Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook - Paul Artale
https://www.facebook.com/paul.artal...42319¬if_t=close_friend_activity&ref=notif
https://www.facebook.com/paul.artal...42319¬if_t=close_friend_activity&ref=notif
Luke 1:35 matches the islamist text of "the Son of God" - so they are wrong to say they have no such belief
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Paul Artale
An interesting Religious 'Roundtable" on Patrick Bet-David's podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzjoHtYN05k&t=7078s
See how many holes you can find in the Muslim arguments: Islam is strictly monotheistic [Allah is really one of multiple creators (Q23.14;37.125], Islam teaches one to love your neighbour ['love' really means fight them till religion is all for Allah (Q8.39)], Islam teaches sexual purity and morality [this means Mut'ah - temporary marriage like a car rental (Q4.24), also, you can have up to 4 wives (Q4.3) as young as 6 - Aisha's age (Bukhari V5B58N234), and wives can be approached as a tilth (Q2.223)]
Steven Avery
Interesting, I will try to listen.
Here is one that is usually not mentioned. The islamists do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, as defined in the New Testament.
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Paul Artale
Well, ‘Allah’ is crystal clear he didn’t (nor would ever) beget any son. Q17.35:
“It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.”
The Quranic Jesus is:
1. A spirit from Allah [Muslims don’t know what this spirit is].
2. Allah’s Word.
3. Not part of any Trinity.
Q4.1.171:
“O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word(1), which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit(2) proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity"(3): desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
Allah’s ‘Holy Spirit’ is Gabriel, by the way, whom he breathed into Elisabeth’s vagina so she could conceive John:
Q21.89,91: “And (remember) Zakariya, when he cried to his Lord: "O my Lord! leave me not without offspring, though thou art the best of inheritors...And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her [*] of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples."
Form https://www.translate.com/english-arabic (v91):
وَالَّتِي أَحْصَنَتْ *فَرْجَهَا* فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهَا مِن رُّوحِنَا وَجَعَلْنَاهَا وَابْنَهَا آيَةً لِّلْعَالَمِينَ
And who fortified ***her vagina*** so we blew her from our souls and made her and her son a sign to the worlds
فَرْجَهَا (farjaha)
What a mess!
They have the annunciation of the virgin birth, with some differences. (Some say theirs has more of a sexual component.)
So they do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, in New Testament definition.
(The reason this is downplayed is a Christian error of confounding Son of God with God the Son, but the Bible definition is very clear.)
Steven Avery
Paul Artale - so they did not understand the phrase Son of God in the New Testament.
The possible increased sexuality of the islamist annuncation does not change the fact that it is the virgin birth.
An interesting Religious 'Roundtable" on Patrick Bet-David's podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzjoHtYN05k&t=7078s
See how many holes you can find in the Muslim arguments: Islam is strictly monotheistic [Allah is really one of multiple creators (Q23.14;37.125], Islam teaches one to love your neighbour ['love' really means fight them till religion is all for Allah (Q8.39)], Islam teaches sexual purity and morality [this means Mut'ah - temporary marriage like a car rental (Q4.24), also, you can have up to 4 wives (Q4.3) as young as 6 - Aisha's age (Bukhari V5B58N234), and wives can be approached as a tilth (Q2.223)]
Steven Avery
Interesting, I will try to listen.
Here is one that is usually not mentioned. The islamists do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, as defined in the New Testament.
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Paul Artale
Well, ‘Allah’ is crystal clear he didn’t (nor would ever) beget any son. Q17.35:
“It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.”
The Quranic Jesus is:
1. A spirit from Allah [Muslims don’t know what this spirit is].
2. Allah’s Word.
3. Not part of any Trinity.
Q4.1.171:
“O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word(1), which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit(2) proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity"(3): desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
Allah’s ‘Holy Spirit’ is Gabriel, by the way, whom he breathed into Elisabeth’s vagina so she could conceive John:
Q21.89,91: “And (remember) Zakariya, when he cried to his Lord: "O my Lord! leave me not without offspring, though thou art the best of inheritors...And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her [*] of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples."
Form https://www.translate.com/english-arabic (v91):
وَالَّتِي أَحْصَنَتْ *فَرْجَهَا* فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهَا مِن رُّوحِنَا وَجَعَلْنَاهَا وَابْنَهَا آيَةً لِّلْعَالَمِينَ
And who fortified ***her vagina*** so we blew her from our souls and made her and her son a sign to the worlds
فَرْجَهَا (farjaha)
What a mess!
They have the annunciation of the virgin birth, with some differences. (Some say theirs has more of a sexual component.)
So they do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, in New Testament definition.
(The reason this is downplayed is a Christian error of confounding Son of God with God the Son, but the Bible definition is very clear.)
Steven Avery
Paul Artale - so they did not understand the phrase Son of God in the New Testament.
The possible increased sexuality of the islamist annuncation does not change the fact that it is the virgin birth.
The Quran explicitly says Jesus is not the Son of God, in any sense. The clearest is the Sura 112 Al-Iklas when is dedicated to the topic:
But the fun part to my eyes is that Islamic tradition (not the Quran I don't think) holds that Jesus will return and lead the final fight against the anti-Christ (the Dejal). Which would be a really tall order for someone who was a mere man; I'd say you'd have to be something equivalent to a Son of God to succeed at that! So things are nuanced... (For his second coming, by Islamic tradition he arrives at the mosque in Damascus which hold the relics of John the Baptist. )
Mohammed had a Christian concubine, a present from the Patriarch of Alexandria (you'll love that story). Perhaps he was an Ebionite Christian, as the early Christian Ebionites read a Matthew without the first 2 chapters, and held that Jesus was born a man. Do we know who the Patriarch of Alexandria was in March 628 AD?
Proclaim: He is Allah, the Single;
Allah, the Self-Existing and Besought of all.
He begets not, nor is He begotten;
and there is none equal to Him in His attributes. (2-5)
But the fun part to my eyes is that Islamic tradition (not the Quran I don't think) holds that Jesus will return and lead the final fight against the anti-Christ (the Dejal). Which would be a really tall order for someone who was a mere man; I'd say you'd have to be something equivalent to a Son of God to succeed at that! So things are nuanced... (For his second coming, by Islamic tradition he arrives at the mosque in Damascus which hold the relics of John the Baptist. )
Mohammed had a Christian concubine, a present from the Patriarch of Alexandria (you'll love that story). Perhaps he was an Ebionite Christian, as the early Christian Ebionites read a Matthew without the first 2 chapters, and held that Jesus was born a man. Do we know who the Patriarch of Alexandria was in March 628 AD?
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Do they show any knowledge of the sense given in Luke 1:35, ie. Messiah, born of the virgin?
Maybe they think all Christians are Ebionites, denying the virgin birth.
Yes - they explicitly categorically reject anything divine about the conception of
Jesus by the Holy Spirit, as do Ebionite Christians. The verse I cited is the
explicit formula used to reject exactly that - almost every Muslim knows it by heart.
Because it's sort of a magic verse: they have the Quran, and they have
the much bigger Hadith, which are the sayings of Mohammed, written
down later and scrutinized to ensure fiability. There is a tradition
of Mohammed that says reciting that verse is as if you recited 1/3 of
the Quran, which is a really good deal in a culture that tries to
memorize the whole thing, as it's one of the shortest Suras in the Quran!
Jesus in Islam, like Mohammed was, a man, and a prophet.
The Ebionite Christians held that Jesus was a man and most probably held that he
acquired his divinity at his baptism by John the Baptist:
"This day I have begotten thee"
Epiphanius thinks the Ebionites had a truncated Matthew without the first 2
chapters, and hence without the virgin birth, but they would argue someone else
added them on to the orginal Matthew (in the Hebrew dialect). Turns out there's
more to the story: the Ebionites are free of Matthew's broken genealogy too.
A genealogy that doesn't add up in numbers, sometimes has the wrong people in it,
and doesn't include Jospeh. So their genealogy is simply Mary and Joseph,
by which the man Jesus regains his Davidic lineage, which is a Hebrew requirement
for a Messiah!
(The Ebionites knew the Hebrew law well - I think it's the Homilies/Recognitions that
say James was so repected he was allowed into the Holy of Holies in the Temple.)
So your "Messiah, born of a virgin" is an oxymoron if his Davidic lineage is
from his mother's husband. Mary was probably a Levite as her sister Elizabeth
was married to a high priest, and they were sticklers for that sort of thing.
And I suspect that may be the whole point of the virgin birth: for the rabbis
to be smug in knowing that therefore Jesus could not be a/the Messiah.
The very idea has a Talmudic ring to me: I can't see anyone in those days thinking
having sex with your wife could be in any way sinful to the point of needing to posit
a virgin birth - they weren't prudes. The Hebrews in general, and Jesus in particular,
loved everything to do with children, and He was explicit about it.
(Not to mention the fact that unchaste virgins can get pregnant too, without
too much difficulty - it's all a question of timing :-.)
So I cut the first 2 chapters out of my Matthews - easily done these days
with computers - and celebrate his Davidic lineage.
Would you like to open a thread on Ebionite Christianity? It's about as
Pure as you can get...
PS: What bible software do you use?
PPS: That link I posted is to IMHO the best English translation of the Quran, by far.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Makes no sense.
Gabriel gives the annunciation.
There is no human father.
It is not divine.
It has to be divine or satanic, and thus it must be divine.
Again, I simply believe they are not accepting Luke 1:35 as the definition of "Son of God". That is their right, but it has to be noted if they disclaim the phrase.
Ebionite beliefs are not really relevant to this syllogism, except they can support the idea that the islamists really did not understand the Luke and Matthew accounts. And the specific definition given of "Son of God".
Remember, the orthodox Christians also struggle with the same phrase, trying to replace "Son of God" with the phrase not in the scripture "God the Son". So they may have contributed to the islamist logical fallacy.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
The virgin birth was necessary for Jesus to be sinless, since the sin nature, the yetzer hara, is passed through the man. Has nothing to do with prudism.
Search Arthur Custance on this forum.
Ironically, Matt Slick of CARM understands this basic point.
Remember, if you are discussing Ebionites you are almost by definition restricted to Matthew, without the first 2 chapters according to Epiphanius. My reading of the Panarion makes me feel he had the Ebionite canon in front of him, as he explicitly cites the beginning of their canon, which is Matthew 3:1 almost verbatim.
And if they are the Jerusalem->Pella->Antioch Ebionites, which mine are, then you have to reject the Paulines. They may have read Acts as history - see Mauck's Paul on Trial
The Ebionites stop there, but I note in passing that their sucessor, the Church of the East, also leaves aside Jude+Revelation+2Peter+...
You cannot impose the Athanasius' or the Gelasian Canon on the Ebionites. They have their own Canon and it was James the brother of Jesus and the 12 apostles (including Mathias) that wrote it, which I accept. So these would be the ground rules for an Ebionite thread, by construction and definition of the word Ebionite,
But Jerome said that he did translations of 2 versions of the Ebionite Matthew - one in Hebrew in Hebrew letters, and one in Syriac in Hebrew letters, both possibly written by Matthew, and both now either lost, or buried alongside the Sol Invictus chapel in Rome. (Cardinal Mai may have known where it is :-,) I think the former was kept locked up in Caesaria, and the latter was intended more for the masses. Many have posited, as I do, that the former ended up at the Greek Matthew, and the latter may have ended up as the Greek Luke. So in citing Luke <=2 (which is not in the Ebionite canon) you are just citing an equivalent to Matthew <=2, which is not in the Ebionite canon. QED.
And if they are the Jerusalem->Pella->Antioch Ebionites, which mine are, then you have to reject the Paulines. They may have read Acts as history - see Mauck's Paul on Trial
The Ebionites stop there, but I note in passing that their sucessor, the Church of the East, also leaves aside Jude+Revelation+2Peter+...
You cannot impose the Athanasius' or the Gelasian Canon on the Ebionites. They have their own Canon and it was James the brother of Jesus and the 12 apostles (including Mathias) that wrote it, which I accept. So these would be the ground rules for an Ebionite thread, by construction and definition of the word Ebionite,
But Jerome said that he did translations of 2 versions of the Ebionite Matthew - one in Hebrew in Hebrew letters, and one in Syriac in Hebrew letters, both possibly written by Matthew, and both now either lost, or buried alongside the Sol Invictus chapel in Rome. (Cardinal Mai may have known where it is :-,) I think the former was kept locked up in Caesaria, and the latter was intended more for the masses. Many have posited, as I do, that the former ended up at the Greek Matthew, and the latter may have ended up as the Greek Luke. So in citing Luke <=2 (which is not in the Ebionite canon) you are just citing an equivalent to Matthew <=2, which is not in the Ebionite canon. QED.
Steven Avery
Administrator
Jerome quoted a Hebrew Matthew with stories not in our canonical Gospels
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...the-hebrew-matthew-not-canonical-matthew.543/
As for the variety of Ebionite beliefs, they are of very little interest to me.
Just to keep it simple.
If the islamists think the Ebinoites are the Christians, of course they will err in their positions.