Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elijah - John the Baptist

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Elijah - John the Baptist

    Ibrahim Sahib pointed out an interesting discussion & I wanted to start a new thread about it! Would really appriciate if some of our Christian guppies here would shed some light.

    The old testement states that Elijah (as) was to be taken up to the heavens (just like its believed that Jesus (as) is taken up to the heaven). King II states, Chapter 2, verse 11:

    And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
    It was believed that first Elijah will come to earth from heaven and then the Messiah will appear; and so the Jews believed. But when Hazrat Jesus (as) came & none had witnessed anyone comnig down from heavens, nor has anyone claimed that he came down from heavens; so they asked Jesus (as) if you are the Messiah, then where is Elijah (as)? - to which he said; (Mattew)

    17:11 - And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

    17:12 - But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

    17:13 - Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
    Hum ... so John the Baptist was Elijah? If so, is there any mention of it in the Bible or just journal history that John the Baptist (as) came down from heavens with the physical body? And he indeed was the same Elijah who was "whirlwind into heaven"?

    [This message has been edited by ahmadjee (edited May 13, 2002).]
    I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
    - Robert McCloskey

    #2
    as far as i can think of, Quran mentions John the Baptist (Yahya (as)) as the son of Zakariya and was born to Zakariya's(as) wife....
    so i dont think he cud have been Elijah (although Quran does not tell us anything of Ilyas(as) being raised to the heaven) because Yahya(as) definitely did not come to the earth as we believe Esa(as) wud come back in the same position as he was taken up to the heaven....

    we shud also note that except Quran, other Books have been changed, so we cannot rely much on them....

    Allah knows the best....




    ------------------
    "Our Lord! forgive us our sins and anything we may have done that transgressed our duty; establish our feet firmly and help us against those that resist faith." Quran(3:147)
    Both Halal & Haram r evident but between them r doubtful things, most ppl have no knowledge about them. So whoever saves himself from suspicious things saves his religion & honor, & whoever indulges in suspicious things indulges in Haram.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by armughal: as far as i can think of, Quran mentions John the Baptist (Yahya (as)) as the son of Zakariya and was born to Zakariya's(as) wife....
      Ibrahim says: salaams to all

      Very true ! this is also confirmed in the Gospel as such but with additions to suit their misconceptions, as invented by themselves

      When we read……….

      Al Qur'an 3:

      38 There did Zakariya pray to his Lord saying: "O my Lord! grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure; for Thou art He that heareth prayer!"

      39 While he was standing in prayer in the chamber the angels called unto him: "Allah doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya witnessing the truth of a Word from Allah and (be besides) noble chaste and a Prophet of the (goodly) company of the righteous."

      And compare it to

      Luke 1:

      13. But the angel said to him: "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John.

      14. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth,

      15. for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.

      16. Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God.

      17. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."


      Ibrahim says: hence It is clear Prophet Yahya (as) corrupted to John in Christianity was not Elijah

      But because there was prophesy that Elijah will come before Christ , in the Judeo-Christian understanding , someone who wrote the gospels , had added the verse concerning Jesus pointing the finger to John the Baptist as Elijah.

      John himself confirms this when we read…………


      John 1:

      23. John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, `Make straight the way for the Lord.'"

      24. Now some Pharisees who had been sent

      25. questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"

      26. "I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know.

      27. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."


      Ibrahim says: hence the prophesy from ancient times was , there will be a Messiah (Christ) and a Final Prophet.

      The prophesy for Elijah appears in Malachi, which says:

      Malachi 4


      1. "Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. "Not a root or a branch will be left to them.

      2. But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall.

      3. Then you will trample down the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I do these things," says the LORD Almighty.

      4. "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.

      5. "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.

      6. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."

      Ibrahim says: Hence the Jews had to anticipate three things before the end of this world

      1) Elijah
      2) The messiah
      3) The Final Prophet

      This was the understanding given by the priest at that time frame and confirmed in the Gospel…………….

      Matthew 17:

      10. The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"

      11. Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things.

      12. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

      Ibrahim says As I pointed out , this contradicts John 1: 23-25, a statement made by John the Baptist himself

      And is further contradicted by

      Mark 9:

      2. After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them.

      3. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.

      4. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.

      5. Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."

      6. (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)

      7. Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!"

      8. Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.

      Ibrahim says: Hence from the above we can be sure , Elijah was not John the Baptist!

      so i dont think he cud have been Elijah (although Quran does not tell us anything of Ilyas(as) being raised to the heaven) because Yahya(as) definitely did not come to the earth as we believe Esa(as) wud come back in the same position as he was taken up to the heaven....
      Ibrahim says: Indeed true!

      37: 120 "Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!"

      121 Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

      122 For they were two of Our believing Servants.

      123 So also was Elias among those sent (by us).

      124 Behold he said to his people "Will ye not fear (Allah)?

      125 "Will ye call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators

      126 "Allah your Lord and Cherisher and the Lord and Cherisher of your fathers of old?"

      127 But they rejected him and they will certainly be called up (for punishment)

      128 Except the sincere and devoted Servants of Allah (among them).

      129 And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:

      130 "Peace and salutation to such as Elias!"

      131 Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

      132 For He was one of Our believing Servants.


      we shud also note that except Qur'an, other Books have been changed, so we cannot rely much on them....
      Ibrahim says yes! One must have a balanced view, or else one will end up being misled by the numerous additions, omissions, alterations and the like in abrogated scriptures.

      Unless one ha the ability to cross reference a notion/subject/verse with other scriptures, showing consistency in all of them, it must be held questionable as Allah (swt) did not abrogated that scripture due to minor faults but due to major changes that other prophets were unable to correct even after repeated attempts as the followers who had altered them, killed them when they tried to correct those errors.

      Allah (swt) knows best.

      Was salaam
      Ibrahim

      We fall constantly even when we are most enlightened . But when we are in true spiritual darkness, we do not even know that we have fallen.


      Comment


        #4
        Ibrahim Sahib,

        Thank you for your long informational post. Indeed Bible does contradict itself-I was hoping maybe some of our Christian guppies would give an insight. As you explained if John was not Elijah, then Elijah not show up before Jesus?

        Though I have the following questions for you after I read your expaination:

        # 1. Who is John the Baptist according to Quran?

        # 2. Do you, personally, also believe in the order:
        • Elijah
        • The messiah
        • The Final Prophet


        # 3. If yes, then who was Elijah?

        # 4. If no, then do you believe that the Bible reported it wrong when it says: "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes."

        # 5. How can we take the word of Luke over Mattew or vice versa?
        I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
        - Robert McCloskey

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by ahmadjee: As you explained if John was not Elijah, then Elijah not show up before Jesus?
          Ibrahim says: Greetings of Peace to one and all

          Dear Ahmadjee,

          1) Not all prophesies as found written in the Bible has been found to be true or had materialized, but people can have such believes, as was the case of Elijah due to what was written in Malachi . But If you had read what the angel said, I quote

          Luke 1: 17. And he [Yahaya (as) ]will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah,.,

          You would have understood what that prophesy was all about., if indeed it was true.

          2) First maybe you are under the impression, that everyone raised by Allah (swt) as found written in the Bible have to return to earth .

          That is not the case, and it can be understood from the following verses……..

          a) Gen 5: 24. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.


          b) Hebrews 7:

          1. This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him,

          2. and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace."

          3. Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

          c) Heb 6:20. where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

          Ibrahim says: hence there are human beings serving God as high priests in the heavens as these verse implies. If you further understood revelations, you will understand some 24 high priests/chiefs/elders ( Earlier prophets) are in heaven serving God.

          Second Prophets who had died natural deaths, had returned to earth, in support of other prophets as written in Mark 9:4 where Elijah and Moses are seen with Jesus ( pbut). This is similar to the meeting of Prophet Muhammad and other Prophets (pbut) as implied in surah 17:1

          And most important of all, you must understand the difference between Christ and others, Christ was SIGN for mankind, meaning he will be sent back as prophesied and as created from a virgin as a sign even in his first creation.

          Whereas all other prophets were normal human beings and they although may have been raised to heaven as God willed and sent back as per His will, were not the SIGN for mankind as is the Messiah, Essa (as) better known by his fabricated name Jesus Christ.

          # 1. Who is John the Baptist according to Quran?
          Ibrahim says: I already answered that in my earlier post, it is Yahya (as) and you must understand there is no letter “J” in Hebrew, or Greek, as such the current bible with letter “j” appearing in it, is all false names and words that never appeared in the original manuscripts. .

          # 2. Do you, personally, also believe in the order:
          • Elijah
          • The messiah
          • The Final Prophet
          Ibrahim says: I am not the knower of what is or what is not as per my whims and fancies, I merely gave you what the Jews believed in at that time frame. On the other hand, I am sure that Christ was foretold just as the Final Prophet was foretold, there can be NO IFs and BUTs about this because, There is a day of judgment ( an end to all this ) as foretold in all scriptures as such the final messenger will reveal the final message to mankind, which is already in our presence . when that is being disobeyed the return of Christ will be the final step before the annihilation of mankind and judgment then after. .

          # 4. If no, then do you believe that the Bible reported it wrong when it says: "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes."
          Ibrahim says: many things in the Bible are additions, misconceptions or plane mistranslations, which have been included into the current bible, to satisfy, existing beliefs, as such It is most probable that when they found Elijah being taken to heaven , they believed his return is likely and included such thoughts into the Bible.

          # 5. How can we take the word of Luke over Mattew or vice versa?[/

          Ibrahim says: I will let a Christian Biblical scholar answer this question for you since what he wrote is what I had believed in all the time!

          kindly look at a Dr. Scofield reference Bible, ISBN O-916441-69-5

          In the preface, Dr. Scofield (30 years of Bible study to his credit) writes : -

          " The saying that anything may be proved by the Bible is both true and false - true if isolated passage's are used; utterly false if the whole divine revelation is in view”

          Ibrahim says; What is the meaning of this? It means some verses are indeed true and others are indeed fabricated or have been mistranslated or misconceived by the authors.

          You may also wish to note, that he was the only scholar who dared to include the following

          Now refer to Genesis and read the fine print " Elohim ( sometimes El or Elah form "God" the first of the three primary names of Deity is a uniplural noun formed from El-strength, or the strong one and Alah, to swear, to bind oneself by an oath, so implying faithfulness…. .used in the OT about 2500 times"

          Take note, Elah / Alah is the Arabic word ( Allah) used by Muslims for God, now where do you find it in any OT today?


          Hope that helps
          Ibrahim

          Not failure but low aim is sin


          Comment


            #6
            Elijah is Hazrat Ilyas and according to Islamic history, he came along after hazrat Nuh and before Hazrat Ibrahim......

            Comment


              #7
              Oh yeah. And John The baptist is hazrat yahya son of Hazrat Zackariya.....

              Comment


                #8
                Dear Ahmadjee:

                My good friend Ibrahim has given you an explanation on Elijah and John the Baptist from a non-Christian perspective. Now for the Christian perspective:

                Elijah was a prophet of Israel and taken up to heaven as recorded in 2 Kings chapter 2. As pointed out, the prophet Malachi stated that Elijah will come back to herald the coming of the Messiah (Mal.4v5). Christians believe that Jesus Christ is this Messiah.

                John the Baptist was not Elijah because

                (1) he himself told us he was not Elijah according to John 1v21
                (2) no man can be born twice from a woman
                (3) no man can have two biological fathers
                (4) John did not come before the "great and dreadful day" as prophesied in Mal.4v5. The day is the Final Day of Judgement and that is why it is called "dreadful".

                John the Baptist was Elijah in spirit and power according to Luk.1v17. As John was used to herald the first coming of Jesus Christ, so Elijah will herald the second coming of Jesus Christ. Some similarities between John the Baptist and the prophet Elijah:

                (1) Both were anointed by the same Spirit and power as told by the angel to John's father in Luk.1v17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah
                (2) Both were familiar with deserts and solitude
                (3) Both wore the same type of garment and lived simply 2 King.1v8 He was a man with a garment of hair and leather versus Matt.3v4 John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist
                (4) Both were bold enough to rebuke the ruler of the day whom wanted to kill them
                (5) Both incurred the enmity of a ruler's womenfolk

                John the Baptist was similar in life and purpose to what is expected of Elijah and that is why Jesus told his followers "To be sure, Elijah comes (future tense) and will (future tense) restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, (past tense) and they did not recognise him..". Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. Matt.17v11-13

                Elijah will be one of the two witnesses as mentioned in Revelations 11. All men has to die at least once, this will be the time for Enoch and Elijah to die....

                Indeed Bible does contradict itself
                Not contradictory for those that understand the Bible and has the Spirit of God to guide them whilst reading the Bible. Contradicting and difficult to understand for those who has contradictory believes, yes. Don't accept explanations from someone that do not know the faith well - as you would not accept an Hindu's explanations of the Qu'ran.... That is also the reason why I would not attempt to answer your question "Who is John the Baptist according to Quran?"


                Ibrahim says: I will let a Christian Biblical scholar answer this question for you since what he wrote is what I had believed in all the time!

                kindly look at a Dr. Scofield reference Bible, ISBN O-916441-69-5

                In the preface, Dr. Scofield (30 years of Bible study to his credit) writes : -

                " The saying that anything may be proved by the Bible is both true and false - true if isolated passage's are used; utterly false if the whole divine revelation is in view"

                What is the meaning of this? It means some verses are indeed true and others are indeed fabricated or have been mistranslated or misconceived by the authors.
                Dear Ibrahim, another cut and past? I have the Scofield Bible in front of me and can not find your quote. Please let me know where I need to look. Dr. CI Scofield did not wrote any such phrase in his Introduction to the 1909 edition nor preface to the 1917 edition. The closest I found is in the chapter called "Panoramic View of the Bible" where the first paragraph states: The Bible...at once provokes and baffles study....The reason is not far to seek. It is found in the fact that no particular portion of Scripture is to be intelligently comprehended apart from some conception of its place in the whole. For the Bible story and message is like a picture wrought out in mosiacs: each book, chapter, verse and even word forms a necessary part, and has its own appointed place. It is, therefor, indispensable to any interesting and fruitful study of the Bible that a general knowledge of it be gained.

                Anyway, even taking your quote on face value still does not agree with your assessment that "some verses are indeed true and others are indeed fabricated or have been mistranslated or misconceived by the authors". You have a funny logic . What is stated is that all should be taken in context and not out of context, nothing about any verses being true or false.

                Ibrahim said: You may also wish to note, that he was the only scholar who dared to include the following

                Now refer to Genesis and read the fine print " Elohim ( sometimes El or Elah form "God" the first of the three primary names of Deity is a uniplural noun formed from El-strength, or the strong one and Alah, to swear, to bind oneself by an oath, so implying faithfulness…. .used in the OT about 2500 times"
                Again an erroneous quote (cut and paste?). What is written is found on Dr. Scofield's footnote (3) on Genesis 1v1:

                Elohim (English form "God"), the first of the names of the Deity, is a plural noun in form but is singular in meaning when it refers to the true God. Emphasis in Gen.1:26 is on the plurality in Deity; in v.27, on the unity of the divine Substance. (Cp. Gen.3:22.) The plural form of the word suggests the Trinity.

                Nothing of the sort as quoted by you. Please let's stay with facts, dear Ibrahim.

                [This message has been edited by The Old Man (edited May 15, 2002).]

                Comment


                  #9
                  Indeed Bible does contradict itself
                  Ibrahim says Greetings of peace to one and all

                  Dear Old man, good to see you are well and kicking now, just so that we can be sure that the Bible is not contradictory

                  Kindly answer the following two Questions (only) ,

                  1) Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

                  (a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)

                  (b) Heli (Luke 3:23)


                  2) Jesus descended from which son of David?

                  (a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)

                  (c) Nathan(Luke3:31)

                  Now my dear old man, blind faith can lead you to ways to overcome this to thy self, but rational people will call this a contradiction which can NEVER be accepted from a holy book. Accepting such things amounts to blasphemy when it comes to God!

                  Ibrahim says: I will let a Christian Biblical scholar answer this question for you since what he wrote is what I had believed in all the time!

                  kindly look at a Dr. Scofield reference Bible, ISBN O-916441-69-5

                  In the preface, Dr. Scofield (30 years of Bible study to his credit) writes : -
                  " The saying that anything may be proved by the Bible is both true and false - true if isolated passage's are used; utterly false if the whole divine revelation is in view"
                  What is the meaning of this? It means some verses are indeed true and others are indeed fabricated or have been mistranslated or misconceived by the authors.


                  Old man wrote : Dear Ibrahim, another cut and past?
                  Ibrahim says: Was it too difficult for you or do you suppose it was untrue?

                  I have the Scofield Bible in front of me and can not find your quote.
                  Ibrahim says; O Really! Amazing because I have that book right in front of me and it says exactly what I quoted.

                  I guess Christians have way of hiding things when they get their foot caught in their mouth.

                  I am not blaming you because the same publishers retracted what they printed in the second edition, as it was highlighted by Muslims, after the word Alah disappeared in it.

                  That is why I specifically mentioned the ISBN of the copy I have, it is known as the
                  “The First Scofield Reference Bible . copyright 1986 by Barbour and company, Inc.

                  you can check out the various ISBN for this , ISBN changes are due to color and type of bindings

                  ISBN 0-916441-69-5 (black) 0-916441-74-1 (burgundy) 0-916441-70-9 (black) 0-916441-71-7 (burgundy) 0-916441-72-5 Black, 0-916441-73-3 Burgundy

                  Please let me know where I need to look. Dr. CI Scofield did not wrote any such phrase in his Introduction to the 1909 edition nor preface to the 1917 edition.
                  Ibrahim says: try the Introduction page ( 2nd page from the cover)

                  Under the points given by the rev, it is the 4th point, with regards to better understanding of the Bible.

                  The closest I found is in the chapter called "Panoramic View of the Bible" where the first paragraph states: The Bible...at once provokes and baffles study....The reason is not far to seek. It is found in the fact that no particular portion of Scripture is to be intelligently comprehended apart from some conception of its place in the whole. For the Bible story and message is like a picture wrought out in mosiacs: each book, chapter, verse and even word forms a necessary part, and has its own appointed place. It is, therefor, indispensable to any interesting and fruitful study of the Bible that a general knowledge of it be gained.
                  Ibrahim says I suppose you are looking at the wrong edition, make a search for the ISBN I quoted and get a copy of the edition I am quoting from.

                  Anyway, even taking your quote on face value still does not agree with your assessment that "some verses are indeed true and others are indeed fabricated or have been mistranslated or misconceived by the authors". You have a funny logic
                  Ibrahim says: That is because you are stuck on one scripture and I have knowledge in 5 scriptures, which means I can cross reference between them and conclude which is consistent and which is not.

                  In other words I have 5 pictures or shots of a subject matter in various angles and I can tell you by the Grace of God, as to what exactly it is, and your problem you have a blurred image of one angle, so you find it hard to believe.

                  What is stated is that all should be taken in context and not out of context, nothing about any verses being true or false.
                  Ibrahim says: off course No Christian wanting to sell his bible is going to tell you outright it is false but these things are understood by them. but in order to keep the faith, they cannot express it out right, but may do so in other ways and carry on with the belief.

                  Again an erroneous quote (cut and paste?). What is written is found on Dr. Scofield's footnote (3) on Genesis 1v1:
                  Ibrahim says: Old man, try not to be naïve, quote the full texts as written in the foot note , don’t splice to suit your purpose. On the other hand I am aware that , the second edition for this had certain words removed from it. If you have copy of “The choice” by Ahmed Deedat, he placed both versions together and highlighted the missing prints in them, to expose the Christian deceptions.

                  Nothing of the sort as quoted by you. Please let's stay with facts, dear Ibrahim.
                  Ibrahim says: Good! now I await your response and kindly make sure you quote the full texts on the foot notes as printed in the 1986 edition of the, “The first Scofield Reference Bible ISBN 0-916441-69-5

                  Dear Old man, this is the second or third time you have tried to call things bluff, yet you did not come back after my reply, so this time I hope I will have your response or your admission that you were mistaken.


                  Regards
                  Ibrahim

                  Life is a grind stone , it ether grinds you down or polishes you up.


                  Comment


                    #10
                    Ibrahim said: Now, just so that we can be sure that the Bible is not contradictory. Kindly answer the following two Questions (only) ,

                    1) Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
                    (a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
                    (b) Heli (Luke 3:23)

                    2) Jesus descended from which son of David?
                    (a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
                    (c) Nathan(Luke3:31)

                    Now my dear old man, blind faith can lead you to ways to overcome this to thy self, but rational people will call this a contradiction which can NEVER be accepted from a holy book. Accepting such things amounts to blasphemy when it comes to God!
                    1) Matthew's birth narrative is through the eyes of Joseph, while Luke's is through the eyes of Mary. Matthew trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph while Luke trace it through Mary's lineage. It had to be done to prove that Jesus came from the Davidic lineage as prophesies (from both sides as Joseph was not Jesus' biologically father). Luke draws attention to the fact that Jesus is not the son of Joseph by writing " Jesus being the son (so it was thought of Joseph)..., implying that people considered Jesus to be Joseph's son but he was not. Luke then continue with Jesus' lineage, which can't be Joseph's because he already stated that Joseph was not his biological father. The only explanation to the lineage is therefor that he stated Mary's.

                    2) The answer is "both". The same explanation as above covers this question. Q.E.D.

                    Ibrahim said:
                    I am not blaming you because the same publishers retracted what they printed in the second edition, as it was highlighted by Muslims, after the word Alah disappeared in it.

                    That is why I specifically mentioned the ISBN of the copy I have, it is known as the "The First Scofield Reference Bible . copyright 1986 by Barbour and company, Inc.
                    Your Bible is the 1986 edition? Mine's the 1967 edition. Your's are the later one then by which date Dr. Scofield was already dead and no changes can be atributed to him and you were wrong in claiming this scholar to have made the statements you did! I suppose you will not confess to your error as I have never seen you admit to any error on your part in these forums. Pity!

                    Ibrahim said: That is because you are stuck on one scripture and I have knowledge in 5 scriptures, which means I can cross reference between them and conclude which is consistent and which is not.
                    Which 5 scriptures do you refer to?

                    Ibrahim said: Old man, try not to be naïve, quote the full texts as written in the foot note , don't splice to suit your purpose. On the other hand I am aware that , the second edition for this had certain words removed from it.
                    Since we now know you have a later edition, please quote from it and I will try and respond.

                    Go well and be well, dear Ibrahim!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Ibrahim earlier: Kindly answer the following two Questions (only) ,

                      1) Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
                      (a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
                      (b) Heli (Luke 3:23)

                      2) Jesus descended from which son of David?
                      (a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
                      (c) Nathan(Luke3:31)


                      Old man wrote: 1) Matthew's birth narrative is through the eyes of Joseph,
                      Ibrahim says: Greetings of peace to one and all

                      Dear Old man,

                      Kindly explain this , since what you says seem very silly! and I have no problems as to what you chose to belief, but try to be rational in a discussion.

                      Your claim is , Matthew’s facts are from Joseph about Jesus , right? If that is the case why would it differ from that of anyone else eyes when the subject matter is about Jesus and not about Joseph?

                      Assuming you are Joseph and you have your facts right would Mary your would be wife be claiming your father was not Jacob but heli??? Please be rational and think, old man, THINK! I know you have to belief the Bible did not contradict itself, but where is the honesty in you old man?

                      Think, you being Joseph will be marrying Mary, would Mary make such a bungling claim as to who your father is or if it was about her father, what has Joseph to do with it? ? If you want to be rational and discuss this matters , please do, but if this affects your health in anyway, you should refrain from making allegations and erroneous remarks. Let me re-quote for you to consider this with a sound mind again. !

                      1) Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
                      (a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
                      (b) Heli (Luke 3:23)
                      Old man wrote: while Luke's is through the eyes of Mary.
                      Ibrahim says : Old man this is absurd , since both of the narrations end with Joseph not Mary in Luke and Joseph in Matthew as you will have us believe!

                      Luke 3: 23. Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

                      Compare with

                      Matthew 1: 1. A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

                      1: 16. and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

                      Lets be rational again, according to you Mary conveyed to Luke, that her lineage was through Nathan but Joseph , her, would be husband , claimed it was Solomon to Matthew, is that how you see it, my friend?

                      2) Jesus descended from which son of David?
                      (a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
                      (c) Nathan(Luke3:31) [/I]
                      Ibrahim says : In which case, In the case of Matthew, since Joseph was talking about himself and Luke got his info from Mary , Matthew would be right in what he wrote in Matthew but not in Luke since Mary claimed otherwise to Luke. Obviously Joseph will know who his father is!

                      Similarly in the case of Luke since Mary would know better about her own son and her lineage, Luke will be accurate and not Matthew. Which means one is right and the other wrong..

                      But you claim that both are right, that is very naive? Don’t you think so?

                      It had to be done to prove that Jesus came from the Davidic lineage as prophesies (from both sides as Joseph was not Jesus' biologically father). Luke draws attention to the fact that Jesus is not the son of Joseph by writing " Jesus being the son (so it was thought of Joseph)..., implying that people considered Jesus to be Joseph's son but he was not.
                      Ibrahim says:: dear old man, I am impressed by the way you try to delude yourself,
                      obviously, you have desired not to think rationally in this matters

                      1) Firstly Immaterial of who is tracing whose lineage, the father cannot be the same at the begining and at the end

                      Let me demonstrate this for you.

                      let us start from David { according to Matthew 1:6-16}

                      1) David
                      2) Solomon
                      3) Roboam
                      4) Abia
                      5) Asa
                      6) Josaphat
                      7) Joram
                      8) Ozias
                      9) Joatham
                      10) Achaz
                      11) Ezekias
                      12) Manasses
                      13) Amon
                      14) Josias
                      15) Jechonias
                      16) Salatheiel
                      17) Zorobabel
                      18) Abiud
                      19) Elaikim
                      20) Azor
                      21) Sadoc
                      22) Achim
                      23) Eliud
                      24) Eleazar
                      25) Matthan
                      26) Jocab
                      27) Joseph

                      Jesus Appears as the son of Mary , hence NOTHING TO DO WITH JOSEPH

                      Ibrahim In order to verify the truth in this matter Again let us start from David { according to Luke 3:23-31}

                      1) David
                      2) Nathan
                      3) Mattatha
                      4) Menan
                      5) Melea
                      6) Eliakim
                      7) Jonan
                      8) Joseph
                      9) Juda
                      10) Simeon
                      11) Levi
                      12) Matthat
                      13) Jorim
                      14) Eliezer
                      15) Jose
                      16) Er
                      17) Elmodam
                      18) Cosam
                      19) Addi
                      20) Melchi
                      21) Neri
                      22) Salatheil
                      23) Zorobabel
                      24) Rhesa
                      25) Joanna
                      26) Juda
                      27) Joseph
                      28) Semei
                      29) Mattathias
                      30) Maath
                      31) Nagge
                      32) Esli
                      33) Naum
                      34) Amos
                      35) Mattathias
                      36) Joseph
                      37) Janna
                      38) Melchi
                      39) Levi
                      40) Matthat
                      41) Heli
                      42) Joseph

                      Jesus appears and has nothing to do with Joseph

                      Ibrahim says : Both of them had started with David and ended with Joseph and yet are you not surprised , that Matthew records 26 ancestors for Christ whereas Luke records 41 forefathers for Christ .

                      Old man, I know you have to belief, that Matthew’s records are based on Josephs and Luke records are based on Mary. Or else your faith starts crumbling.

                      BUT WE ARE IN A DISCUSSION AND WE WANT TO DETERMINE THE TRUTH, not swollow miconceptions and errors blindly

                      Remember what Christ taught you.

                      Matthew 5: 37. Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes,' and your `No,' `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

                      Remember how the Almighty admonished judeo christians:

                      Malachi 2:

                      7. "For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction--because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty.

                      8. But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi," says the LORD Almighty.

                      9. "So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law."

                      Ibrahim says: So, my dear old man………


                      1) Now kindly explain, how this is possible when both ( Mathew and Luke) are supposed to be inspired and both Mary and Joseph are supposed to be engaged ( each knowing the other)

                      2) Are you by any chance claiming that Luke met Mary and Matthew met Joseph by any chance, who finally ended up giving us this contradictory records?

                      3) was it not clear that Christ was of Virgin Birth , in which case why would anyone include Joseph in the lineage of Christ?

                      Kindly read!

                      7: 14. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

                      If Matthew or Joseph had claimed he was the father of Christ, is that not Blasphemy ???

                      Kind read!

                      Matthew 1: 16. and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

                      4) Did all this make sense to you Old man? Or will you be strong enough to digest them rationally ?


                      Luke then continue with Jesus' lineage, which can't be Joseph's because he already stated that Joseph was not his biological father. The only explanation to the lineage is therefor that he stated Mary's.
                      Ibrahim says: Meaning although both Joseph and Mary were off springs of David’s children living at the same time frame ( as per your current assertion) Joseph only had 26 ancestors whereas Mary had 41 ancestors for the same duration in time?

                      That is indeed very erroneous ! second where in Luke , did Luke claim it was about Mary , when Luke made it clear it was about Christ and Matthew also made it clear it was about Christ.

                      Both of them started with David and ended with Joseph, but for you they are not?

                      Now note the similarities of names

                      Salatheil, and Zorobabel appearing in both ( Matthew and Luke) records one after the other at various locations! What does that tell us?

                      2) The answer is "both". The same explanation as above covers this question. Q.E.D.
                      Ibrahim says I advise you to THINK and not follow others blindly.

                      Your Bible is the 1986 edition? Mine's the 1967 edition. Your's are the later one then by which date Dr. Scofield was already dead and no changes can be atributed to him
                      Ibrahim says ld man, do you know who hold copy rights to his works? So I have given you ISBN, are you claiming it is false or I invented it?

                      and you were wrong in claiming this scholar to have made the statements you did!
                      Ibrahim says: How silly! If a Book is being published and in it, it records that Dr. scofield wrote it, are you now disputing it because it does not appear in your version, shouldn’t you now try and find out from the publishers as to why they published it and how they got copy rights for it??

                      Do I need to repeat ISBN and Publishers details for you to verify them again???

                      I suppose you will not confess to your error
                      Ibrahim says: Old man, you have made such claims before and disappeared without replies, once I responded . This will be easy to settle. You can get your copy , scan it and post it into image gallery and I can do the same to see who is the liar here!

                      as I have never seen you admit to any error on your part in these forums. Pity!
                      Ibrahim says : what! Why would I admit to error, when by the Grace of God, I have not erred in my responses.

                      Since we now know you have a later edition, please quote from it and I will try and respond.
                      Ibrahim says: Read my first post on this, I quoted from my copy of, “The First Scofield Reference Bible . copyright 1986 by Barbour and company, Inc. and you claimed it does not exist, so now prove it and by the Grace of God . I will prove you wrong.

                      Use your brains this will not be too difficult to confirm or verify, I had already given details of publishers and ISBN numbers, so far you have not given much details, so I hope it will be forth coming and I don’t think publishers have vanished in thin air yet, so lets get the facts and clear this issue once and for all
                      Now just to get matters in to correct perceptive

                      Your claim is that scofield NEVER wrote this words , I quote my earlier post

                      Ibrahim posted Earlier

                      : In the preface, Dr. Scofield (30 years of Bible study to his credit) writes : -

                      1) " The saying that anything may be proved by the Bible is both true and false - true if isolated passage's are used; utterly false if the whole divine revelation is in view

                      2) Now refer to Genesis and read the fine print " Elohim ( sometimes El or Elah form "God" the first of the three primary names of Deity is a uniplural noun formed from El-strength, or the strong one and Alah, to swear, to bind oneself by an oath, so implying faithfulness……... .used in the OT about 2500 times"
                      Above were the contents which were snipped ( not entire passages but snippets) from the “The First Scofield Reference Bible . copyright 1986 by Barbour and company, Inc.

                      Old man you are now claiming this does not exist in your copy of the scofeild Bible, you have claimed your copy is published in 1967 ( that is all you have given so far) , so lets get this straight again

                      The issue here is

                      a) My copy has the words I had written above your copy does not have such words…correct?

                      b) My copy claims it was written by Rev C.I Scofield .DD and was first published by Oxford University press. Inc and Barbour and Company. Inc, 164 Mill street, Westwood, New Jersey are publishing my copy in co-operation with them …what does yours says??

                      c) My copy has an ISBN what is the ISBN for yours?

                      Ibrahim says: This will be easy to solve once we get the facts of this disagreement in order. All we need to do is scan and post a number of pages into the image gallery on gupshup ( from the books that are in our possession) for all the readers to see for themselves, who is lying!

                      Regards
                      Ibrahim

                      every time you fail, you are that much closer to success

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Ibrahim said: Your claim is , Matthew's facts are from Joseph about Jesus , right? If that is the case why would it differ from that of anyone else eyes when the subject matter is about Jesus and not about Joseph?
                        I am sorry if I was not clear enough, I will rephrase my answer:

                        The Gospel of Matthew was originally intended for the Jews and therefor presents Jesus Christ as King from the lineage of David as prophesied (from which the Messiah would come). His lineage/genealogy is therefor traced to King David and his birthplace, Bethlehem the home of David, is emphasized. Seven times in this Gospel Jesus is called "Son of David". Joseph is the one receiving Angelic visitors and visions from God. Little is said about Mary during the birth of Jesus Christ and infancy. To this author, Joseph and his ancestors is more important and he therefor trace Jesus' lineage from Joseph side.

                        Luke's narrative of Jesus Christ's birth and infancy is written from the point of view of the virgin mother Mary. In this Gospel Mary is the one receiving Angelic visitors and visions of God. Luke states Jesus' ancestors through Mary's lineage.

                        I understand you do not wish to concede the point as my explanation refutes your so-called "contradictions", but that is YOUR problem, not mine. (.....and I did not even have to state thinly veiled insults....)

                        Ibrahim said: Both of them had started with David and ended with Joseph and yet are you not surprised , that Matthew records 26 ancestors for Christ whereas Luke records 41 forefathers for Christ .
                        Parallel genealogies (one from the mother and one from the father) seldom have the same number of persons in it. Parallel genealogies might have the same name (different persons) more than once in it - even one after the other. There is absolutely no problem that the two differs in length though. Both start with David, Matthew ends with Joseph while Luke ended with Mary's father Heli. Luke had to refer to Jesus' earthy adopted father Joseph and stated that Jesus was "supposed to be the son of Joseph" according to the people.

                        [quote] Ibrahim said: Old man, I know you have to belief, that Matthew's records are based on Josephs and Luke records are based on Mary. Or else your faith starts crumbling.{/quote]

                        My faith is based on much more than the Bible. It is based on a direct personal contact with the Almighty God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Do you have a direct relationship or is your faith based on some book and writings about what other people said and have done? Any personal relationship?

                        Ibrahim said: 2) Are you by any chance claiming that Luke met Mary and Matthew met Joseph by any chance, who finally ended up giving us this contradictory records?
                        None of the Gospel writers "met" Joseph. All met Mary.

                        Ibrahim said: 3) was it not clear that Christ was of Virgin Birth , in which case why would anyone include Joseph in the lineage of Christ?
                        Joseph lineage was included by Matthew to show that even from the adopted father, Jesus' lineage was as per the prophesy that the Messiah would come from David's line. Normally your genealogy is through the father but in this case Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, only the adopted father.

                        Ibrahim said: Old man, do you know who hold copy rights to his works? So I have given you ISBN, are you claiming it is false or I invented it?
                        I again state the fact that you hold the older copy which might have been edited after Dr. Scofields death. Since my book is older than yours, I presume that any differences would have been after my copy. My copy's cover was damaged as I got it from someone else and I threw it away. I do not see any ISBN number. What is this ISBN and when was it introduced? I have several original books without this number or reference. BUT IT IS NO BIG ISSUE FOR ME! Unfortunately I do not have a scanner (would love to have one though - how about a fund-raising? ). My copy states "Copyright 1967 by Oxford University Press, Inc." if it is of any help. Anyway let's look at your quote from your copy:

                        Ibrahim said: 1) " The saying that anything may be proved by the Bible is both true and false - true if isolated passage's are used; utterly false if the whole divine revelation is in view
                        Quite correct. ANYTHING may be proved from the Bible if it is quoted out of context - as you have done numerous times and I had to correct you. This ANYTHING if "false" will be shown to be false if viewed in the whole divine revelation of Scripture. The best example is the quote "Money is the root of all evil" often used by people. The correct quote from the Bible is "The love of money is the root of all evil". Not money, but rather the love of it is wrong.

                        Ibrahim said: 2) Now refer to Genesis and read the fine print " Elohim ( sometimes El or Elah form "God" the first of the three primary names of Deity is a uniplural noun formed from El-strength, or the strong one and Alah, to swear, to bind oneself by an oath, so implying faithfulness……... .used in the OT about 2500 times"
                        As you prefer NOT to give the full quote, I will try and respond on what I have. The quotation "the first of the three primary names of Deity is a uniplural noun" is basically the same as what I quoted earlier from my copy - no problem. The words "El", "Elah" and "Elohim" might be used ±2500 times in the Bible. What is the problem with it? The word "Alah", as far as I know, is used extensively in the Arabaic Bible. What is the issue at stake?

                        BTW: I still await the naming of the 5 scriptures you work from....

                        We have digressed quite a bit from the intended topic but I will humour you and continue before you again call foul as in the past. Accept my apologies, Ahmadjee....Ibrahim tends to go of on a tangent sometimes.

                        [This message has been edited by The Old Man (edited May 19, 2002).]

                        Comment


                          #13
                          The Gospel of Matthew was originally intended for the Jews and therefor presents Jesus Christ as King from the lineage of David as prophesied (from which the Messiah would come).
                          Ibrahim says : Greetings of Peace to one and all

                          Old man! This is funny, but you should know better, So kindly tell us about the other 3 gospels were originally intended for whom?

                          His lineage/genealogy is therefor traced to King David and his birthplace, Bethlehem the home of David, is emphasized.
                          Ibrahim says: how and why did Luke differ? Why would Joseph’s Lineage be traced when Joseph had NOTHING to do with Christ’s conception.

                          Seven times in this Gospel Jesus is called "Son of David".
                          Ibrahim says : are you saying NO one called Christ Son of David in Luke’s Gospel?

                          Joseph is the one receiving Angelic visitors and visions from God.
                          Ibrahim says : what! You mean Joseph’s dream is angelic vision and Mary’s direct conversation with the Angel is not?

                          Old man , Joseph has NOTHING to do with the Birth of Christ, do you agree or not?

                          Little is said about Mary during the birth of Jesus Christ and infancy.
                          Ibrahim says: So does John’s Gospel, which records nothing about Mary or his lineage , does that mean Johns gospel was written for the hindus

                          To this author, Joseph and his ancestors is more important and he therefor trace Jesus' lineage from Joseph side.
                          Ibrahim says: Old man, lets THINK wisely , not delude ourselves. When Joseph’s lineage is being written down by Matthew and claiming it is the lineage of Christ, it cannot be because Joseph was not the father of Christ at conception by his own words!

                          Similarly when Mary’s lineage is being written by Luke, yes that would be Christ’s lineage since Christ was born without a father!

                          Now your claim the Bible is NOT contradictory

                          Let me quote what contradictory means , since it escapes you……..

                          contradictory

                          : a proposition so related to another that if either of the two is true the other is false and if either is false the other must be true

                          ©1997, 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.

                          Here by your own admission, you are implying Matthew did not give the lineage of Christ but the lineage of Joseph.

                          Whereas Luke gave the lineage of Mary, who is the mother of Christ as such that would be the correct lineage and what is written in Matthew contradicts Luke.

                          Which means you FAILED, when you claimed the Bible is not contradictory. That is my first point

                          Second being both authors misled Christians when they brought in Joseph as the father of Christ since Christ did not have a father .

                          Which if accepted will contradict, Isaiah 7: 14, thus no matter how you want to look at it, the Gospels give a contradictory view and therefore are not from God.

                          Luke's narrative of Jesus Christ's birth and infancy is written from the point of view of the virgin mother Mary.
                          Ibrahim says: which means Matthew was wrong and Luke was right or do you still insist Joseph is the father of Christ?

                          In this Gospel Mary is the one receiving Angelic visitors and visions of God. Luke states Jesus' ancestors through Mary's lineage.
                          Ibrahim says: Can it be any other way?
                          I understand you do not wish to concede the point as my explanation refutes your so-called "contradictions",
                          Ibrahim says: You make me laugh Old man, is it not you who have spliced out all that you cannot handle and try to explain the issue by claiming the gospel were written for different audience from different angles.?

                          Are you not deluding yourself ( sorry to be direct, you seem to feel I am insulting you but I am only being direct) remember what Christ taught,

                          Let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything else comes from the devil, as such I directly approach all problems and issues, nothing to be politically correct here, we are talking about the TRUTH, not our personal opinions here.

                          but that is YOUR problem, not mine. (.....and I did not even have to state thinly veiled insults....)
                          Ibrahim says : It is not my problem old man, but the problem of Christians who deceive themselves in order to keep their faith, I went through all the trouble of providing clear details and all you can do is snip them off and still insist the Bible is not contradictory because gospel written for different audience at different angles , LOL! that does not show much honesty but pure blind faith.

                          Parallel genealogies (one from the mother and one from the father) seldom have the same number of persons in it.
                          Ibrahim says here you go again, why a Christian should say Joseph is the father of Christ when it is not, unless they have been deceived to believe as such , since parts of the bible is missing and they cannot prove the virgin birth?

                          Parallel genealogies might have the same name (different persons) more than once in it - even one after the other. There is absolutely no problem that the two differs in length though. Both start with David, Matthew ends with Joseph while Luke ended with Mary's father Heli.
                          Ibrahim says: Hello, Luke began with Joseph , not Mary, so please, you can believe what you want but don’t twist the scripture to suit your purpose.

                          Read.

                          Luke 3:23. Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

                          Luke had to refer to Jesus' earthy adopted father Joseph and stated that Jesus was "supposed to be the son of Joseph" according to the people.
                          Ibrahim says LOL!

                          1) why must Luke deny the truth by stating that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph , when God had revealed a virgin will give birth without any father, and the angels had conveyed he will be born without a father?

                          Which means the gospel authors are contradicting God and the angels who will you believe now, the gospel authors or God and the angels?


                          My faith is based on much more than the Bible. It is based on a direct personal contact with the Almighty God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
                          Ibrahim says: Yes, many claim this personal relationship with God and yet when the facts are laid out in front of them, they make all sorts of accusations and conjectures to deny what is in writing. And which cannot be denied. Mind you we are just looking at one contradiction in the bible , whereas they are 100’s of them and the Bible publishers themselves claimed some 18,000 errors had already been corrected in the past.

                          The issue here was , the Bible is contradictory and your assertion is , it does not, that is silly because what has been placed in front of you is CLEARLY contradictory and cannot be from God.

                          Do you have a direct relationship or is your faith based on some book and writings about what other people said and have done? Any personal relationship?
                          Ibrahim says: Old man, don’t go wondering off, in directions that are not related to this issue we are discussing.

                          But since Christians seem to have this funny notion that Muslims are on their own

                          Read!

                          58:22 Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow to dwell therein (for ever). Allah will be well pleased with them and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity

                          Ibrahim says: On the other hand Muslims do not go around claiming they had direct relationship with God, like Christian do or belief in mysteries or need miracles to keep their faith in TRUTH going

                          Old man STOP right here, and go no further as we are talking about the contradictions and scofiled bible in particular, which is why i snipped away other issues you wanted to raise earlier I answered you this question out of courtesy, which you seem to lack as you simply snip off any questions you cannot handle.

                          Ibrahim said: 2) Are you by any chance claiming that Luke met Mary and Matthew met Joseph by any chance, who finally ended up giving us this contradictory records?
                          None of the Gospel writers "met" Joseph. All met Mary.
                          Ibrahim says: LOL! If that is the case how did Matthew see through the eyes of Joseph and contradict Luke.

                          Joseph lineage was included by Matthew to show that even from the adopted father, Jesus' lineage was as per the prophesy that the Messiah would come from David's line.
                          Ibrahim says I am impressed, so, Matthew was trying to argue that hey look, no matter what , Christ was of David’s stock .

                          Now this is only possible IF and when Matthew had also included Mary’s lineage and argued either way we can connect to David, which is not the case

                          Second Matthew wrote……..

                          Read!

                          Matthew 1: 16. and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

                          17. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

                          18. This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

                          19. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and 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."

                          22. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:

                          23. "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us."

                          24. When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.

                          25. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

                          Ibrahim says: This means Joseph married Mary even before the birth of Christ, so now explain to us how in the world will the prophesy ( Isaiah 7:14 as mentioned above too) be known to others and witnessed by others, if this was indeed true.
                          Obviously this is a FALSE statement just like the claim that Christ lineage is through Joseph.

                          Now, I am not twisting your arm or forcing you to accept this facts, but only revealing the contradictory nature of the Bible, which you have decided to renege, out of blind faith whereas I am looking at it rationally.

                          Normally your genealogy is through the father but in this case Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, only the adopted father.
                          Ibrahim says exactly, that is why the Gospels contradict each other when they have included Joseph in the lineage of Christ. Which means the Gospels have erroneous contents in them. Which proves my point.

                          I again state the fact that you hold the older copy which might have been edited after Dr. Scofields death.
                          Ibrahim says: How are you so sure that your Bible publishers did not edit it out in their publication and my bible publishers left everything as is? Old man ! wise up and admit that you made an allegation that I had posted FALSE contents, whereas I am saying , hey , I only posted what was written in my copy of the Bible.

                          Since my book is older than yours, I presume that any differences would have been after my copy.
                          Ibrahim says: Old man, that is your presumption and NOT THE TRUTH, the TRUTH can only be ascertained when the publishers admit who did what!

                          My copy's cover was damaged as I got it from someone else and I threw it away. I do not see any ISBN number. What is this ISBN and when was it introduced?
                          Ibrahim says; well, that’s another story but when you give us full details of ISBN etc, I can check it out as to what is the truth behind this , instead of relying on your words alone ( so also will other readers, who are interested in finding out the truth)
                          Which means now your book has NO cover, is that what you are saying? But it does have its preface right?

                          I have several original books without this number or reference. BUT IT IS NO BIG ISSUE FOR ME! Unfortunately I do not have a scanner (would love to have one though - how about a fund-raising?
                          Ibrahim says Old man don’t be naïve! I don’t have a scanner on my lap, I have to go out and get my copy scanned, which means I have to spend time and money, in the hope of enjoining TRUTH and denying falsehood as well as educating you for good or for worse.

                          Ibrahim Quoted earlier : 1) " The saying that anything may be proved by the Bible is both true and false - true if isolated passage's are used; utterly false if the whole divine revelation is in view

                          Old man today ( May 19th) : Quite correct.
                          Ibrahim says: So the cats is out of the bag, Today Old man says these statement is Quite correct but on May 15, 2002 at 03:47 PM, old man said thus

                          Old man wrote: Dear Ibrahim, another cut and past? I have the Scofield Bible in front of me and can not find your quote. Please let me know where I need to look. Dr. CI Scofield did not wrote any such phrase in his Introduction to the 1909 edition nor preface to the 1917 edition.

                          Ibrahim says : Dear readers look at how old man lies for his faith.

                          1) he claimed no such phrase existed in Dr. scofields bible

                          2) he claimed the preface of 1909 and 1917 edition has no such words

                          3) today he claims his edition is 1967 and has no cover

                          4) Yet when challenged he does not want to scan and post the preface page but says Dr. scofield was correct in saying such things, even though earlier he claimed he NEVER wrote it ( the phrase I quoted) in his dual copies of 1909 , 1917 which has now mysteriously changed to 1967 edition.

                          So who do we believe in this matters??, I leave it to you to decide for yourself. For Muslims are God fearing people and will not lie in such matters. Apparently Christians have no problem in twisting their words to maintain their blind faith.



                          [I] Ibrahim quoted earlier : 2) Now refer to Genesis and read the fine print " Elohim ( sometimes El or Elah form "God" the first of the three primary names of Deity is a uniplural noun formed from El-strength, or the strong one and Alah, to swear, to bind oneself by an oath, so implying faithfulness……... .used in the OT about 2500 times"

                          Old man today ( may 19th) : As you prefer NOT to give the full quote,
                          Ibrahim says: Old man, I pity you, on May 15th at 03:47 PM you wrote thus

                          OLD man wrote: Again an erroneous quote (cut and paste?). What is written is found on Dr. Scofield's footnote (3) on Genesis 1v1:

                          Elohim (English form "God"), the first of the names of the Deity, is a plural noun in form but is singular in meaning when it refers to the true God. Emphasis in Gen.1:26 is on the plurality in Deity; in v.27, on the unity of the divine Substance. (Cp. Gen.3:22.) The plural form of the word suggests the Trinity.

                          Nothing of the sort as quoted by you. Please let's stay with facts, dear Ibrahim
                          Ibrahim says: But today on May 19, 2002 09:44 AM Old man claims thus …….

                          I will try and respond on what I have. The quotation "the first of the three primary names of Deity is a uniplural noun" is basically the same as what I quoted earlier from my copy - no problem. The words "El", "Elah" and "Elohim" might be used ±2500 times in the Bible. What is the problem with it? The word "Alah", as far as I know, is used extensively in the Arabaic Bible. What is the issue at stake?
                          Ibrahim says: O lord, if Christians who claim they are guided by God will resort to this kind of follies, why would anyone want to blame the atheists and pagans for their evils and deceitful actions?

                          Ibrahim says: Mr Christian, if this how you will deal with the TRUTH, kindly excuse me, I have no desire to argue deceitfully, when you talk with me it MUST be on the basis of truth verses untruth, not truth with deceit based on your whims and fancies.

                          Read!

                          Prophet Essa ibn Mariam (pbuh) said :- Matthew 5:

                          29. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

                          30. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

                          36. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.

                          37. Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes,' and your `No,' `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

                          Ibrahim says: I do pity you and feel sorry for you, old man, but my pity cannot help you since you have willfully chosen your path, even though I have spent considerable time redirecting your misconceptions. May God help you before your time is over, if it be His will

                          Regards
                          Ibrahim

                          You are not a fool just because you have done something foolish – only if the folly of it escapes you.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X