My 1st study "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key"

[QuranSearchCom]

peace bro QuranSearchCom , Muslims never banged their heads, even so for minute ,on whether Christ was placed on the cross or not ,from the beginning of Islam , till the last few decades when the deviant Qadini sect , propagated that the swoon theory (that rare readers to the new testament suggest) ,could also be applied to the Quran...

The Qadiani sect banged the heads of Orthodox Muslims with such theory , the danger of such theory is not questioning a specific Hadith or a tradition ,but pervert the meaning of a noble verse ,that is why it must be exposed and refuted without tolerance.

As'salamu Alaikum dear brother,

Please pardon my ignorance in this, but do we have Hadiths that clearly spell out what happened to Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him?  I haven't read any Hadith on this.  But I also didn't research it hard enough either.

I hope my criticism is not offending anyone , but when it comes to the Quran,the matter is so serious.

Nothing offensive dear brother.  Feel free to speak your mind, freely.  This forum is for all brothers and sisters and non-Muslims to speak their minds, freely.  We're here to discuss and to get closer to the Truth, insha'Allah (if Allah Almighty is Willing).

Take care akhi (brother),
Osama Abdallah

[Egyptian]

As'salamu Alaikum dear brother,Osama

and thanks for your civil discussion...

and hope the following detailed posts get some new lines into the matter..

do we have Hadiths that clearly spell out what happened to Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him? .

We  have few Hadiths about Jesus ,almost all of them about the belief of his second coming ,such belief itself though is held by most scholars ,yet is questioned by some Sunni scholars. in brief ,traditions is of no help to the subject.

My position on the matter is very simple ,It is to be dependent only on the Qur'an and not to be dependent on extra-Quranic legends/traditions.

let's get to the Quranic scene step by step :

1- Jesus shew them miracles ,they disbelieved, accusing him of magic . then what?

 2- they plotted to harm him ; 3:54 And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah. then what?

 3- God promised not to let the Jews harm Jesus in a physical shameful way ,raising him ,untouched ,directly to him  ...


Holy Quran 3:55 "Behold! Allah said:  O Jesus!  I will take thee And raise thee to Myself And clear thee (of the falsehoods) Of those who blaspheme.

such promise was fulfilled ,and Jesus will be reminded of such fulfillment of promise on the day of judgment ..... Holy Quran"remember ........ I restrained the Children of Israel from harming you "

Notes :

1- According to the verse ,the decision of God raising Jesus to himself ,was a response to their plot to harm Jesus ... it is logically not a decision God took after their plot was translated into actions , it is clearly unwise to suggest that God notified Jesus with his decision of raising him to heaven while he was already crucified "assuming him was crucified" ...  just what reasons for Allah,if he intend to raise him to heaven ,to let them expose him to such shameful situation ?!

In a word, what does the verse say? It says that some Jews plotted to harm Jesus,but God has failed their plans by taking Jesus alive ,untouched ,to heaven.

[Egyptian]

Our next step :

Holy Quran 4:156-159 "That they said :'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.'  But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.  Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power

what does the verse say?

1- after God raised him alive to heaven ,some Jews propagated falsely that they succeeded in their plot and killed him by means of crucifixion.
2- There is repetition of the verse ,repeating again that they killed him not " that they for of a surety they killed him not." followed immediately by "Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself"
It is the same idea of previous highlighted verse 3:55 ... That God has failed their plans by taking Jesus alive .
3- there is nothing in the verse 4:156 or verse 3:55 ,to exclude a possibility of trials etc.... only the physical violence (including putting on a cross or killing) is the exception.
4- we have clues in verses 3:55 , 4:156 and 5:110 that not only Jesus wasn't crucified but also there is no drama between the plot of the Jews and the action of raising up Jesus to heaven. verse 4:156 says clearly that he wasn't put on the cross , verse 5:110 says that he was protected from harm without any modifier , and verse 3:55 says, the way Allah damaged their plans is by raising him to heaven ,hence questioning what reasons for Allah,if he intend to rise him to heaven ,to let them expose him to such shameful situation ?!upon those basis ,the swoon theory should be entirely excluded from discussion.
5- both verse 3:55 and the second part of verse 4:156,suggest that no in between the wicked plot of the Jews and the action of raising Jesus up to heaven.



6- Is there another place suggesting ,in between the plotting and the saving by raising up??

let's check again verse 4:156 But they killed him not, Nor crucifiedhim, but so it was made to appear to them.

A- what appeared to them so?

that is where the problem with the substitution theory comes ....what is the subject of the Arabic word "shubbiha" that means "seemed,appeared,imagined" ?

first: If we make Jesus the subject,then the reading would be:
But they killed Jesus not, Nor crucified Jesus, but so he was made to appear to them.

the substitution theory claims that someone or some­thing appeared to be like Jesus , hence making Jesus the subject would get the meaning the other way around ,making Jesus to be the one who had appearance not someone appeared like him!!!.

Now, If we rightly exclude the substitution elaboration on the verse ,and still wish to hold the position of making Jesus as the subject , making him appearing (visually) as crucified , killed .... again we have a problem , it is the mention of "didn't put on the cross aka crucify" before "seemed ,appeared"

[Egyptian]

If the word "salaba,to crucify" had been missed from the verse ,then making Jesus the subject of "appeared" could had made sense. but that is not the case.

so what is the possible meaning left ,with holding Jesus as the subject of "seemed,appeared"?

as we explained before ,we can't say he appeared visually crucified,dead while he wasn't . so we are left with the choice of helding the meaning of the verb "shubbiha" as "seemed, became a fancied image in the mind"
in other words ,they had a fancied image in their mind that Jesus was killed .

second : If we make 'the plot of crucifying,killing'  the subject ,,then the reading would be:
they killed him not nor did they crucify him, but THE AFFAIR WAS IMAGED SO TO THEM.

to sum up the point: we can safely make "Jesus" or the "the affair of crucifying,killing" as the subject of "seemed" without any problem with a condition of not getting  physical sense involved ,whether a substituter to Jesus,or Jesus himself appeared physically as dead.

Now the third step:

and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.

now the verse go on describing the mental situation of those folk, The Affair that was fancied to their mind wasn't certain ,it made them doubt ,why? 
because they had no certain knowledge except conjecture...
then Allah reveals the truth about the affair "Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power."

now our last question: Did such conjecture ,doubt, mentioned in the verse , happen before or after the raising of Jesus up?
Actually ,due to the problems previously mentioned with the substitution and swoon theory , we have to believe that such conjecture appeared after the raising up of Jesus .....
actually , the sudden disappearance of famous figures open the door for every kind of conjecture....


 Amazingly ,we have some old and modern times scholars who held the previous understanding eg;

famous hanbali scholar "Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya" wrote in his book "Hidayat al-Hiyara "



"There is a disagreement regarding the meaning of the verse , some understand it as, a likeness to him of another ,who been crucified instead,was shown to them. others understood it as " that the Christians who believed in it ,it wasn't because they witnessed it,but his enemies of the Jews propagated his killing while he was raised to Allah and they believed them ..whatever meaning ,remains the fact Jesus peace be upon him neither was killed nor crucified ..."


Muhammad Asad, author of the well acclaimed Translation of the meaning
of the Quran "The Message of the Qur'an",wrote:

" The Qur'an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist,among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas),who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur'an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical
commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at "harmonizing" the Qur'anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion. The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur'anic phrase "wa-lakin shubbiha lahum", which I render as "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so" To my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression shubbiha li is idiomatically synonymous with khuyyila 1i, "[a thing] became a fancied image to me", i.e., "in my mind" - in other words, "[it] seemed to me" (see Qamus,art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833, and IV, 1500)."




Eminent Tunisian scholar Ibn 'Ashur (1879 -1973)wrote in his Quranic commentary(is considered one of the greatest tafsirs ever ) "Tafsir Al-Tahrir Wal Tanwir"


"Another possible meaning to the verse ,is that they confused the falsehoods with the truth .Arab says "khuyyila elaika" means "became a fancied image to your mind ,seemed to you" ,there wasn't someone looked like him,but the falsehoods came through the news of being killed,which was due to their (his enemies from the Jews) absolute hatred ....."

[Final Overture]

From... Killing you?

IF you say so,then you have made a qualifier to a general case.

the verse tells :
1- Jesus performed miracles.
2- they accused him of magic .
3- God restrained them.

using the verb (kafaftu) in the verse ,is automatically (by linguistic,contextual necessity) denotes they were prevented from doing any harm,evil,violence.
actually harm comes in several forms , they could have been restrained from beating ,stoning or jailing him , not merely killing him,  the fact there is no qualifier in the verse.
now, even if we for the sake of argument narrow the meaning of restrain to a specific act of violence , still verse 4:157 teaches us where is our limit should be , as you may conjecture whatever might happened to Jesus ,but when it comes to putting him on the cross,that is where is your limit of imagination should stops ... the Qur'an simply,clearly says he wasn't put on the cross.

4:157"they neither killed him NOR CRUCIFIED him"

The point which I made, that even according to these Gospels, we can't say that he will die, since he referred to the prophecies, which say that he won't die. Why would Jesus refer to them in any way? Let this cup be taken from me?

you assume that he referred to prophecies , while me as a Muslim , don't believe that Jesus the prophet would refer to false ,imaginary prophecies.
even if we suppose he really refereed to prophecies, he according to the new testament ,referred to the prophecies say he will be killed and resurrected.

And the word crucify means to put to death.

that is a conjecture till you provide ARABIC dictionary that says the verb (Salaba aka to put on a cross) means (to put to death)......

Even if you have a hundred dictionaries that explain what (crucify) mean in English, all irrelevant and won't help your case with what the verb (Salaba ) means in Arabic.

The Quran originally in Arabic , so no one should bother what the English word could mean.

Well, I expected you to say that, so watch:

Note . I'm not fond of watching videos , so please don't post videos here in our discussion , I don't like someone answering my simple point with a full lecture that may include irrelevant stuff....
so please if you have something to say then write it (just as I always write to you) , and take all your time .

IF you say so,then you have made a qualifier to a general case.

the verse tells :
1- Jesus performed miracles.
2- they accused him of magic .
3- God restrained them.

using the verb (kafaftu) in the verse ,is automatically (by linguistic,contextual necessity) denotes they were prevented from doing any harm,evil,violence.
actually harm comes in several forms , they could have been restrained from beating ,stoning or jailing him , not merely killing him,  the fact there is no qualifier in the verse.

Not really.

you assume that he referred to prophecies , while me as a Muslim , don't believe that Jesus the prophet would refer to false ,imaginary prophecies.
even if we suppose he really refereed to prophecies, he according to the new testament ,referred to the prophecies say he will be killed and resurrected.

Where?

said only "they didn't kill him " then the door is open for speculations (which remain speculations till ether supported by the Qur'an or historical eyewitnesses testimony) ...

but the verse adds to "killed" the verb "crucify" ,to say that not only they didn't kill him but also didn't bound his stretched hands and feet aka crucified him ...

They didn't kill him in general, they didn't crucify him specifically. Crucifixion is the foundation of Christianity, so why not mention it?

Bro  Final Overture conjectured a meanng for the word (salaba) ,so my duty now to quote the online Arabic dictionaries to show the true meaning of the verb (salaba)

The verb itself has a lot meanings, harden, stiffen, crucify, etc

Note . I'm not fond of watching videos , so please don't post videos here in our discussion , I don't like someone answering my simple point with a full lecture that may include irrelevant stuff....
so please if you have something to say then write it (just as I always write to you) , and take all your time .

That video is made by Hebrew-knowing Muslims, he says there is a mistranslation there. So why not?

[Egyptian]

you assume that he referred to prophecies , while me as a Muslim , don't believe that Jesus the prophet would refer to false ,imaginary prophecies.
even if we suppose he really refereed to prophecies, he according to the new testament ,referred to the prophecies say he will be killed and resurrected.

Where?

If you mean, where he said that his death and resurrection are predicted in the old testament ,I mentioned that several times in my previous posts.
if you mean, where is such prophecies ,then go ask the Jesus of the new testament ,he didn't specify any ....  at any rate the writer of Acts 2:29 did the job,and distorting  Psalm 16:8 ,forcing it into a so called prophecy.
just as you distorted Psalms into prophecies ...

The verb itself has a lot meanings, harden, stiffen, crucify, etc

The verb Salaba has only one previously mentioned meaning , when the object is a human. go ask any Arab.

That video is made by Hebrew-knowing Muslims, he says there is a mistranslation there. So why not?

what mistranslation? what are you talking about?!

They didn't kill him in general, they didn't crucify him specifically. Crucifixion is the foundation of Christianity, so why not mention it?

again,what are you talking about?!

[Final Overture]

you assume that he referred to prophecies , while me as a Muslim , don't believe that Jesus the prophet would refer to false ,imaginary prophecies.
even if we suppose he really refereed to prophecies, he according to the new testament ,referred to the prophecies say he will be killed and resurrected.

Where?

If you mean, where he said that his death and resurrection are predicted in the old testament ,I mentioned that several times in my previous posts.
if you mean, where is such prophecies ,then go ask the Jesus of the new testament ,he didn't specify any ....  at any rate the writer of Acts 2:29 did the job,and distorting  Psalm 16:8 ,forcing it into a so called prophecy.
just as you distorted Psalms into prophecies ...

The verb itself has a lot meanings, harden, stiffen, crucify, etc

The verb Salaba has only one previously mentioned meaning , when the object is a human. go ask any Arab.

That video is made by Hebrew-knowing Muslims, he says there is a mistranslation there. So why not?

what mistranslation? what are you talking about?!

They didn't kill him in general, they didn't crucify him specifically. Crucifixion is the foundation of Christianity, so why not mention it?

again,what are you talking about?!

I know, there aren't such prophecies, i only added Hosea 6, because its the only chapter he could likely refer to.

That video is made by Hebrew-knowing Muslims, he says there is a mistranslation there. So why not?

what mistranslation? what are you talking about?!

They didn't kill him in general, they didn't crucify him specifically. Crucifixion is the foundation of Christianity, so why not mention it?

again,what are you talking about?!

[/quote] Are you really serious with this? Don't you see what I quoted?





Okay, thank you Egyptian for this conversation. I guess, I'll do some more study and research on this topic, later, InshaAllah. 

[Abd-Al-Rahman]

Assalamu Aleikum brother Egyptian,

Jazak'Allahu'khair for all the great work. When you first started posting in this thread all the long posts (the character limit was the biggest hindrance I assume, I had encountered similar issues  :D) I thought that you were simply copy/pasting all of this from another site or reference, but having read last week more of it, especially in regards to the part where Isa's PBUH crucifixion issue was being debated, I realized that page 1 to page 5 had your writing style all over it, which is insane, how long did it take you to put all of this together? Masha'Allah.

I suppose this was a long-term study you had undertaken which took you at the very least many months (I had years in mind at first, but then realized this might be a bit more far-fetched) to put together or would the case be something else?

Anyways thank you for the quality posts, not only in this thread but also all over the other ones as well, they are appreciated.

Keep it up.

Wassalamu Aleikum.

[Egyptian]

Asslamualaikom dear Bro Abd-Al-Rahman

I'm pleased you found some of the thread benefit-able ....

actually the study of the thread "the root problem of the messiah and the origin of Christianity" ,is a part of huge thread named "Qur'an VS bible", I initiated in another Islamic forum ,though I used to participate in it for years , I rarely visit recently (you are welcome there if you like) ,and instead focus on our blog here ...
I decided to pick some specific topics from my thread ,then refine ,update them and post them here..

thank you for your patience with my bad English ,and my writing style, which I think is influenced by my reading to Tafsir Alrazi ,which filled with the question -answer style..

I would like to thank indeed ,Bro Final Overture and Bro Osama for bringing the issue of crucifixion for discussion , and the disagreements we had, that ,indeed was very fruitful ....

Imagine that we all agreed from the beginning,how poor the discussion would has been? there wouldn't had been a discussion to begin with,if we agreed from the beginning !!! again ,indeed thanx Bro Final Overture for your civil discussion ...

the crucifixion issue needs additional post ,but I think it would be better to make a thread dedicated totally for it .....

and this thread "Origin of christianity,NT quoutations of the OT is the key" ) is still in the middle way or less...


May Allah bless you always ,and strengthen the spirit of brotherhood between us Muslims...

Assalamu Aleikum

[Egyptian]

Peace for all


I think now is the time to resume the thread original theme inshallah....

our last posts related ,were about some opinion of bible critics on the messianic prophecies claimed to be fulfilled by Jesus...

they argue that The entire messianic structure is built on conjecture, speculation, and interpolation. and there is no prophecy in the Old Testament foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one word in the Old Testament referring to him in any way--not one word.

Ingersoll informed his readers of the simple way to support that , it really doesn't need a scientific discovery to find out that ... all what is needed to take the Bible, and wherever you find these words; 'That it might be fulfilled' and 'which was spoken' turn to the OT and find what was written, and you will see that it had not the slightest possible reference to the thing recounted in the NT--not the slightest"

let's apply that on numerous passages .... and let's begin with the famous passage Matthew 1:18 ,in which the writer(s) of Matthew claimed that the virgin birth of Jesus was predicted in the past in the old testament in Isaiah 7:9 ...

Was the virgin birth of Jesus really predicted in the old testament? let's investigate the claim ,by examining the original context of passage of Isaiah ,then expose the apparent misuse of the writer(s) of Matthew


after the writer of the gospel traced what he calls the The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah ,he goes on telling us the circumstances around the birth ,ignoring (or being ignorant) of the reaction of the people of such good un-married woman who became pregnant !....

.Matthew 1: 18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”


afterwards the writer surprises us with one of his genius pieces of exegesis :


Matthew 1: 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).

that is to say,after the man read and reflected on Isaiah 7, he first got convinced that such wondrous pregnancy,birth was a fulfillment of the word of God that been revealed hundreds of years ago...
the man included such personal reflection on his work , hope that we share with him his genius exegesis!!!...

well , let's check the passage he quoted in its original context :

Isaiah 7

*1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
*2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[a] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.*3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘It will not take place, it will not happen, 8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. 9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, *and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.’”
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.” 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The young woman,virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”


The reader who read that for the first time should have idea about the historical context of that passage ,Thomas Paine explained the context in the clearest of terms :

On the death of Solomon the Jewish nation split into two monarchies: one called the kingdom of Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem: the other the kingdom of Israel, the capital of which was Samaria. The kingdom of Judah followed the line of David, and the kingdom of Israel that of Saul; and these two rival monarchies frequently carried on fierce wars against each other.At the time Ahaz was king of Judah, which was in the time of Isaiah, Pekah was king of Israel; and Pekah joined himself to Rezin, king of Syria, to make war against Ahaz, king of Judah; and these two kings marched a confederated and powerful army against Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed at their danger, and "their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." Isaiah vii. 3.In this perilous situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord, (the cant phrase of all the prophets,) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to assure him that this should be the case, tells Ahaz to ask a sign of the Lord. This Ahaz declined doing, giving as a reason, that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who pretends to be sent from God, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son -- Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and chose the good -- For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and chose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" -- meaning the king of Israel and the king of Syria who were marching against him.
Here then is the sign, which was to be the birth of a child, and that child a son; and here also is the time limited for the accomplishment of the sign, namely, before the child should know to refuse the evil and chose the good.
The thing, therefore, to be a sign of success to Ahaz, must be something that would take place before the event of the battle then pending between him and the two kings could be known. A thing to be a sign must precede the thing signified. The sign of rain must be before the rain.It would have been mockery and insulting nonsense for Isaiah to have assured Ahaz as a sign that these two kings should not prevail against him, that a child should be born seven hundred years after he was dead, and that before the child so born should know to refuse the evil and choose the good, he, Ahaz, should be delivered from the danger he was then immediately threatened with.

Problems with applying that passage to Jesus:

1- It is crystal clear from the original context that the prophecy is not a supernatural prediction centuries in advance. In no way is it indicated by the text that it concerns the Messiah, nor is it indicated that it would occur hundreds of years later.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin [almah] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. (Isaiah 7:14-16, NASB)


2- There is a futile common argument , while dealing with the problem of the virgin-birth prophecy ,it is the linguistic one.....
in one hand the critics argue if Isaiah wanted to say (virgin) he would have used the Hebrew word (Bethula) as it is the only word in Hebrew that denotes directly the meaning of virginity, instead of the already used word (Almah) that means a youthful spouse recently married ,the notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys .
On the other hand the christian counter argument , is that the word (Almah) never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste .....

we have 2 Notes on the previous controversy:

The first Note:

both of those opinions (whether the critics or the christian defense) mere exaggeration...

first :the critics claim that (Bethula) never used to denote sexual lose of virginity,is challenged by the the use of the word in Joel 1:8 Lament like a virgin(Bethula) girded with sackcloth for the husband (Ba'al) of her youth.
The word ba'al seems to be never used in the Jewish Scriptures of the betrothed state, but only of a married man.

second: The christian claim that the word (Almah) never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste ,is strongly challenged by the use of the word in proverb 30:18

Proverbs 30 :18 “There are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand: 19 the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with (Almah) a young woman. 20 “This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.’

"the way of a man with an 'almah" would certainly jeopardize a state of sexual purity, but more damaging than this rather obvious fact is the comparison that the writer went on to state: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (v:20, NAB). It seems odd that the author would use 'almah to denote sexual purity and then compare it to the ongoing affairs of an adulterous woman. More likely the author's point was that all these things have one element in common: they do not leave much of a trace."

also

"The saying about the mysterious ‘ways’ (Prov. 30:18-19) may refer to lack of visible means of propulsion or movement that leaves no trace, with ‘the way of a man with a fertile woman’ as a reference to either procreation or sexual attraction generally."

to sum up the use of both (Bethula) and (Almah) is controversial , and both of the words could be rendered (virgin and young woman ,not neccesarily virgin) ,the claim that( Almah) MUST BE translated as virgin is mere a delusion.....


The second Note:

The previous linguestic controversy is proved nonsensical ,waste of time basically because even if in the verse there is a word that means exclusively, every time, in every context (A virgin) ,the problem remains?

"The word "Alma" is capable of being used of a woman up until the time she bears her first child. All the text need mean in Isaiah is that a young woman of marriageable age will soon conceive and bear a son. The woman may indeed be a virgin at the moment the prophecy is uttered. But that is not the point of the text, nor is there the slightest idea that she will remain a virgin when she conceives and bears the child. ."

Every virgin will one day in the future (unless she decided not) conceive and bear a child ..... no miracle in that ....
it doesn't really matter if it means virgin , if it is taken with certainity that Isaiah intended virgin, it would imply only that the girl is virgin at the time of the prophecy.not she will conceive as a virgin , "a woman who is now a virgin will (by natural means, once she is united to her husband) conceive the child Emmanuel ...... there isn't the slightest idea that she will remain a virgin when she conceives and bears the child ......
The problem of Matthew not that he understood the word as meaning virgin ,neither when Isaiah refered to the virgin (if that was the meaning he intended when he uttered the prophecy) ,it is when Matthew believed such virgin-young lady contemporary of Isaiah ,to be a reference to a virgin came hundred of years later.....

[Egyptian]

christian defense to the previous problems, is varied , but I would like to begin with one defense a christian member "laloumen" suggested:


laloumen wrote:

There is certainly a shadow or type involved in the prophecy to Ahaz.  However, language is employed which, while being partially applicable to the immediate event

support that from the original text of Isaiah ,otherwise you are making a conjecture.

receives its fullest, most appropriate, and exhaustive accomplishment in Messianic events.  .

That is ,the double application dodge..!!   you can't imagine how many problems associated with the double application theory....


1- Those defenders of the gross distortion of the writers of the new testament to the old testament ,don't know the BIG DIFFERENCE between Fulfillment  and Typology ?

If a writer said nothing in the context of his original prophecy denotes it to be fulfilled more than once ,then we are not going to multiple fulfillment but to the work of typology ....... there's a big difference between an event fulfilling a specific historical prediction and an event occurring in accordance with or with similarities to a figure or type.

Messianic Prophecy (New York: Sons, 1892), p. 197.  C. Briggs rightly said:
a "typical correspondence" is not a direct prediction, for if it can have a "multiple fulfillment" then it was never really a prediction as Matthew obviously regarded it.

to explain that for the Muslim readers ,

we already know that the Quranic prophecy of the victory of the Romans after defeat ( holy Quran 30:1-4) ,been fulfilled with all of its details , (within few years ,in the nearer land) during the life time of the prophet peace be upon him ......

what if after the time of the fulfillment stated ,the Roman again in other future occasions been defeated and then in few years victorious?

Is that a double fulfillment ,or just a history repeated itself? it is certainly the second unless one provides a textual support from the original prophecy that its producer intended it to be a double sense.

If an event occurred in accordance with or with similarities to a past figure or type ,doesn't mean , that it is a fulfillment of a prediction but a simple cheap work of typology ,one can play with whatever text he may like ......one can provide hundreds of cases of present events that similar in some manners to old ones .... but does that prove them to be predicted?! absolutely not.... only those with species of mental and religious delusion would think so.

some christian scholars criticized such random theory:

"If one read only the New Testament it would be safe to say that he would never suspect the possibility of dual-fulfillment because the New Testament indicates that the predictions refer directly to Christ."one of the most persistent hermeneuticalsins" is attempting to place two interpretations on one passage of Scripture, thereby breaking the force of the literal meaning and obscuring the picture intended.if prophecies have many meanings, then "hermeneutics would be indeterminate."

the Christian church had, from the time of the Church Fathers, upheld the direct messianic explanation of Isaiah 7:14. it was not until the mid-eighteenth century that writers began to turn from this view.

"For these and such-like reasons, the scheme of attaching a double sense to the Scriptures is inadmissible. It sets afloat all the fundamental principles of interpretation by which we arrive at established conviction and certainty and casts us on the boundless ocean of imagination and conjecture without rudder or compass.".

[Egyptian]

Now my question to the christian member ,laloumen :


what is that such impressive typology "similarities" (don't fool me calling it fulfillment) between Isaiah 7 and the birth narratives ,according to Matthew?



1- Is it the act of the virgin birth itself? 


let's ignore the context ,and the previous linguistic analysis and assume for the sake of argument that ,there was a predictive language of a virgin birth , comes the question by the famous ex-christian missionary Farrell till:

if so then no similarity there at all ,just who was the virgin of that generation who gave birth to a son? That is a legitimate question, because if Isaiah meant virgin in the strictest sense with reference to a woman who would give birth 700 years later, then he had to mean virgin in the strictest sense for the woman of his time who would bear a son. ? typology (similarity )here needs a type, pattern (a virgin of the old times) and antitype (Mary) if so the type is missed right here.

2- Is it the physical situation surrounding Israel or Jesus?

there is hardly any similarity between the physical situation in the past and the present as, unlike the child Immanuel there was no besiege or any kind of military danger to the house of David immediately before the birth of Jesus etc....

......

If you have another suggestions ,plz support your answers from within the specific texts themselves. again in what sense Jesus fulfilled ,or been a type of Isaiah 7 ?
again textual support plz, I want you to be a prover not a preacher.

[laloumen]

Jesus didn't meet such qualifications to such predicted king messiah ....
so what does that mean?

for Islam ,no problem at all ,as nothing in the Quran says that Jesus was supposed to fulfill such predictions about the king messiah , actually the very basic prediction  of such messiah (as the seed of king David via Solomon), would exclude the born of a virgin ,Quranic Jesus ....
all that we have in the Quran is that Jesus had a title"the messiah" lots of others had.

It is pretty shocking to me that supposed Muslims are so ignorant of what the Qu'ran says.  To deny the Virgin Birth of Christ is anti-Islam.

The Qu'ran says,

She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched
me and I have not been unchaste?"

He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me,
and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us.
And it is a matter [already] decreed.' "

So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.
(19:20-22)

But given that this is what the Qu'ran teaches concerning the birth of Christ, what is the reason for the strenuous argumentation against the prophecy given in Isaiah 7:14 --

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

It's as if you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.  If you are required to believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ then what is the point of denying the prophecy that this would take place??  It is pointless.


In Christ,
Jim

[laloumen]

Now let's address some of Final Overture 's points...
 

Are you really in doubt that Psalms 22 is about Jesus?

as I said before, Psalm is not a prophecy,to begin with. It is nothing but an experience by its writer ,an experience that millions others of righteous believers had,they had been exposed to sufferings and been vindicated by God. religious zeal is the only reason to turn such passages into prophecies!.

What is the ground of such an assertion - that "Psalm is not a prophecy" other than merely assertion for the sake of winning an argument?  You're simply trying to eliminate a possibility by defining what a Psalm can be without considering the Psalms themselves.  But the Psalms can indeed be prophetic:

You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.”
(Psalm 2:9)

The above verse is not "nothing but an experience by its writer".  It is a prediction of a future occurrence, i.e. a prophecy.

For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol,
or let your holy one see corruption.
(Psalm 16:10)

How can this verse be "nothing but an experience by its writer"?  The future tense indicates something which has not yet happened.  And, as Peter makes clear in Acts 13, David died and remained dead and buried to that time, and to this time.  So, the statement concerning a future occurrence wasn't about David, himself, but about another.

In place of your fathers shall be your sons;
   you will make them princes in all the earth.
I will cause your name to be remembered in all generations;
   therefore nations will praise you forever and ever.
(Psalm 45:16-17)

This is a beautiful prophecy in Psalm 45.  That is clearly not "an experience by its writer" because it was future and not yet experienced by anyone.

The Lord is at your right hand;
   he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
He will execute judgment among the nations,
   filling them with corpses;
he will shatter chiefs
   over the wide earth.
(Psalm 110:5-6)

Here is another passage which is not "an experience by its writer".  It is clearly a prophecy of judgment. 

So, obviously the Psalms can be prophetic and your reply to Final Overture is bogus.  A Psalm can be or contain prophecy.  This is a simple fact and has nothing to do with "religious zeal" and everything to do with proper exegesis. 

Given this, there is no a priori reason to deny the prophetic nature of Psalm 22.  Final Overture's question is an honest acknowledgement of what ought to be perfectly obvious to everyone familiar with the facts - Psalm 22 is about the crucifixion of Jesus.  What is written there is not something that David personally experienced, in his own life.  There is no point in the life of David when they pierced his hands and feet.  There was never a time when David's garments were divided and men cast lots for his clothing. 

Your calculated rejection of the truth here is nothing more than that - a clear indication of your own dishonesty - as you show yourself willing to trample the obvious underfoot in order to win the argument at any cost.


In Christ,
Jim

[Final Overture]

So, obviously the Psalms can be prophetic and your reply to Final Overture is bogus.  A Psalm can be or contain prophecy.  This is a simple fact and has nothing to do with "religious zeal" and everything to do with proper exegesis. 

And how about this one in future tense? Psalms 118:17 I will not die but live,
    and will proclaim what the Lord has done.
18 The Lord has chastened me severely,
    but he has not given me over to death.

I don't think that Psalms 16 is about Jesus. Did he quote it anywhere? Yet he quoted Psalms 22,31,41 which surely say that he won't die.