Great video David:I will be honest, I was ignorant of all that before except for sura 19:27-28(Mary,sister of Aaron).MARY,DAUGHTER OF HELI(not Amran)In LUKE's genealogy of Jesus,LUKE 3:23,as I argued in avraidire.eu,and as is believed by skeptical NT scholar JAMES TABOR,in "The Jesus Dynasty",the Greek allows for it to mean Jesus' maternal grandfather was HELI.SURA 19:27-28You are right,I checked,19:27-28 is a QUOTATION of an actual conversation that took place in 1st cent. Palestine among Jews,in Aramaic.They never used the expression "sister of Aaron" to mean "descendant of Aaron"(it would be DAUGHTER of Aaron) or to mean "honored woman."
In the avraidire.eu article I had said:"THE PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMESWritten in 150 AD it may contain some reliable information. There the parents of Mary are said to be JOACHIM and ANNA. JOACHIM is a form of ELIAKIM, like YEHOSHUAH is a form of JOSHUA, JECHONIAH of CONIAH, Mike of Michael ,Tommy of Thomas, Rick of Richard. It is possible HELI is a short form for Eliakim, so argues JAMES TABOR,in his book THE JESUS DYNASTY." http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/03/the-genealogy-issueis-there-a-contradiction-between-the-genealogy-of-matthew-and-of-luke/
DAUGHTER OF AARONIt means DESCENDANT of Aaron,it appears for Elizabeth,wife of Zachary,mother of John-Baptist(LUKE 1:5)
Here are some notes I prepared with the help of references from answering-islam.org for my debate with Grammaton Cleric on this very subject: - Miram is Aaron’s sister in the bible, but in the Old Testament not New.Exodus 15:20 Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took the timbrel in her hand,and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dancing.- Aaron is the brother of Moses (again, Old Testament, not New)Exodus 4:14 Then the anger of the LORD burned against Moses, and He said, "Is there not your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he speaks fluently. And moreover, behold, he is coming out to meet you; when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. - Amram(Imran) is the Father of Aaron and Moses (and Miriam) in the Old Testament:Exodus 6:20 Amram married his father's sister Jochebed, and she bore him Aaron and Moses; and the length of Amram's life was one hundred and thirty-seven years.- Mary, the mother of Jesus is the daughter of Heli.Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,- Mary was not the biological sister of Aaron:Sahih Muslim 5326"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "Sisterof Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus.When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: "The(people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names ofApostle and pious persons who had gone before them.""- In spite of Mohammad's claim that this is a title denoting peity, the very title sister of Aaron is used by those who accused her of harlotry in Surah 19:27-28- Paltalk Muslim Apologist, Gomerozdubar claims that this language is proven in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Testament of Amram. This claim is false because the testament of Amram refers to Miriam (not Mary the Mother of Jesus) rightly as the DAUGHTER of Amram, which she was.- Muslims claim that Mary is a Levite because of her cousin Elizabeth. No. Mary was of the tribe of Judah, this is made clear not only in the genealogy of Luke 3, but also Hebrews 7 which states that Jesus descended from Judah not from Levi and that his priesthood is according to Melchesidek.Although Luke 3 appears to give a genealogy of Joseph, the Greek word used for Son is Huios which can be used to denote a son from the legal aspect (e.g. son through adoption or son in law), hence Joseph was a son in law of Heli. The word Greek word teknon carries a more biological usage. (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)- If the word daughter and sister can both be used to denote lineage of tribal ancestry, then we would expect the terms to be used interchangeably in the Qur'an and Hadith. They are not.
The problem gets worse when Hannah is added to the picture:Let us check Surah 3:35 –Behold! a woman of 'Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: For Thou hearest and knowest all things."Tafsir Ibn Kathir (surah 3:35)The wife of `Imran mentioned here is the mother of Maryam, and her name is Hannah bint Faqudh. Muhammad bin Ishaq mentioned that Hannah could not have childrenand that one day, she saw a bird feeding its chick. She wished she could have children and supplicated to Allah to grant her offspring. Allah accepted her supplication, and when her husband slept with her, she became pregnant. She vowed to make her child concentrate on worship and serving Bayt Al-Maqdis (the Masjid in Jerusalem), when she became aware that she was pregnant. She said,..."1 Samuel 1:1-2,271 Now there was a certain man from Ramathaim-zophim from the hill country of Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son ofTohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite.2 He had two wives : the name of one was Hannah 27 "For this boy I prayed, and the LORD has given me my petition which I asked ofHim. 28 "So I have also dedicated him to the LORD ; as long * ashe lives he is dedicated to the LORD." And he worshiped the LORD there.So now, the mother of Mary is the mother of Samuel, separated by over 1000 years, and the Father of Mary is Amram, separated by some 1500 years!- Muslims attempt to save face by pointing to the use of "Son of David" and "Son of Abraham" used of Jesus Christ. This Tu-Quoque fallacy is easily dismissed:1. The term SON or DAUGHTER can be used to denote lineage. BROTHER and SISTER is not.As Son of David:2. Jesus descended from David, being from the tribe of Judah through Mary3. Jesus is a legal descendant through Joseph4. Jesus is the greater Solomon Matthew 12:42. Solomon built the temple (1 Kings6:1-14) and Jesus builds the church (Matthew 16:18).As Son of Abraham:1. Jesus descended from Abraham through Mary2. Jesus legally descended from Abraham through Joseph3. Isaac, the direct biological Son of Abraham was a type of Christ, being Abraham’s“only Son” to be offered up on Mount Moriah:
Excellent video David. This one video is yet another example of how the Quran is a mish mash of convoluted statements.
S:3.35 Tafsir. Now we begin the story of Jesus. As a prelude we have the birth of Mary and the parallel story of John the Baptist, Yahya the son of Zakariya. Yahya's mother Elisabeth was a cousin of Mary the mother of Jesus (Luke 1.36), and therefore John and Jesus were cousin's by blood, and there was a spiritual cousinhood in their birth and career. Elisabeth was of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1.5), of a priestly family which went back to Aaron the brother of Moses and son of Imran. Her husband Zakariya was actually a priest , and her cousin Mary was presusmably also of a priestly family. By tradition Mary's mother was called Hannah (in Latin, Anna, and in English, Anne), and her father was called 'Imran. Hannah is therefore both a descendant of the priestly house of 'Imran and the wife of 'Imran, - "a woman of 'Imran" in a double sense.S:19.28 Tafsir. Aaron the brother of Moses was the first in the line of Israelite priesthood. Mary and her cousin Elisabeth (mother of Yahya) came of a priestly family, and were therefore, "sisters of Aaron" or daughters of 'Imran (who was Aaron's father). See n. 375 to iii.35. Mary is reminded of her high lineage and the unexceptionable morals of her father and mother. How, they said, she had fallen, and disgraced the name of her progenitors.S:66.12 Tafsir. 'Imran was traditionally the name of the father of Mary the mother of Jesus:
The Testament of Amram, which Gomer presumes backs up the Muslim claim can be read here:http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/alien_watchers13a.htmUnfortunately for our Muslim friends it does not support Islam.Hence this particular matter is and remains a serious problem, obviously God would not commit such an error. As to the geneologies of Matthew and Luke and the reference to Heli, the Jerusalem Talmud does refer to Mary the daughter of Heli as one of the inhabitants of hell.
David woodhas any muslim tried to defend this error claim? if not then y wont they? and if yes then can u post it here for everyone to c. and by the way i really liked the ending to your video.
Sam,Yes, Muslims try to respond to this clear error. They typically do so by claiming that "sister of Aaron" means that Mary was from a priestly line. Unfortunately, Jews just didn't use this metaphor. They would refer to someone as the "son of X" or "daughter of Y," but not "sister of Z."As to Mary being the daughter of Imran, Muslims will simply say, despite having no evidence, that Mary was the daughter of ANOTHER Imran (i.e. not the Imran who was the father of Moses, Aaron, and Mirium). Of course, Muslims are free to believe all of this, but for the rest of us, this is a clear mistake (which led the early Muslims to believe that Mary the mother of Jesus was also the sister of Aaron and Moses).
SAM --Nazam tried to defend this recently on my facebook page. Here are our posts:NAZAM:Isn't it possible that she had a brother named Aaron. People in the middle east have a tradition of naming their children with the names of famous people. Since there was already a brother and sister named Aaron and Mary, Their parents who respected them felt it an honour to name their son and their daughter with the same names.NABEEL:Nazam - you also have to deal with the fact that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is specifically identified as the daughter of Imran as well as the sister of Aaron. We know a Mary that fits this bill, but it was not Mary the mother of Jesus. The Qur'an is wrong here. If you conclude otherwise, it's because you're presupposing the perfection of the Qur'an. It seems that you have to presuppose that the Qur'an is perfect in order to conclude that it is perfect.NAZAM:The problem I have is that David is presupposing that there was only one person in all of Israelite history with the name Imran and and only one person with name Aaron.But please read Matthew's genealogy and count the number of times names are recycled by the Jewish people. Count the number of times Jacob and Joseph appear together in the genealogy. Matthew says for example Joseph, the husband of Mary, was the son of Jacob. Should I assume that Matthew here had made a mistake by confusing the two Josephs together with the Joseph in Genesis who was also the son of Jacob? Or is it more reasonable to conclude that since there was already a Joseph and Jacob in the Jewish tradition a father whose name happens to be Jacob decides to name him Joseph in honour of them?If my name was Imran and I choose to name my eldest son Aaron and only my daughter Mary and my other son Moses in honour of all of them, what would be wrong with that?Whether are believe in the Quran to be miraculous or not is really irrelevant to my conclusion. This to me is just a force contradiction impose upon the Quranic text.NABEEL:Nazam --You are right - it is possible that, according to Muhammad, Mary had a brother named Aaron and a father named Imran.At face value, if you read the Qur'an for what it seems to be saying without importing presuppositions, it looks to be that he is referring to the same Aaron and the same Imran as the family of Moses. But you are right, you could defend the idea that it was a family with repeat names.There are problems with this view: 1- Muhammad chose not to clarify this family with repeat names, despite the obvious potential for confusion; 2- Muhammad's lack of clarification caused people to be confused (Aisha and Mughira at least); 3- Clarification was only made after someone pointed out the discrepancy; 4- Even after this, the defense is tenuous at bestIn other words, it's the exact same state of affairs that we would have if Muhammad made a mistake and tried to cover it up. Coincidence? It's your soul - you can think what you want. You don't have to answer to me at the end of times. I just urge you to consider it carefully.I don't know what David plans on doing with this series, but perhaps he will cover the Arabic Infancy Gospel and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and point out that the Quran borrows stories from these two forgeries and mistakenly assumes they are true. I just pray that you will consider all this information carefully.
Nabeel,I think Nazam's repeat names explanation is fine if he wants to believe it. However, a major problem for him is that Muhammad did not think up the same defense when he was confronted with the issue. Instead, as David pointed out, Muhummad backtracked and said that "sister of Aaron" is a title, not an actual relation. Here, Nazam's explanation and Muhummad's explanation do not cohere, and they both cannot be true at the same time.Aside from that, Mary's father's name was Heli, as was pointed out earlier. Unless Nazam wants to go on the attack and say that the Bible has the wrong name or that Heli really means Imram or something like that, he has painted himself into a corner on this one.
Letitia--I don't know... when I read the hadith regarding Muhammad's explanation, I interpreted it to mean what Nazam is saying as opposed to what David has said. I'm going to have to look into it a bit more, but at first glance, I interpreted it to mean that people had names similar to the respected people of old.
Nazam's next facebook response:NAZAM:Nabeel- At face value I could see why someone unaware of the practices at the time could come to that conclusion. But this interpretation is an classical interpretation you could find in Imam's Razi's commentary of the Quran. It also agrees with the Hadith that David mention that the Prophet Muhammed said that the people used to name their children after their Prophets and pious persons who had gone before them. (Muslim – Hadith No.5326).The only new thing that I got out of David's video was the Hadith about Aisha and Mughira from Ibn Kaathir's commentary of the Quran. However I look up Ibn Kaathir and could not find this Hadith. This is all I found;http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=19&tid=31187"(O sister of Harun!) This means, "O one resembling Harun (Aaron) in worship.''(O sister of Harun!) referring to the brother of Musa, because she was of his descendants. This is similar to the saying, `O brother of Tamim,' to one who is from the Tamimi tribe, and `O brother of Mudar,' to one who is from the Mudari tribe. It has also been said that she was related to a righteous man among them whose name was Harun and she was comparable to him in her abstinence and worship."About the apocryphal Gospels what I would say as a general reply is (1) that apocryphal does not mean false. It simply means hidden. (2) It is obvious that the writers of the four gospels could write down only the tradition that was available to them. (3) Some of what some religious authorities called apocryphal books may in fact contain some truth which initially came from God and eventually got mixed up with untruths from men. (4) The gospel according to John tells us that there were many other things that Jesus said and did but were not written.
Letita -Here is the Hadith that I found regarding this verse; “They (the people of the old age or Israelites) used to name their children after their Prophets and pious persons who had gone before them.” (Muslim – Hadith No.5326).As you can see it does not contradict the interpretation that I offered. As for Luke's genealogy I don't believe that it is of Mary but of Joseph. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (Lk 3:23)I believe that Mary was probably a Levi as she's refereed to as the relative of Elizabeth who was from the Levi tribe (Lk 1:36)
If Nazam's interpretation of Sahih Muslim is correct, Muhammad's response makes no sense at all. He is asked about the phrase "sister of Aaron." Nazam thinks that Mary just happened to have a brother named Aaron, and just happened to have a father named Imran.Problem: The Jews wouldn't have referred to Mary as the sister of her brother. They would have referred to her as the daughter of her father. That is, they would have said, "O Daughter of Imran." The Jews would only refer to someone as the "sister of X" or "brother of Y" if X or Y were an especially famous or well-known person who could be used to identify someone.So, if we're to take Nazam's theory seriously, we'd have something like this. (1) Mary must have had a brother named Aaron (despite the fact that we don't have a shred of evidence that she had such a brother). (2) This brother was so famous and well-known that Mary was called "sister of Aaron" rather than "daughter of Imran. (3) Despite the fact that she had a famous brother, we have no record of this title ever being used of Mary, and no record of any brother named Aaron. (4) Coincidentally, Mary also had a father named Imran.I'm wondering what would qualify as a problem for someone willing to believe all of this, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.My name is David. Suppose someone who claims to be a prophet identifies me as "the son of Jesse" and the "the brother of Eliab." If people began to criticize this "prophet," pointing out that there was indeed a man named David who had a father named Jesse and a brother named Eliab, would it satisfy everyone if the prophet's defenders responded, "Well, maybe David Wood has an unknown father named Jesse and an unknown brother named Eliab"?
I notice that Nazam's translation of Sahih Muslim has different implications. Here's mine:Sahih Muslim 5326--"Mughira b. Shuba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read 'O sister of Harun' (i.e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them."
David,Forgive me I'm slow, I don't see any major difference between the translation of the Hadith that I offered and yours?Here's mine again;“They (the people of the old age or Israelites) used to name their children after their Prophets and pious persons who had gone before them.” (Muslim – Hadith No.5326).and here's your's "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them." The father of Mary is mention along with her brother in the Quranic passage that you referred too(Surah 19:28)Furthermore, it's not the purpose of the Quran to be a biography of Mary the mother of Jesus. Let me finish of by quoting William Lane Craig, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."NazamBTW, this is just one of the explanation that is given by the classical commentators, there are others which I also find plausible.
Excellent video, David.
David:I just read that in either translation to mean the in old days, people named their children after ancient prophets.That's certainly true: Joseph, Mary, and even Jesus are examples.I think the other problems you raise remain. But I don't think Mohammed's answer means what you say it does. It's just a way of saying, "Aaron the brother of Mary was named after the PREVIOUS Aaron the Prophet."I think that's unlikely since then you would have an Imran naming his kids Aaron and Mary a thousand years after another Imran naming his kids Aaron and Mary.But hey, I guess you could argue that he chose the names precisely because of that. If my name is Israel, it wouldn't be amazing if I chose to name my kids Benjamin and Jude. Kinda cute!I don't buy it. But, it's an not utterly absurd, if you think you have other reasons to believe in the Quran.
Hello Hogan:Your info that the JERUSALEM TALMUD has it that Mary was the "daughter of HELI" is interesting.Since I know you are scholar,you verify,I have no problem adding it to my notes.WHY?It shows a possible oral tradition that MARY's FATHER was HELI.It would confirm JAMES TABOR's idea that LUKE's genealogy is about JESUS,not JOSEPH.
Nazam's translation reads: “They (the people of the old age or Israelites) used to name their children after their Prophets and pious persons who had gone before them.”This says that people named their CHILDREN after prophets, which would suggest that Muhammad was referring to some brother of Mary being named after the prophet Aaron.My translation reads: "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them."This says nothing about parents naming children. In context, this sounds like Muhammad is trying to explain the title "sister of Aaron" as applied to Mary. That is, the people of the old age used to give each other titles as indications of piety. So Mary's contemporaries gave her the title "sister of Aaron" to indicate her piety.This is, of course, a common Muslim interpretation of the passage. Just yesterday, a Muslim who calls himself "Converted2Islam" explained the passage as follows: "The Qur'an calls Mary 'sister of Aaron' as a title of respect."As Nazam interprets it, the title "sister of Aaron" has nothing to do with piety. Instead, the people are simply naming Mary's brother (for no reason, or perhaps to suggest that she's dishonoring her brother). As a general rule, the more unknowns you add to a hypothesis, the more intrinsically improbable your hypothesis. As I originally stated the problem, the unknowns are (1) why we know nothing of the practices of calling someone the sister of a prophet, and (2) why Mary is called the "daughter of Imran." I'm not sure Nazam's interpretation helps. For now we must wonder (1) why we've never heard of Mary's brother Aaron, (2) why Aaron was so famous that people would call Mary by the name of her brother instead of her parents, (3) what happened to this famous brother, so that he's now completely unknown, (4) why Mary is called the daughter of Imran, and (5) why the only records we have suggest that Mary's father wasn't named Imran. This seems to only add to the difficulty.
Nazam said: "Let me finish of by quoting William Lane Craig, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'"You're misusing the rule. It only applies in situations where we wouldn't necessarily expect to find evidence. For instance, suppose I say that there are two large moons circling the earth. Someone asks, "Where's your evidence for the second moon?" It wouldn't make much sense for me to say, "Well, just because I don't have evidence doesn't mean it isn't there." Why? Because if there were a second moon, we'd have all kinds of evidence for it. And we don't.Think in terms of hypotheses.David's Hypothesis: Muhammad didn't know what he was talking about, so he confused two women named Mary, whom he heard about from Jews and Christians. Later, he invented a story to cover up his error.This hypothesis fits every piece of evidence we have. It requires no speculation about unknown persons or titles. No facts need to be strained to fit the hypothesis.Nazam's Hypothesis: Mary had a brother named Aaron and a father named Imran.This hypothesis doesn't fit any evidence we have. It requires us to speculate (with no evidence whatsoever) about Mary's unknown brother and her unknown father. We must wonder why Mary was referred to as the "sister of X" rather than the "daughter of Y." We must believe (without evidence) that this famous brother was quickly forgotten. We must believe that no one mentioned this brother until Muhammad revived his name via supernatural revelation. We must wonder why Muhammad didn't explain all this to his followers until people were using it as proof that he was a false prophet.Confirmation Theory strongly favors the first hypothesis. This doesn't mean that the second hypothesis is necessarily false. But it does mean that we should accept the first hypothesis until we are presented with counterbalancing evidence.
Interesting dialogue between Nazam,Nabeel and David.For my part in the forum in Spain they asked me about Israel and I gave a little of my view and I was astonished about the EMOTIONAL FREAKOUTS by 4 Muslims.I have not even given all my arguments.It was like something from a LATIN AMERICAN TELENOVELA(it is a 7-8 month soap opera that has 200 episodes of 1 hr each)with melodrama all over,like in the telenovelas Marina/Leonela/Girasol(sunflower),etc,just go to youtube,they are there.I still have more info to give them but such freakouts are not normal.If you are sure of your position you are not going to insult and literally shriek.I haven't insulted back but I have felt like doing it.There is one,a Muslim woman who has a PHOTO of a DUCK as her symbol(I don't know why)and who is from Morocco,and whose Spanish is very good,who freaked out the most.I asked what of my statements was wrong(a mere list of historical facts about the issue) and nothing.As a said,a telenovela.
My responses to this posting are here:http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/05/response-to-david-woods-argumentation.htmland here:http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/05/re.html
"The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them." Again I don't see any major difference between yours and mine translation of the same Hadith. First of all the words in bracket (the people...to their persons) don't appear in the Arabic. Moreover it could still mean Israelites naming their children after names of prophets and saints.Names are in fact recycle and reused again and again in Biblical times.16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.Look at the way Joseph-Jacob recurs twice in the Bible. Is Matthew confusing the two Josephs or the two Jacobs.If evidence is required for everything then we may well not believe that man landed on the moon (indeed some think it was a big hoax) since we didn't see it directly. I wonder do you apply this same sort of ulra-scepticism to your Christian faith? Eg; the Virgin birth, talking animal and angel(Num 22:21-30), etc?Or is it reasonable to conclude when there is no extra-biblical evidence yet available is that there is no extra-biblical evidence yet available on a particular subject.
George Sale in his translation of the Quran says:"From the identity of names it has been generally imagined by Christian writers that the Koran here confounds Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron; which intolerable anachronism, if it were certain, is sufficient of itself to destroy the pretended authority of this book. But though Mohammed may be supposed to have been ignorant enough in ancient history and chronology, to have committed so gross a blunder; yet I do not see how it can be made out from the words of the Koran. For it does not follow, because two persons have the same name, and have each a father and brother who bear the same names, that they must therefore necessarily be the same...It must be observed that though the Virgin Mary is called in the Koran, the sister of Aaron, yet she is nowhere called the sister of Moses."George Sale, The Koran, IX Edition of 1923, London, p. 38.
david, ur ending "stay tuned" cracked me up :)i can't wait 4 the vid on the infancy gospel
I have heard Yahya's opinion on the issue.WHAT JESUS SAIDThat Jesus said whoever did the will of God was his brother and sister.And that in Christianity a religious woman is the SISTER of JESUS.CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS ORDERSI am familiar with Catholic history,it is fascinating.It is true they say BROTHER and SISTER.FRIAR CHARLES=brother charles,of the FRANCISCANS.But nuns and friars never say "I am the BROTHER of JESUS" to mean "I am a FOLLOWER of JESUS."I have never come upon such a phrase.
Thank you, Nazam. It's good you took the time to expound your view more. For everyone: This is what I can tell from the discussion so far:Nazam - says that "sister of Aaron" could mean that Mary, the mother of Jesus had a brother named Aaron and a father named Imram. This is defended by appealing to the commonality of names. In this case, the quotation“They (the people of the old age or Israelites) used to name their children after their Prophets and pious persons who had gone before them.” (Muslim – Hadith No.5326)would refer to AARON, not Mary.David - says Muhummad responds to correction by Christians during his day that "sister of Aaron" is a title used for Mary, the mother of Jesus, and a common practice for that period of time. In this case, the Hadith above would refer to MARY, and no one else.What I thought was incompatible earlier still seems incompatible. In David's explanation, Muhummad implicitly admits that Mary had no brother named Aaron by assigning the phrase to a matter of figurative speech. Otherwise, why didn't he say the same thing as Nazam?The problem is that Nazam is suggesting the actual existence of a brother named Aaron when no one else in history, not even the Hadith quoted (whichever reading chosen), has used that as an explanation for the occasion. Now, we can try accepting a both/and scenario to which Mary really had a brother named Aaron AND was commonly called "sister of Aaron" in reference to Aaron, Moses' brother, but that would seem extraordinarily improbable.Okay, so much for speculations, because David comes back to say that the Israelites did not practice such title-giving, and Mary would never have had such a title in either case. Somebody please tell me if I am understanding this issue correctly.
David's conclusion is not necessarily warranted from the Hadith we quoted. Although I don't necessarily reject that sister in Aaron could mean "sister as in the tribe of Aaron", as I believe that Mary was probably a Levi and in the Gospel of Luke she is related to Elizabeth who was from the tribe of Levi and Aaron was the first priest in line. Why would it also be improbable for Mary, Jesus' mother, to have had siblings? We don't no nothing about Mary's life outside of the New Testament as she's not mention in any 1st century source. Even Jesus is only mention in passing by Josephus and no where else except the NT. To say that there was only one person in all of history with the name Aaron or Imran this to me is improbable and absurd. As I've already shown that the name Jacob and Joseph are use twice in Matthew's genealogy and surely there must have been many through out Israelite history, so why not also in the case of Mary, Aaron and Imran? To quote George Sale " For it does not follow, because two persons have the same name, and have each a father and brother who bear the same names, that they must therefore necessarily be the same...It must be observed that though the Virgin Mary is called in the Koran, the sister of Aaron, yet she is nowhere called the sister of Moses."
someone posted some pseudo-answers to professor Wood claims... don't eben bother to see them: I waisted my time doing thate: they are just another example off "muslim's delusional world"...I would give it a 9.3 in the 1 to 10 sacle off muslim delusional (muhamamd's sacle as you know)...
Nazam said: Although I don't necessarily reject that sister in Aaron could mean "sister as in the tribe of Aaron", as I believe that Mary was probably a Levi and in the Gospel of Luke she is related to Elizabeth who was from the tribe of Levi and Aaron was the first priest in line.Why do you assume Mary was a Levite? Why are you reasoning from conjecture?
David you said,"[Nazam's] hypothesis doesn't fit any evidence we have. It requires us to speculate (with no evidence whatsoever) about Mary's unknown brother and her unknown father"...."We must believe (without evidence) that this famous brother was quickly forgotten. We must believe that no one mentioned this brother until Muhammad revived his name via supernatural revelation."I wonder do you apply the same level of scepticism when it comes to the existence of Biblical characters? For example Matthew (27:52) mentions how the tombs of not just one but many saints were open and they went out and appear to many in Jerusalem. Whatever happen to these resurrected saint? Where did they go after they appeared to many? How come nobody in history but only Matthew seems to know about them? Surely these resurrected saints would have been more famous than the Quranic Aaron?
Letitia,I forgot to mention in my earlier reply, the Hadith that mentions the Israelites use to name their children or people after names of prophets or saints also applies to Mary's name, the mother of Jesus, and not just Aaron. Because, Mary is also the name of an Israeli saint, i.e. Moses and Aaron's sister.
The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before themYes this is somewhat true, but, did those pious persons ever turn out to be sisters? Did it just 'so happen' that there were two Mary's, one the mother of Jesus, the other the daughter of Imran and sister of Aaron, the former being linked through the whole Quranic text with the latter seemingly as one and the same person? Did it just 'so happen' that Muhammad did not utter a word about his clearly confusing statements until confronted, no less by Christians? Did it just 'so happen' that the sole culprit responsible for leading Aisha into error was the Quran? – that's what gets me the most! the Quran literally led Aisha into error.I don't know what kind of crazy mental acrobatics one has to employ in order to harmonize all of this, but it sure doesn't seem like the word of God, and it sure does not reach a logical conclusion. How come God constantly leads people into error on purpose in the Quran? I thought God would turn people toward Him, not against Him. If Aisha was led into error about something as little as this, what else did the tafsirist's miss when studying the Quran? Is Sura 9:29 leading people into error? How about Sura 4:34 and Sura 4:157? What about Sura 2:106 or 3:7? How does one know which verses are decisive and which verses are not? Because a Quranic scholar tells us? What else did the Muslims miss? Can anything from the Quran potentially lead people into error? If modern historical scholarship was to be based upon the foundations of a Quranic mentality we would be living in fairytale land. Oh wait! That's right; we already do live in a dhimmified media-induced catatonic pop culture of a fairytale! Ah how lovely. Guess people (well not everyone) care more about making Lady Gaga parodies and their I pad apps than the word of God nowadays...so so sad.
BTW Nazam, I am still anxiously awaiting for your 'prepared responses' in regards to Sura 5:33 (WHY one even has to 'prepare' responses to something like this I do not understand)And also brother, there is a big difference between God speaking THROUGH something (God can most definitely speak THROUGH anything he wants as in Numbers) and some sort of animal (or insect) talking to his fellow animals in human tongue, nonetheless comprehending the world around it with perfect accuracy. A world of a difference it makes.
Hugh Watt,One of the reasons why I believe that Mary was a Levi rather than from the tribe of Judah is because she's refereed to as Elizabeth's kinswomen (Lk 1:36). Elizabeth was a daughter of Aaron (Lk 1:5)and married to Zechariah, a priest himself, and thus a Levi. Mary was related to Elizabeth and therefore probably a Levi herself and hence Jesus and John the Baptist were both cousins.William Barclay has written:"In Judaism the only qualification for priesthood was the descent. If a man was not a descendant of Aaron, nothing could make him a priest; if he was a descendant of Aaron, nothing could stop him being one. Therefore, in the eyes of the authorities John the Baptist was in fact a priest"(The Gospel of John, Vol 1, Saint Andrew Press: Edinburgh, 1975, p. 77)According to the book of Numbers (3:10) priesthood began with Aaron was only limited to the sons of Aaron. If he was a son of David or Moses, etc.. Or from the tribe or Judah or any other tribe, he automatically becomes disqualified from becoming a priest. Thus both Jesus and John in the eyes of the temple authorities may have been seen as priest who stood outside of the temple and preached against them. Hence Jesus' cleansing of the temple episode. Thus Aaron's descendants, who were the priestly caste among the Israelites, included John and Jesus. It is interesting to notice that before the Quran begins to narrate the story of Zechariah, John the Baptist, Mary and Jesus, it makes mention of the family of Imran as being one of the chosen family above all people (Surah 3:33). Mary according to the Quran was from the family of Imran, which may explain as to why Mary was called by the Jews of her time sister of Aaron and not the sister of Moses for priesthood was exclusive to the descendants of Aaron. Mary and her father might have probably also been named after the sister and father of Moses respectively.
Odo,to be fair I feel the only thing that I have not adequately answer is the Hadith about Aisha regarding this verse. But I have tried looking up the Haidth in Ibn Kathir and have not been able to find it. Here is the link to Ibn Kathir;http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=19&tid=31187I want to know first the authenticity of this story and what Ibn Kathir have said about this story. However, I think Yahya Snow in his blog has given a good response. http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/05/response-to-david-woods-argumentation.html
Pt:2 of 2.Hebrews. 6:19 - 7:28 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. 3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.4 See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! 5 And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. 6 But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8 In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. 9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.Jesus Compared to Melchizedek11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.17 For it is witnessed of him,“You are a priest forever,after the order of Melchizedek.”18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, 21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:“The Lord has swornand will not change his mind,‘You are a priest forever.’”22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office,24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
Pt:1 of 2. Nazam: I get you now. What i should've done is read your post to me from the end upwards! Your assumption that the Quran is right and anything else is wrong explains it. You saved me a lot of time by the S:3.33 ref.' So, since you know the Bible says Mary was from the tribe of Judah which of course makes Jesus from the same tribe, i need not go into all that by using Scripture. Had the Bible not said so you still would not prove your point because it's based upon your assumptions. I could go into this more fully but, hey, you would come right back to the Quran.Nazam; lets imagine you and i in the middle east just before Muhammad's career began. We both went to Bible school and knew the teachings about this topic. Scriptures are studied and accepted once understood. At what point do YOU begin to Q them? Only when Muhammad speaks! Remember now, the Quran suppose to stand as a guardian over the Bible, (ref's available if needed). Ok, so you listen to Muhammad and i ask, 'why should i?' Here comes a man who gets things muddled, fights against those who oppose him, Aisha even spots something odd! If you took the Bible for what it said, 'Mary from the tribe of Judah,' you would not have to guess about this other stuff. Take Muhammad out of the equation and; no Muhammad = no confusion!"One of the reasons why I believe that Mary was a Levi rather than from the tribe of Judah is because she's refereed to as Elizabeth's kinswomen (Lk 1:36). Elizabeth was a daughter of Aaron (Lk 1:5)and married to Zechariah, a priest himself, and thus a Levi. Mary was related to Elizabeth and therefore probably a Levi herself and hence Jesus and John the Baptist were both cousins."Moses' children were kinsmen of Aaron. Using your logic, they too qualified as priests, according to what you said above. Where does it stop? Again, you saved me a whole lot of time by your S:3.33 ref. However, i will drop this in.
Nazam saide: «I think Yahya Snow in his blog has given a good response»...delisional is a contagious decease... I was really into Nazam's arguments, butt not anymore... he lost all his creadit when saide thate he agreead with delusional muslim apologist # 1: John Snow...another point tahte many arounde habe been reapeting time and time: "descendant of X" was neber sayd by the expression "sister of X"... how difficult his this to be understood?...p.s.: what prrofs does anyone habe to say thate «that's why Mary was called by the Jews of her time sister of Aaron»... one? a single one? juste oooooone? thanks...
Fernado and Hugh,I have basically to responses which I feel satisfied with;Response (A) Mary is called sister of Aaron to mean sister of the priestly tribe of Aaron. This type of metaphorical language is also common in the Bible. For example in Genesis (14:14) Lot is called Abraham's brother even though literally they were not brothers but Lot was Abraham's nephew. Response (B) Mary is called sister of Aaron because she had a brother named Aaron. The Israelites have a tradition of naming their children with the names of famous people. Since there were already a brother and sister named Aaron and Mary, people who respected them felt it an honor to name their sons and daughters with the same names.Even if response (A) doesn't work there is still response (B). In the end David's argument, I feel, is logically non sequitur. As Christian translator of the Quran George Sale has pointed, " For it does not follow, because two persons have the same name, and have each a father and brother who bear the same names, that they must therefore necessarily be the same...It must be observed that though the Virgin Mary is called in the Koran, the sister of Aaron, yet she is nowhere called the sister of Moses."
Hello:So we have:"The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them"SISTER OF AARONThe question to Mohammed in effect was:"Mary was not the sister of Aaron of the time of MOSES because he lived a long time ago."Mohammed said it the old days they used holy people's names for children.SISTER OF AARON as a TITLEThat is just it.Jews have NEVER used that expression.Mohammed said the Jews were using it as a sort of title.He was not saying "It is ANOTHER Aaron."
Well there you have it once again Nazam, Hebrews 7, Mary was of the Judah Tribe. I have watched Yahya's presentation of 'historical evidence' as he calls it. He quoted the Gospel of Mark (need I say more?) and at the end simply said "Aaron and Mary both happen to have fathers named Imran, David withholds this important information in order to build on his conjecture" Was that supposed to be the historical evidence? His own words and writing in the video that say 'Both Mary and Aaron had fathers named Imran'? Well of course the brother and sister pair, Aaron and Mary, had the same father; the Mother of Jesus did not have a father named Imran, she was of the Judah Tribe, she was related to Elizabeth through marriage. Frankly, the first few posts in this thread refute all of this conjecture.So you have settled for the imaginary Aaron. Personally if I was Muslim I think I would opt for the imaginary practice, seems a little more logical (kinda). But that is not what I asked you about. I asked you about Surah 5, Al Maidah verse 32 and 33, specifically what do you make of the reality that this verse comes from the Talmud, and why did you use it in order to demonstrate peace, knowing full well the verse after calls for mutilation?
Minoria,You could interpret "used to name after their Prophets and pious persons" as naming their children or as giving a title to someone in lineage with that prophet. Either one is possible. Interpretation (A) Sister of Aaron is a title for Mary.Or,Interpretation (B) Sister of Aaron is the name of another Aaron as Aaron is the name of a prophet.You said, "Sister of Aaron....Jews have NEVER used that expression[as a title]."How can you be so sure when absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. It could be we just don't know off or posses any extra-Quranic evidence on the subject. However we do still find similar type of metaphorical language used in the Bible. For example in Genesis (14:14) Lot is called Abraham's brother even though literally they were not brothers but Lot was Abraham's nephew. Even if interpretation A does not work we still have the possibility of Interpretation B on the subject.In the end, it does not logically follow "because two persons have the same name, and have each a father and brother who bear the same names, that they must therefore necessarily be the same...It must be observed that though the Virgin Mary is called in the Koran, the sister of Aaron, yet she is nowhere called the sister of Moses."George Sale, The Koran, IX Edition of 1923, London, p. 38.
Odo,Unfortunately some personal family matters came up at the time which prevented me from writing a response to the Surah 5 issue but now I will do, God willing.If Hebrew 7 is correct and Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, he would automatically be excluded from becoming a priest. Because priesthood was limited to the sons of Aaron and Aaron was Yahweh's first priest(Exodus 28:1 and 9, Leviticus 1:3, Numbers 3:10).In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, we read of priests who lost their office because they could not produce their decent to Aaron (Ezra 2:61-63, Nehemiah 7:63-65). To quote William Barclay "In Judaism the only qualification for priesthood was the descent. If a man was not a descendant of Aaron, nothing could make him a priest."(The Gospel of John, Vol 1, Saint Andrew Press: Edinburgh, 1975, p. 77)You can't have it both ways, either Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, in which case he could not be priest or either Jesus was from the tribe of Levi, in which case he was entitle to being priest.
Nazam, I cannot comprehend how you are not getting this!It has already been pointed out to you that you are misusing the absence of evidence rule: "It only applies in situations where we wouldn't necessarily expect to find evidence."Naturally, in a case like this, we would expect to find some evidence of this so called tradition (or the mysterious brother).But there is none! ABSOLUTELY NONE!And no one ever claimed that there was only one person in all of history named Aaron, re reading some of your earlier posts you claim just that; that one has to presuppose there was only one person in all of history named Aaron for David's hypothesis to work. Huh?
Odo,you said, "It has already been pointed out to you that you are misusing the absence of evidence rule: "It only applies in situations where we wouldn't necessarily expect to find evidence."Naturally, in a case like this, we would expect to find some evidence of this so called tradition (or the mysterious brother)."My response to David was does he apply the same level of scepticism when it comes to the existence of Biblical characters? For example Matthew (27:52) mentions how the tombs of not just one but many saints were open and they went out and appear to many in Jerusalem. Whatever happen to these resurrected saint? Where did they go after they appeared to many? How come nobody in history but only Matthew seems to know about them? Surely these resurrected saints would have been more famous than the Quranic Aaron so you would expect to find evidence?
Nazam,Of course I apply the same level of skepticism when it comes to the Bible. But when it comes to Christianity, we have Jesus' resurrection from the dead. So when someone rises from the dead, it's clear that God is involved and further miracles aren't surprising.If it weren't for the resurrection, I would reject the story of the saints rising from the dead in a heartbeat.I already noted in earlier comments that Muslims could conceivably present evidence that outweighs the difficulty of Muhammad's apparent confusion over Mary and Miriam. So what evidence is there? Science? That's not going to work. Muhammad in the Bible? That's not going to work either.To put it differently, evidence isn't examined in a vacuum. To claim that a number of people rose from the dead and entered a city would normally be absurd, but when a clear miracle is added to the equation, things change. Similarly, when Muhammad makes dozens of apparent errors in the Qur'an, the obvious implication is that the Qur'an is a flawed book of human origin. You could potentially offer evidence that the Qur'an is divine. But that's on you. Until there's some evidence to support the Qur'an, we can only conclude that it's filled with errors.
Nazam said: "You can't have it both ways, either Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, in which case he could not be priest or either Jesus was from the tribe of Levi, in which case he was entitle to being priest."In the same comment you referred to Hebrews chapter 7, so I have to wonder did you ignore the passages in Hebrews that show Yeshua is a priest in the order of the Malkitsedeq priest-hood?The Messiah is a priest not in the order of the Levi'im, and I don't see how you can claim authority to state otherwise.
Hi Nazam...ounce againe: «what prrofs does anyone, and you, habe to say thate "that's why Mary was called by the Jews of her time sister of Aaron"... one? a single one? juste oooooone? thanks...»...withoute this all your deductions faile and fall...thanks...
Pt:1 of 2. Go to the site,"Mary, the sister of Aaron," for an understanding of where Nazam's confused views come from.Nazam said:To quote William Barclay "In Judaism the only qualification for priesthood was the descent. If a man was not a descendant of Aaron, nothing could make him a priest."(The Gospel of John, Vol 1, Saint Andrew Press: Edinburgh, 1975, p. 77)You can't have it both ways, either Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, in which case he could not be priest or either Jesus was from the tribe of Levi, in which case he was entitle to being priest. See p.82 Letter to the Hebrews.Nazam is being selective here. I will give a brief response to his points, and this IS brief. I shall give refs' for anyone who wants to tackle this issue further at the end." 3. The Usage of “Sister of Aaron”: A Biblical ConsiderationAaron(P), the brother of Moses(P) was the first in the line of Israelite priesthood. The Bible tells us that, the Jewish clerical organization was initiated by Aaron (Exodus 28:1, 40:13), just as his younger brother Moses promulgated the Jewish law. It was in fact of Aaron(P) being the founder of the Jewish priestly order and Mary being brought up by a priest and under the very shadow of the temple that her calumniators had in mind when they called her sister of Aaron."Notice the conjecture in this quote!"In such words, Mary was being reminded of her high lineage and the uncompromising moral fortitude of her progenitors. How, they said, she had fallen, and disgraced the name of her forefathers? What they intended by associating the two names in kinship was in fact to show how far more inexcusable was her alleged misconduct in view of the religious influence and moral discipline into which Mary had the privilege of being born and brought up. It required the sarcasm and malice of the Jews to hit upon that cruel jest."Oh, those Jews again!"As Elizabeth was related to Aaron(P) (Luke 1:5), she was thus related to Levi (Numbers 18:20-32, Joshua 18:14). Mary was related to Elizabeth of the tribe of Levi and in the priestly line of Aaron (Luke 1:36-40). THIS MAY SUGGEST THAT MARY ALSO BELONGED TO THE TRIBE OF LEVI! (Emphasis added by me)."According to the Mosaic Law (as related in the Bible), the priesthood in Israel was limited to the sons of Aaron (Exodus 28:1, Leviticus 1:3, Numbers 3:10). Aaron is the first priest before Yahweh (Exodus 28:29, Leviticus 8). The Aaronic blessing (Numbers 6:24-26) in use today among the Jews and Christians is named after him. In Hebrews of the New Testament, there is a comparison between the PRIESTHOOD OF AARON AND CHRIST (Hebrews 7:11)" (Emphasis added by me)."Moses initiated Aaron and his sons to worship at the altar (Exodus 28:1). The priesthood was given to Aaron in a perpetual statute (Exodus 29:9) and renewed again to Phinehas (Numbers 25:13).
Pt 2 of 2."MARY WAS A DESCENDANT OF DAVID(P) (Luke 1:32). She was related to Elizabeth, who was married to the Levite Zechariah (Luke 1:5, 36). ZECHARIAH ALSO WAS RELATED TO DAVID (Qur’an 19:2-6). That Mary was a member of Aaron?s house is very clear from the above description. As the Qur’an gives us to understand, Mary was entrusted, while she was yet a child, to the care of Zechariah (3:37), (THAT'S QURAN, NOT BILBE!)the Prophet and priest and brought up by him in the precincts of the Temple where he officiated. ZECHARIAH MIGHT HAVE PROBABLY BEEN A PATERNAL UNCLE OF MARY. Moreover,Mary and Zechariah?s wife Elizabeth were cousins (Luke 1:36), which could be the reason why the priest had consented to act as her guardian.Though we know very little regarding the parentage of Mary, yet the fact that she was, according to the only TRADITION about her, devoted to the Temple from 3 to 12 years of age, SHOWS CLEARLY(!) that she belonged to the priestly class. This MAY BE the VALID REASON that she is CALLED BY THE JEWS OF HER TIME, as the sister of Aaron(P) and not the sister of Moses(P), for priesthood as we have shown, was an exclusive prerogative of the descendants of Aaron(P)."(Emphasis added. I couldn't help myself)."Check this site: The Letters to the Hebrews. William Barclay.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RI59khY5YRoC&lpg=PA97&ots=ZYju1s_pzK&dq=William%20Barclay%20on%20Jesus'%20Priesthood&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false."But Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. This shows that the whole system was superseded. Something greater than the law had come. P.84."We now sum up briefly the ideas in the mind of the writer to the Hebrews when he thinks of Jesus in terms of the high priest after the order of Melchizedek. To make it clearer, we set out only the important and outstanding ideas without the minor points of detail.1) Jesus is the high priest, whose priesthood depends not on ant genealogy but on himself alone.2) Jesus is the high priest who lives forever.3) Jesus is the high priest who himself is sinless and never needs to offer any sacrifice for his own sin.4) Jesus is the high priest who, in the offering of himself, made the perfect sacrifice which once and for all opened the way to God. No more sacrifice need be made." P.85.All this, and i've only touched on a few Barclay quotes."You can't have it both ways, either Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, in which case he could not be priest or either Jesus was from the tribe of Levi, in which case he was entitle to being priest."
Hi Nazam, I will be happy to see a response from you concerning Sura al Maidah (i think)As for Our Lord and Savior, He was definitely the highest priest of all, and he was definitely a descendant of Judah.Heb 5:4-6And one does not presume to take this honor, but takes it only when called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming a high priest, but was appointed by the one who said to him, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"; as he says also in another place, "You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek."Genesis 14:17-20After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" And Abram gave him one tenth of everything.Psalm 110:4The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."Heb 7:6-17But this man, who does not belong to their ancestry, collected tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had received the promises. It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. In the one case, tithes are received by those who are mortal; in the other, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. Now if perfection had been attainable through the levitical priesthood-- for the people received the law under this priesthood-- what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the order of Melchizedek, rather than one according to the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. Now the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. It is even more obvious when another priest arises, resembling Melchizedek, one who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent, but through the power of an indestructible life.For it is attested of him, "You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek."Psalm 2He who sits in the heavens laughs!
Hi David,basically from what I've understood from your response is that you are arguing for inerrancy of the Bible because of Jesus' resurrection. In other words, you believe in thestory of the saints rising from the dead because of Jesus' own resurrection. But, the conclusion does not follow from the premise as many Christians believe in Jesus' resurrection and yet still believe that the Bible has factual contradictions and errors in it.Furthermore, just because one person rose from the dead it does not follow that these other saints rose from the dead. In fact you would expect their to be better evidence for the resurrection of these saints (Mt 27:53) than Jesus' resurrection, as this was more of a public event and would be in public knowledge. Because we are not just speaking of one person rising from the dead from amongst them but many saints. NT Wright who believes in Jesus resurrection but does not believe in this story as being historical about the saints rising from the dead and appearing to many in Jerusalem.
Another point that I should have added to my earlier reply, that daughter of Imran doesn't necessarily mean Mary's father's name was Imran. It could mean that she was a descendant of Imran in the same as Elizabeth is called the daughter of Aaron (Lk 1:5).
Odo,I'm suffering from bit of a temperature so I'm not going to able to write my reply to Surah 5 anytime soon. But I will try to do it as soon as I've recovered.
Post a Comment