Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

salamtek

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by salamtek

  1. Hi Chaotic! I can tell you right now that we follow both Peter and Paul, which are the leaders of the Roman church. Peter visited modern day Iraq and gave his blessing to the churches. 1 Peter 5:13 The Pesheta is a Nestorian text, and many churches in Sham and the Arabian Peninsula were Nestorian or part of the Western (Catholic and Orthodox) Church. The Nestorian church stretched from Syria to Japan, so it covers a lot of ground. The earliest versions of the Pesheta (khubarus codex) we have already has Paul in it. If you follow the link you'll see on Romans 1:1 The Church of the East's bishops (Assyrians) commonly make their names Paulus. An example is the Bishop Paulus Benyamin or Paul Benjamin. Contrary to what you posted, Paul has a rich history within the Church of the East, and is certainly accepted as an apostle of Jesus.
  2. Jesus references the Psalm, he's saying it so that they could know that he is the messiah. Many Christian bibles only come with the word, there is no tafsir anywhere. Luckily, I have a Catholic Bible, and they're known for including tafsirs in most of their Bibles. If by corresponds you mean reference, it is here.
  3. Depending on the Jew, they do. Many Jews don't even study Jerusalem Talmud, and the ones that do complain that it's too hard to understand (which I can attest to, past 3 words I have difficulty). Even Christians to some extent, there is a conversation that takes place between Satan and God, when he exalts Job in front of Satan in Job 1:8. There is a meeting. We don't know when it is...but according to Jewish tradition, Job's suffering began after rosh hashannah, and ended that year the evening before rosh hashannah, so around 353 days. fromyomkippur-rosh hashannah is one option (probably an older one), but the most common (from the religions texts ive read) is 1 year. Anyway, it furthered my point that at most, spiritual beings (Angels by way of Satan, and demons, spirits) can only know less than one year in advance (not 365 days, but a Jewish year, either 353-383 days), and that the angels couldn't have questioned God on what they didn't know, since Hezekiah would have still been years away from becoming king, not to mention taking the gold off of the Holy Temple and give it away.
  4. It's through discussion we understand differences and similarities, through transfer of one message to another. I would not know that Islam is split into Sunni and Shia if it wasn't through discussion, and many would think that all Muslims are terrorists if it wasn't for discussion. There is a place for it; can you think of a better place than a interfaith dialogue board? I believe that something can't be a curse and a blessing. If something is both, then it just is. What you do with it depends on your desires, it's a neutral medium: neither a curse nor blessing. The only non-trinitarian Christians I've come across are Jehovah Witnesses, so I wouldn't think the questions on trinitarianism would come from Christians (no more than a peep, in reality). I affirm it's a mystery and it's holiness is uncompromisable to the human mind. It's fine...I use the speech to text option on my computer and sometimes it drops whole words or uses punctuation oddly. Yes, Jesus will come back on the Mount of Olives, and he will split it so that the east and west with go one north and one south and that's the starting point for the resurrection, emanating outwards. From there, he will establish the Kingdom of God on earth, prior being spiritual as the Body of Christ in the Church. The concept of (Shia) Islamic salvation rests on Imam al-Hujjah, not Jesus. Whether he has been born or not is subject to debate, so I won't go into that. The Islamic concept of Messiah (as Jesus) varies with each madhab (I see Sunni's especially talk about Jesus and his role as messiah) so that's also not something I want to go into. There are only 3 messiahs in Judaism that I can think of (right now), and all of them have been/will be kings. Which messiahs do you speak of, specifically? Messiah does not equal the word for salvation. Jesus means God saves, messiah means oil, as the anointed, correct. We believe it's been fulfilled, but we have yet to experience the second coming. What I was getting at is that it proves the Messiah will be the king of the Jews. They wouldn't have put that on him if he didn't claim to be the messiah. I did not mean that in some way he being mocked is a prophecy.
  5. Then the Word is eternal, and by default is God. Jesus' body is not of issue until the resurrection, in which case, he already achieved everlasting life via the body. You've probably made up your mind on Jesus' split natures, so any amount of convincing is probably beyond my reach. I suppose we must agree to disagree.
  6. Could you explain what you mean? Because God gave him rights to said authority. Not only that, but his lineage will in fact have the throne of Israel, as from his lineage, the Messiah will come. God is not inferior to David. God's "lineage" is so because we anthropomorphize God. God isn't a human to have a "lineage", not a human to have a wife...Jesus is his "son" because humans cannot comprehend the holiness of God, nor his plan, so he gives them in simple terms so that it's easier to understand: we call that a Mystery. It's the same with a trinity, we cannot comprehend it, it's divinity is out of our reach. It's a "mockery" because the sign emphasizes the point that the messiah would be a king.
  7. a) Since Jesus was legally Joseph's son in the kingly line, Jesus was and is legally entitled to the throne of David. b] Not only that, but Mary is Joseph's far relative, so the kingly line would still be in Jesus' lineage. c) King Jeconiah (from Joseph's side) would invalidate his right to rule.
  8. There's no guarantee Jesus was the angel in the burning bush. Where do you find your sources that the Logos was speaking? The torah says Moses was too afraid to look into the fire, and that YHVH spoke. Jesus was God on earth, not human turned into God. He is also descended of King David, so is called "King of the Jews". During his crucifixion it was written atop him "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews". So he was a king, so you can't say in the next breathe "the government is not on his shoulders". If you accept Jesus as your savior, how are you reconciling this with Isaiah 43:11, that there is no savior but God? Jesus' name means God Saves, not directly "savior". Je=ye=saves hoshua=saves, but in Aramaic it's eesho, written yod-shin-wow-ayin, instead of yod-he-wow-shin-ayin. Even rabbi's that diagree that the person being spoken of in Isaiah as "Immanuel" was called later "maher"baz". This only proves my point that Immanuel was a title. Jesus was as physical as he was spiritual. He is fully human and fully God. If Jesus wasn't human he couldn't suffer. If he wasn't God, he couldn't bring people back to life, nor would God have said "This is my Son" to a crowd of witnesses.
  9. I know that in Jewish lore, the messiah needs to be born from the house of David...and he is part of something called the 36 Secret Righteous ones. There will come a time when the messiah is destined to arrive, and this specific person (1 out of the 36), will be formed by God into the messiah after his birth, hence the "disappearing from sight" because the messiah will be so much more divine than a human will be. (There's a story about one of the Jewish sages going into a cave and he became so holy, so he went back into the cave for a month to de-holify...this is only a fraction of the messiah). When he speaks, all the evil people in the world will die (about 2/3rds), and those not dead will be examined harshly. In that generation, the messiah will be born, and developed into the messiah.
  10. Technically, there are 36 (lamadvavniks) possible candidates for a messiah in each generation. They are also the reason God keeps the world from destruction. Most Jewish commentators believe that these are 3 separate children...Rashi believes that they are 1 child and 1 like-son (Shear-Yashuv). You're also forgoing the fact that the Septuagint translated it as parthenos, and 70 Jewish religious leaders translated it as this. As I've said, in double prophecy, it's not contingent solely on the Hebrew, as it might have used documents that are now lost to time. It could have very well meant almah as a young girl, married, or a virgin. The Judaic-Greek translation says parthenos 200 years before Christ, so there can be. 1)no possibility of interpolations and 2) the possibility that Isaiah gave this to mean something, and that it was later interpreted by Jewish sources as a messianic prophecy. Yet still, we don't know the mother of this savior (not even her name), or if it is Maher, and we are stuck on an infinite loop of it being what Rashi says contradicting the opinion of other rabbis. For each different face, there's a different opinion, I suppose. If this person was "supposed" to be messiah, as Rashi interprets Isaiah, where is Isaiah's lineage to David? If it doesn't exist, there's a problem. If one wants to say "Immanuel is Maher" then one can see that Immanuel is a title, and cannot be his actual name. The part where I pointed out Rashi just states that it was to be taken as a messianic prophecy, and this has been taken into consideration by Jews as late as Rashi's time. You can assume that the idea that this is a messianic prophecy comes from before Rashi, because this, in a way, is adding to torah, which is a sin. From this we know that at one point, Jews believed that the Messiah will be born of a virgin and have the title Immanuel. Lastly, Rashi's interpretation can't the last answer on this. How did the angels know that Hezekiah, at his young age, will rip the treasures of beit hamikdash and give them as a peace offering to a king? Angels can only know so far ahead into the future...in the presence of the Most Holy, the praise him with song, they don't have time to question God while complimenting him on how wise he is. They don't know what comes in the far future, but what is heralded in the Court of Heaven (which any spiritual being can hear), according to the Zohar. Angels are robots, they carry out the will of God. They question too? Even Satan when God tests Job did not know that he would still worship God. According to Jerusalem Talmud, Satan and God meet every Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, so his suffering lasted a little more than 10 days, and Satan doesn't know the outcome of God testing Job. Another opinion according to Zohar is that they meet once a year. We know that 10 days is at least the min, one year max. Court of Heaven may only release rulings (or as little as, by some opinions) in advance of one year (or ten days). Hezekiah was a child, so they couldn't have known his desecration of the temple How could the angels have questioned God on something they don't know? Angels question God when, before the hymns they sing to praise him or after calling him wise? Satan would have not known Job's outcome for at least a year, which is why God tests Job to prove a point to Satan You've delved in the topic a little too much, as I just stated that he alludes to knowledge that it (Immanuel) was a messianic prophecy...there are conflicting opinions about the rest.
  11. That's not to say I believe in their interpretation. It's just that its been answered by Christian mystics, which answers 2 questions N had.
  12. There was this one..I can't remember exactly the quote, but it was something along the lines of "You don't know you're going to die in the same land you were born" or something to that effect. If you can help me find the quote (English/Arabic), I'd appreciate it!
  13. Again, its a mystic thing and how I've heard their argument explained. I'm not sure if it was changed by God in the "imprint" stage. This argument was given by people who obviously knew Kabbalah so I can't say I'm 100% sure I even have the explanation right...but there were early Christian mystics that were Jewish because Christianity and Judaism were the same religion until around 400.
  14. Since you say first, etc, I'll address them as points: 1) Why would God break his own law? For us, it a law. We've interpreted it as a law. We understand God through anthropomorphisms. He's not a human that he should follow them. In the way we understand "the Son of God" is also an anthropomorphism, as is the mystery of the Trinity. 2) There's an answer for this done by Christian mystics. When Jesus was to be born, an angel took the semen of Joseph, presented it before God, and this is where God blessed it and said "you will be Jesus, the Messiah and Son." He had an angel announce it to her. She accepted (magnificat), He then allowed for the conception of Mary with Joseph's now blessed seed (via Holy Spirit), still without sexual union. Apparently, this is taken direct from Jewish Kabbalah, where the semen of the father is taken and the future of the baby is imprinted by God. Therefore not only does the bloodline exist, but Jesus is the son of both Joseph and God. God through word, Joseph through seed. We later see that through a crowd, like Sinai, God says "This is my Son". We have matter transfer from heaven to Mary, and an angel that announces it to her, and later confirmation of Mary's story "God did it" when God himself speaks to a crowd. 3) Joseph consented, after he struggled with her story for a bit. Your entire argument is that there are 2 virgin births (I think). We have one...Jesus, the son of God, born of Mary. Where is the second one? Rabbis constantly say that it could have either been Ahaz's wife (which Rashi disagrees with) OR it was a relative. You say it is prophetess, the wife of Isaiah. If this is what Rashi says, I'm poised to believe you on the Jewish interpretation of this, however, it's not the Christian one. Rashi in 7:14 spoke about the messiah. What's Maher's lineage is that of David, if so? I don't understand how Rashi reconciles Immanuel with Maher, after he says that this is a Messianic prophecy, and then says that Maher is the fulfillment of this prophecy...so then he's the messiah. But the Israelis faced slavery after his birth. Am I missing something or is there a discrepancy? It's been suggested that the Septuagint was made with certain sources in existence that may not be available today. παρθένος is the one used in 7:14. Not only that, but Proverbs 30:14 in Hebrew & Greek How is it that Almah in one place is translated something and in another parthenos? A virgin birth, everyone is amazed at. Just a month ago snakes were born from parthenogenesis...partheno (u/s) like virgin. Why is Immanuel's mother Jane Doe? If you want to say this is the messiah, as Rashi interprets 7:14, where is his genealogy to David? Either he fails or this is a different prophecy: Why did Maher fail as Messiah, as in every Jews interpretation of Messiah?
  15. Yes, it's an attack to the person instead of the argument, which is what you did. No, I said that Jesus said it on the cross and listed the correct interpretation of it. I claimed Jesus said this, and was referring to Psalm 22. He did not say it independently, I said this constantly while I was talking with CM. x (Protestant) x (Catholic) x (Orthodox) I'm saying the same thing they're saying. Don't call me buddy, I have better things to be called then by a person with poor manners "buddy". Because this is what the Church has taught since Christ's time. When Muslims interpret it to mean that God wasn't Jesus, they're arugment 1) STILL does not disqualify Jesus as God. 2) rests solely on misinterpretation. What are you talking about? You're right, I would because you've taken an interpretation out of context. It's like me saying "Kill all those who are kuffar" in Quran، and then point out "لقد كفر الذين قالوا إن الله هو المسيح ابن مريم". You completely miss what I meant, not only that, but this had lead to how many Christians being killed by terrorists these past couple of decades? Read within context. I can even post a page out of the bible that shows the reference to Psalm 22. We don't believe a man to have been God, but God to have been man. To the 3 parts, they're not parts, but persons. Wow, there's that condescending tone again... This just goes to show you're ignorance of Christianity.
  16. You're wrong because I'm showing how ridiculous the argument that Muslims have been given against Christianity. I haven't met a Christian who didn't know what Jesus meant that God has left him. In which case, the Arian and the Nestorian argument could still apply and Jesus would still be God. You didn't even read anything I posted and decided to comment (otherwise you wouldn't have wrote this), because I didn't deny Jesus said anything, nor did I deny anything historic. Either you're lying, or you're ignorant. They've already been "posted", this is the position of the Catholic and Orthodox churches for the past 2,000 years. You have a problem with it, this is why you're a Muslim. Don't think that I've come up with all of this myself, it's been taught over 2 millennia. Lastly your tone is abhorrent. Respond back with better اسلوب, pure"ethics", and stop attacking me and start attacking the argument. If you can't don't resort to ad hominem. You make a claim that is against my claim. You prove it THEN you claim I'm academically dishonest. You have no argument. Put one up or if you wish to speak, do so without attacking me. Since it's the holiday's, I'll just leave this here.
  17. concerning?? To have a first try is to lose virginity. He will be called Immanuel as a title. Jesus is the son of God. God is with us. No, Jewish sources state that the prophecy was supposed to be about Hezekiah, but then the prophecy changed. How is it that rashi said "Should the one who stripped the doors of the Temple and sent them to the king of Assyria, be made Messiah?". So we learn 2 things from this line; Hezekiah was supposed to be the Messiah, born of a woman who was young. It did not mean virgin until the prophecy was interpreted to mean virgin by the Jews, as evidenced in the septuagint. This is another example of double prophecy. I don't agree or disagree as this stands, and this is detrimental to your argument. Clarify?
  18. Separating the two natures of Christ is blasphemy. Hezekiah is out of the question for this verse, even Rashi says so. He can't be the savior of Israel when he himself became a vessel to Assyria. Are you denying Jesus is the King of the Jews? My point with the third temple is that Jews add to prophecy. The Second temple existed 40 years after Jesus and then was destroyed. Jesus predicts the third temples destruction, and his death, another example of a double prophecy. Not only that, but it took 50 days (pentekosti -50) for the holy spirit to come down, it was not 3. I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're not understanding, then. I've explained it twice, maybe you could elaborate? You're not getting what I mean when I say duel prophecy, are you? There are things that are foreshadowed, and taken to mean foreshadowed, This prophecy is for the messiah, but he (Rashi) says that Hezekiah cannot be the messiah because he sold out Israel, so this prophecy was still in effect in the time of Christ, and the Pharesees did say "Are you Christ son of the Living God?" Just them saying "Christ, son of the Living God" is proof enough that the Pharisees believed that the Messiah would be the son of God, and thus would be called Immanuel.
  19. The only thing I hoped to point out is why when Muslims give this argument they sound ignorant.
  20. And he will be called (by the people: ܘܢܩܪܘܢ from [ܢܩܪ] yeqar (read) and the ending [ܘܢ]-en (they)) by the name "God is with us" in Matthew 1:23. Peter and the apostles (in different places) Mary etc.. even gentiles calls him the son of God (Mat. 27.54). Since God has a son, that son is also God, but that's not because a human became man...but God became flesh. They only read Hebrew, they didn't speak it amongst themselves. For proof of this, the Talmud has conversations by the Rabbi's in Aramaic, not Hebrew.. Jesus would speak a language the Jews only knew to read and write? Even when they stopped writing it for a while? Secondly the Talmudic Aramaic (which I've noticed since I study talmud in my free time) that the rabbis used has a lot of Greek words in it in these conversations...while the actual word is present in Aramaic. This can only mean that the conversation actually had these words in them...that is, they spoke Aramaic which was influenced with Greek (no doubt from the presence of Hellenistic Judaism). You said it yourself, and the language was Aramaic. The only verse in the Quran that shows how Jesus talked as a baby is addressed to a crowd of people...of Aramaic speaking Jews. There's nothing (to my knowledge) in the Quran about Jesus speaking in the Temple to the priests in the temple...And even if there is, they spoke Aramaic, as evidenced by the Talmud. The Quran records the conversation in Arabic, so there's a discrepancy. The Jews as a nation spoke Aramaic since around 700 years before Christ. They've only recently started speaking Hebrew, with the founding of Israel. Two prior languages have been Yiddish (European Jews, German, a relatively new language) and and Greek (also European, has an older root language of Ionic and Attic Greek, since 200 years before Christ). We have Jewish friends that ancestors (Grandmother and grandfather) spoke Aramaic. Jews have been speaking Hebrew only slightly longer than they have Aramaic: compare 2,700 years to 3,000 (which is ~5700 years, the current Jewish year is ~5750) So Hebrew longer (than Aramaic)by 300 years, Aramaic longer (by the next language, Greek) by around 500 years and Greek longer (than Yiddish) by around a thousand.
  21. In Isaiah 9:6, the savior in 7:14 is said to have the following qualities (again, Qaraa shimo, not qara at shimo) so we have El Gibor being translated as Mighty God. Judaism already gives God the time of "El Shaddai". El Gibor is a new construct, if it is even a name of God. However, to my knowledge, I've never heard a Jewish prayer use this as a title of God. El Shaddai is the most common name of God after YHWH, evidenced by the fact that mezuzot have the letter "Sh" for Shaddai on them. Gibor actually means 2 things, valiant and man. The root of the word valiant is the same for man, that is גבר- gibar. So does it mean Mighty God (which there already is a title for) or Mighty Man God (gibor also means hero) (who today we call Jesus)? What else can this mean? Either way it doesn't matter: Jesus fulfills this because he is God. The prophecy calls the messiah God the almighty...you might have misunderstood the prophecy. Secondly, this cannot be the son of Ahaz. Rashi, a Jewish scholar and prominent Rabbi states that So Rashi states that the prophecy is indeed about a Messiah. He then goes on to say about Hezekiah And this definitely happened. Hezekiah made a truce and he couldn't afford to pay the conditions, so he took all the silver from the temple and the gold on the doors and gave them to Sennacherib, the Assyrian king. (2 Kn. 18:16). Like I said no one knows who the child is or who the mother is. Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 speak about the same person being born, the supposed messiah (according to Rashi) that will save Israel. Another proof that the Jews thought of this prophecy relating to the Messiah is that it's quoted in the NT. If you would want to claim the NT writer made this prophecy up, that's for you to prove, because the evidence suggest this idea was common in second temple Judaism. However, you have Jewish rabbi to disprove, which is quite a task in and of itself. Keep in mind the high priest asked Jesus if he was "the messiah, son of the Living God". Jesus answers yes when he says "you've said it" because then the high priest rips off his clothes and says he is a blasphemer and agrees with the crowd that they should kill him. Therefore, he who is called God Man (or God almighty) will be born to the House of David, through Ahaz will be the messiah. Notice how Jesus is listed as the descendant of Ahaz, who is a descendant of David and is the only Jew ever to be called God.
  22. Like I said, Parthenou means virgin. 70 Jewish scholars translated it as virgin instead of young woman. The prophecy was that it would be a virgin, that's why it was translated as virgin from almah. Jews tend to refine meanings of obscure words in their translations using prophecy. Unless those mothers were virgins... What's funny is we hold it as a dual prophecy...Until today the Jews don't know which young lady it was. Some assume it's King Ahaz's wife. But of course rabbi's disagree and say it was a relative. They don't know who it was? The birth that signals the victory of Israel and there's no record of who the mother is?
  23. Immanuel means "God is with us", from the letters A'-m (in Arabic , meaning with مع)، enu- (suffix 1st person plural; like Arabic نا), and El, meaning God(like Arabic يل in إسماعيل ) يعني الله هو السميع Jesus is the fulfillment of that title. We say he is "with us" whenever we say Jesus, the Son of God. You';re reading his prophecy that he will be named, not that he will be called. It's qarat shimo (called the name) not qarat AT-shimo (have the name).
  24. He says it because that's the prophecy he fulfills in the Psalm. He's calling attention the fact that huwa 7qaqaha, not that God forsook him. He's saying it and meaning "look at this Psalm (I am your messiah)," not "Why have you abandoned me?." You're assuming Jesus speaks in basic meaning. In reality, he doesn't. He speaks in parables, (مثلا). Jesus even calls his apostles out because they didn't understand him at one point when he told one of his stories. I think this is maybe why you have trouble understanding, because I've said this now (maybe?) 7 times, and you've actively chose to ignore them because you're giving your idea presidence over your reasoning, and it's corrupting the original meaning and understanding of the text.
  25. Not necessarily: Almah just means young woman, she could be married, unmarried, widowed, etc and still be an "almah". The prophecy states he will be called Immanuel, not that his name will directly be Immanuel. In Jesus' case, the name Imamnuel does not directly refer to his name actual, but something he will be called. (I know you don't read Hebrew, but for anyone that comes across this in the future, I can just direct them here). Compare Isaiah 7:10 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. and then Genesis 17:19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and his name will be Isaac. וְקָרָ֥אתָ אֶת־שְׁמֹ֖ו= His name will be (accusative in Hebrew, אֶת, Issac's prophecy, and sure enough he was named Issac) קָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל= He will be called (no אֶת particle in Hebrew to be found anywhere, Jesus' prophecy, referring to a title) Any Arabic speaker can verify part of what I'm saying (قرات=qarat, but it means call or name, dependent on context. In Arabic, its from the root for read, same with Aramaic and Hebrew) and (shimo= اسمه، لكن اشمه). The at particle is explained in detail here, and you can see it in use here. A direct prophecy of his name, it's not. It refers to his title as "God is with us", since Jesus is God. Also compare Is. 9:6 וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמֹ֜ו= he will be called (plural), again, no אֶת, or the prophecy that his name will be. If we are to take the prophecies at face value, we have 4-5 names that he will be named from Isaiah. This just furthers my point that it's a title.
×
×
  • Create New...