Koran confirms Jesus' crucifixion until death...

[Snowber]

Common sense is subjective.






Modern Colloquial Arabic has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the extinct written Arabic of the Koran, brother.

اتخذوا أحبارهم ورهبنهم أربابا من دون الله​

والمسيح ابن مريم وما أمروا إلا ليعبدوا إلها​

وحدا لا إله إلا هو سبحنه عما يشركون​

Ittakhathoo ahbarahum waruhbanahum arbaban min dooni Allahi waalmaseeha ibna maryama wama omiroo illa liyaAAbudoo ilahan wahidan la ilaha illa huwa subhanahu AAamma yushrikoona

9.31 They have taken their learned persons and their monks (as) lords from superior (to) “allah” and The Messiah, Mary's Son; and they commanded not except that they may worship one god, no god except He, glory be to Him from what they associate partners.


Observe that “allah” is included along with The Messiah, Jesus Christ, via the copulative conjunction “wa”, as being part and parcel of the prepositional phrase initiating with “min” (from).

Further, although "allah" and Jesus are listed separately, they are treated as ONE...via the singular "huwa" (him)...

This is the same exact method as used in the Holy Bible in many locations that proclaim the divinity of Jesus Christ...and, as such, the authors of the Koran have also copied this over into their opus.

The difference being that they have attempted to raise the pagan Arab god "allah" up to the Biblical deity status of Jesus Christ.

You will see the modern English translators deceitfully butchering this text by inserting all sorts of add-on-words in parenthesis – in order to make this ayah conform to the Islamic paradigm.

Fact of the matter is that this ayah proclaims Jesus Christ as God Almighty.

Dear Bowman,

Even if we do not use modern Arabic, even in the possible definitions you presented, "Ten" was the first of them.


9:31 talks about religious leaders setup as idols "and the Messiah, SON OF MARY". GOD knew that people would claim that Jesus was the SON OF GOD, again, this is why GOD almost always uses "son of Mary" following Jesus. Not son of GOD. Again, "common sense" tells us that if GOD wanted us to believe Jesus was GOD, He would not hide it, NEITHER IN THE BIBLE OR THE QU'RAN.

It is a fact that it takes a lot of innovation to claim the Jesus was GOD Almighty. In fact, Jesus never claimed to be GOD and never will:

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

So no, it is not a fact that the verse you mentioned claims Jesus is GOD.

"Huwa" or "Him" refers to GOD, not Jesus.

Is it not time to stop playing games? If you truly believe the Bible says Jesus is GOD, then I invite you to a one to one debate/discussion on this matter.

Peace.

 

[.lava]

Islam stands or falls upon the interpretation of one single word in one verse.

This is sheer madness.

path requires certain things. if people refuse what's commanded to be done but still try to be religious, then yes, it is difficult. but this subject is not confusing. if it is, i would like to see why. the person who turned Jesus PBUH in was the one who was killed. that's how i know it. verse, IMO, is very open and clear

.

 

[Bowman]

Dear Bowman,

Even if we do not use modern Arabic, even in the possible definitions you presented, "Ten" was the first of them.

Lexical order has no bearing upon proper usage brother.

You should already be aware of this had you actually studied the ancient lexicography...

9:31 talks about religious leaders setup as idols "and the Messiah, SON OF MARY". GOD knew that people would claim that Jesus was the SON OF GOD, again, this is why GOD almost always uses "son of Mary" following Jesus. Not son of GOD. Again, "common sense" tells us that if GOD wanted us to believe Jesus was GOD, He would not hide it, NEITHER IN THE BIBLE OR THE QU'RAN.

Nope.

You are not studying the Arabic brother.

The god "allah" has been combined with Jesus Christ as deity and the two of then are them refered to as "Him".

This is grammatically irrefutable.

Further, Jesus is shown directly to be the Son in numerous other ayahs such as 4.171...yakoona lahu waladun

It is a fact that it takes a lot of innovation to claim the Jesus was GOD Almighty. In fact, Jesus never claimed to be GOD and never will:

Nope.



ο νικων κληρονομησει ταυτα και εσομαι αυτω θεος και αυτος εσται μοι υιος

ho nikao kleronomeo houtos kai esomai autos theos kai autos esomai moi huios

The one overcoming will inherit all things, and I will be God to him, and he will be the son to Me. (Rev 21.7)




Observe that “Theos” is in the nominative case, indicating that Jesus is the subject of the verb “esomai” establishing Him as God.

Further, observe that Jesus establishes that His deity is directly interchangeable with the Father, making the ones overcoming, the sons to Him.

So no, it is not a fact that the verse you mentioned claims Jesus is GOD.

It is indeed a fact, brother.

"Huwa" or "Him" refers to GOD, not Jesus.

Nope.

Grammatically, the direct objects in this ayah are "allah" and "wa" Jesus Christ....so "huwa" refers to both.

Is it not time to stop playing games? If you truly believe the Bible says Jesus is GOD, then I invite you to a one to one debate/discussion on this matter.

Peace.

This would be great, brother.

Then I can show you first-hand all the Koranic locations which proclaim that Jesus is God as well.

This should concrete the concept for you...

 

[Snowber]

Lexical order has no bearing upon proper usage brother.

You should already be aware of this had you actually studied the ancient lexicography...






Nope.

You are not studying the Arabic brother.

The god "allah" has been combined with Jesus Christ as deity and the two of then are them refered to as "Him".

This is grammatically irrefutable.

Further, Jesus is shown directly to be the Son in numerous other ayahs such as 4.171...yakoona lahu waladun







Nope.



ο νικων κληρονομησει ταυτα και εσομαι αυτω θεος και αυτος εσται μοι υιος

ho nikao kleronomeo houtos kai esomai autos theos kai autos esomai moi huios

The one overcoming will inherit all things, and I will be God to him, and he will be the son to Me. (Rev 21.7)




Observe that “Theos” is in the nominative case, indicating that Jesus is the subject of the verb “esomai” establishing Him as God.

Further, observe that Jesus establishes that His deity is directly interchangeable with the Father, making the ones overcoming, the sons to Him.






It is indeed a fact, brother.






Nope.

Grammatically, the direct objects in this ayah are "allah" and "wa" Jesus Christ....so "huwa" refers to both.






This would be great, brother.

Then I can show you first-hand all the Koranic locations which proclaim that Jesus is God as well.

This should concrete the concept for you...

Thank you for agreeing Bowman. I've started a Thread entitled "Did Jesus claim to be GOD? Bowman and Snowber.

If you go to the main forums page it is located under "General Debates -> "One on one debates".

Peace.

 

[Bowman]

Thank you for agreeing Bowman. I've started a Thread entitled "Did Jesus claim to be GOD? Bowman and Snowber.

If you go to the main forums page it is located under "General Debates -> "One on one debates".

Peace.

Thanks...

 

[AaronG]

89.2 And three nights. (Swears by the three nights Jesus was in the earth)

This is not what the Qur'an says.

 

[Bowman]

This is not what the Qur'an says.

Actually, it is...

 

[Shine_0f_sun]

Dude please stop your nonsense!

 

[Bowman]

Bump for cognizants...

 

[obaid17]

In Quran it is mentioned chapter three
Masih ibne Maryum was uplifted by Allah to heaven and he was not crucufied nor killed but they were in doubt. untill he come again to earth.
He is one the greatest and obedient messenger of Allah Subhana Taala and He is not the son of Allah

 

[Bowman]

In Quran it is mentioned chapter three
Masih ibne Maryum was uplifted by Allah to heaven and he was not crucufied nor killed but they were in doubt. untill he come again to earth.
He is one the greatest and obedient messenger of Allah Subhana Taala and He is not the son of Allah

Wrong on every account, brother...

You are speaking to islam....you need to speak to the Koran.

According to the Koran, Jesus was indeed crucified until death, singularly resurrected, and is the Son.

 

[142857]

confirms nothing about jesus.

The quran comes quite some time after jesus thus can only recollect or retell stories already known.

confirming nothing cept that the stories existed.

 

[Bowman]

confirms nothing about jesus.

The quran comes quite some time after jesus thus can only recollect or retell stories already known.

confirming nothing cept that the stories existed.

You just contradicted yourself.

 

[142857]

No I didn't.........I can tell you many a story I have heard....others can tell you the same story....therein does not confirm the substance of the story.....only that it is a story.

I know dozens of kids who can tell you the story of The Cat in the Hat, but this in fact does not confirm said cat nor his hat.

 

[Bowman]

No I didn't.........I can tell you many a story I have heard....others can tell you the same story....therein does not confirm the substance of the story.....only that it is a story.

What is the origin of the story...?

I know dozens of kids who can tell you the story of The Cat in the Hat, but this in fact does not confirm said cat nor his hat.

It confirms the source does it not...?

 

[A Thousand Suns]

When asked about Jesus’ Crucifixion, Muslims will invariably reference one ayah from the Koran, to support their conviction.

"And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. (The Noble Quran, 2:78)"

 

[142857]

What is the origin of the story...?




It confirms the source does it not...?

yeah, it confirms that Dr Suess made up a story that people know about....NOT THE TRUTH OF THE STORY.

 

[Bowman]

"And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. (The Noble Quran, 2:78)"

It is little wonder why Muslims ignorantly follow islam, as they base entire theologies around out-of-context passages from their very own book of faith.

Here is the context of your example…

ومنهم أميون لا يعلمون الكتب إلا أماني وإن هم إلا يظنون فويل للذين يكتبون الكتب بأيديهم ثم يقولون هذا من عند الله ليشتروا به ثمنا قليلا فويل لهم مما كتبت أيديهم وويل لهم مما يكسبون​

Waminhum ommiyyoona la yaAAlamoona alkitaba illa amaniyya wa-in hum illa yathunnoona fawaylun lillatheena yaktuboona alkitaba bi-aydeehim thumma yaqooloona hatha min AAindi Allahi liyashtaroo bihi thamanan qaleelan fawaylun lahum mimma katabat aydeehim wawaylun lahum mimma yaksiboona

And from them, who have no revealed scriptures of their own, they do not know The Book except as wishes and them except they conjecture. So woe to those, they write The Book with their hands, then they say: "This from with “allah”.” That they may acquire with it a small price, so woe to them from what their hands have written, and woe to them from what they accomplish. (2.78 – 79)



As you can see, your example is discussing those who have no revealed scriptures of their own (ommiyyoona), and who do not know (la yaAAlamoona) The Book as writing their very own brand of conjecture (yathunnoona).

These passages are not discussing mainstream Christians or Jews.

Nor are they claiming that The Holy Bible is in error in any fashion whatsoever.

The only thing that you managed to get correct was that the term “alkitaba” refers to the Holy Bible.

 

[A Thousand Suns]

It is little wonder why Muslims ignorantly follow islam, as they base entire theologies around out-of-context passages from their very own book of faith.

Here is the context of your example…

ومنهم أميون لا يعلمون الكتب إلا أماني وإن هم إلا يظنون فويل للذين يكتبون الكتب بأيديهم ثم يقولون هذا من عند الله ليشتروا به ثمنا قليلا فويل لهم مما كتبت أيديهم وويل لهم مما يكسبون​

Waminhum ommiyyoona la yaAAlamoona alkitaba illa amaniyya wa-in hum illa yathunnoona fawaylun lillatheena yaktuboona alkitaba bi-aydeehim thumma yaqooloona hatha min AAindi Allahi liyashtaroo bihi thamanan qaleelan fawaylun lahum mimma katabat aydeehim wawaylun lahum mimma yaksiboona

And from them, who have no revealed scriptures of their own, they do not know The Book except as wishes and them except they conjecture. So woe to those, they write The Book with their hands, then they say: "This from with “allah”.” That they may acquire with it a small price, so woe to them from what their hands have written, and woe to them from what they accomplish. (2.78 – 79)



As you can see, your example is discussing those who have no revealed scriptures of their own (ommiyyoona), and who do not know (la yaAAlamoona) The Book as writing their very own brand of conjecture (yathunnoona).

These passages are not discussing mainstream Christians or Jews.

Nor are they claiming that The Holy Bible is in error in any fashion whatsoever.

The only thing that you managed to get correct was that the term “alkitaba” refers to the Holy Bible.

And you exactly fit to the description told in Quran

and Btw its the first time that you used the actual translation but their are still errors in the transliteration

 

[Bowman]

And you exactly fit to the description told in Quran

and Btw its the first time that you used the actual translation but their are still errors in the transliteration

Show us...