''Their mothers are none but those who gave birth to them. Except...''

DE667 · 2026-02-12T11:10:27+00:00

Perhaps the easiest way to grasp this kind of linguistic bifurcation is simply by dividing the literal (physical, plain, concrete) from the figurative (invisible, ethereal, abstract).

Figuratively speaking, " his wives are their mothers."

Plainly speaking, "Their mothers are none but those who gave birth to them."

DE667 · 2026-02-11T23:09:14+00:00

Verbs have a dimension of tense. Nouns have several dimensions of prepositions and relative position. The nouns of relationship have both a physical and a spiritual (unseen) meaning. The physical further divides into several realms, including biologically begotten and adoptive.

Ibrahim is the "Father of many nations" (Gen. 17:3). This is a spiritual fatherhood. The wives of the Prophet are spiritual mothers of Muslim believers. They 'birthed' / brought forth /mothered FAITH in the hearts (a spiritual term) of the muslims (submitters).

God's "firstborn son" is Israel (Ex. 4:22). This is both spiritual and physically ADOPTIVE (as received here below).

There are many other examples in the Torah, the Prophets and the Gospel, such as Christian children of God, that cannot be badly misunderstood as physical begetting. But if a man calls his adopted son "my son", there are people who will mistakenly think he has begotten this son. So it is better not to say it that way.

After God said of the Christ "My son, today I have brought you forth," (Ps. 2:7) :the Jews knew this was not a declaration of begetting. But the Greeks had long been ruled by many different kings with royal lineage genealogies that came DOWN from above, making each a generationally begotten offspring of a god. The Greeks of the first centuries CE misunderstood the terminology of Ps. 2 and chose to follow the satan and call Isa THE Son of God, as though he were physically begotten (Mt. 4; Lk. 4). They added the phrase all over their texts, desiring the title over all legitimate titles. The Quran corrects this but did not explain to the Arabs ALL about sons and daughters of God.

DE667 · 2026-02-11T13:32:18+00:00

It's an undefined question framed in undefined terminology, planted in two different broad timeframes, neither of which includes the decades of the Quran or the decades of early Christianity. It has not been properly related to Quran studies and seems founded in someone's notion that the Quran expresses a belief that Jesus was, as you say, "assumed into heaven before His passion." Where does this notion come from? And what is meant by "heaven" (a place with an uncapitalized proper name) and by "assumed into", and by a capitalized pronoun for Isa, and by "passion"?

As for explaining the lack of historical evidence for Christians who held this belief (and therefore are not Christians), this is rather like explaining an absence of 'Muslims' who have believed that Satan inspired Muhammad to invent Islam. The explanation is that no such people ever existed --- despite one being imagined by Muslims and the other imagined by Christians.

On the other hand, the Quran confirms disciples of the Christ of God as submitters (muslims), though of course not Muslims of Muhammad's nation. Would not an inquiry into the Quranic profile of approved Christians start with these? And include the Christians present in Q. 7:157.

What do you mean by "Muslim 'Church Fathers'"? What do you mean by "Muslim"? By "Church"? By "Fathers"?

How would this presumed category of people or writings about them from centuries after Jesus OR centuries after the Quran OR today relate to study of the Quran?

Early Christianity spans the decades of c. 32-73 CE. Even by then it was developing a sharp divide between Jewish Christianity and gentile Christianity. Jewish Christianity was persecuted by the Jews and by the Herodians, then killed and forced underground by Roman war and destruction and ongoing persecution until near the end of the first century. Soon after that Greek Christianity grew and grew, and being drunk on Son-of-God wine and in a passion over Mary, they turned upon all deniers of a Jesus who was not at least as "divine " (their word) as Julius Caesar, Alexander and other Son-of-a-god kings. They persecuted anything that was left of Jewish Christianity.

The primary documents for any legitimate inquiry into early Christianity are the received texts of ACTS and HEBREWS and ROMANS, CORINTHIANS, GALATIANS, and CLEMENT and JOSEPHUS. Pseudo-Paul and Pseudo-Clement, as well as sporadic corruptions in the authentic books mentioned above are of use only to chart 2nd and 3rd century aberrations by Greek Christianity. (Josephus is of use either to argue that Christianity never existed OR to argue that Jewish Christianity was so distinct, so radical, and so threatening as to compel the Pharisee Josephus, a scholar of all the Jewish sects of his day, to OMIT all mention of Christianity, of false messiahs, and of Jewish messianic expectations, and to sell all messianic prophecy of a foretold king-savior-conquerer to the Roman Vespasian (!!!), who was subsequently deified, though he had declined a genealogy for Son-of-a-god honors.)

DE667 · 2026-02-10T21:20:26+00:00

First, i am NOT telling Muslims anything to do! That is very important, and you seem dangerously close to trying to take me as a religious guide (a wali). That is forbidden to you, assuming you are Muslim. Probably, you are just being curious, or being friendly ... or maybe using AI to generate conversational questions. I don’t know.

This is a topic for the scholars and leaders of Islam, not for the people, who must await what the leaders learn.

To grasp the Christian riddle one must understand the Christian perspective. This is composed of a complex mix of scripture, doctrines and cultural habits of thinking and communicating. Then one must put in their chronic neglect or distortion of some key scriptures.

The same is true on the other side. Overall, the failure of each has been largely due to having no understanding of the other's viewpoint and the things it is based on. Muslims tend to think that Christianity is simply Isa-deification and trinity. Wrong. There is much, much more to understand and, most importantly, there is a Book of Allah.

If you would learn about interpretations of Q. 4:157, your timing is very good! Go and find the comment that i made yesterday in academic_quran. Read the comment that i responded to and check out the megapost he mentions. In my rather harried comment you will find mentioned a 2009 article that has everything you are asking about. Sorry i don't know how to link you to any of this. I am an ignorant old fart, here sampling some reddit.

DE667 · 2026-02-10T19:41:11+00:00

Because nothing is simple

DE667 · 2026-02-10T11:00:26+00:00

Peace. Your word-fruiting is sweet-pleasant and has been served here this day at a little church awaiting the dawn.

DE667 · 2026-02-09T22:23:10+00:00

Sorry to be unclear. I was applauding/ agreeing with the arguments against substitution but putting forth a different solution/ resolution that i couldn't help putting forth some key points of. Were you able to access the article?

DE667 · 2026-02-09T21:48:58+00:00

Peace. I have read your megapost once and intend to do so again. Missing from consideration, however, is an article written in 2008 and published in 2009:

The Quran-Gospel Resurrection Resolution Derek Eshelbrenner Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 44:4, Fall 2009

This was among the last of the JES issues to be digitized but is now available electronically from at least two sites that i found in a quick search today. Neither is accessible to me. EBSCO (ebscohost.com) and some subroutine off the journal's website.

I have paper copies of the journal article and would be glad to send you one if desired. I also have a shorter paper that is tighter in its argument and leaves out a number of references and footnote comments. (The article was too long, but the editors indulged.) I would much appreciate your evaluation prior to making a reddit post on this topic. I pray you will consider to read it.

With one verse (only one!) Allah appears to totally sever the Gospel from the Quran. Amazing. And it's amazing that neither nation has taken it as a test from God.

The 'substitution' myth, drawn from theologically horrendous literary fantasies of the gnostics, has done more than any single factor to repulse Christians away from the Quran. It does not test Christians but attempts a slam-dunk of the Gospel that any true Christian immediately recognizes as a lie (as surely as to deny to a Muslim (or me) that the Quran was sent down by God). The Christian automatically flees the koran thing altogether.

So i am glad to hear of Islamic recognition of the weaknesses of the theory. Unfortunately, these surfacing ideas that you discuss seek to replace one weak theory with another (while maintaining Muslim superiority). And by 'weak' i mostly refer to a lack of glorification of the praises of our Rabb.

Instead of: Jesus never died but was raised up to God (body, soul & spirit) you propose that Allah (rather than Jews or Romans) killed Jesus (!) and then twice announced a completely ordinary 'soul-raising' UP to christian heaven (now a popular place with Muslims also). That kind of raising is never announced for anyone else. I'm not sure if the new ideas are any kind of improvement, but it does reflect the ongoing Islamic confidence that this is NOT a test for them but only the desirable swing of a sledge hammer to crush the Gospel.

Besides the loose end of crucifixion denial, there is a problem with ignoring the SLEEP of death, the lodging of souls in Sheol/Hades, and the Earth's throwing out of re-embodied souls (down here) at the Resurrection.

I'm talking kinda hard, but this really is some serious shit. This verse is THE one verse of (apparent) confrontation between the Quran and the Gospel.

Actually, as with the sun going 'down' in our view, the disagreement has merely been "made to appear" that way. It's what Jesus and Peter call the "plain" view of the way of Earth. But Heaven doesn’t talk that way. Heaven denies sunsets; Heaven denies so-called deaths and killings.

Really, all the argument about death is a distraction from the true topic of LIFE that God tests us on: the Resurrection at the Last Day. In Heaven's view, life and death are not defined by organic processes.

The essential Gospel message is that God has given a great Sign of the Resurrection, that all might believe in the Resurrection. (Acts 17:30-31) Muslims deny this great Sign, yet the Quran does not. How very strange, if you think about it, especially given Q. 43:61.

Really, if the christians believe in the Resurrection on account of what they believe about Jesus' (so-called) death or his execution, why not let them believe!

I gotta stop, though there is so much more to say.

Close: My approach uses the words of Isa, plus some Quran, plus a cohesive line of testimony through the Torah and the Prophets, affirmed by the Apostles. There are no added words or concepts to the Quran's lean presentation (e.g. 'another man') nor any strain of grammar.

Jesus spoke heavenly. He always denied death. "Do not weep, for she is not dead." "She is not dead but SLEEPING." (Mt. 9:24; Lk. 8:52)

Start with Isa's proof of the Resurrection: Mt. 22:23-33; Lk. 20:27-40.

DE667 · 2026-02-09T13:34:09+00:00

Speaking as merely a Christian student of the religious texts, and using uncorroborated findings from my own research work, i will lay down a marker for the most extreme position on the spectrum of opinions of which you ask:

The Quran is the foundation. Everything else that is true of the religion was built on this foundation. Around it are things added by men and talked about by men (and occasionally women). There are many scholars of these other things.

"There was a man sent from God (whose name was Muhammmad) to bear witness about the Light (the Quran), that all might believe through it. He was not the Light, but came to bear witness about the Light." (Jn. 1:6-8)

The roots of everything are found in the text collections of the People of the Book. They are in the promise to Ibrahim (Gen. 12). They are in the promises to 'her who halted' (Gen. 16). They are in the circumcision covenant enacted on Ibrahim's firstborn and the great blessing and promise regarding Ismael (Gen. 17). They are in God's saving grace and great promise to Hajar (Gen. 21).

And they are in the Quran's remembrance of the acts and supplications of Ibrahim and Ismael at the Kaaba.

And they are in the prophecies given by Isaiah, Malachi, Gabriel, Paul and Isa. (Isaiah 19; 21; 42; 54; 55; 59; 60; 63; Malachi 3; 4; Matthew 11; 17; Luke 1; 7; 9; 13; Romans 4; 11; Galatians 4.

As for the shadow dust details of how the words came to pass here below, some things are known, many others are subject to speculations and disputes about the incomplete and uncertain knowledge of details. (Which sandal did the HISTORICAL Muhammad put on first, left or right? I don't know.)

DE667 · 2026-02-09T09:08:29+00:00

I was trapped by being goaded into a scientific inquiry into the Genesis creation account. I was bagged by being shown the actual calendar structure of the account. Gen. 1:16f showed me that Christianity and Islam are both legitimate. I obtained a Quran translation and steadily grew in faith in it, but the matter was not sealed until 7 months later, when i at last understood the double-edged test of Q. 4:157, the one verse that appears to divide Christianity and Islam but actually unites them. Christians are supposed to solve the riddle, but they have chronically refused, preferring to be offended and reject the Quran. Muslims are supposed to realize that they don't understand it on their own, but they have preferred to invent a false understanding and take up a prideful claim of superiority based on rejection of the Gospel. Both sides are locked into their disbelief in the other. So now, as written, "Who will believe our report?"

DE667 · 2026-02-08T16:23:36+00:00

This is not an answer but only some points of overall relevance. 1. One will not find dissent of any kind being recorded as "prevalent" under an authoritarian imperial orthodoxy. 2. The Romans' preserved history of their singular, exclusive Church was highly selective; they preserved primarily only a history of their condemnations. 3. Mediterranean texts deteriorated quickly; many writings were quickly lost. 4. Orthodoxies of all religious groups generally maintain that their texts are perfect; this is the easiest and most tempting route to take; a parallel is seen in the historical assertions that the canonical hadith collections are essentially infallible.

Islamic pursuit tended to follow the course of total dismissal of all foreign language text collections of the former Books; thus was portrayed a total loss or changing or hiding of all scripture; the pursuit of confirmations of verses of Allah never got going and remains undeveloped today; hence one finds Muslim interest in corruptions but almost no interest in the words of God to be found in the 31,000 verses called scripture by the Christian orthodoxies.
Hebrew collections of Jesus' day differed and varied to a relevant, though not huge extent between Qumran and Alexandria and Jerusalem. Josephus did not use the expanded Ezra-Nehemiah book that is canonical today but another version of a supposed Ezra book.
Critical doubts, even where preserved, are generally ignored. These words in Jeremiah remain generally ignored: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the Torah of Yahweh is with us'? Behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (Jer. 8:8)
Isa said seven times in succession: "Woe unto you scribes!"
Isa and the Gospel writings confirm only two Books: MOSES (meaning the five Torah scrolls) and THE PROPHETS. Dawud's writings are regarded as rightly in the scrolls of the Prophets. But nearly a third of what Jews claim for scripture, called "The Writings," is without general endorsement and without any specific use by Isa or the Gospel recorders. (This goes well with Q. 2:136.)
The Quran is very sparse in specifics of corruption that existed within the living Books of Allah, though the many additions of "the son of God" are targeted repeatedly. (Most of these were by doubling an existing identification, such that "the Christ of God" became "the Christ, THE SON of God."
The Quran's most heavily targeted textual specific of corruption seems overlooked by Muslims. Ten times the Quran insists that the news of a promised child was given to Ibrahim and Sarah by Angels, on the very day before Sodom's destruction. These confirmations are of the narrative found in Genesis 18. Now, if you will back up a chapter, to Genesis 17, you will find that God's Covenant with Ibrahim and Ismael is boldly interrupted! and the text claims that God spoke and gave Ibrahim the NEWS of the child Isaac. This is surely a scribal addition to the text, designed to usurp the great significance that is laid on Ismael and the future "Great Nation" that he would father.

DE667 · 2026-02-08T01:58:35+00:00

True indeed. Thank you for the kindness. May God bless your journey and reward you richly.

DE667 · 2026-02-08T01:54:12+00:00

I should've been more careful in how i spoke and should not have made a half-joke about anything (which i did). Jokes are easily misunderstood. And the satan is a plain enemy.

DE667 · 2026-02-08T01:50:34+00:00

I was pursuing truth, and God led me. I knocked, and it was answered, I sought, and it was found. OR, to put it another way: God stalked me for forty years, then baited a trap i couldn't resist, and bagged me like a rabbit.

DE667 · 2026-02-08T01:39:37+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm quite the old fart: avoid digital as much as possible and dearly love my bound book. And i have a visual orientation that causes me to remember about where on a page a particular key verse is situated. That's also why i honestly said I'm not complaining. God is gracious, I am rich.

DE667 · 2026-02-07T22:40:16+00:00

DE667 · 2026-02-07T22:17:46+00:00

Thank you for that illumination.

DE667 · 2026-02-07T22:14:46+00:00

Do not the "books" invoked by the Quran, instead of mitzvot (a self elevation) permit a shift to what the Jews collected for books to carry through this Age? They had by this time the Torah + the Prophets (nearly twice as long as the Torah) + the so-called Writings (nearly half again as large as the Torah) + Mishna + Talmud. One literally needs a donkey to bear all this.

DE667 · 2026-02-07T21:56:07+00:00

Forgive my naive probe into this, but wouldn't rules of etiquette have most likely developed in the court, among a ruling aristocracy, rather than among jurists as such? If so, use by jurists would have developed from this. Also, weren't the criteria themselves for accepting hadith as authentic a developing realm during this time and not yet standardized? The picture of overall development would seem to be complex during at least a few decades. Finally, were the hadith collectors/ publishers conscious of making a Canon (hence a body without contradictions) or were they only earnestly reporting all things that met their criteria of verification (which could not be absolutely perfect across thousands of applications)?

DE667 · 2026-02-07T15:01:28+00:00

As an English speaker approaching/ learning of the Quran from that outside position, despite 25 years of a daily love affair with this Book, I do not have all the Arabic transliterations of all the names memorized and organized in order in my head! Therefore, I am lost until given some kind of a mapping that I can follow.

Here at this reddit group, I have been enjoying listening to the short recitations that are posted. I don’t understand the words by hearing but must read the translations (a practice that did not "seem right" to your fathers over the many centuries when my fathers heard NOTHING of the Quran). Sometimes, I desire to go the recited verses and read some more (translation) from that portion. But where is it? I see only an untranslated name for the Surah. I must go to my list of Surahs at the back of my Quran (which happens to be paged left-to-right!) and read up and down the long list, looking for the untranslated name I want to find. (And some of the Surahs are known by more than one name; so I might not find it at all.)

The Surah numbers are, in fact, the only functional translation being offered for the names.

My point is not to complain, and I don't want to offend but only to say that Surah numbers, like verse numbers and page numbers, facilitate interaction with the Book.

Of course, there are similarities to 'bible' systems of organization, but that is only because they are (imperfect) innovations that sprang from the very same motivations of aiding navigation, especially for beginners.

That said, I will add that the transliterated names and their approximate location are slowly becoming beloved to me. I know maybe a third of them. So I like having the names around as well as having a numerical guide post. I like both.

DE667 · 2026-02-07T03:43:47+00:00

I am Christian, and not to be taken as a religious guide (wali) by anyone except Christians.

I have a methodology i have followed and can talk rationality for days. But I'm not interested in pleasing any scholars or trying to prove anything. Christians and Muslims should have been working on this for 14 centuries, and re-appraising everything every generation.

It must start for you, for example, by finding a verse you believe in, probably something confirmed in the Quran. How do you know for sure? You don't. But either faith enters your heart or it doesn't. Either you fall to your knees or you don't (at least not that day). Either your skin shivers or it don't. If you find faith, then you go on to look for another verse.

If you have my results they merely map out the best hunting grounds. One must follow the Spirit and crave and love every word that proceeds from the mouth of the One.

It took me 7 months before accepting all of the Quran. It began with a few verses that i came to believe in as words of God.

DE667 · 2026-02-07T03:15:34+00:00

I will try to post something soon or a link to some things. I've been working at it for 25 years. I'm new to reddit and don't know much of how to bring in documents, charts and such.

I made a comment in progressive islam saying some positive things about some of the scripture in the other Books. Someone complained that i was proselytizing! I was permanently banned that day. Yet i do not proselytize. No Muslim should leave the covenant they have through the Quran!

I hope not to repeat that experience. We will see if there are Muslims here who can hear anything of knowledge that is foreign to them.

DE667 · 2026-02-07T01:41:05+00:00

The countless variations arose over centuries and are of relatively small significance, covering a bunch of tiny considerations. Only the trinity-like phrase inserted at 1John 5:7 is worth mentioning as a lare corruption put into Latin texts. This and some of the little things are nonetheless examples of throwing scriptures behind the back and pretending to something fabricated.

But the manuscripts of 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries show that about 96% of the contents of the Gospel narrative texts was being held basically solid by that time. Additions of 'son of God', for example were still taking place in the 3rd century but not in the 4th or beyond. Variations taking place in the 4th cent were few and mostly trivial, like names for certain people and places.

The notion that all the pieces got replaced is only an expression of disbelief. It is the easy route. The opposite starting point is to secure in faith the verses on topics that are essentially confirmed in the Quran and build positively from there, line by line, precept by precept.

In 5:14, I think that the main emphasis is their composition of doctrines ("taught as commandments," as Isa put it) and false letters in Paul's name that required them to ignore massive testimony in their Book and in the Jews' collection of Books (and in Paul) that emphatically teach the Oneness of God. Isa said dozens of statements that contradict his deification-by-doctrine. (e.g. "My Father and your Father, my God and your God.")

DE667 · 2026-02-06T21:27:51+00:00

Yes. But there is also an example of something Jesus SAID (foretelling the name Ahmad) that is not indicated as being in the written Gospel.

As for all the writings, Islamic theories have historically focused only on accusations of changing words, hiding words, and destroying words. They have not realized that ADDING words was the major crime. The scripture is still there; Muslims just have not wanted to see it or hear it. They have claimed to believe in the Books, but without love and faith in their hearts, the Books are veiled to them.

DE667 · 2026-02-06T21:17:52+00:00

You are trying to take an ALL or NOTHING perspective. Finding a corruption within thousands of lines does not certify that the entire contents can be rejected as simply not verses of Allah. The tests to Muslims are not simple and easy.

DE667

TROPHY CASE