QM Forum
The Quran => General Discussions => Topic started by: Deliverance on May 09, 2014, 11:17:24 PM
-
I want to ask what does the arabic term "Nasar" mean and why is it used for christians.Is it because of the town of Nazareth where he lived,although some Historians claim that Jesus did not come from there.?
salam aleikoum
-
Allah referred Chritians as Nasara I Quran. He used Nasara and Yahud to describe Christians & Jews. The meaning if Nasara is helper.
-
Peace Deliverance.
In Qoran, GOD uses the word "Ansar" when He mentions Jesus and his disciples.
"Jesus said: Who is " ansaria" to GOD? The disciples said: We are "ansar" Allah"...
Could the two words " ansar" and "Nasara" have a common meaning?
GOD bless you.
Peace.
-
Bro good logic Ansar means Helpers The Madina Muslims who invited & welcome the Muslim Mahajireen are Ansars while the Nasara are the Christians ALLAH called them as Nasara in Quran
-
Hello,
The Nazarenes / Nashara were known by this name from the earliest times since Nabi Isa as the group of Jews who recognised Isa as the Messiah. Throughout their history, those who were known as Christians (Those centred in Rome who believed Isa as the Messiah) were NEVER known as Nazarenes, in fact Nazarenes and Christians were basically enemies, as Rome believed they had superseded the Nazarenes. (replacement theology)
The Nazarenes and Jews, despite being ethnically the same, became enemies as well, as the Nazarenes refused to support the reclaiming of Jerusalem (in 135AD). The Nazarenes held to the Injil Matthew and many settled in Arabia, the most famous being Waraqa Bin Nauffel who officiated the Prophets wedding.
The Qur'an doesn't necessarily refer to mainstream Christianity at all when it refers to Nashara, and that the Nasrani that the Quran addresses do not follow the catholic belief. It is clear that wesrtern (catholic) Christianity as is known today was basically not present in Arabia at the time of the Prophet. In refering to Nashara, the Qur'an most likely refers to a local Arabian sect context of the Nazarenes or Eastern Christians who were presented a corrected belief from the Qur'an.
Zack
-
Peace Sardar.
Thank you.
So are " Nasara" Jesus helpers?
GOD bless you.
Peace.
-
Hello,
The Nazarenes / Nashara were known by this name from the earliest times since Nabi Isa as the group of Jews who recognised Isa as the Messiah. Throughout their history, those who were known as Christians (Those centred in Rome who believed Isa as the Messiah) were NEVER known as Nazarenes, in fact Nazarenes and Christians were basically enemies, as Rome believed they had superseded the Nazarenes. (replacement theology)
The Nazarenes and Jews, despite being ethnically the same, became enemies as well, as the Nazarenes refused to support the reclaiming of Jerusalem (in 135AD). The Nazarenes held to the Injil Matthew and many settled in Arabia, the most famous being Waraqa Bin Nauffel who officiated the Prophets wedding.
The Qur'an doesn't necessarily refer to mainstream Christianity at all when it refers to Nashara, and that the Nasrani that the Quran addresses do not follow the catholic belief. It is clear that wesrtern (catholic) Christianity as is known today was basically not present in Arabia at the time of the Prophet. In refering to Nashara, the Qur'an most likely refers to a local Arabian sect context of the Nazarenes or Eastern Christians who were presented a corrected belief from the Qur'an.
Zack
Salam Zack,
The Group that were waiting for a Messia which you quoted at the beginnig are you you referring to Essene.They lived Long before Jesus birth and he(Jesus) lerned from them the Taurat and they gave him shelter.They call them self "Keeper of the Bond" which in hebraeic is "Nozrei ha brit"
-
[/quote]
Salam Zack,
The Group that were waiting for a Messia which you quoted at the beginnig are you you referring to Essene.They lived Long before Jesus birth and he(Jesus) lerned from them the Taurat and they gave him shelter.They call them self "Keeper of the Bond" which in hebraeic is "Nozrei ha brit"
[/quote]
Certainly the Nazarenes / Nashara could be closely connected to the Essenes, however they certainly were not the same thing. They are a number of differences. However potentially Nashara were a segment of the Essenes.
Either way, of all the streams of believers who recognized Isa as the Messiah, the Nazarenes are the closest culturally and theologically to the Prophet Muhammad and his followers. This makes sense, as it is the Nazarenes who were the first followers of Isa in Jerusalem, whom the Quran calls "muslims".
-
I want to pay your Attention to the word Essene it looks like if Isa/Esa/Essa and Essene have the same root.
http://www.paganizingfaithofyeshua.freeservers.com/were_the_essenes_the_original_zaxarenes_and_the_first_christi.htm
-
Allah referred Chritians as Nasara I Quran. He used Nasara and Yahud to describe Christians & Jews. The meaning if Nasara is helper.
To be clearly the Term used in the Quran "Nasara" and "Yahoud" which seemed to represent the Jews and Christians,is explained by sura 9:30
"The Jews call Uzayr a son of Allah and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths; (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (30)"
Both groups violated against the teachings of their Books/Messengers by glorifying others beside God and we see that these sects have corrupted the message of Moses and Jesus peace be upon them and that they are doing the same like the idolaters of the past did and thus they get Gods angry.
Jesus was sent to Bani Israel 2:253 the term for the sect "Yahoud" isn't used here knowing by the Lord that they will recognize him and will follow his teaching .
Later after Jesus demise another sect arosed which was corrupted by Paul and other by preaching Jesus to be God etc. and this is the sect "Nasara"
regards
-
The situation in Arabia that is addressed by the Quran is most likely not as straight forward as in your last E Mail.
a) Firstly the fact is, despite 9.30, that if the Nashara were the Nazarenes, they were of Hebrew origin and "the guardians of pure monotheism / Tauhid", in contrast to Greek influenced Gentile Christianity. The problem is that ben elohim (son of God) was a perfectly acceptable term in their language as far as Tauhid is concerned, and was used by the Messengers of God all the way back to Nabi Musa. It was purely a figure of speech. This is rarely understood by Muslims. "Hebrew figures of speech make great use of sonship terminology, e.g., sons of Babylon, sons of the kingdom, sons of the evil one, sons of thunder, sons of peace, sons of the light, sons of darkness, sons of heaven, and sons of the resurrection. Obviously, such titles neither imply biological offspring, nor suggest that a woman could literally be impregnated by thunder or light."
b) The problem occurs when the Nazarenes / Nashara use that phrase in Arabia. "Obviously, literal translation of ben elohim (son of God) was even more vulnerable to evolve into heresy in Arabia not only because of the more restrictive use of terms like ibn and walad, but also because of how easily such titles were confused by pagan idolaters to refer to that which the Qur’a¯n condemns unequivocally." . This is rarely appreciated within Islam. Son of God is a linguistic problem between Hebrew and Arabic.
c) As mentioned previously, Arabia was known for heresies prior to Muhammad. Possibly because of the linguistic issue, also surely that there was no Torah / Injil in their language.... which the Quran refers to people trying to sell fragments. It was a complex problem....
-
"...The problem is that ben elohim (son of God) was a perfectly acceptable term in their language as far as Tauhid is concerned, and was used by the Messengers of God all the way back to Nabi Musa. It was purely a figure of speech. This is rarely understood by Muslims..."
I am Aware of such speech using Terms like Father in Heaven,son of god etc. but the group"Yahoud" named a Person to be son of god as do the "Nasara" named Isa son of god.There is a passage when the Jesus will be questioned about it ,if he preaches to be the son of god and maryam his mother to be mothers god,he will deniy to have done that.
This Group the "Nasara" have a different view of the message which was delivered by Jesus thus it is a heretic sect of Bani Israel to whom Jesus was sent.
-
I am Aware of such speech using Terms like Father in Heaven,son of god etc. but the group"Yahoud" named a Person to be son of god as do the "Nasara" named Isa son of god.There is a passage when the Jesus will be questioned about it ,if he preaches to be the son of god and maryam his mother to be mothers god,he will deniy to have done that.
This Group the "Nasara" have a different view of the message which was delivered by Jesus thus it is a heretic sect of Bani Israel to whom Jesus was sent.
Yes, according to the Injil, Isa was referred to as the son of God in HEBREW. (ben elohim). So was Adam, so was Moses and so was Daud... they were all called son of God. In Hebrew, when someone was son of God, it is interpreted as something like the Caliphate of God, Gods appointed one. In other languages, the phrase can't be translated that way, and is quickly distorted.
Re Nashara, it is clear that a segment were faithful to the original Nashara teaching of Isa's followers in the Quran, and then others who had deviated.
-
"Ben Elohim"is clearly means son of God which is clearly against Tawheed. Is there is no word for messenger/ prophet in Hebrow the Jewish language ? Use of word messenger or prophet instead of Son would have been clear for the people of that time instead of telling that son means messenger. The Jews & Christians use word Father for God which is confusing & has lead to belief in Two-in-one. Saint Paul has openly declared Three-in-One.
-
"Ben Elohim"is clearly means son of God which is clearly against Tawheed. Is there is no word for messenger/ prophet in Hebrow the Jewish language ?
OK, I understand your concern. I will leave this here, and if Br. Joseph would like to comment on this discussion, he can provide input. All I am saying is that as far as I can see it is undeniable that it is a part of the Tauhid Hebrew language, understood by the Messengers of God in the Torah as something totally different to Arabia later.
-
You mean to say that Ben Elohim is Hebrew Tauhid language is what messengers understood is Oneness of God. Are you telling that Ben Elohim means not son of God? Or what ? Can you elaborate? Thanks.
-
All the Prophets conveyed the message of tauhid but some must have twisted the words possibly or and thus different sects had formed a polytheistic Religion from a monotheistic origin.But even today there are still Groups who belive in the oness of God and they can't be called "Yahoud" or "Nasarah" which is a term for polytheistic belief.
They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (to salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham is True, and he joined not gods with Allah." (135) Say ye: "We believe, in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord we make no difference between one and another of them and we bow to Allah (in Islam)." (136)
-
While talking of Yahud and Nasara Allah does not say that they are Polytheists I think. I have to check the relevant Ayaah.
-
You mean to say that Ben Elohim is Hebrew Tauhid language is what messengers understood is Oneness of God. Are you telling that Ben Elohim means not son of God? Or what ? Can you elaborate? Thanks.
What I am saying is from the evidence, for the Hebrew Prophets / Messengers (Musa, Daud, Isa) the phrase "son of God" was a figure of speech that was acceptable to them that basically meant "Gods appointed". This was over 500 years before it meant something different for Christians.
In fact, the same can be said of "Father". Jews could not say the name of God (Yahweh) out of fear of defaming His name. The alternative / figure of speech for Isa that described Gods love for mankind was Father, so that is what was used by him. Never did any thought of understanding of trinity etc. come to the mind of the first followers of Isa when Father was used.
What I am saying is that over time use of these words changed their meanings when going to Arabic / Greek and other languages. (because of the more restrictive use of terms like ibn and walad in Arabic).
-
Here are some Ayats that show that the allmighty is distinguishing between "Bani Israeel" and those who did not belive in one God.My question is why did God not mention that he sent Jesus to "Yahoud" instead he uses the term "Bani Israeel"?
(48) And will make him a messenger unto the Children of Israel, (saying): Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave. And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if ye are to be believers. (49) And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me. (50)
They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord, and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah―Allah will forbid him the Garden and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (72) They disbelieve who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (73)
When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead by My permission; and how I restrained the Children of Israel from (harming) thee when thou camest unto them with clear proofs, and those of them who disbelieved exclaimed: This is naught else than evident magic; (110)
And who are the disbeliever and blasphemers among "Bani Israeel" other than "Yahoud" and "Nasara".
regards
-
My question is why did God not mention that he sent Jesus to "Yahoud" instead he uses the term "Bani Israeel"?
And who are the disbeliever and blasphemers among "Bani Israeel" other than "Yahoud" and "Nasara".
regards
Yes, that is correct... There were many disbelievers among Jews and Israel both during the time of Isa, and the time of Muhammad. Technically Jews were only a subset of Bani Israel. The tribes of Israel had been scattered for many centuries before the time of Isa.
The followers of Isa went into the East to "The lost scattered tribes of Israel," which a part of them became the Church of the East.
The Nazarenes / Nashara were only known as the Hebrew speaking followers of Isa. They were enemies of the Jews, because the Jews did not recognise Isa as the Almasih. The Nazarenes were also the enemies of Christians, as Christians believed they had replaced them as Gods people. Therefore they were without a homeland, many finding a homeland in Arabia.
Wasalam
Zack
-
Dear All,
As-salam alaykum
Please see below my humble perspectives on some related topics.
[1] Who are the 'Al-Nasara'?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1255
[2] 'My Father' in the Christian Bible
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=187.0
Regards,
Joseph
-
Dear All,
As-salam alaykum
Please see below my humble perspectives on some related topics.
[1] Who are the 'Al-Nasara'?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1255
[2] 'My Father' in the Christian Bible
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=187.0
Regards,
Joseph
Thank you Br. Jospeh.
A couple of comments on the attachments referred to...
- Firstly "Father". I will agree with most of the article, however I don't quite understand the references to "Father" in the New Testament limited to the 3 passages. These are the 3 where the Aramaic word Abba ( www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=abba&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1) is included, as well as the Greek word for Father pätār (www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3962) . The Greek word for Father as a metaphor for God is used over 100 times, such as "Father in heaven" etc.
Compared to the other passages where this is variants in manuscripts and obviously a deliberate mistranslation of a particular word / words to support a political / theological agenda... "Father" is very much imbedded into the text throughout scripture, and as you say is unlikely to have been a later addition. With this, as I was saying... Father as a metaphor for God by Nabi Isa and is a metaphor that was understood for Gods loving nature. The change of meaning later in Christianity and at the time of Muhammad is a whole different matter.
Wasalam
Zack
-
Dear All,
As-salam alaykum
Please see below my humble perspectives on some related topics.
[1] Who are the 'Al-Nasara'?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1255
[2] 'My Father' in the Christian Bible
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=187.0
Regards,
Joseph
Continuing to my post above, In regards to the other link by Br. Joseph concerning the Nasara, he referred to possibility to them being Nazarenes and that being open to debate. I personally feel slightly stronger that a Nazarene/Nasara presence even in the region of Mecca was a reality. The reality is that the Nazarenes were known as the original followers of Isa, who are referred to as muslims in the Qur'an. The question is, is the Quran a continuation and is coherent of the teachings of Isa and his followers? If it is not, then you start going down a path that Gods messengers and His Books contradict and oppose one another, which creates a big mess. From studies, it would seem to be there was a segment of "This original" that the Prophet Muhammad knew of.
Wasalam
Zack
-
Dear Zack,
You wrote"...The reality is that the Nazarenes were known as the original followers of Isa, who are referred to as muslims in the Qur'an..."
Could you please quote the passage where Nasara are said to be muslims cause yet i found only bani Israeel to be titled as muslims.Sura 10:90"We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)." (90) "
-
Dear All,
As-salam alaykum
Please see below my humble perspectives on some related topics.
[1] Who are the 'Al-Nasara'?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1255
[2] 'My Father' in the Christian Bible
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=187.0
Regards,
Joseph
Thank you Br. Jospeh.
A couple of comments on the attachments referred to...
- Firstly "Father". I will agree with most of the article, however I don't quite understand the references to "Father" in the New Testament limited to the 3 passages. These are the 3 where the Aramaic word Abba ( www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=abba&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1) is included, as well as the Greek word for Father pätār (www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3962) . The Greek word for Father as a metaphor for God is used over 100 times, such as "Father in heaven" etc.
Compared to the other passages where this is variants in manuscripts and obviously a deliberate mistranslation of a particular word / words to support a political / theological agenda... "Father" is very much imbedded into the text throughout scripture, and as you say is unlikely to have been a later addition. With this, as I was saying... Father as a metaphor for God by Nabi Isa and is a metaphor that was understood for Gods loving nature. The change of meaning later in Christianity and at the time of Muhammad is a whole different matter.
Wasalam
Zack
The use of "Abba" is against the law of Musa(ten commandments) and Jesus would never ever deal against the previous law.If you say father than logically there must be a Mother and a child.
Sura 5"And behold! Allah will say "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, `worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah"? He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. (116) "
In my opinion Jesus never used this Phrase rather it is used in ancient myth which the disbelieving yahoud were preaching and the nasara took it over to write it after the ministry in a book.I identify them with the People who were given the Book partly Sura 4:51"Hast thou not turned thy thought to those who were given a portion of the Book? They believe in sorcery and Evil and say to the Unbelievers that they are better guided in the (right) way than the Believers! (51)"
Kind regards
-
[/quote]
The use of "Abba" is against the law of Musa(ten commandments) and Jesus would never ever deal against the previous law.If you say father than logically there must be a Mother and a child.
Kind regards
[/quote]
In regards to your point above there are 2 responses:
- I quote Br Joseph in his link on this topic I find no proof that this was a later 'insertion' into the NT text as to my knowledge, the old manuscripts retain the word 'Abba' followed by a Greek transliteration (Pater - Father) which informs the readership what it means.
- And secondly, what is a foundational qualifier to this topic that I stated at the beginning: Re the above, "Hebrew figures of speech make great use of sonship terminology, e.g., sons of Babylon, sons of the kingdom, sons of the evil one, sons of thunder, sons of peace, sons of the light, sons of darkness, sons of heaven, and sons of the resurrection. Obviously, such titles neither imply biological offspring, nor suggest that a woman could literally be impregnated by thunder or light." The problem occurs when the Nazarenes / Nashara use that phrase in Arabia. "Obviously, literal translation of ben elohim (son of God) was even more vulnerable to evolve into heresy in Arabia not only because of the more restrictive use of terms like ibn and walad, but also because of how easily such titles were confused by pagan idolaters to refer to that which the Qur’a¯n condemns unequivocally."
I understand this is a very foreign concept in referring to God, however it is simply a linguistic issue where "father" doesn't mean "father" when transliterated, the same as islam doesn't mean Islam when transliterated. I belief Br. Joseph has stated his position, as well as I. Hopefully it is clear now.
Wasalam
Zack
-
Dear Zack,
As-salam alaykum
These are the 3 where the Aramaic word Abba ( www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=abba&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1) is included, as well as the Greek word for Father pätār (www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3962) ."
Indeed that is correct and what I implied in my response to the reader's question underscoring more importantly, that such a phrase was not meant in the 'biological father sense'
"It appears from the NT that Prophet Jesus referred to His creator as 'father' but probably not in the human biological father sense, but most likely in the sense of his expressive closeness with God." [1]
The Greek word for Father as a metaphor for God is used over 100 times, such as "Father in heaven" etc.
Compared to the other passages where this is variants in manuscripts and obviously a deliberate mistranslation of a particular word / words to support a political / theological agenda... "Father" is very much imbedded into the text throughout scripture, and as you say is unlikely to have been a later addition. With this, as I was saying... Father as a metaphor for God by Nabi Isa and is a metaphor that was understood for Gods loving nature. The change of meaning later in Christianity and at the time of Muhammad is a whole different matter.
I do not disagree with this as my humble response above implies.
I personally feel slightly stronger that a Nazarene/Nasara presence even in the region of Mecca was a reality. The reality is that the Nazarenes were known as the original followers of Isa, who are referred to as muslims in the Qur'an. The question is, is the Quran a continuation and is coherent of the teachings of Isa and his followers? If it is not, then you start going down a path that Gods messengers and His Books contradict and oppose one another, which creates a big mess. From studies, it would seem to be there was a segment of "This original" that the Prophet Muhammad knew of.
This is a strong possibility and by respectfully sharing that this being open to debate did not imply otherwise. There certainly was a segment of the Christians that were on the clear path. The Quran confirms this as I shared in my post [2] below and shared above. The origin of these may indeed be from those you kindly infer. However, one contention is that the word ‘Nasara’ did not exclusively apply to a particular sect of the Christians but was a broad term used in Arabic terminology.
Please see excerpt below.
"Therefore, there were (and still are) those Christians that have wayward beliefs (9:30) and those that have correct beliefs (5:82-83). Both groups were still known as ‘nasara’ and it is arguably the righteous, chaste ‘nasara’ that find favour with the Lord. Their food is lawful for believers as are their folk for marriage (5:5)."
I understand this is a very foreign concept in referring to God, however it is simply a linguistic issue where "father" doesn't mean "father" when transliterated, the same as islam doesn't mean Islam when transliterated. I belief Br. Joseph has stated his position, as well as I. Hopefully it is clear now.
I respectfully concur.
I hope that clarifies my position further, God willing
Joseph
REFERENCES:
[1] 'My Father' in the Christian Bible
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=187.0
[2] Who are the 'Al-Nasara'?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1255
-
I understand this is a very foreign concept in referring to God, however it is simply a linguistic issue where "father" doesn't mean "father" when transliterated, the same as islam doesn't mean Islam when transliterated. I belief Br. Joseph has stated his position, as well as I. Hopefully it is clear now.
Thank you Zack and Joseph for your participation abou this subject, i understand that there was use of parables particularly in the use of Gods Name in Hebrew,as far as i know it wasn't allowed(or the Name wasn't known?) only fragments were given YHW,so this was the reason for using sometimes "ABBa" Father do describe God.
The Problem to use Parables came if you only have part of the original Scripture and use other Phrases to invent a personification of God,which was obviously done by some to make Jesus to be son of God.Sura 4:51"Hast thou not turned thy thought to those who were given a portion of the Book? They believe in sorcery and Evil and say to the Unbelievers that they are better guided in the (right) way than the Believers! (51)"
-
I ask myself if the table mockering over the cross of Jesus I.N.R.I is expressing the view of the Romans about Jesus to be an Nazara.
Isn't it translated as Jesus the Nazarene King of the Jews.
-
I ask myself if the table mockering over the cross of Jesus I.N.R.I is expressing the view of the Romans about Jesus to be an Nazara.
Isn't it translated as Jesus the Nazarene King of the Jews.
No, it is just "Jesus, King of the Jews" in Matthew, Mark and Luke...
-
I ask myself if the table mockering over the cross of Jesus I.N.R.I is expressing the view of the Romans about Jesus to be an Nazara.
Isn't it translated as Jesus the Nazarene King of the Jews.
No, it is just "Jesus, King of the Jews" in Matthew, Mark and Luke...
Dear Deliverance, Zack and all.
As-salam alaykum.
I would like to second brother Zack's input that the reference in the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke (23:38) do not contain the prefix 'Jesus of Nazareth', although I do understand that the statement is slightly different in all three Gospels underscoring a consistent theme.
Matthew (27:37) - This is Jesus the *King of the Jews
Mark (15:26) - The King of the Jews
Luke 23:38 - This is the King of the Jews
(* basileus - leader of the people, commander, prince, king, lord of the land)
However, it is John's Gospel which is where one finds the prefix. The acronym allegedly represents what was written by Pontius Pilate on the cross (John Chapter 19:19) - 'Jesus of Nazareth The King of the Jews' and even though this was verbally opposed by the chief priests, Pilate retained what he had written (John 19:21) although I recall it to be written in three different languages. (Greek reads: ΙΝΒΙ).
From what I understand from Latin is that the 'I' reads the English 'J' and similarly 'V' is used instead of the U. Therefore INRI would read 'Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm' which would translate as "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." as in John 19:19.
'Nazoraios’ was apparently a name given to the 'Christians' by the Jews.
Acts 24:5 KJV
"For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes"
It is interesting to note however, that many Muslims often do not trust four similar separate testimonies (or 3 Synoptic Gospels which excludes John) of prophet Jesus's teachings and life accounts, written arguably within some decades of the end of prophet Jesus's ministry on the assertions that there are 'differences' (after all why wouldn't there be? they are different testimonies, not photocopies), that there are irreconcilable anomalies and the testimonies are corrupted.
However, in the same stroke, they show absolutely no scruples to accept a secondary Islamic corpus compiled on the basis of largely 'single testimonies' (ahad transmission) (not written by any companions of the prophet), canonised many centuries after the death of the prophet at the behest of fallible rulers and compilers. It implies to me that there is a subconscious assumption in the minds of many Muslims that the early 'followers' were more noble and committed to follow a messenger of God (Prophet Muhammad) than the early followers of Christ. That the early followers of Christ could make serious mistakes in transmission from which the early followers of prophet Muhammad would be exempt. I find this an unwarranted intimation.
If separate testimonies within decades of prophet Jesus's ministry are not to be trusted on the grounds that there are 'differences' (as many Muslims claim), then what should be said about single testimonies (at times arguably even more contradictory), canonised centuries after the death of prophet Muhammad, with no comparable testimonies as in the case of the Gospels?
It is sadly, often a case of double standards.
Regards,
Joseph
-
Hello all,
Oh yes... I left out John. Just adding to Br. Joseph which I agree with, from a post yesterday in the "Bible category" is relevant here...There is only one Injil. Injil (Gospel) means "Good News", and so "Jesus was given the INjil" is literally translated "Jesus was given the Good News." What you refer to as 4 Injil's, are actually 4 inspired writings / testimonies by those in the era of Nabi Isa of the one Injil. It is generally understood there were 4 different audiences. For example, the record of Matthew is more written for the audience following the Torah, Hebrews...and in fact deals with issues relating to living under the Torah / Sharia.
Adding further, a scholar by the name of James Dunn, who is recognized as one of the premier theologians for Christians, however is controversial because he actually reads the Bible with an interpretation that is somewhat more in sync with the Quran / Hebrew mindset. Anyway one of his key points is not to have an understanding of the written Injil (N.T.) as having an original book revealed shortly (ie. 3 years) after Isa, and everyone is looking for the original. That never happened!
He explains that our mistake is thinking in a "printing press / book" mindset for the Holy Books. On the contrary, it was an amazing oral society (as was Arabia with the Prophet Muhammad). Stories and recitations were memorised and compared. The Jews trusted this system for a 1000 years! Later, these memorised stories were transcribed and cross-checked with witnesses etc. and God enabled these witnesses to write the gospels that there is today.
This mindset will help Muslims to move away from the idea of looking for "The Lost Injil". That is a 20th century mindset, as if I misplaced a book somewhere and can't locate it. (-: I hope this helps....
-
Dear Deliverance,
Your following post has been moved to a separate thread as a new topic.
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1263
Online Deliverance
Full Member
***
Posts: 152
View Profile Email Personal Message (Online)
Discussions about the term 'Yahoud'
« on: Today at 09:22:31 AM »
Thanks for making my Picture about Nasara clearer.
Now i am about to know about the term"Yahoud" sometimes it is written without "YA " and is been shown as "HAdou" in sura 2:62 for example "إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَٱلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ "
Does "Hadu" come from the Prophet HUd or is it derived from Thunder (sons of Thunder?)