O People of the Scripture, why do you mix the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know ? (Quran 3:71)
“….So you distort the words of the living God, the Lord Almighty, our God.” (Jeremiah 23:36 )
IF David Called him ‘lord’, How then can he be his Son”
In Matthew 22:41-45 Jesus is quoted asking the Pharisees “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” ,
“The son of David,” they replied.
Then Jesus told them “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’?”
Then Jesus told them after quoting Psalms 110:1 to them “IF then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”
This Means The Messiah CANNOT be the the son or Descendant of David. this is similar to a statement like “IF THEN your car is a Toyota, How can it be a Mercedes?”.
Similarly in Luke 20:41 Again Jesus is Quoted saying “Why is it said that the Messiah is the son of David? Again Jesus Commented after quoting Psalms 110:1, David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
Again in Mark 12:35 “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? Again Jesus Commented after quoting Psalms 110:1, David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
Therefore:
1. All Claims that Messiah is a Descendant of David by Christians, by the Jews is Falsification.
2. All Scriptures Claiming the Messiah is a descendant of David have been Falsified.
3. All Prophesies about the Messiah being the descendant of David are Falsified.
4. The Genealogies in Luke and Mathew are a Falsehood.
Ezekiel 13:6
Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. Even though the Lord has not sent them, they say, “The Lord declares,” and expect him to fulfill their words.
Quran 3:78
And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.
Robert said
mzejum, I’m getting the impression that some of your posts are intended to proselytize, to argue for the truth of Islam against the false beliefs of Christians. Is that your intent here?
My intention is, for me to Bring out the truth, as i see it and as i read it. if it confirms the Quran well and good. Like the post above, as much as it is exposing the bible as a corrupted scripture. You can also see that it Proves Mary is a descendant of Aaron as she is mentioned in the Quran. and is it wrong for me to prove the truth in islam against the lies of Christians and the bible?
mzejum said
O People of the Scripture, why do you mix the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know ? (Quran 3:71)“….So you distort the words of the living God, the Lord Almighty, our God.” (Jeremiah 23:36 )
IF David Called him ‘lord’, How then can he be his Son”
In Matthew 22:41-45 Jesus is quoted asking the Pharisees “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” ,
“The son of David,” they replied.
Then Jesus told them “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’?”
Then Jesus told them after quoting Psalms 110:1 to them “IF then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”
This Means The Messiah CANNOT be the the son or Descendant of David. this is similar to a statement like “IF THEN your car is a Toyota, How can it be a Mercedes?”.
I agree with this interpretation of the incident described in the Gospels. This is surely not how Matthew understood it, obviously. On the other hand, if this incident is historically authentic — we should acknowledge the ‘if’– then the best explanation would be that Jesus denied the Davidic descent of the Messiah, and came up with a polemical argument which was meant to cause difficulties to those who affirmed it. This seems to me a much more plausible interpretation of the incident than any which goes agains the prima facie meaning of Jesus’ words.
mzejum said
Robert said
mzejum, I’m getting the impression that some of your posts are intended to proselytize, to argue for the truth of Islam against the false beliefs of Christians. Is that your intent here?
My intention is, for me to Bring out the truth, as i see it and as i read it. if it confirms the Quran well and good. Like the post above, as much as it is exposing the bible as a corrupted scripture. You can also see that it Proves Mary is a descendant of Aaron as she is mentioned in the Quran. and is it wrong for me to prove the truth in islam against the lies of Christians and the bible?
So, a much shorter “yes” would have sufficed.
mzejum
O People of the Scripture, why do you mix the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know ? (Quran 3:71)
“….So you distort the words of the living God, the Lord Almighty, our God.” (** you do not have permission to see this link ** )
IF David Called him ‘lord’, How then can he be his Son”
In ** you do not have permission to see this link ** Jesus is quoted asking the Pharisees “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” ,
“The son of David,” they replied.
Then Jesus told them “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’?”
Then Jesus told them after quoting ** you do not have permission to see this link ** to them “IF then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”
This Means The Messiah CANNOT be the the son or Descendant of David. this is similar to a statement like “IF THEN your car is a Toyota, How can it be a Mercedes?”.
Similarly in ** you do not have permission to see this link **, David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
Again in ** you do not have permission to see this link **, David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
Therefore:
1. All Claims that Messiah is a Descendant of David by Christians, by the Jews is Falsification.
2. All Scriptures Claiming the Messiah is a descendant of David have been Falsified.
3. All Prophesies about the Messiah being the descendant of David are Falsified.
4. The Genealogies in Luke and Mathew are a Falsehood.
Steefen
Jesus told Peter, you are correct, I AM THE MESSIAH.
Then, like the son of David, Solomon, Jesus entered Jerusalem.
The rationale presented by mzejum is in error.
Matthew 22:45 is not intended as a denial messianic descent from David. Its intended to challenge the Pharisees understanding of scripture.
They can’t answer the mystery of how Jesus can be both a son and also the Lord of David.
The implicit explanation is that Jesus has both a divine and human origin.
He is both the root and offspring of David – Rev 22:16.
brenmcg said
Matthew 22:45 is not intended as a denial messianic descent from David. Its intended to challenge the Pharisees understanding of scripture.They can’t answer the mystery of how Jesus can be both a son and also the Lord of David.
The implicit explanation is that Jesus has both a divine and human origin.
He is both the root and offspring of David – Rev 22:16.
As a statement of *Matthew’s* intentions, I completely agree with that. What Jesus may have meant by that is another issue.
brenmcg said
Matthew 22:45 is not intended as a denial messianic descent from David. Its intended to challenge the Pharisees understanding of scripture.They can’t answer the mystery of how Jesus can be both a son and also the Lord of David.
The implicit explanation is that Jesus has both a divine and human origin.
He is both the root and offspring of David – Rev 22:16.
Brenmcg , if for example i said, “You are called a Christian, How then can you be a Muslim?” did i say you are a Muslim? definitely Not. secondly By the fact that bible calls Jesus a priest. it is automatically then he is a descendant of Aaron, because it is written All Priests shall be descendants or Aaron , Exodus 28:1
so if Jesus is a priest , he is then a descendant of Aaron and all other scriptures depicting him as a descendant of David are based on a falsehood.
mzejum said
Brenmcg , if for example i said, “You are called a Christian, How then can you be a Muslim?” did i say you are a Muslim? definitely Not.
You are not saying I’m a muslim but you would not be necessarily denying I’m a muslim. You’d be asking the question how I could be both.
Muslims see Jesus as the christ/messiah so in that sense someone could claim to be both a christian and muslim.
Jesus is asking the pharisees how the Messiah can be both not son and the Lord of David. He’s not denying he is the son.
secondly By the fact that bible calls Jesus a priest. it is automatically then he is a descendant of Aaron, because it is written All Priests shall be descendants or Aaron , Exodus 28:1
so if Jesus is a priest , he is then a descendant of Aaron and all other scriptures depicting him as a descendant of David are based on a falsehood.
Jesus a priest of the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 6:20), so not of the Aaronic line.
The Israelites were instructed to have priests in order of descent from the Aaronic line but God can make priests of whomever he chooses.
Isaiah 66:20-21 “And they will bring all your brothers from all the nations to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the Lord on horses in chariots and wagons and on mules and camels says the Lord. They will bring them as the Israelites bring their offerings to the temple of the Lord in clean vessels. And I will take some of them also to be priests and Levites says the Lord“.
brenmcg said
mzejum said
Brenmcg , if for example i said, “You are called a Christian, How then can you be a Muslim?” did i say you are a Muslim? definitely Not.
You are not saying I’m a muslim but you would not be necessarily denying I’m a muslim. You’d be asking the question how I could be both.
Muslims see Jesus as the christ/messiah so in that sense someone could claim to be both a christian and muslim.
Jesus is asking the pharisees how the Messiah can be both not son and the Lord of David. He’s not denying he is the son.
secondly By the fact that bible calls Jesus a priest. it is automatically then he is a descendant of Aaron, because it is written All Priests shall be descendants or Aaron , Exodus 28:1
so if Jesus is a priest , he is then a descendant of Aaron and all other scriptures depicting him as a descendant of David are based on a falsehood.
Jesus a priest of the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 6:20), so not of the Aaronic line.
The Israelites were instructed to have priests in order of descent from the Aaronic line but God can make priests of whomever he chooses.
Isaiah 66:20-21 “And they will bring all your brothers from all the nations to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the Lord on horses in chariots and wagons and on mules and camels says the Lord. They will bring them as the Israelites bring their offerings to the temple of the Lord in clean vessels. And I will take some of them also to be priests and Levites says the Lord“.
I like the way Christians claim to interpret the words ‘order of Melchizedek’ but if u ask them for the meaning they will just go around saying alot of nothing. According to my understanding to be a Priest in the Order of Melkisedec means to be a Priest and a king. Because Melkisedec was a priest and king ( Genesis 14:18 ) and Jesus was a Priest and if the children of Israel. had accepted him fully he would have been their king.
You misrepresent the meaning of the last words of Isaiah 66:20-21, like any other christians does because the words “and i will take some of them also to be priests and Levites says the lord” this does not mean God is going to make Priests and Levites, because Levites were not a new tribe that will be made at that moment, Levites existed from before and he could not Change any other tribe from the 12 tribes and make new Levites.
The statement ‘and i will take some of them ALSO to be priests and Levites’ will only mean the priest he will make will be Levites ONLY. otherwise if you claim he will make Priests as he choses, then the biblical god will be in conflict and contradicting his own words in Exodus 28:1. and i believe God can never contradict or conflict himself. it is man that misinterprets the words and change them to mean something else.
Robert said
mzejum said
My intention is, for me to Bring out the truth, as i see it and as i read it. if it confirms the Quran well and good. Like the post above, as much as it is exposing the bible as a corrupted scripture. You can also see that it Proves Mary is a descendant of Aaron as she is mentioned in the Quran. and is it wrong for me to prove the truth in islam against the lies of Christians and the bible?
As long as you’re not trying to proselytize, you’re OK. From the rules of the forum:
The purpose is the Forum is not to try to convert others to your religious, or anti-religious, point of view. It is to promote discussion about the New Testament and early Christianity (up to, say, the fourth century) from the historical and literary perspectives. Please do not try to use the Forum as a medium to proselytize.
We’re pretty lenient here. I think in some Muslim countries, a Christian can be imprisoned for proselytizing. I wonder what definition is used in these countries. Is it enough ‘to bear witness to the truth of Christianity’? Is possession of a bible considered evidence of proselytizing? Possession of tracts or evangelistic literature perhaps? How do you define proselytizing?
i am not trying to proselytizing anyone, like i said , i just bring out the truth as i read it. Making people convert is not my docket and beyond my powers , it is only God who guides.
Robert said
Thanks, mzejum. I’m still trying to get a handle on how we should define proselytizing. Do you know what definition of proselytizing is used in Muslim countries where a Christian can be imprisoned for proselytizing? Is it enough ‘to bear witness to the truth of Christianity’? Is possession of a bible considered evidence of proselytizing? Possession of tracts or evangelistic literature perhaps?
The only islamic country i have been to is Egypt. and definitely what you are talking about is not happening because of the existence of the egyptian coptic Church
By Definition proselytizing means
- convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
- advocate or promote (a belief or course of action).
which among these did you mean?
mzejum said
I like the way Christians claim to interpret the words ‘order of Melchizedek’ but if u ask them for the meaning they will just go around saying alot of nothing. According to my understanding to be a Priest in the Order of Melkisedec means to be a Priest and a king. Because Melkisedec was a priest and king ( Genesis 14:18 ) and Jesus was a Priest and if the children of Israel. had accepted him fully he would have been their king.
Melchizedek was alive before Levi and Aaron so was a non-Levitical priest of God. The point of saying a priest “of the order of Melchizedek” is to distinguish him from the Levitical order.
You misrepresent the meaning of the last words of Isaiah 66:20-21, like any other christians does because the words “and i will take some of them also to be priests and Levites says the lord” this does not mean God is going to make Priests and Levites, because Levites were not a new tribe that will be made at that moment, Levites existed from before and he could not Change any other tribe from the 12 tribes and make new Levites.
Yes he’s not making a new Levite tribe in the literal sense. Its being used figuratively, so that some chosen gentiles will take on the roles of Levites, eg being a priest.
The statement ‘and i will take some of them ALSO to be priests and Levites’ will only mean the priest he will make will be Levites ONLY. otherwise if you claim he will make Priests as he choses, then the biblical god will be in conflict and contradicting his own words in Exodus 28:1. and i believe God can never contradict or conflict himself. it is man that misinterprets the words and change them to mean something else.
Isaiah 66:18 ” … I will gather all nations and languages and they will come and see my glory“. Its from these nations and languages that some will be chosen to be priests and Levites.
Exodus 28:1 is God’s instruction to the Israelites on how to chose new priests, not a promise about how all future priests will be chosen.
brenmcg said
Omar6741 said
As a statement of *Matthew’s* intentions, I completely agree with that. What Jesus may have meant by that is another issue.
Jesus may or may not have had that conversation – but if he did he meant what Matthew meant by it.
For the sake of a thought-experiment, let us pretend Jesus did have that conversation. Why can we not just take him at face value as denying that the Messiah would be a biological descendant of David?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert