Where in the Quran does it tell you who Yeshua's father was?

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Alias3000, Jul 8, 2013.

  1. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181
    Stupid Christians think Mary got impregnated by GOD himself. so do the dumb Mormons.

    but what do the wacky Muslims think?
    • Hot Thread Hot Thread x 2
    test
  2. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    there's an entire chapter (surah) on mary, called surah maryam (chapter 19, verse 16 onwards)

    so from that we know for a fact that god himself didn't beget a son, how can a god beget a son, think about it.

    surah 66:12 states that "Jesus was born when the spirit of God breathed upon Mary, whose body was chaste".

    she is the only woman mentioned by name in the qur'an, and was chosen as the most righteous of women.

    if you want to read more about us "wacky" muslims believe, read - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_in_Islam

    :numaan:
    test
  3. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    Props to Alias for not being one of those nuts who asks a question in a thread title and then just pastes a pre-selected answer in the body of the thread that he got from a book or website.

    Not answering for Muslims, sure Nu got it covered. But I don't believe the translation in the King James Version of the Bible is accurate when it says Mary was a "virgin," a more accurate translation would be a "young woman," what that means is up for interpretation I suppose. The passage in context, I don't think it rules out Mary being a vrigin, the way it reads. But my personal opinion is that Jesus had a human father and mother.
    test
  4. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    wait for him to respond before commending him lol.

    fair observation, but that would remove the miraculous birth of jesus all together, no?

    but then again you did claim it to be your personal opinion which you're entitled to.

    i've heard the name yeshua bin joseph floating around here and there, so from that - joseph was the father?

    :numaan:
    test
  5. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    Yes, it would remove the miraculous birth, but only because I know that births occur through sexual reproduction all the time. I'm not even coming at it from the angle which says that miracles don't occur; whether they do or not is irrelevant. I find it easy to believe that Jesus was born just like any of us, and mostly think that the miraculous birth would be totally unnecessary -- unless there's an extremely compelling reason why he needed a miracle to occur for his existance to happen.
    test
  6. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    fair enough, but then are you pointing towards the fact that mary had sexual relations?

    wouldn't that go against everything mary herself is believed to have said? being chaste, etc.

    it's very difficult for us to believe in miracles since they all magically just happened years before we existed.

    modern day miracles for me would mostly be related to medical marvels, i don't know, it's a hard concept to grasp.

    :numaan:
    test
  7. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181
    Josepeh was Yeshua's father.

    Nu'maan your Quranic verses don't explain clearly who Yeshua's father was. sorry.
    test
  8. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Kjv says
    Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

    but lets look at the greek
    the words in the verse are
    Ou ginōskō-
    Meaning:
    1) to learn to know, come to know, geta knowledge of perceive, feel a) to become known 2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of a) to understand b) to know 3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a mananda woman 4) to become acquainted with, to know
    test
  9. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    you're right.

    it doesn't really tackle the issue of who his father is but it does state that god does not beget sons/daughters.

    it always speaks and refers to jesus as the son of mary, it doesn't really mention a father figure name. and why should it?

    adam had no father or mother, why can't jesus have no father? but i have heard yeshua bin joseph before, will read more.

    :numaan:
    test
  10. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
    test
  11. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    This is the same chapter where God favors Mary after the fact that she'd been engaged to Joseph. She hasn't yet had sexual relations with Joseph at that point. Joseph is the parent with lineage from David, not Mary. Why do they point out that she's engaged to Joseph and then immediately go into this business about Mary conceiving a son who she will name Jesus and he will be the son of David?

    The part of the KJV I was talking about being incorrect in translation was the actual prophecy itself in Isaiah of the Old Testament.
    test
  12. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    They both are lineage of david.
    matt 1 isjosephs luke 3 is marys

    it was customary to give the fathers lineage.
    even though mary was the biological parent.
    but thats why both were presented.
    test
  13. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but neither are Mary's.
    test
  14. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Ur not bursting anything. ive looked into this before
    that is the scholarly consensus

    Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23

    Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side?) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

    There are differences of opinion with two main options being offered. The first is that one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

    "The second thing is that this genealogy differs in significant ways from the genealogy in Matthew. Why? Most Bible scholars believe that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary (who was also of the royal Davidic line), while Matthew traces the family of Joseph. Thus by both His mother and His earthly father, Jesus had a right to the throne of Israel."

    "Luke paused from his narrative to give Christ’s genealogy. While Matthew traced Christ’s lineage through Joseph, his legal father (see Matt. 1:1–17), Luke traced it through Mary, beginning with Mary’s father, Heli. (Men in ancient times often regarded their sons-in-law as their own sons.) The lineages of Mary and Joseph converge at King David (compare 3:31 with Matt. 1:6).

    "Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph—here His real, there His reputed line—explain the statement about Joseph, that he was “the son of Heli,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ru 1:11, 12), and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported."

    Some critics may not accept this explanation and it is not without its problems.

    "The theory that Luke really gives us the family tree of Mary rather than of Joseph is improbable. The theory with least difficulties is that Matthew gives the descendants of David down the royal line (i.e. who was heir to the throne at any given time), but Luke gives the particular line to which Joseph belonged.

    The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy might be of Mary and the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.

    I find it difficult to accept that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies. They must have understood what the historical/cultural context was and had no problem with it. Even though we cannot ascertain at this time a precise explanation does not mean one isn't forthcoming. After all, archaeological discovers clear up Bible "difficulties" on a regular basis. But, back to our discussion.

    Notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

    Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

    LUKE - Adam, the father of Seth, the father of Enosh, the father of Cainan, the father of Mahaleleel, the father of Jared, the father of Enoch, the father of Methuselah, the father of Lamech, the father of Noah, the father of Shem, the father of Arphaxad, the father of Cainan, the father of Shelah, the father of Heber, the father of Peleg, the father of Reu, the father of Serug, the father of Nahor, the father of Terah, the

    MATTHEW - Abraham, the father of Isaac, the father of Jacob, the father of Judah, the father of Perez, the father of Hezron, the father of Ram, the father of Admin, the father of Amminadab, the father of Nahshon, the father of Salmon, the father of Boaz, the father of Obed, the father of Jesse --
    test
  15. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    The genealogy in Luke is quite explicit that it is Joseph's, not Mary's. People can concoct stories all they want, but the text is clear.
    test
  16. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Cultural context is not concoction.

    and its not as explict as you suppose

    the verse says
    And Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

    which the majority of texts have rendered it.

    and then goes on to say son of heli or eli which was not josephs but is MARYs father.

    so why did the writer do that? Cultural context.
    That cant be disputed.
    test
  17. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    correct me if i'm wrong, but i take it you're talking to someone i have on ignore?

    because i couldn't find the relevance to what i had posted.

    :numaan:
    test
  18. TERRA WRISTS

    TERRA WRISTS Global Faction

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    102
    Jews say that Mary was engaged to Joseph when she got pregnant with Jesus pbuh, ofcourse they would - they want to disrepute anything to do with Jesus pbuh.

    Mary is known as the most virtuous woman who ever lived - it says so in the Quran.

    When Gabriel informed her that she will become pregnant, she returned with "How can I be with child when no man hath touched me?"

    And gabriel told her "When Allah decrees a thing, he says 'BE' and it manifests."

    I find it dead odd that people will wonder how someone can be bron with no male seed - I ask, how was the universe created? Was it "seeded" ??? no.

    Kun, faya kun - Be, and it manifests.

    But you know whats really odd? Christians, throughout history, had NO PROBLEM believing that Jesus was born without seed from a male donor (father).... yet, in the modern age, threads such as these cause Christians to question their authenticated beliefs. Sheesh. Know whats up? I do... and I hope you do too.

    Scimi
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  19. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Lets not go there. alias is not a christian.
    test
  20. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181
    At least you Muslims agree with me and understand that Yeshua was born of Joseph's and Mary's sexual union. It's the stupid fuckin Christians that piss me off and give the Holy Bible a bad rap with all their "boogeyman" logic....

    If you Muslims could firebomb a few churches on your next terrorist campaign, I'd appreciate it. these fuckhead
    so-called "Christians" are just heathens in disguise and need to be rooted out.

    Most them are White "Christians" anyway...Esau hiding in plain sight.
    test

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)