidence that these almahs were in fact sexualy active.

Proverbs 30:19 -- do you think those woman all stay virgins?

the way of a man with an almah is one of the four things which are amazing and hard to understand this means a courtship between a man and an unmarried maiden.

Yes, and if someone says "Cry like a baby" they don't mean the person is a baby, or is still a baby.

so a bethulah grieving for the husband of her youth doesn't mean she had a husband ? please explain.

Ignore the Septuagint -- stick with the original Hebrew. Anything that's been so heavily utilized by Christians will have been corrupted by them for their purposes.

the septuagint is a JEWISH translation used in PRE-Christian Alexandria this was before christianity so it could not have been corrupted by christians.

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic is 'The Injeel.'

Today I read the long topic on 'Imam Ali and Jesus Christ,' by Bani Hashim.

It is very long and can be read in stages. Imam Ali called Jesus his brother and used the Gospel message extensively, especially Matthew.

Part of it deals with what God taught Jesus when He gave Him the Gospel, as it says in the Quran.

Then there is the prediction of Muhammad's coming, the 'trustworthy one.'

Then the teachings of Jesus. --- It contains the beattitudes from the Sermon on the Mount, --- many lessons from the NT, --- as well as many that are not written in the Gospels, but that are reflected in the teaching from various places of OT and NT,

Could this have been the Injeel (Gospel) that was supposedly lost?

At any rate, is this not what the Injeel would have contained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hello Ariella, sorry for responding late I had a big day.

the context show it's a virgin because all almahs written in the tanach are unmarried young virgins for instance David when he was a tot was called an almah and Rivkah and Moses sister.

let me show you all the almahs in the bible..

first there's Genesis 24:43 in here it talks about Abraham's servant looking for a wife for Isaac, Rebekah was the woman and she was certainly a virgin.

in Exodus 2:8 the word is used in reference to Miriam who was in fact a young virgin.

Psalms 68:25 mentions young girls playing timbrel.

Song of Solomon 6:8 contrasts virgins with queens and concubines, showing almahs have not had sexual relations.

another reason that it is a literal virgin besides the use in the tanach for all other almahs is because of context you have to read the context of Isaiah and understand. this was a sign for the House of David to show that God would deliver Ahaz and Judah from the sorrounding armies this was a sign so big that Ahaz refused to ask God because in doing so he would be tempting God.

You missed a few :)

There are 7 instances of עלמה in the Hebrew bible. Of those, only Genesis 24:43 is definitely -- and that's only because it was a qualification -- referring to a virgin. Yet there is another purpose for asking for a young woman -- not having an older virgin brought back ...

The word עלמה is nothing more than the feminine of the word עלמ the same as my name (אריאלה) is the feminine of אריאל, or "Lion of G-d". The word עלמ is also the word for "vigor", and that's the implication -- that a person referenced using עלמ is young, and full of vigor, as Rashi explains in his commentary on Sh'mot 2:8

Now, if you look at Joel 1:8, which is your disproof text, the passage starts "ali ki'bethulah ..." -- that "ki" really does mean "like".

to say that sign was for a normal young woman to give birth is plain unconcievable.

Why? The Jewish understanding of that passage isn't future tense -- it's present tense. The "sign" isn't the supposedly miraculous birth, it's the other things that happen. You simply stop at 7:14 and declare the prophecy "done".

Here's an analysis of Isaiah 7:14. First, the KJV (and to be clear, I use the KJV because the website I use is particularly useful for search the Hebrew text, not because I endorse the KJV, which I most certainly do not) --

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin (sic) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This is in the present tense, and the proof of that is found two verses later --

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

It doesn't say "before the child will be born, at some distant point in the future ...". The verse refers to a child who will be alive during the time of King Ahaz.

Continuing in the same prophecy, there is further description of what's going to happen, none of which happened when Jesus was alive --

Isa 7:23 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall [even] be for briers and thorns.

Because we know there were grapes in the area at the time Jesus was around, we know that "every place" with vines didn't become overrun with briers and thorns. To the contrary, Judea was still a wine producing land, the same as Judea (the modern State of Israel) produces wine today.

Now, to discuss the word "bethulah" (בתולה ). בתולה is passive participle (and feminine, singular at that) of "to separate". This makes much more sense to be the root of "virgin" and "vigor".

This is what Drazin, who wrote "Their Hollow Inheritance", has to say (and it's a great text -- I encourage all the Muslims here to read it :) Wouldn't hurt for Christians to read it, but they might stop being Christians after reading it.)

Ahaz refused, however, so Isaiah responded with the verse under discussion. Concerning this child, Isaiah said:

Isaiah 7:15--16

He shall eat curd and honey when he knows how to refuse evil and choose good. For before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.

And so it was:

II Kings 15:29--30

In the days of Pekah (king of Israel), Tiglath--pileser (king of Assyria) came and took Ijon, Abel--beth--maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee—all the land of Naphtali—and carried them captive to Assyria. And Hosea (the son of Elah) plotted a conspiracy against Pekah (the son of Ramaliah) and smote him, killed him, and reigned in his stead in the twentieth year of Jotham, the son of Uzziah.

II Kings 16:9

And the king of Assyria hearkened to [Ahaz], for the king of Assyria marched up against Damascus [syria] and seized it, carrying its people captive to Kir, and he killed Rezin.

I have received a response from Jewish sources I know.

pretty much the same thing. A concubine is just a "lesser" wife

Could you, like, get them to respond here?

Ariella you have to understand that Solomon was a man who practiced polygamy that's why he had many wives.

the one that gave the sign was God not a fallible human, if God says this almah would give birth he means it. God doesn't commit sin to say so would be unwise.

almah is a virgin by the sorrounding context and by the word almah used in the tanach yet the word bethulah has been used in context to show non virgins.

can you name me one almah that had sexual relations or was married at the time or before they were called almahs ?

can you show me where it says they had any sort of intimate encounters ? there is no evidence that these almahs were in fact sexualy active.

That's not the way debate works. I've demonstrated above that עלמה is nothing more than the feminine of עלמ, and that another meaning of עלמ is "vigor", based on Rashi's commentary on Exodus 2:8. Furthermore, the root of בתולה , "to be separated" (passive voice), linguistically makes more sense to mean "virgin" than "vigor". It's unknown if David was or wasn't a virgin when he was referred to as a עלמ, and given his thing for the ladies (and Jonathan, but I digress), I would argue that "young man" is more accurate than "sexually inexperienced man", particularly in light of the language David uses to refer to Jonathan.

However, to your specific challenge, I do offer David as an example of a עלמ who was not a virgin. He says in 1st Samuel

1Sa 21:5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women [have been] kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and [the bread is] in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.

He doesn't say "I've never known a woman", only that he's been away from women for three days.

Previously עלמ was used to describe him, just after he slew Goliath

1Sa 17:56 And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling [is].

The word "stripling" is עלמ in the Hebrew, which as I explained earlier is the masculine form of עלמה.

the way of a man with an almah is one of the four things which are amazing and hard to understand this means a courtship between a man and an unmarried maiden.

Sorry -- I disagree with your "understanding". Look at the Hebrew. The meaning is entirely different. The "man" isn't just any man -- he's a particularly strong and viril man.

so a bethulah grieving for the husband of her youth doesn't mean she had a husband ? please explain.

I explained already. A grown man who is crying "like a baby" isn't a baby. A man who prances about or gossips "like a woman" (and I disagree with the sexist implications of this, I am merely using it as an example) isn't a woman.

Is there a qualitative difference between how a woman would mourn for her husband if their marriage had not yet been consumated, as compared to how a woman would mourn for her husband if they had been married a great many years? That's what is being described -- the qualities of a newly married woman before she and the bridegroom have consumated their relationship.

the septuagint is a JEWISH translation used in PRE-Christian Alexandria this was before christianity so it could not have been corrupted by christians.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation for Hellenized (read: heavily influenced by pagan traditions) Jews. That it was originally written so that there would be a Greek language copy in the library in Alexandria is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Septuagint was a Greek translation for Hellenized (read: heavily influenced by pagan traditions) Jews. That it was originally written so that there would be a Greek language copy in the library in Alexandria is irrelevant.

Actually, this is an area where even many Jews get a bit confused, because to say "the Septuagint" implies that there is "a" Septuagint and that when two people separated by 2500 years refer to "the Septuagint" they are talking about the same document.

As it turns out, that is not the case. The original "Septuagint" was the product of translation by seventy-two Jewish scholars at the order of the Greek king Ptolemy Philadelphus in the 3d century BCE. The translators did not in fact want to translate the Bible from Hebrew to Greek, but were forced to by the kind. In order to avoid certain political problems, they deliberately "mis"-translated 15 specific verses.

This Septuagint was used for casual purposes by Greek-speaking diaspora Jewish communities for about 200 years, although it never enjoyed the endorsement of the rabbis and in fact the rabbis deemed the day of the translation to be a dark day for the Jewish people. (This was not a blanket opposition to all translations; the rabbis specifically endorsed two different Aramaic translations as being good enough for synagogue use, and a later Greek translation, by Aquila, produced freely and not under physical coercion, also seems to have enjoyed some support.)

Variations emerged. When a sofer (specially trained Jewish scribe) writes a Torah scroll, every stroke of every Hebrew letter is meticulously compared, and if there is even a calligraphic problem, the entire scroll is invalid. But when a random Greek-speaking person made a copy of a Greek book he happened to have, the quality control was not so rigorous, to say the least, and so "the Septuagint" began to drift into "my Septuagint" which was not necessarily the same as "your Septuagint."

Jewish use of the Septuagint ended shortly after the fall of the Second Temple. Thereafter, only Christians used it, and even they recognized various problems. Indeed, the authoritative Christian translator St. Jerome checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew, determined that the Septuagint then in his possession was not a good translation, and translated most of the "Old Testament" of his Vulgate edition from the Hebrew original rather than the "Septuagint" (which was most likely considerably different, even in his day, from the original Septuagint made by those 72 hapless Jews).

By the way, the 15 specific verses that the translators deliberately mis-translated? 13 out of the 15 aren't in the "Septuagint" that we have today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry I have not answered in a while I took a trip to west virginia this weekend and had no internet service.

You missed a few

There are 7 instances of עלמה in the Hebrew bible. Of those, only Genesis 24:43 is definitely -- and that's only because it was a qualification -- referring to a virgin. Yet there is another purpose for asking for a young woman -- not having an older virgin brought back ...

The word עלמה is nothing more than the feminine of the word עלמ the same as my name (אריאלה) is the feminine of אריאל, or "Lion of G-d". The word עלמ is also the word for "vigor", and that's the implication -- that a person referenced using עלמ is young, and full of vigor, as Rashi explains in his commentary on Sh'mot 2:8

Now, if you look at Joel 1:8, which is your disproof text, the passage starts "ali ki'bethulah ..." -- that "ki" really does mean "like".

I have looked up the hebrew dictionary for almah which translates almah as a child of marriable age or as a childless young woman which may or may not be a virgin.

the hebrew concordance of Mandelkern gives the meaning of the hebrew word almah as puella nubilis, virgo matura (Solomon Mandelkern, Konkordantziah laTanach or Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae, Tel Aviv, 1978, p. 881) the translation of puella nubilis is marriable child and the translation of virgo matura is young virgin. the dictionary gives the definition of almah meaning a marriable child which is expected to be a virgin which was the meaning believed by the Jewish community bc.

the Geseniusí Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament if you turn to page 594 also gives the meaning of almah as a marriable child or mature virgin

the meaning in the dictionary was marriable girl and mature virgin I was looking for any jewish person or non jewish to give me evidence of almah referring to a married woman and I have not found any.

now if we read the song of songs (solomon) we read "There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number."

in this verse we are dealing with a list which is defined by marrital status not sexual status This means that the threescore queens were married. Also that the fourscore concubines were married, though they did not have the same rights as the queens they are concubines. We have here women with three kinds of marital status. The first group was married; the second ones were concubines; remains the unmarried status. This means that the alamot (translated as virgins) are unmarried.

now you talked about Genesis 24:14

Genesis 24:14 And let it come to pass, that the damsel (naíorah) to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master.

Genesis 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin (almah) cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink

almah here obviously refers to an unmarried woman

as you can see all evidence without a doubt in the scriptures and jewish sources point to almah being a young woman of marriable age who is unmarried a literal virgin.

Why? The Jewish understanding of that passage isn't future tense -- it's present tense. The "sign" isn't the supposedly miraculous birth, it's the other things that happen. You simply stop at 7:14 and declare the prophecy "done".

Here's an analysis of Isaiah 7:14. First, the KJV (and to be clear, I use the KJV because the website I use is particularly useful for search the Hebrew text, not because I endorse the KJV, which I most certainly do not) --

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin (sic) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This is in the present tense, and the proof of that is found two verses later --

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

It doesn't say "before the child will be born, at some distant point in the future ...". The verse refers to a child who will be alive during the time of King Ahaz.

Continuing in the same prophecy, there is further description of what's going to happen, none of which happened when Jesus was alive --

Isa 7:23 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall [even] be for briers and thorns.

Because we know there were grapes in the area at the time Jesus was around, we know that "every place" with vines didn't become overrun with briers and thorns. To the contrary, Judea was still a wine producing land, the same as Judea (the modern State of Israel) produces wine today.

actually in the original hebrew you will not find any past tense or future tense.

have you ever heard of prophetic perfect ?

I looked up the hebrew the word used was "gephen" which has the meanings of vine, vine tree

of Israel (fig.) of stars fading at Jehovah's judgment (metaph.) of prosperity the word Shamiyr means thorn(s), adamant, flint thorns, thorn-bushes adamant (as sharp)a sharp stone, flint perhaps a diamond and the word keceph means silver, money

silver as metal as ornament as colour money, shekels, talents

Now, to discuss the word "bethulah" (בתולה ). בתולה is passive participle (and feminine, singular at that) of "to separate". This makes much more sense to be the root of "virgin" and "vigor".

This is what Drazin, who wrote "Their Hollow Inheritance", has to say (and it's a great text -- I encourage all the Muslims here to read it Wouldn't hurt for Christians to read it, but they might stop being Christians after reading it.)

I have showed bethulah has been used to show a non virgin.

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

It doesn't say "before the child will be born, at some distant point in the future ...". The verse refers to a child who will be alive during the time of King Ahaz.

this has no indication that this happens in the time of Ahaz it just shows that at the time the baby is born those kings which he dreads will be defeated and both the kings will be gone this was the case when Jesus was born. it cannot be the time of Ahaz because Ahaz refused to ask for a sign he didn't want it.and there is no record of immanuel being born int he Torah.

you also have not explained the word sign and the word used `amaq and Gabahh which without a doubt can only mean this sign is miraculous.

Could you, like, get them to respond here?

I could ask them but it's up to them to come here.

I am just stating facts which were given to me by jewish sources I know a comcubine was in fact married to the man before they had any sort of sexual relations.

and almah according to scripture has not ever been married.

That's not the way debate works. I've demonstrated above that עלמה is nothing more than the feminine of עלמ, and that another meaning of עלמ is "vigor", based on Rashi's commentary on Exodus 2:8. Furthermore, the root of בתולה , "to be separated" (passive voice), linguistically makes more sense to mean "virgin" than "vigor". It's unknown if David was or wasn't a virgin when he was referred to as a עלמ, and given his thing for the ladies (and Jonathan, but I digress), I would argue that "young man" is more accurate than "sexually inexperienced man", particularly in light of the language David uses to refer to Jonathan.

none of what you have shown implies in any way that almah does not mean virgin.

However, to your specific challenge, I do offer David as an example of a עלמ who was not a virgin. He says in 1st Samuel

1Sa 21:5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women [have been] kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and [the bread is] in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.

He doesn't say "I've never known a woman", only that he's been away from women for three days.

Previously עלמ was used to describe him, just after he slew Goliath

1Sa 17:56 And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling [is].

The word "stripling" is עלמ in the Hebrew, which as I explained earlier is the masculine form of עלמה

when David was called an almah he was in fact a boy and sexually inexperienced, whether he had any sexual relations afterwards does not corcern me.

Sorry -- I disagree with your "understanding". Look at the Hebrew. The meaning is entirely different. The "man" isn't just any man -- he's a particularly strong and viril man.

the scripture has no indication of the almah being sexually active or married it is talking in contrast.

I explained already. A grown man who is crying "like a baby" isn't a baby. A man who prances about or gossips "like a woman" (and I disagree with the sexist implications of this, I am merely using it as an example) isn't a woman.

Is there a qualitative difference between how a woman would mourn for her husband if their marriage had not yet been consumated, as compared to how a woman would mourn for her husband if they had been married a great many years? That's what is being described -- the qualities of a newly married woman before she and the bridegroom have consumated their relationship.

i'm sorry but for me a woman mourning for her husband means just that there is no indication of any hidden message.

Joel 1:8 describes to mourn like a bethulah wearing sackcloth saq which means grain which is worn in mourning or humiliation and the word ba'al which in fact means husband.

so thsi woman is in mourning urging for her former husband.

so a bethulah has had a husband while an almah never had a husband according to scriptures.

whether you believe it 's a metaphor it's up to you I see no metaphor.

I will answer the rest later I have guests in my house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have looked up the hebrew dictionary for almah which translates almah as a child of marriable age or as a childless young woman which may or may not be a virgin.

Did you look at the shoresh?

now you talked about Genesis 24:14

Genesis 24:14 And let it come to pass, that the damsel (naíorah) to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master.

Genesis 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin (almah) cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink

almah here obviously refers to an unmarried woman

And none of these unmarried women were divorced, widowed, of loose moral values? All young women are pure?

Sorry -- not buying it. It's called "begging the conclusion". Assuming a meaning in order to make the argument. And a logical fallacy.

actually in the original hebrew you will not find any past tense or future tense.

have you ever heard of prophetic perfect ?

Not by that name, but now that you mention the name I've looked up information and found that I view it the way Jews seem to view it -- a fabrication that was invented to justify why events in past or present tense are interpreted as being in future tense.

looked up the hebrew the word used was "gephen" which has the meanings of vine, vine tree

Did you look up the text for the blessing over wine? Do you think it's just any vine?

I have showed bethulah has been used to show a non virgin.

No, you showed that you like to remove entire words from translations. Like the word "like".

this has no indication that this happens in the time of Ahaz it just shows that at the time the baby is born those kings which he dreads will be defeated and both the kings will be gone this was the case when Jesus was born. it cannot be the time of Ahaz because Ahaz refused to ask for a sign he didn't want it.and there is no record of immanuel being born int he Torah.

At the time of Ahaz? No -- Hezekiah was king after Ahaz. Which would make Hezekiah the son of Ahaz.

Ahaz was corrupt and violated the law. Hezekiah was not corrupt and restored worship of G-d. Do you wonder why Ahaz didn't want Isaiah to explain this to him?

you also have not explained the word sign and the word used `amaq and Gabahh which without a doubt can only mean this sign is miraculous.

More begging the conclusion.

and almah according to scripture has not ever been married.

No, "almah" is a young female. "alm" is a young male. The ending "hey" ("h") signifies gender as female. The shoresh of both relates back to "vigor". It's only Christians who want to relate it back to "virginity".

the scripture has no indication of the almah being sexually active or married it is talking in contrast.

Yeah, but the same goes for you -- there is no scripture that says an 'almah' was definitely a virgin, where as for 'bethulah' there is plenty of support. Additionally, the linquistics of 'almah' strongly point to it being nothing more than a young woman, whereas 'bethulah' derives from 'separate', which is linquistically closer to 'virgin' than 'vigor' is to 'virgin'.

i'm sorry but for me a woman mourning for her husband means just that there is no indication of any hidden message.

You keep forgetting the word "like" in there. If you cry like a baby, are you a baby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you look at the shoresh?

the overwhelming evidence including jewish sources and the shoresh agree almah must be a young individual of marriable age which is not married, making them a virgin a child.

And none of these unmarried women were divorced, widowed, of loose moral values? All young women are pure?

Sorry -- not buying it. It's called "begging the conclusion". Assuming a meaning in order to make the argument. And a logical fallacy.

I am not assuming anything I know for a fact no almah was ever married making them a virgin.

Genesis 24:14 confirms that Rebekah was not married she was still an almah (young unmarried virgin) appointed for Isaac.

And none of these unmarried women were divorced, widowed, of loose moral values? All young women are pure?

I think your confusing that time with these times, in those times it was forbidden to have sexual relations without marriage as many jewish sources have confirmed me.

even concubines which could be the closest thing to a person who has an affair had to get married before they had any sort of intimate encounter.

Not by that name, but now that you mention the name I've looked up information and found that I view it the way Jews seem to view it -- a fabrication that was invented to justify why events in past or present tense are interpreted as being in future tense.

everything that does not agree with you is invented fabrication.

I have done alot of study and prophetic perfect was in fact used by the early Jews.

Let me give you some examples

Jude 14 says the Lord came with thousands of his saints, Jewish schollars recognise this was a prophetic perfect, signifying the Lords coming in the future.

Isaiah 5:13 "therefore my people are gone into captivity"

obviously this event has not happened yet, the Prophet Isaiah prophetically saw this event happen and wrote it as if it is happening now, which is prophetic perfect.

No, you showed that you like to remove entire words from translations. Like the word "like".

please explain that I removed entire words, I would greatly appreciate.

please take into consideration I use jewish sources and scriptures, for instance the Judaic Press Complete Tanach.

At the time of Ahaz? No -- Hezekiah was king after Ahaz. Which would make Hezekiah the son of Ahaz. Ahaz was corrupt and violated the law. Hezekiah was not corrupt and restored worship of G-d. Do you wonder why Ahaz didn't want Isaiah to explain this to him?

it doesn't make a difference, because the Kings being defeated is just an event that will be in place when this sign does happen, which could be anytime after the Kings were defeated.

yes I read Hezekiah was a wonderful king but was his son ?

the sign from the DEPTHS and HEIGHTS above was witnessed in the future.

you wont find anywhere in Hezekiah's time Immanuel being born to a young unmarried maiden.

More begging the conclusion.

I think you need to answer this, if a sign is from the DEPTHS and HEIGHTS ABOVE which I have looked up above means the Heavens, which is God's throne, and this sign was so big that even Ahaz refused to ask God because in doing so he would be tempting God, would not you think this sign has to be a miracle ?

if God said instead "ask a normal sign from the earth" then I would understand you have a point, but so far you don't, a normal young woman having a baby is no sign from the depths and heights above, an unmarried young maiden which was in fact a virgin having a baby is a sign which was witnessed by the house of David.

No, "almah" is a young female. "alm" is a young male. The ending "hey" ("h") signifies gender as female. The shoresh of both relates back to "vigor". It's only Christians who want to relate it back to "virginity".

I showed you jewish sources and the torah scriptures which all verify an almah was a young unmariied woman which everyone knows an unmarried young woman had to be a virgin in those times, everyone in isaiah's time knew what this miracle sign from the depths and heights above represented.

Yeah, but the same goes for you -- there is no scripture that says an 'almah' was definitely a virgin, where as for 'bethulah' there is plenty of support. Additionally, the linquistics of 'almah' strongly point to it being nothing more than a young woman, whereas 'bethulah' derives from 'separate', which is linquistically closer to 'virgin' than 'vigor' is to 'virgin'.

all Jewish sources and scriptures have confirmed my theory that an unmarried woman remained a virgin until marriage so if Isaiah called this woman an almah I would know he means she was a virgin even books before Christ confirmed this for instance the septuagint which did not heard of Mary giving birth and would not have been influenced by that event identified the almah as being a virgin.

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the overwhelming evidence including jewish sources and the shoresh agree almah must be a young individual of marriable age which is not married, making them a virgin a child.

Uh, the shoresh means "vigor", along with "youth".

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Lying doesn't make it true.

I think your confusing that time with these times, in those times it was forbidden to have sexual relations without marriage as many jewish sources have confirmed me.

What about Judah and Tamar? Not only were Judah and Tamar NOT married, but Tamar was forbidden to him.

Here's the bit about Judah and Tamar --

http://www.moshereiss.org/articles/24_tamar.htm

It's worth reading. It also disproves your assertion.

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

yes I read Hezekiah was a wonderful king but was his son ?

Uh, Hezekiah was the king Isaiah was talking about. Ahaz, the father, was evil. Hezekiah was not.

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

if God said instead "ask a normal sign from the earth" then I would understand you have a point, but so far you don't, a normal young woman having a baby is no sign from the depths and heights above, an unmarried young maiden which was in fact a virgin having a baby is a sign which was witnessed by the house of David.

Not, but Hezekiah restoring the proper worship of G-d served to fulfill the prophecy.

I showed you jewish sources and the torah scriptures which all verify an almah was a young unmariied woman which everyone knows an unmarried young woman had to be a virgin in those times, everyone in isaiah's time knew what this miracle sign from the depths and heights above represented.

Since Judah lived before Isaiah, I'd say you're wrong.

But here's a Jewish source that disagrees --

Furthermore, the use of the definite article—“the young woman”— indicates that this was someone both Isaiah and Ahaz knew.  When the child was born, she would unknowingly give him a name with a symbolic message for Ahaz: Immanuel, which means “G--d is with us.”

According to the New Testament, the verse under discussion foretells that Jesus would be born to the “virgin” Mary, even though the child's name was Immanuel!

Matthew 1:22

All this took place to fulfill what the L--rd had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel....”

But news of a virgin birth in another seven hundred years would have offered Ahaz little comfort.

Moreover, the original Hebrew explicitly calls the mother of Immanuel “the young woman” (“ha'almah”), not “the virgin” (“ha'bethulah”). Unlike the New Testament, such modern Christian translations as The New English Bible, The Good News Bible, and The Revised Standard Version have translated it correctly.

all Jewish sources and scriptures have confirmed my theory that an unmarried woman remained a virgin until marriage so if Isaiah called this woman an almah I would know he means she was a virgin even books before Christ confirmed this for instance the septuagint which did not heard of Mary giving birth and would not have been influenced by that event identified the almah as being a virgin.

Having just presented a respected Jewish source (Drazin has done incredible anti-Missionary work, and is widely regarded as an authority on such things), I'd say it's not "all". Additionally, these verses are widely discussed in Jewish circles as intentional mistranslations of the Hebrew text. How about you get that Jewish source to come here so we can investigate their credentials and determine if they are actually Jewish sources, and not missionary sources?

I can provide countless other refutations that "almah" means "virgin".

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/virgin.html

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/matthew.html

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/virgin.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa714o.html

I think that'll do.

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


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • The founding of America 
    • Salam. Please read this and ponder and think about it. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى wouldn't just make you wear a cloth over your head for no reason, he would obviously do it for you to benefit from it.
    • Stay at home and pray for her. You will really love the outcome of this, trust me.
    • “O Muhammad ask them about the town which stood by the sea; when they exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, when their fish came to them on the day of their Sabbath on the surface of the sea, and on the day on which they do not keep the Sabbath, they did not came to them We try them because they transgressed.” (7:163) “And when a party of them said, why do you admonish a people whom Allah would destroy and whom Allah would chastise with a severe chastisement? They said, to be free from blame before your Lord and that happily they may guard (against evil)” (7:164) “So when they neglected what they had been reminded of, we delivered those who forbade evil and we overtook those who were unjust with an evil chastisement.” “Therefore when they revoltingly persisted in what they had been forbidden, we said to them; Be (as) apes, despised and hated. (7:165)
    • Salam Alaikum, The knowledgeable scholar I asked (who has studied for over 45 years) has said that this dream means your nephew is receiving blessings and barakah. When the members of ahlulbayt (a.s) were born, their parents, or rasulullah (saww) would shave their head and donate silver to charity as the same weight as their hair.. This is a good sign from your nephew and means Allah will bless him. Salam  
×