Was Jesus killed on the cross?

[Oberon]

Reference a definition which supports your position.

Good luck...

Again, I'm not disagreeing with your definition. I'm disagreeing with how you are applying it.

So...

You don't know how to use an Arabic index, do you brother....rotflol...

All the possibilities which we posited are contained not only in Wright's Grammar, but in Omar's and Lane's....so take your pick...don't get stuck on one page and ignore the rest...

You simply have no more excuses...

First, you only cited one page in the grammar. The page you cited is about negation, but you are saying the use here is affirmative. So why cite it? Second, Omar and Lane are lexicons, not grammars. You have cited zero grammatical references supporting your interpretation of ma here. None. The one page you cite is about negation. You simply cite a definition, which talks about various usages of ma (including negation) and then assume a particular one. Yet while you admit that ma here is governing the verb, you fail to point to any grammatical construction in which ma governs the verb as a demonstrative (as you translate it).

 

[Bowman]

Again, I'm not disagreeing with your definition. I'm disagreeing with how you are applying it.

You cannot even show the Arabic word that you want to have it apply towards, brother.

You have yet another meritless assertion.

First, you only cited one page in the grammar. The page you cited is about negation, but you are saying the use here is affirmative. So why cite it? Second, Omar and Lane are lexicons, not grammars. You have cited zero grammatical references supporting your interpretation of ma here. None. The one page you cite is about negation. You simply cite a definition, which talks about various usages of ma (including negation) and then assume a particular one. Yet while you admit that ma here is governing the verb, you fail to point to any grammatical construction in which ma governs the verb as a demonstrative (as you translate it).

Your continued ignorance of our references is showing with each and every single reply that you make, brother.

Omar and Lane already comprehend and integrate grammars into their very definitions. Had you even bothered to look, then you would have already been cognizant of this, and moved on from your baseless ‘grammar only’ meritless assertions.

Fact is, Wright, Lane, Omar, all show the same definitions and applications for ‘ma’.


You simply have no excuse.

Further, you have already confirmed that I have brought forth all possible definitions - and you offer no others – from any reference. Period.

It now boils down to selecting the most appropriate purpose for “ma”.

Let’s review, once again, how you are now ignoring the demonstrated usage of “ma” within the ayah in question…



The components which make up “wama”…

و = “wa”

“wa” definition:

An inseparable prefixed conjunction; and; also; but; whilst, at; together; with; together with. Connects words and clauses as a simple coordinative “and”. It is used as a conjunction, unrestricted conjunction, and is expressive of concomitance, particle used for swearing (by God).

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, p. 3049
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, p. 290
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 599
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 156
Arabic English Dictionary, J.G. Hava, p. 845 - 846



ما= “ma”

“ma” definition:

Conjunctive pronoun. That; which; that which; whatsoever; what; as; as much; in such a manner as; as much as; as for as; any kind; when; how. Does not, as a rule, refer to reasonable things, but instances to the contrary sometimes occur. It is one of those particles, which, in conditional propositions, govern the verb in the conditional mood; it is frequently a mere expletive. It is also a negative adverb, Not; in general it denies a circumstance either present, or of past, but little remote from the present; it governs the attribute in the accusative, thus it is a negative particle when placed before the perfect as in 53.2; or before a pronoun as in 68.2; or before an demonstrative noun as in 12.31. The particle, when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, p. 3016
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 2, p. 300
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 523 - 524
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, pp. 135 - 136




“Ma” is inseparably joined to “wa”…and is merely connecting words and clauses and governing the verb in the conditional mood – which is positive…

وقولهم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول​

الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وإن​

الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه ما لهم به من علم​

إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقينا​

The first predicate is the completed action verb قتلوه i.e. “they killed Him”…of which is a positive affirmation.

Thus, we have our first usage of “wama” merely filling in and governing this same positive mood.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

People complain about the Gospels being written between 30-60+ years after the death of Christ.

The Koran was written 600 years after Christ.

Why there's an argument about this is beyond me.

 

[Oberon]

You cannot even show the Arabic word that you want to have it apply towards, brother.

Because it doesn't apply to a word, it applies towards a clause.

Omar and Lane already comprehend and integrate grammars into their very definitions.

Every lexicon does. So what? The point is the lexemes, particularly particles, differ in meaning depending on construction. You cite a definition for ma, which includes negation. You then jump to your analysis and claim it isn't negating here. But you offer no reference to any grammar in support of your claim for that meaning in that construction. The one reference to any grammar you make deals with negation.

Fact is, Wright, Lane, Omar, all show the same definitions and applications for ‘ma’.

And these all include negation.

Conjunctive pronoun. That; which; that which; whatsoever; what; as; as much; in such a manner as; as much as; as for as; any kind; when; how. Does not, as a rule, refer to reasonable things, but instances to the contrary sometimes occur. It is one of those particles, which, in conditional propositions, govern the verb in the conditional mood; it is frequently a mere expletive.

You realize, of course, that by translating the particle as "that" you are translating it as a pronoun, not as a particle governing a verb. You are underlining two contradictory parts of the definition.

It is also a negative adverb, Not; in general it denies a circumstance either present, or of past, but little remote from the present; it governs the attribute in the accusative, thus it is a negative particle when placed before the perfect as in 53.2; or before a pronoun as in 68.2; or before an demonstrative noun as in 12.31. The particle, when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present.

Here we go. Negation.

A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 2, p. 300

Here once more is your only reference to a grammar, which would enable you to determine how ma is used in this construction. And the reference talks about negation.

Thus, we have our first usage of “wama” merely filling in and governing this same positive mood.

Here again you assert it is positive (although "positive mood" is nonsensical). But you cite no grammar to support why you translate ma as a demonstrative "that" here as apposed to as a negative which is also part of the definition. In fact, your only reference to a grammar is about negation.

 

[Bowman]

Because it doesn't apply to a word, it applies towards a clause.

Then show us the Arabic clause…

Every lexicon does. So what? The point is the lexemes, particularly particles, differ in meaning depending on construction. You cite a definition for ma, which includes negation. You then jump to your analysis and claim it isn't negating here. But you offer no reference to any grammar in support of your claim for that meaning in that construction. The one reference to any grammar you make deals with negation.



And these all include negation.




You realize, of course, that by translating the particle as "that" you are translating it as a pronoun, not as a particle governing a verb. You are underlining two contradictory parts of the definition.




Here we go. Negation.


Here once more is your only reference to a grammar, which would enable you to determine how ma is used in this construction. And the reference talks about negation.




Here again you assert it is positive (although "positive mood" is nonsensical). But you cite no grammar to support why you translate ma as a demonstrative "that" here as apposed to as a negative which is also part of the definition. In fact, your only reference to a grammar is about negation.

Still stuck on your redd herring, brother?

You have been provided with the real-life Arabic example of why "ma" cannot be rendered as a negative.

You repeatedly refuse to even discuss it, and instead jump right back into Wright's reference. If you feel the need to have a grammar reference, then refer to the Arabic index that Wright provides for my position, brother.

This would be simple if you only could read Arabic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Still stuck on your redd herring, brother?

 

[Oberon]

You have been provided with the real-life Arabic example of why "ma" cannot be rendered as a negative.

You didn't provide an actual example. You just said it couldn't and translated it accordingly. In doing so, you cited a lexicon which says it can be translated as a negative, then cited a reference grammar page which discusses ma as in its capacity to negate. From this, you somehow conclude that in 4.157 it is a demonstrative pronoun. If you can even read the arabic you are claiming to be able to (something I am not convinced you can), you are either simply being manipulative or actually lying. I started this asking for a grammatical analysis, which doesn't mean citing a lexicon and then picking a meaning. It means an analysis of syntax as well as lexemes. You simply picked a lexico-semantic component you liked and inserted it in the line. Then you ignored all the grammar. So, until you bother to actually cite a reference grammar which explains why ma here ought to be read as a pronoun rather than as a negative particle, consider this conversation over.

 

[Bowman]

[/size][/font][/color]

You didn't provide an actual example. You just said it couldn't and translated it accordingly. In doing so, you cited a lexicon which says it can be translated as a negative, then cited a reference grammar page which discusses ma as in its capacity to negate. From this, you somehow conclude that in 4.157 it is a demonstrative pronoun. If you can even read the arabic you are claiming to be able to (something I am not convinced you can), you are either simply being manipulative or actually lying. I started this asking for a grammatical analysis, which doesn't mean citing a lexicon and then picking a meaning. It means an analysis of syntax as well as lexemes. You simply picked a lexico-semantic component you liked and inserted it in the line. Then you ignored all the grammar. So, until you bother to actually cite a reference grammar which explains why ma here ought to be read as a pronoun rather than as a negative particle, consider this conversation over.

Look at how your ‘arguments’ have dwindled down to a single red herring, as you make your exit speech, brother…

You have completely and utterly abandoned any discussion regarding your Arabic assertions, as you have come to grips that you don’t know any Arabic whatsoever.

You cannot even distinguish a single, solitary word when placed directly before you.

This is proven-out in dramatic fashion when you were unable to refer to the index section of your googled copy of Wright’s Grammar – which lists-out numerous examples of ‘ma’ in action!

You could not even do this simple task.

Instead, you want to dwell upon ‘ma’ as being only a negative to the complete avoidance of any other possibility, up to, and including ignoring other scriptures which confirm Jesus’ crucifixion until death.

You are forcing your interpretation of “ma” into the ayah without considering the inseparable “wa” which is attached, brother….which, in fact, is an entirely new word according to the classic Arabic concordances.

Why are you ignoring “wa”…?

You have nothing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

[/size][/font][/color]

You simply picked a lexico-semantic component you liked and inserted it in the line. Then you ignored all the grammar.

Yep.

Someone who can't make good use of a lexicon and a grammar can't read the language.

 

[Muffled]

It's perfectly alright that you don't agree with what the Quran states. However, when the general consensus, the majority of all scholars, be it Muslim scholars or non-Muslim scholars, the majority agree that the Quran state the Jesus did not die.


If one can point out just one contradiction in the Bible, then it has to be accepted that the potential for more is there. The Bible contradicts itself about the day in which Jesus was crucified. The synoptic Gospels state that he was crucified on Passover day. John states Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation, the day before Passover. These two accounts can not be reconciled, therefore are a contradiction.

The fact that there is one clear contradiction, that can not possibly be reconciled, means that there is the very real possibility that there are many more contradictions.
How can you give the Bible a great deal of credence then since it also contradicts itself?
But if it contradicts the Bible, which it does, you've stated you would not give it a great deal of credence. Basically, you're saying that you do dismiss portions of the Quran as they clearly disagree with what the Bible says.
The problem with the Biblical accounts is that they do not, and can not, be fully reconciled with each other. More so, when looking at Jesus in a historical context, we see that the Gospels have many problems. More so, the Gospels were not written as modern day biographies. They contain a lot of myth, as well as theological teachings which actually did not relate to the life of Jesus.

I do agree with what the Qu'ran states and there is no doubt in my mind that it does not state that Jesus did not die. It says that He wasn't killed. That does not preclude His death but only precludes the means by which He died.

There are a majority of scholars who believe in The Doctrine of the Trinity but they are just as much in error. The reality is that one person makes a mistake and all the rest of the scholars are taught the mistake without questioning its veracity.

Each supposed contradiction has to be proven on its own merit.

This is not a contradiction because it is the same day. It is preparation unitl 6PM and then Passover after that. I would like to see your references though in case I missed something.

I can give it credence because God gives it credence. Supposed contradictions are usually the result of looking at the Bible with an untoward spirit.

I do not agree that the Qu'ran contradicts the Bible.

I don't figure that you can prove this at all.

 

[Muffled]

Answering Qadianis: Jesus (PBUH) did not die according to Quran A detailed explanation on why you're wrong, including the explanations of scholars.

Also, what you miss is that the Hadiths go on to further answer the question of the death of Jesus. You can't simply ignore them.

No serious scholar would take an Hadith seriously as proof. I can ignore them if they contradict the Bible.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No serious scholar would take an Hadith seriously as proof. I can ignore them if they contradict the Bible.

That depends on what you're trying to prove.

And rejecting something because it contradicts the bible is something that no serious scholar would do.

 

[Muffled]

Actually there is. It explains why Jesus never died on the cross. Actually, it refutes your whole argument about only one verse being used to support the idea that Jesus didn't die on the cross, as that site shows multiple verses proving the same point. So your entire argument falls through the ground.

So it should be you who should try again.



So an unjustified attack? Shows once again you can't debate.

If you understood Islam, you would see that the hadiths are important. You simply can't ignore them when it comes to the Quran. You trying to do so just shows that you are standing on very weak ground and you know that if you did more research, you would see you are wrong.

This is incorrect. It refutes the concept that two other verses have to do with the death of Jesus but does not touch upon 4:157.

It correct states that 5:117 (5:120 Ali) does not refer to the death of Jesus but rather to His Translation into heaven. BTW "taken up" would be equivalent to "rapio" the root of the word "rapture."

 

[Muffled]

Yep.

Someone who can't make good use of a lexicon and a grammar can't read the language.

I didn't think the lexicon was all that clear but then I am not a grammaticist. At least the lexicon expressed the possibility that it could be a negative under the right conditions.

Certainly "that" was listed as the main meaning but that does not guarantee that it is the only meaning. I would consider it possible that there is another word for the negative that is more common but not used in this verse. Considering the tenor of the verse I would likely render it "they didn't exactly kill Him." That fits in with the idea that it appeared that they did.

 

[fallingblood]

I do agree with what the Qu'ran states and there is no doubt in my mind that it does not state that Jesus did not die. It says that He wasn't killed. That does not preclude His death but only precludes the means by which He died.

The Quran states that Jesus did not die upon the cross. Whether or not it talks about him dying at a later time is up for debate.

There are a majority of scholars who believe in The Doctrine of the Trinity but they are just as much in error. The reality is that one person makes a mistake and all the rest of the scholars are taught the mistake without questioning its veracity.

Maybe you should do some more research on what scholars are teaching. The majority of scholars do not believe in the doctrine of the trinity. They may believe that Christians accept it, but that is as far as it goes for many people.

Each supposed contradiction has to be proven on its own merit.

True. However, if one is found, then it has to be admitted that there is chance for other ones. That is what I stated.

This is not a contradiction because it is the same day. It is preparation unitl 6PM and then Passover after that. I would like to see your references though in case I missed something.

Wrong. John states that it was on the day of Preparation. That is the day before what the synoptics state (the day of Passover). There is no reconciling these. You may want to try some fancy talking around the issue, but it really doesn't matter. The Gospels are clear on the subject, and the reason why John places it on the day of Preparation is to make a point, that Jesus was the passover lamb that would take the sins of mankind.

I can give it credence because God gives it credence. Supposed contradictions are usually the result of looking at the Bible with an untoward spirit.

Or the fact that it contains contradictions. If you look at Bible scholars, it is clear that this is so. Even seminaries teach this.

I do not agree that the Qu'ran contradicts the Bible.

That's fine. Doesn't make it so though.

I don't figure that you can prove this at all.

Probably not to you.

 

[Muffled]

That depends on what you're trying to prove.

And rejecting something because it contradicts the bible is something that no serious scholar would do.

That my be. I am not a scholar. I believe that God is speaking in the Bible and that which contrdicts the Bible contradicts God. I can say the same thing about the Qu'ran. However the Ha'diths are not reliable because they depend upon the honesty of the relators. This is nothing new, there are writings claiming to be from someone important in Christianity that are frauds. What a scholar does is fish out the frauds and the Ha'diths qualify.

 

[fallingblood]

That my be. I am not a scholar. I believe that God is speaking in the Bible and that which contrdicts the Bible contradicts God. I can say the same thing about the Qu'ran. However the Ha'diths are not reliable because they depend upon the honesty of the relators. This is nothing new, there are writings claiming to be from someone important in Christianity that are frauds. What a scholar does is fish out the frauds and the Ha'diths qualify.

Not really. They are only frauds based on your assumption that which contradicts the Bible contradicts God.

You can simply throw them out though simply because you claim that they are frauds. Can you provide any evidence at all that they are frauds?