Apartheid Wall
This apartied wall stands
high over her head,
Stretching along the West Bank
She wants to visit her cousin
Who lives in the other side
She has no ladder
No rope to use to climb it up
She wishes if she was a giant
So she could step it over easily.
Comments
Will there there be peace in the middle-east? The struggle for power continues.....perhaps cessation of war, and a peace which is not disabling to any party might bring brothers together to enjoy life, instead of taking; there is always hope...
Best Wishes James,
R.Q.
- Author
Romeos Quill,
There will never be peace .It is a religious conflict between two different dogmas.
It s worth to mention here that the Torah forbids Jews to end the exile and establish a state and army until the Holy One,will redeem them. This is forbidden even if the state is conducted, as some Rabbis says,according to the law of the Torah because arising from the exile itself is forbidden, and they are required to remain under the rule of the nations of the world, as is explained in the book VAYOEL MOSHE.
Well, it certainly has been under occupation by various nations of the world over the centuries. Just hope that all of the old boys can gather round the campfire, and yank an iron out that will eventually satisfy all, without any young men, women or children having to die on any side, because of their decisions.
I certainly look forward to this day:
" And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. " Isaiah 2:4 ( K.J.V. )
Peace & Goodwill James;
R.Q.
yes .. R Q is so very right James .. your radical views of Israel and the jewish people color your statement s .. why doo you hate them when you are not even Palestinian.. Do you also hate Americans ?
- Author
Romeos Quill,
But historically speaking, it belongs to one nation: Palestinians .
" And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. "
Quran 5:116.117
- Author
Michael,My dear friend :
I already told you that Islamophobia had a home on Msnbc.Dont watch it because it makes you jumping so quickly into conclusions lol and you know CNN says that MSNBC Is Really, Really Biased; Fox News Not haha
Palestine is not a nation .. look that up in the Quran ?
- Author
Michael,
Why should I look it in Quran since it is already mentioned in your holy book (Deuteronomy, 9:1-4; NKJ) and the fate of them was described in (Joshua, 6:21; NKJ).?
Well, Palestine is a nation but not a state. They do not have full sovereignty/control over their territory, Israel controls much of their freedoms or lack thereof.
James .. Palestine is a thought in peoples minds .. it is a concept propagandized through many different levels of whose view you want see it from .. There are no real Palestinians ..! these are people who migrated to this area.. how far back in time do you have to go to see this ? ..not just until the tribal hordes thad taken this land .. .. they have been fight ing for longer than we can conceive ... You only want to go back to to when muslims controlled it .. goway back and see who had it before them .. we will never agree on this ..because you will never accept the reality of what is happening now ..
the controlling terrorist faction.. (HAMAS) has not served the people of that area any better than Arafat did .. they will not get anywhere with terrorism ....why don't they try dialogue and Peace .. because they only want terrorism that's why .. they do not care about the innocents.!
James-Wolve;
The middle-east issue has always been a political hot potato, and I don’t want to be drawn into the often, ever-decreasing circle of religious debate, unless it is going to bear good fruit, as it usually does more harm than good, separating friends. However, I will address the Qu’uran quote you have typed, namely:-
1/ “…. O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘ Take me and my mother as deities beside Allah? … “
Nowhere is it stated in the New Testament ( God’s new deal with mankind ), that Mary, the earthly mother of Jesus Christ, is deified, although she is rightly regarded as blessed amongst women ( Luke 1:46-56 ).
2/ “… You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself…”
According to the Good News, that statement has no basis in truth, as supported by the following Scripture:
“ Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. ( John 14:10 King James Bible“ Authorized Version “, Cambridge Edition ).
It is well worth reading John Chapter Fourteen for a more complete disclosure of these things.
See also:-
John 1:1 “ Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.” ( Good News Bible – Today’s English Version ).
John 10:30 “ I and my Father are one.” ( American King James Version ).
I hope that this clarifies a few things.
It is surprising that people have faith at all, in this day and age, and unfortunately, there are many who piggy-back many religions, giving them a bad name, who, by their superficial adherence, hypocrisy, and corruption, relapse into an abyss of ignorance.
Yours Sincerely,
R.Q.
- Author
Michael ,
It seems that you didn't do the assignment that I gave you lol I told you the answer of who were there before was already mentioned in the Bible .Besides,Palestine comes from Philistine.They were the first people who inhabited the land .They served its people .If they were not,the West wouldnt interfere to topple them when they won the election of Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006 and you know what was the reaction of Arafat s party? Prime Minister,Ahmed Qurei , his cabinet submitted their resignations.This is the choice of people.It should be respected or maybe you have an other definition of Democracy?Right?
the will of the people ?? the samre way Morsi follows the will of the people .. or hamas follows the will of the innocents by sending rockets into Israel so they can retaliate by killing them back .. James terror breeds death right ?? answer me that ? terrorists deserve what they get .. if they would recognize Israel then all could live in peace and walls would be torn down.. for all to prosper .. but trhe teeror ists do not want this ,,for then they would have no cause to live ..for they know not peace .. all they know is this brainwashed idea of terror and hate !
- Author
1.Ok, well read the official rosary of the Catholic Church!
"Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve! To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this, our exile, show us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!"
In 1998, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannia there were 1040 million Catholics and only 361 million Protestants.
"Mary is Mother of God
"495 ... In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos). [Catechism of the Catholic Church,] (p. 125)"
The Roman and Orthodox Catholic Churches insist that Mary "IS" "Mother of God"!
2. John s verse lead us to believe that he is a part of the trinity and equal to his father being a manifestation of him.Yet, Jesus also made many statements that deny he is the perfect man, much less God incarnate. Take the following for example: "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17). "My father if greater then I." (John 14:28) Also see Matthew 24:26 Clearly, Jesus is denouncing the possibility of him being the Messiah in those three verses.Besides,read this "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" if he is really the same one,why he had to call a super natural power to save him?or does it make sense to call oneself?plus Matthew 27:46, (also take into consideration that the time before crucification where Jesus prays for the "cup to passeth over me") versus "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, for this purpose I have come to this hour" (John 12:27 RSV). Jesus can’t seem to decide whether or not he wants to die. One moment he is willing; the next he isn’t.
For further information, Here is what the Bible's theologians and historians said about this gospel of John:
"....Unlike most NT letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is. The earliest identification of him comes from the church fathers...(From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1904)"
"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1905)"
This is really ironic! with all respect due to Christians. If the Book's author is not for sure known, then why assume that it was Saint John who wrote it?
With all respect my dear friend.
James
- Author
Michael,
If they were not aggressors,could you explain to me why EU has outlawed recently all cooperation with Israel in West Bank?
To James-wolve;
Who mentioned anything about the catholic church? Not me. I was talking about Jesus Christ.
The traditions of men do not override the Word Of God – men have attempted to nullify God’s Word with their traditions, using the Word with a small ‘w’, and tradition with a capital ‘T’, over the passing centuries creating spiritual confusion. Man can insist all he likes – doesn’t make it right because he asserts it to be true.This goes for anyone, regardless of denomination.If it is not based on Scripture, the inspired Word of God, then that doctrine has to be scrutinized and discerned , and if not found in accordance with Truth, is to be dismissed out of hand.I don't make the rules man. :)
The verse John 12:27 – This proves that Jesus was also human, flesh and blood with free will to choose. Wouldn’t you be concerned about dying? I think most people would.
Where do you get the notion that Jesus is denouncing the possibility of himself being the Messiah in those three bible passages you have mentioned? He is stating truth, that only God alone is good, his Father is greater, and to watch out for false Messiahs and false prophets, as a warning to the Faithful, each in their proper context.
And in regards to your question about the authorship of the Gospel of John, if you read it, the answer is written in John 21:24.
For a more thorough explanation of what Jesus cried out from the cross, and how he was reciting Psalm 22, please see:-
Carm.org/…jesus/why-did-jesus-cry-out-my-god-my-god-wht-h
AND
www.gotquestions.org/forsaken-me.html respectively.
I hope you find some of this information useful, and further clarifies any questions or concerns you may have in relation to the matters you mentioned, although I did mention that I didn’t want to get drawn into a religious debate.
Yours Sincerely,
R.Q.
- Author
Romeos Quill,
No,my dear,That Quran verse states in what the majority of Christians believe and I proved to you that by citing how catholics look at Mary and Jesus since they are the magority in the world.No surprise plus you shouldn't ask where it is stated in N.T and but rather ask from where the majority of Christians picked up that idea?
2. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
If He was really God,why He himself shose this complicated way to tell us He is God?.No where in the Bible,my friend, do we find that Jesus ever said he is God or made it explicitly known.Think about this.In that verse, why the third personal pronoun ? I am asking you who is speaking ?Is this Jesus speaking? The answer is no, this is NOT Jesus speaking! This is supposedly the disciple John(It s not John who wrote this Gosple,a mysterious man according to magority of Christian theologians) writing this here not Jesus! So what we have is an interpretation of what one man thought! Why cant Christians get us Jesus saying in the beginning the word was with God and the word was God, why didn’t Jesus ever say this?! So Christians now want us to believe Jesus is God because of what a man said? A man’s interpretation! The Bible itself testifies that the disciples often miss-understood Jesus and didn’t understand him!
Morever,since your English Bible was translated from Creek,capitalizing and lowering the "word" in "Word" or "g" in "God" makes no sense.Because the Creeks dont capitalize letters.I have already written a hub about this .You can check it.
So John 1:1 does not prove anything.
With much respect,
James
James-wolve,
To answer your points.
Firstly, Christians take the Holy Bible as the Divine, inspired, Word of God, not the Qu’uran(Koran).
Secondly, a majority does not prove somebody to be right – that would be a ridiculous premise to launch from.Was not Jesus Christ himself in a minority? Yet he was right ( Read John 16:7-15 ).
Thirdly, how God chooses to reveal Himself throughout Earth’s history is entirely up to Him, and is certainly not for me, or anyone else to say! Lol!
For a more thorough disclosure of the meaning , and how the concept of the ‘ Logos ‘(Word), is often misunderstood, might I suggest you take a look at:-
Digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?.article=1076&context
And also:-
www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Word-God.html
John was speaking the truth, because he wrote as inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit, sent by God, not on his own authority.
Jesus(Saviour), has many names, amongst them, ‘Son of God’, ‘Word of God’, and is seated at the right-hand of God Almighty ( Read Matthew 21:23 ). How can anyone possibly be any closer to God than him?
And to address your final misgiving.
When I was talking about the little ‘w’, and the big ‘T’, I was speaking figuratively, which maybe didn’t translate very well to you. The point I was making is that many denominations and pretenders attempt to place their ‘T’raditions above the ‘w’ord of God, creating man-made rules and doctrines as though they were God’s commands, issued my God Himself, which is nothing new and has been going on for centuries. ( See: Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13 ).This is an attempt to nullify the Word, and follow their own godless teachings.
Hopefully, these points should answer any reservations you may have more adequately.
Yours Sincerely,
R.Q.
- Author
As I said it was not written by John himself. Christians say that it was John the Apostle writting about John the Baptist. The evidence in the following quotes :
John 21:24-25
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
We know that his testimony is true? WOW
Wasn't the disciple John the one who supposedly wrote the gospel of John? How can he say about himself that "we know that his (the author) testimony is true"?! Isn't this a clear and indisputable proof that the book was written by an unknown person?
Let us look at the following verses from the gospel:
"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:19)"
"John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:26)"
"For John was not yet cast into prison. (From the King James Version Bible, John 3:24)"
Whoever wrote the gospel, was he appointed or inspired by GOD Almighty? If yes, then who is that man? It can't be John for it is quite obvious from the above verses and many more throughout the gospel that John wasn't the original author. One has to be ridiculously biased and blind in faith to deny that.
So now,let s return to verses:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:1)" and we can add with it this wellknown verse:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (From the King James Version Bible, John 3:16)"
These verses were obviously written by mysterious men and not by any of Jesus' original disciples. Therefore, it is not true to consider such verses as Divine and to try to prove Jesus is the Creator of the Universe through them. This trinity was born between the years of 150 to 300. It is quite possible and highly probable that some church wrote the so-called "Gospel of John" from excerpts that they found.Take into considerations that there are 24,000 "letters" or papers found that were not included in today's New Testament, which means that the excerpts that were used for writing the "Gospel of John" and all of the other books and gospels of the NT are highly doubtful and contain no proof what so ever that they were written by any of Jesus' original disciples. The Gospel of John was written about John but not by the original "Saint John". Big difference ! You can't consider such manmade laws and interpretations as GOD Almighty's Divine Holy Words.
Here is what the Bible's theologians and historians said about this gospel:
"Many scholars of the past two centuries have denied that John wrote this book, partly because of their belief that the author fabricated many details such as the miracles and the discourses of Jesus. (The Holman Illustrated Study Bible, ISBN: 978-1-58640-275-4, Gospel of John, Page1540)"
"Critical Analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
"Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
"To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
"Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
"The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
"The final editing of the gospel and arrangement in its present form probably dates from between A.D. 90 and 100. Traditionally, Ephesus has been favored as the place of composition, though many support a location in Syria, perhaps the city of Antioch, while some have suggested other places, including Alexandria. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
Now ,So again, no one knows regarding the "Gospel of John":
Who wrote it.
How many people wrote it.
When it was written.
Where it was written.
Besides,Deuteronomy 31:25-29 , Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption of the Law (Bible) after his death .
2.Why you said you were speaking figuratively,It was a filed of grammer.No room for figurative speech.It is better to call spade a spade.If that was figurative language as you said,why can t Christians take son of God as figurative speech too,which means servant of God since in Hebrew Son of God means good man,godly,servant of God.
3.Quran is word of God and Muhamed peace be upon him His last messenger.Obviously a non muslim will say no.. and say its a copy of the bible..Islam didnt copy the bible,but christianity copied judaism..
We muslims believe in one God.. the same God of Moses and Jesus.. Thats why the Quran seems the same.. "because" Gods words never change... Gods message is eternal.. its always been the same and always will be.. God sent many messenger/prophets into the world.. some are named in the religious books, others we dont know about.. But they were sent, all with the exact same message..we muslims believe in Moses and Jesus.. so we know all prophets brought Gods message to humanity..the only problem is neither Moses nor Jesus wrote down their message during their walk on earth.. So we humans in our flaws, wrote down things years later, and things got lost in translation also.. Bible was written in Aramaic language.So the original book is lost... translation is a copy..words loose meanings in time.. Even if you look at a red letter version of the bible (Jesus's actual words) its not even a 5th of the bible.. only a small fraction.. everything else was written "according to" someone elses account as I stated above
The Quran is actual word for word dictated to Mohammed peace be upon him by Angel Gabriel directly from God.. and God promised this time to preserve the words... Its Gods same message as in the bible, only all the misconceptions and mistranslations are cleared up.. Islam is not new.. its as old as Adam.. Islam is not meant to be "my religion is better than yours"... we want jews and christians to become better jews and christians to be and do what God actually wants them to do.. And to be so, its all in the Quran.. the 10 commandment rules are there in the Quran.. morality, decency, how to deal with everyday life, business, friendship. marriage, parentage.. everything is there..
If you feel compelled to study the Quran, go for it. It's a peaceful and beautiful text,
Peace
James
To James-wolve,
Thank you for suggesting I read the Koran. I read a large part of it a few years’ ago, and although it contains some great morals and ethics, it is not the Gospel that saves mankind from sin. After all, the whole message is based on Christ, and stands or falls on the resurrection of Christ, for without that, then what hope is there for anyone? This is the pivotal message of the Good News, about Christ saving the world through his redemptive work on the cross; death, burial and resurrection from death, raised by God’s Mighty Power, and now seated at His right hand, ready to judge the living and the dead.
Regarding your queries on the authorship of the Gospel according to John; the following is an interesting read which you may find enlightening, and educational:-
www.thesacredpage.com/2011/12/did-john-write-fourth-gospel.html
And Jesus means ‘ Saviour ‘ , for that is who he is. Do you believe Mohammed can take you to heaven? Did he pay the price for your sins on the cross? Did God Almighty resurrect him from the dead and seat him at his right hand? Let’s get down to brass tacks James - who really has the power to do this for you and I?
I for one, shall hearken to the voice of the true Shepherd of my soul, Jesus Christ; for I am convinced by miracles, and my faith and belief in his resurrection that he is the one. God raised him from the dead, so he has been given the Divine seal, triumphing over death.
Christianity is unique. I have looked into this in the past, and what I found was quite surprising…….
All of the world’s religions can be absorbed by Hinduism, except true biblical Christianity.
Yours Sincerely,
R.Q.
- Author
His name is `Eesa" or" Issa",not Jesus.It is illustrated in the following verse of the Quran:
"When the angels said to Mary, 'O Mary! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be 'al-MaseeHu `Eesa', the son of Mary; Honorable in this world and in the hereafter, and from those who are near (to Allah)." 3:45,Dont say that Mohamed peace be upon him out of contempt attributed a disparaging epithet "Esau" or "Eshaw"(the rejected brother of Jacob ) for Jesus and it wasnt recorded in quran by a mistake,because:
1.The names "`Eshaw" and "`Eesa" are completely unrelated etymologically and lexically. "Esau" is Latinization of the Biblical Hebrew name for Jacob's twin brother, `Eshaw, who was disavowed. This name is spelled:
`Eshaw - - "AYN, SHIN, WAW"; Pronounced "`Ee" (like "see") + "shaw" (like "saw" with additional stress).
This is an archaic word which literally means "hairy". It refers to one who has a hairy and dark body. This fact is illustrated in the following Biblical verse:
"The first came forth red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they called his name Esau."
[Genesis 25:25, RSV]
Due to Esau's dark and murky color, and the hair which enveloped his body, he was named "`Eshaw" meaning "covered with hair".
The corresponding word for this in Arabic is A`thaa with the trilateral root "AYN, THAA, YAA". This word, likewise, means covered with hair.entitled "Lisaan al-`Arab" (The Arabic Tongue), he states:
"`Athaa: al-`athaa: Having a murky color with an abundance of hair; al-a`tha: an abundance of ugly and coarse hair; i.e. al-untha `athwaa' (fem. "hairy woman", i.e. hag); al-`uthwatu: coarse head hair, matted in spite of being combed; `athi: old person's hair; `athwaa, a`thaa, perhaps a reference to a hairy man is "a`thi"; an old man is "`athwaa'"; a`tha: Hyenas.."
("`Athaa" Lisaan al-`Arab, Ibn ManTHoor)
2. Jesus and even the earliest Christians spoke Aramaic. Much of the Old Testament, such as the Book of Daniel, was originally in Aramaic though a large bulk of those codices are lost forever. Neither the Greek of the Textus Receptus upon which the New Testament is based, nor the Hebrew of the standardized Tanach upon which the Old Testament is loosely based were their native tongues.
"..portions of the Old Testament books of Daniel and Ezra are written in Aramaic...Jesus and the Apostles also spoke this language."
"In the early Christian era, Aramaic divided into east and West varieties. West Aramaic dialects includ Nabataean (formerly spoken in parts of Arabia), Palmyrene (spoken in Palmyra, which was northeast of Damascus), Palestinian-Christian, and Judeo-Aramaic. West Aramaic is still spoken in a small number of villages in Lebanon."
[Encyclopedia Britannica, Reference Index I, "Aramaic Language", page 476]
Jesus spoke Aramaic. Thus, the New Testament would have to be dependent upon it. Much of the Old Testament was in Aramaic as well, and the earliest Christian societies throughout Arabia from Palestine, to Syria, to Nabataea spoke Aramaic. So what is Jesus' name in Aramaic?
"Eesho M'sheekha" meaning "Jesus the Messiah".
- Syriac. Syriac is a late variant of Aramaic widespread in Christendom, thus coined "Christian Aramaic".
- Aramaic. Taken directly from the "Peshitta".
- Aramaic. Peshitta; with diacritical marks.
The "Peshitta" is the Aramaic New Testament and closely resembles the language of Jesus.
Thus, Jesus would have even called himself "Eesho" or more specifically "Eesa" since the Northern Palestinian Jews pronounced the letter "shin" as "seen". Interestingly enough we find a few striking parallels in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic which tell volumes and uncover astounding facts.
2.Jesus doesnt mean savoir for the following reasons:
YAHUSHUWA` is theorized to be a combination of "Yahweh" and "Yasha`" meaning "Jehovah is Salvation". This was the name of Moses' companion Joshua Ben Nun who is referred to as "Yasa`" in the Quran.
The problem with this theory is that there were several people in the Tanach named "Yahushuwa`":
1.Yahushuwa` (Joshua) the son of Nun, companion of Moses, subject of the Old Testament Book of Joshua.
2. Yahushuwa` (Joshua) the Bethshemite (1 Samuel 6:18)
3. Yahushuwa`, (Joshua) governor of Jerusalem under King Hosiah (2 Kings 23:8)
4. Yahushuwa`, (Joshua) son of Josedech (Haggai 1:1) and so forth...
However, there exists not a single shred of historical evidence that the historical "Jesus" was ever called "Yahushuwa`" in his lifetime. All the aforementioned had this name, yet their names were not transliterated into "Jesus" or "Ieosus". They were transliterated as "Joshua". Thus, we must conclude that "Jesus" was a name very dissimilar to "Yahushuwa`" (Joshua) since it was transliterated by the early Biblical writers into the incongruent "Ieosus" and then later "Jesus". However, the closest thing to a reference of any executed figure in Jesus' time period is the Talmudic entry:
"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshua` was hanged..." [Babylonia Sanhedrin 43A]
I find this quote repeatedly in Christian speech trying to prove the historicity of Jesus. However, this is erroneous due to the following reasons: First this mentions someone named "Yeshua`" and not "Yahushuwa`" who was hung on the eve of Passover. Second, there is nothing to say or support that this was the Biblical "Jesus".Both the names "Yeshua`" and "Yahushuwa`" were very common amongst the Israelites prior to Jesus' lifetime.
- Author
3.Besides, The first letter in the name Yeshua "Jesus" is the yod. Yod represents the "Y" sound in Hebrew. Many names in the Bible that begin with yod are mispronounced by English speakers because the yod in these names was transliterated in English Bibles with the letter "J" rather than "Y". This came about because in early English the letter "J" was pronounced the way we pronounce "Y" today. All proper names in the Old Testament were transliterated into English according to their Hebrew pronunciation, but when English pronunciation shifted to what we know today, these transliterations were not altered. Thus, such Hebrew place names as ye-ru-sha-LA-yim, ye-ri-HO, and yar-DEN have become known to us as Jerusalem, Jericho, and Jordan; and Hebrew personal names such as yo-NA, yi-SHAI, and ye-SHU-a have become known to us as Jonah, Jesse, and Jesus.
The fourth sound one hears in the name Yeshua is the "u" sound, as in the word "true". Like the first three sounds, this also has come to be mispronounced but in this case it is not the fault of the translators. They transcribed this sound accurately, but English is not a phonetic language and "u" can be pronounced in more than one way. At some point the "u" in "Jesus" came to be pronounced as in "cut," and so we say "Jee-zuhs."
The "a" sound, as in the word "father," is the fifth sound in Jesus' name. It is followed by a guttural produced by contracting the lower throat muscles and retracting the tongue root- an unfamiliar task for English speakers. In an exception to the rule, the vowel sound "a" associated with the last letter "ayin" (the guttural) is pronounced before it, not after. While there is no equivalent in English or any other Indo-European language, it is somewhat similar to the last sound in the name of the composer, "Bach." In this position it is almost inaudible to the western ear. Some Israelis pronounce this last sound and some don't, depending on what part of the dispersion their families returned from. The Hebrew Language Academy, guardian of the purity of the language, has ruled that it should be sounded, and Israeli radio and television announcers are required to pronounce it correctly. There was no letter to represent them, and so these fifth and sixth sounds were dropped from the Greek transcription of "Yeshua," -the transcription from which the English "Jesus" is derived.
The final "s" of "Jesus" is derived from Creek because masculine names in Greek ordinarily end with a consonant, usually with an "s" sound, and less frequently with an "n" or "r" sound. In the case of "Iesus," the Greeks added a sigma, the "s" sound, to close the word. The same is true for the names Nicodemus, Judas, Lazarus, and others.
what do you find?isnt it Issa?plus why cant you call him Immanuel instead? Isaiah 7:14 the Bible gives a prophecy of the name of Jesus. It says, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
4.The answer about if Mohamed peace be upon him could lead me to heaven:
Allah's Apostle [Muhammad (peace be upon him)] said, "The deeds of anyone of you will not save you (from the fire [of hell])." They asked, "Even you (will not be saved by your deeds), O Allah's Apostle?" He said, "No, even I (will not be saved) unless and until Allah bestows His mercy on me. Therefore, do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and worship Allah in the forenoon and in the afternoon and during a part of the night, and always adopt a middle, moderate, regular course whereby you will reach your target (Paradise).
Sahih Bukhari 8:76:470
5.Answer about Jesus resurrection,I suggest tou you to read my hub:
His name is `Eesa" or" Issa",not Jesus.It is illustrated in the following verse of the Quran:
"When the angels said to Mary, 'O Mary! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be 'al-MaseeHu `Eesa', the son of Mary; Honorable in this world and in the hereafter, and from those who are near (to Allah)." 3:45,Dont say that Mohamed peace be upon him out of contempt attributed a disparaging epithet "Esau" or "Eshaw"(the rejected brother of Jacob ) for Jesus and it wasnt recorded in quran by a mistake,because:
1.The names "`Eshaw" and "`Eesa" are completely unrelated etymologically and lexically. "Esau" is Latinization of the Biblical Hebrew name for Jacob's twin brother, `Eshaw, who was disavowed. This name is spelled:
`Eshaw - - "AYN, SHIN, WAW"; Pronounced "`Ee" (like "see") + "shaw" (like "saw" with additional stress).
This is an archaic word which literally means "hairy". It refers to one who has a hairy and dark body. This fact is illustrated in the following Biblical verse:
"The first came forth red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they called his name Esau."
[Genesis 25:25, RSV]
Due to Esau's dark and murky color, and the hair which enveloped his body, he was named "`Eshaw" meaning "covered with hair".
The corresponding word for this in Arabic is A`thaa with the trilateral root "AYN, THAA, YAA". This word, likewise, means covered with hair.entitled "Lisaan al-`Arab" (The Arabic Tongue), he states:
"`Athaa: al-`athaa: Having a murky color with an abundance of hair; al-a`tha: an abundance of ugly and coarse hair; i.e. al-untha `athwaa' (fem. "hairy woman", i.e. hag); al-`uthwatu: coarse head hair, matted in spite of being combed; `athi: old person's hair; `athwaa, a`thaa, perhaps a reference to a hairy man is "a`thi"; an old man is "`athwaa'"; a`tha: Hyenas.."
("`Athaa" Lisaan al-`Arab, Ibn ManTHoor)
2. Jesus and even the earliest Christians spoke Aramaic. Much of the Old Testament, such as the Book of Daniel, was originally in Aramaic though a large bulk of those codices are lost forever. Neither the Greek of the Textus Receptus upon which the New Testament is based, nor the Hebrew of the standardized Tanach upon which the Old Testament is loosely based were their native tongues.
"..portions of the Old Testament books of Daniel and Ezra are written in Aramaic...Jesus and the Apostles also spoke this language."
"In the early Christian era, Aramaic divided into east and West varieties. West Aramaic dialects includ Nabataean (formerly spoken in parts of Arabia), Palmyrene (spoken in Palmyra, which was northeast of Damascus), Palestinian-Christian, and Judeo-Aramaic. West Aramaic is still spoken in a small number of villages in Lebanon."
[Encyclopedia Britannica, Reference Index I, "Aramaic Language", page 476]
Jesus spoke Aramaic. Thus, the New Testament would have to be dependent upon it. Much of the Old Testament was in Aramaic as well, and the earliest Christian societies throughout Arabia from Palestine, to Syria, to Nabataea spoke Aramaic. So what is Jesus' name in Aramaic?
"Eesho M'sheekha" meaning "Jesus the Messiah".
- Syriac. Syriac is a late variant of Aramaic widespread in Christendom, thus coined "Christian Aramaic".
- Aramaic. Taken directly from the "Peshitta".
- Aramaic. Peshitta; with diacritical marks.
The "Peshitta" is the Aramaic New Testament and closely resembles the language of Jesus.
Thus, Jesus would have even called himself "Eesho" or more specifically "Eesa" since the Northern Palestinian Jews pronounced the letter "shin" as "seen". Interestingly enough we find a few striking parallels in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic which tell volumes and uncover astounding facts.
2.Jesus doesnt mean savoir for the following reasons:
YAHUSHUWA` is theorized to be a combination of "Yahweh" and "Yasha`" meaning "Jehovah is Salvation". This was the name of Moses' companion Joshua Ben Nun who is referred to as "Yasa`" in the Quran.
The problem with this theory is that there were several people in the Tanach named "Yahushuwa`":
1.Yahushuwa` (Joshua) the son of Nun, companion of Moses, subject of the Old Testament Book of Joshua.
2. Yahushuwa` (Joshua) the Bethshemite (1 Samuel 6:18)
3. Yahushuwa`, (Joshua) governor of Jerusalem under King Hosiah (2 Kings 23:8)
4. Yahushuwa`, (Joshua) son of Josedech (Haggai 1:1) and so forth...
However, there exists not a single shred of historical evidence that the historical "Jesus" was ever ca
James-wolve,
Firstly, thank you for the history lesson in etymology, though I think you repeated a great deal of your first comment in the second comment you posted.
Regarding the name of Jesus.
The New Testament says:-
Luke 2:21 - A week later, when the time came for the baby to be circumcised, he was named Jesus, the name which the angel had given him before he had been conceived ( Good News Bible - Today's English Version ).
And also:-
Matthew 1:25 - But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to a son.And Joseph named him Jesus. ( Good News Bible - Today's English Version ).
The following two links will reinforce, and clear up any doubts you may have on the name of Jesus meaning ' Saviour ' :-
Viz;
carm.org/jesus-name-really-yeshua
And also:-
christianity.about.com(arrow dot dot dot arrow)Common Questions Name of Jesus-Why Do We Call Him Jesus if His Name is Yeshua?
I hope you find this helpful, and I bid you a goodnight.
Yours Sincerely,
R.Q.
- Author
5.Answer about Jesus resurrection,I suggest tou you to read my hub :
https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/-In-Islam...
The verses you brought are from English Bible , academically speaking they should be taken from the source ,the origin or rather take it from Creek which was close to the source.
Peace,
James
James-wolve,
The Good News Bible ( Today's English Version ), has already done the hard work for us, by providing faithful translations from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, where relevant.
However, seeing as you've requested the original Greek, then I have provided a sample here for you, to prove authenticity :-
Luke 2:21
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
kai ote eplhsqhsan hmerai oktw tou peritemein to paidion kai eklhqh to onoma autou ihsouV to klhqen upo tou aggelou pro tou sullhfqhnai auton en th koilia
Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
kai ote eplhsqhsan hmerai oktw tou peritemein to paidion kai eklhqh to onoma autou ihsouV to klhqen upo tou aggelou pro tou sullhfqhnai auton en th koilia
Byzantine Majority
kai ote eplhsqhsan hmerai oktw tou peritemein auton kai eklhqh to onoma autou ihsouV to klhqen upo tou aggelou pro tou sullhfqhnai auton en th koilia
Alexandrian
kai ote eplhsqhsan hmerai oktw tou peritemein auton kai eklhqh to onoma autou ihsouV to klhqen upo tou aggelou pro tou sullhmfqhnai auton en th koilia
Hort and Westcott
kai ote eplhsqhsan hmerai oktw tou peritemein auton kai eklhqh to onoma autou ihsouV to klhqen upo tou aggelou pro tou sullhmfqhnai auton en th koilia
Latin Vulgate
2:21 et postquam consummati sunt dies octo ut circumcideretur vocatum est nomen eius Iesus quod vocatum est ab angelo priusquam in utero conciperetur
King James Version
2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
American Standard Version
2:21 And when eight days were fulfilled for circumcising him, his name was called JESUS, which was so called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Bible in Basic English
2:21 And when, after eight days, the time came for his circumcision, he was named Jesus, the name which the angel had given to him before his birth.
Darby's English Translation
2:21 And when eight days were fulfilled for circumcising him, his name was called Jesus, which was the name given by the angel before he had been conceived in the womb.
Douay Rheims
2:21 And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb.
Noah Webster Bible
2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, who was so named by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Weymouth New Testament
2:21 When eight days had passed and the time for circumcising Him had come, He was called JESUS, the name given Him by the angel before His conception in the womb.
World English Bible
2:21 When eight days were fulfilled for the circumcision of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Young's Literal Translation
2:21 And when eight days were fulfilled to circumcise the child, then was his name called Jesus, having been so called by the messenger before his being conceived in the womb.
Yours Sincerely,
R.Q.
- Author
What you have brought here reinforces what I told you. His name Issa .Since the word ihsouV is Creek and the Greek alphabet simply lacks the letters necessary to correctly convey how the name is pronounced in Hebrew.
One thing I want to point here Immanuel in Hebrew means "God is with us." not "God with us".
James-wolve,
The name of ' Immanuel ', has never been in dispute, or the topic of conversation, so I don't get where you are coming from on that one.
The links I gave thoroughly explained why he is called ' Jesus ', in the English-speaking tongue, and the derivation of it's origin, and why folk will not be penalized for praising his name in their own native tongue, as it will obviously look and sound different in one's own language, whether that be English, Hebrew Greek or otherwise.
I did look at your Hub, but it denies that Jesus even died on the cross, so according to the Scriptures, I have to dismiss that out of hand - there are so many bible verses to support this, but I do not want to go into great rapture about it here. James.....if you are genuinely interested in the New Testament, it would be well worth your while reading it with an attitude of prayer, asking God to reveal the truth of what you are reading, and it should then become clearer to you. As I mentioned a while ago, I don't want to get drawn into a religious debate about the Holy Bible and the Koran, as there is only going to be conflict, so for now, until further developments, let us agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
Yours Sincerely.
R.Q.
- Author
So,should they drop Isaiah 7:14 from the Bible ??I read Bible many times and I found it riddled with repetitions and contradictions. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark,is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem,a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan unlike Quran free from errors,contradictions and the same since the day of its revelations.Ask any Muslim in South Africa, Australia, USA, Brazil to read to you any verse from the Quran they have in their hands,they will read to you the same verses,letters.
Thanks for your great discussion.
James-wolve,
To answer your questions;
Firstly:-
Isaiah 7:14, regarding “ Immanuel “, and the name of “ Jesus “ differing. There is no contradiction, as explained in the following links:-
carm.org/questions/about-jesus/jesus-name-immanuel-or-jesus
And also:-
www.gotquestions.org/Immanuel-Jesus html
Secondly:-
Regarding the flood story, and about how many pairs of animals were taken into the Ark by Noah, the following link will shed copious light upon these subjects to which you pertain:-
www.apologeticspress.org/articles/525
Thirdly:-
The New Testament was translated from Greek to English, not Hebrew to English, which is worth bearing in mind to avoid any potential translation confusion.The Gospels do not contradict each other in the details of Jesus Christ’s last moments, and subsequent resurrection; rather they are complimentary, not contradictory, as you say.Consider; If you asked various witnesses to a crime, would they not give you the same story, albeit from differing viewpoints, when telling the truth – some statements more detailed than others?
And finally:-
Geneaology. You have opened up a searching question which many have asked regarding Jesus’ geneaology ( Matthew 1:1-17; Luke3:23-38 ),that on the surface, appears contradictory, when again, upon further inspection, are complimentary instead, as attested by the following link:-
www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1834
I hope that this answers, and satisfies your concerns and queries.
Yours Sincerely,
R.Q.
- Author
As I told you,It s full of contradictions.No wonder ,many earliest books were banned from the Bible such as Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, The Apocalypse of Peter..Well concerning the crucifixion and resurrection.We Muslims believe that Jesus was neither crucified nor resurrected, and he was protected and lifted by GOD Almighty.This also is confirmed by the New Testament since Psalm 91 is referring to Jesus Christ.
GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3).
GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4).
Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5).
Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8).
No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion).
GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment.
Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified.
His life will be prolonged and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children.
His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12).
According to the Apocalypse of Peter that was discovered in Egypt, Jesus sat on the tree and watched the crucified one getting crucified. Peter witnessed this and wrote the Apocalypse. Not only that, but while Christians insist that the book is a Gnostic one, but according to Wikipedia.org, "It is unclear whether this text advocates an adoptionist (Jesus was Divine) or docetist (Jesus's body and crucifixion were an illusion) christology"
So there is no proof that the book is Gnostic
My dear friend,Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place.look how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is manmade.
James-wolve,
With respect, you are not telling me anything, and I’ve repeatedly already proven to you that there are no contradictions – if you can’t accept the answers, then that is something you will have to deal with.I’ve discharged my duty of telling you the truth.It is now just becoming a process of you picking holes, and me closing them up which leads nowhere.If you don’t believe the Good News, then that is your decision, but I, and others, are witnesses that it was sent your way – no one is forcing you one way or the other, and it is not up to me to judge another man’s servant.
You are talking about false documents which evil men have tried to slip in, and have long since been dismissed by the Sword Of Truth, with these so-called ‘ gospel of Thomas’, apocalyptic and gnostic texts – it is not knowledge; it is false knowledge; lies, plain and simple – check out any number of links, and you will be enlightened:-
www.gotquestions.org/gospel-of-Thomas.html
Also:-
carm.org/does-the-gospel-of-thomas-belong-in-the-new-testament
See also:-
www.enterthebible.org/blog.aspx?month=10/01/2011
Plus, there are videos on Youtube explaining in great detail why it is heretical.
•
And to answer your last statement. You say you have read the bible several times; then surely, why did you not see the answer in Matthew 4:1-11, and Luke 4:1-13? So your statement claiming, without evidence, that this proves that the New Testament is just man made holds no water.
R.Q.
- Author
With much respect too,Sorry to say that I wasn't picking any holes.Simply those unknown people who wrote the bible were not smart enough to transform hodgepodge collection of documents into a well-constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan as I told you above.
I suggest to you to read my hub: https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Son-of-Go...
Peace
James.
James-wolve,
I've read your dissertation regarding the triune nature of God, and to answer your article ', this is what the bible says.Sometimes the answer is simpler than you think.....
Genesis 1:26-27 ( English Standard Version ).
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:26( King James Version ).
26 And God said," Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
Genesis 1:26 ( New International Version ).
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Footnotes:
a. Genesis 1:26 Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Syriac); Masoretic Text the earth
So the question is: Who was God talking to?
John 1:1 ( Good News Today’s English Version ).
Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.
John 1:1 ( New International Version ).
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1 ( King James Version )
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Yours Sincerely,
R.Q.
- Author
Yeah, Sometimes the answer is simpler than you think ,sometimes God works in mysterious way,sometimes it has to be understood in context,sometimes there was just a copying/writing error..Most popular methods of Christians when they come to argue:)
Well,first of all,I am not going to comment on John 1:1 because I already did above.
In Genesis 1:26.God says:LET S CREATE.I am asking you: Does "us" mean GOD and Jesus?If they are the same meaning ONE ,why cant he say I CREATE ?Besides,why LET ?If God want to create something,He dont need LET because saying LET is like you are calling others to either accompany or help you in that action.
"....after our likeness...." who is this human being that is like GOD? Adam, the first creation of Mankind and the one in Genesis 1:26-27 certainly isn't. The likeness of GOD Almighty is not the physical appearance, but rather having the knowledge of Good and evil. This is clearly stated in the Bible:
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 3:5)"
"and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. (From the NIV Bible, Ephesians 4:24)"
"Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. (From the NIV Bible, Exodus 7:1)"
"On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the LORD going before them. (From the NIV Bible, Zechariah 12:8)"
"....in our image...." First of all, the word image also means example or similitude. In Arabic, the two words are the same; "timthal" (image); "mathalona" (our image); which are all derived from the root word "mathal" (example), and I am sure that it is the same condition in Hebrew and Aramaic since all three languages are all sister languages. Also in Arabic similitude means "shabah". "Mutashabbihan" means to have a similitude of.
There is no question that the root words "mathal" and "shabah" in the Noble Quran were used for "example" and/or "similitude":
"Their similitude (mathalohum) is that of a man who kindled a fire; when it lighted all around him, God took away their light and left them in utter darkness. So they could not see. (Quran, 2:17)"
"But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before,"for they are given things in similitude (Mutashabbihan); and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever). (Quran, 2:25)
There will be peace. You would know, if you could only ask the 1,964 who just found it. May they rest together in the peace their leaders could not create then, or even here and now.
- Author
I think R.Reagan has hit the spot when he said: Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.
That's a great quote, thanks for sharing it.
36