To whom did Peter deny knowing Jesus?

[oneGOD]

In Matthew 26:69

1)A servant girl.
2)Another girl.
3)Then a crowd of people.

Mark 14:66

1)A servant girl.
2)The same girl again.
3)Then a crowd of people.

Luke 22:44

1)A servant girl
2)A man
3)Then another man.

John 18

1)A girl
2)Several anonymous persons
3)One of the high priest's servants

[Believer]

It doesn't really matter who Peter spoke to, he denied Jesus three times and the rooster crowed.
As long as the Gospels say that, it's okay.
And it's Luke 22:55

[oneGOD]

well here is my question then Believer. If these authors were inspired by God how could they not agree on this simple fact?

Thanks

[Believer]

They weren't writing under direct dictation.
Every single little exact minute detail doesn't need to match up completely.
I stated, Peter denies Jesus three times and the rooster crowed.
Do all four Gospels say this? Okay then.

[oneGOD]

They weren't writing under direct dictation

and how you know that? let's see....

Every single little exact minute detail doesn't need to match up completely.

That's not the case, I'm not talking about letters, I'm talking about events. They disagree on every thing, even on what Jesus said. Two of them seem to be ignorant of the fact that Jesus was even born to a virgin. They don't even know what Jesus said when he died. If they were inspired by God to write and if this IS the word of GOD then events and what GOD said should match completely in order for it to be divine.

Want another example?

On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?

Matthew 21:5 --> On an ass and a colt
Mark 11:7 --> On a colt.
John 12:14 --> On a young ass.

In Matthew Jesus fulfilled the Prophecy but in Mark Luke and John he did not fulfill the prophecy and yet you tell me they were inspired? If they were inspired wouldn't it be important for GOD to show that his prophecy was fulfilled and the four of them agreed on it? Or did they just depend on account witnesses?

[Light]

oneGOD - Did you look at the Bible yourself or did you copy the information from a site without knowing if it is wholly accurate?

The reason I say this is because your line-up is in part incorrect but is also simplistic and quite misleading , i.e

In Matthew 26:69

1)A servant girl.
2)Another girl.
3)Then a crowd of people.

Mark 14:66

1)A servant girl.
2)The same girl again.
3)Then a crowd of people.

Luke 22:44

1)A servant girl
2)A man
3)Then another man.

John 18

1)A girl
2)Several anonymous persons
3)One of the high priest's servants

I have no problem with you quoting and copying from a site providing it is accurate, the above first needs to be corrected and then we can move on.

Reply after reading the Bible and correct the line-up according to what the Bible actually says. READ CAREFULLY

[Believer]

OneGOD,

These events do not disagree on what is truly important.
What is more important? Peter denied Jesus three times and the rooster crowed, or that the three people Peter spoke to are consistent?

As for the virgin birth, this is supported in the Quran so I fail to see your end goal with this.

And your last argumant is so weak, it's really pathetic.

A colt, ass, foal--same thing!
Jesus was humble and rode on a young donkey into Jerusalem, the prophecy was fulfilled.

[oneGOD]

Sup, when I qoute something from a site I always put it in a quote. I have actually read most of the bible many times. Also, I have qouted from a couple of posts that were written by Abdullah.

What is more important? Peter denied Jesus three times and the rooster crowed, or that the three people Peter spoke to are consistent?

Peter's denial is not the case here, the case is that they disagreed and you claim they are all Inspired.

As for the virgin birth, this is supported in the Quran so I fail to see your end goal with this.

I do believe Jesus was born to Mary the Virgin, however, two of the gospel authors can't seem to know it or remember it, and since the divinity of Jesus is based on his virgin birth then how can they not include this very essential fact about Jesus's birth?

[Believer]

Peace OneGOD,

Peter's denial is not the case here, the case is that they disagreed and you claim they are all Inspired.

I went over this a few times already.
Peter's denial IS the case here, and it is true and consistent in the Gospels.

I do believe Jesus was born to Mary the Virgin, however, two of the gospel authors can't seem to know it or remember it, and since the divinity of Jesus is based on his virgin birth then how can they not include this very essential fact about Jesus's birth?

Mark starts when Jesus began His ministry when He was 30.
This is the shortest and most action-packed Gospel.
It focuses excusively on Jesus's ministry.

The Gospel of John is focused on Jesus as the Incarnation.
It is the most theological of the Gospels.
This Gospel also begins with Jesus's ministry.

Luke and Matthew do mention Jesus's early life, including the Virgin Birth.
They're more focused on Jesus's life.

[oneGOD]

Peter's denial IS the case here, and it is true and consistent in the Gospels

.

Just answer this simple question with a yes or no. Did they disagree?

The Gospel of John is focused on Jesus as the Incarnation.

and you forgot to add that he forgot to add he was born to a virgin.

Heh, they concentrated on his life yet they didn't add the VERY essential fact about his divinity especially John.

[Light]

They do agree, but remember this oneGOD, we can play the same game that you are playing, there is one BIG difference though, you believe that Allah is the actual author of the Qur'an, therefore all verses regarding a certain event should agree with one another.

So, can Allah do better than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Here's one example

How many angels were talking to Mary?

The Qur'an relating the announciation of Jesus' birth to Mary

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah has chosen thee ...
Sura 3:42

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah gives thee glad tidings ...
Sura 3:45

Then we sent to her Our angel, and he appeared before he as a man in all respects. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (Come not near) If thou dost fear Allah."
-- Sura 19:17-18

How many angels came to Mary? One or three or more? [Correct me if the word for "angel" is in the dual, but if it is plural then there have to be at least three.

Why does Mary only seek refuge from one of the angels as she only addresses one in Sura 19:18? Were the others not like men and threatening to her?

[oneGOD]

Maybe you need to understand something about the Arabic language:

How many angels were talking to Mary? When the Qur'an speaks about the announciation of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary, Sura 3:42,45 speaks about (several) angels while it is only one in Sura 19:17-21.

Actually, the author's unfamiliarity with the Arabic language, its grammar and usage, is one of the main reasons for his objection. Indeed, one of the major problems with the Bible as it stands today as so graciously demonstrated by him for us in this example, is that our current Bibles force us to study ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. Such practices (as demonstrated in the book "What Did Jesus Really Say?"), have seriously handicapped any attempts to faithfully translate the original author's intended meanings. This problem, all thanks be to the Almighty, has been completely avoided in the Qur'an, since it has remained from the time of its inspiration to the present day in the same language it was originally revealed in, the language has remained a living language from that day to this, and the book itself has always been in the hands of the people and not "the elite."

The foremost miracle of the Qur'an is in its text. The text of the Arabic language. You can not translate a miracle no matter how you may try. The Arabic language can not be compared to any other language in its intricate complexity, diversity of form, richness of meaning, brevity of parlance, beauty of construct and power of delivery. To give an example of this let us look at the most basic of measures, that of dictionaries:

A fairly comprehensive and authoritative reference on the English language would be the "Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary" tenth edition, in 1500 pages. On the other hand, a common Arabic dictionary is "Lisan Al-Arab" in 18 volumes, each averaging about 650 pages, or about 11700 pages in all. In other words, even if we were to disregard all of the other aspects of the Arabic language, such as its grammar, we would still be faced with a language which is about eight times as complex as the English language. It is not at all uncommon in the Arabic language to find over one hundred words that refer to the same entity, each one of them giving a slightly different detailed description than all of the others. This has resulted in a language which can translate complete English sentences into only one Arabic word.

But the Arabic language is not simply a list of words. Far from it, it is a very complex collection of literary sciences which have been developed, refined, and fine-tuned for generations and millennia beyond counting. The end result of this is a group of literary sciences which literally have no parallel whatsoever in the English language, such as the science of "Sarf" or the multifarious sciences of "Balaghah," among others. Even when the English language can lay claim to a parallel science to that of the Arabic language, such as for example the science of "grammar," even in this case anyone who has the slightest understanding of the Arabic language finds that even these equivalent sciences fade nearly into oblivion when faced with the tremendous complexities and inestimable attention to the minutest detail in Arabic grammar which can literally reverse the meanings of a sentence simply by changing a single squiggle (diacritic) above the last letter of only one word in that sentence (Imagine being able to reverse the meaning of an English sentence by removing the dot over one "i" in that sentence).

William Shakespeare was considered to be one of the leading masters of English literature known to date. However, he never had to deal with the Arabic language. Now, taking into consideration that the Arab nation was one obsessed with literary perfection and refinement of prose, it becomes apparent that what we had here was a nation of literally hundreds of "William Shakespeares." Indeed an individual's mastery of the Arabic language was considered one of the primary distinguishing criteria in selecting tribal leaders. Just as in the wild west people used to have public shoot-outs at high noon, so too did the ancient Arabs have public face-downs in literary composition. These public confrontations could at times be so scathing and destructive as to totally destroy a given individual or tribe and cause them to disband in shame and humiliation, erased from the pages of history (such as happened with the tribe of "Numair"). The greatest of these literary masters had their compositions transcribed and hung up on the walls of the noble Kaaba as a badge of honor and an example for future generations. These compositions which were regarded the "best of the best" where given the name of "Al-Muallaqat" (the hanging poems). These were the people whom God sent Muhammad (pbuh) to, and these are the people whom prophet Muhammad (pbuh) repeatedly challenged, over 23 years, to produce a work similar to the Qur'an, standing alone with no tribe to support him and no ally to defend him but God Almighty. In other words he was challenging them in a field which they were the world's foremost authorities in and the source of their greatest strength and pride. Indeed all of God's prophets throughout history have been sent with miracles in the very fields which that prophet's people excelled in so that they might fully comprehend the magnitude of that miracle and have no excuse in ignorance.

These people whom prophet Muhammad (pbuh) stood alone against and challenged to face the Qur'an were no timid sheep. They were men of great pride, misdirected as it may have been, who would rather go to war and die a slow and torturous death rather than allow the slightest indignity to be attached to their names or the most trivial challenge go unanswered. These were people who would go to war at the drop of a hat or the slightest disrespectful word. In spite of all that, when prophet Muhammad (pbuh) brought them the word of God in the noble Qur'an they suddenly fell silent and refused to face its challenge. God continued to reduce the challenge to them, from challenging them to produce a book like the Qur'an, to challenging them to produce a single surah (chapter) like it, to finally challenging them to produce even a few verses like it. And still, no one was able to face the challenge. On the contrary, those who were the best versed in these issues were among the first to convert to Islam and accept God's message. Some of them even went so far as to completely give up altogether on their previous literary work and to publicly declare that faced with the utter perfection and completion of this book that there was nothing left to say and nothing left to compose. Perfection had already been achieved (3).

Why did I get into all of this?. Well it is in order to make it easier to understand some of the reason why the noble words of God in the Qur'an can never be faithfully translated into English and why the first thing most converts to Islam do is to learn Arabic.

For example, as seen in chapter 14 of the book "What Did Jesus Really Say?," we find that many people when reading the Qur'an mistakenly understand the plural references to God through the use of the words "We" and "Us" to mean that God is "many" or "triune" etc. As seen in that book, this has indeed been the very reason why some people of little knowledge of ancient Hebrew even go so far as to claim that the OT Bible's use of such constructs implies a similar "plurality" of God in a "Trinity." Our current author himself at one time defended this belief. However, as seen in that book, this is far from the true meaning. Informed Christian scholars and dictionaries readily recognize the plurals used there as being plurals of respect reverence and exaltation, not plurals of multiplicity. For example, one of the quotes presented in that book is quoted from the Eerdmans Bible Dictionary where we read the following explanation of the word "Elohiym" (God):


"As a name or designation of the God of Israel, the term is understood as a plural of majesty or an intensive plural, indicating the fullness of the supreme (or only) God ... the canonical intent is clearly monotheistic, even where the accompanying verbs or adjectives are grammatically plural (e.g. Gen. 20:13, Exod. 22:9 [Mt 8])"

Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, edited by Allen C. Myers, William B. Eerdmans Publishers, p. 331


This is why to this day we find the Queen of England, French dignitaries, and most Arab leaders referring to themselves, or referred to by others in the plural sense. When the Queen of England refers to herself in her official speeches as "we" does this mean that she too is "a Trinity"? Sadly, even to this day we still can find people of little experience in these issues continuing to insist on their personal forced interpretations of these matters in spite of what they truly mean and in spite of what those who speak the language, or their own scholars, say they mean.

A similar case to the above is the one presented by our current author. The first three verses (Aal-Umran(3):42-45) do indeed use the word "angels." However, this plural form of the word is used to describe only one angel, specifically, angel Gabriel. Such constructs are used in the Arabic language as a symbol of dignity and respect for that person. This is a popular Arabic grammatical construct called "al-majaz al-mursal" which falls under the subheading of Arabic grammar titled "Balaghah" and which we can not get into here since it requires a basic knowledge of the Arabic language and its grammar. Suffice it to say that there are at least two quick clues to this matter which even non-Arabic speaking people can appreciate. The first one is that in the first set of verses, verses 46-48 say: "The angels said... Mary said... HE replied" meaning that we are speaking about an angel designated as "he" and not "they," in the same very verses themselves.

Secondly, a similar construct can be found elsewhere in the Qur'an which can hopefully clarify this construct to non-Arabic speakers. For example, in Al-Nahi(16):120 we read: "Verily Abraham was a nation obedient to Allah and he was not of the polytheists."

We notice here that prophet Abraham (pbuh) is described as a "nation." Does this mean that he is literally a few hundred thousand people? No. This is an Qur'anic term of exaltation and elevation for Abraham above all humans such that he is higher in regard and reward with God than an entire nation of mortals. In the same manner, the status of the angel Gabriel with God is of a similar stature among the angels. There are many other similar constructs in the Arabic language, many of which are applied to angel Gabriel in more than one location in the Qur'an to set him apart from all other angels. These examples include special grammatical constructs as well as special titles (such as the title of "Holy Spirit").

For example, president Clinton is a Washington politician. No one doubts this fact. However, have you ever heard someone say: "President Clinton has just concluded a meeting with senior advisors and other Washington politicians"? Obviously this is a "contradiction" right? If we refer to these other men as "Washington politicians" then we can not then claim that president Clinton too is a "Washington politician." That would contradict this statement. He must be something "other than" a Washington politician, right?

Obviously this is faulty logic. Such constructs are used even in the English language to "set apart" or "dignify" a given individual of special importance over a group of his peers. The fact that President Clinton was mentioned separately from the other Washington politicians is only intended to convey a special status for him over and above "run or the mill" Washington politicians. He is the "President." He is "special." This and other similar constructs are used numerous times in the Qur'an in reference to Angel Gabriel in order to set him apart as a very special and highly esteemed angel with God. For example, in Al-Nahil(66):4 we read: "If you both repent unto God then your hearts have indeed heeded. But if you assist one-another against him (Muhammad, pbuh) then verily Allah is his Patron, and Gabriel, and the righteous believers, and the angels after that shall come to [his] aid."

And in Al-Baqarah(2):98: "Whosoever is an enemy to Allah, His angels, His Messengers, Gabriel, Michael (the angel of the rain), then verily, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers."

Here we see angel Michael too set apart with a special status and mention. Angel Gabriel is an angel. So is angel Michael. Muslims have no doubt about that. However, Gabriel is not just any angel. He is a special angel. An angel with a special purpose, unique titles, high stature with God and the patron of the prophets. This is how God dignifies and exalts those who serve Him in truth, integrity, and sincerity.

Similar to these examples, we find in the Qur'an that not all prophets are alike. For example, some prophets have been given distinction over others and are mentioned in isolation from the rest as a sign of exaltation for them. For example, God says in the Qur'an in Al-Baqarah(2):253:

"Those messengers! We preferred some of them over others. Some were those who were spoken to by God, others He raised by degrees. And unto Jesus the son of Mary We bestowed the clear proofs and assisted him with the holy Spirit (Gabriel)..."

And in Al-Israa(17):55:

"And your Lord knows best who are in the heavens and the earth. And indeed, We have preferred some of the prophets above others, and to David We gave the Psalms."

Also, in A'al-Umran(3):84:

"Say: 'We believe in Allah and in that which was sent down upon us and that which was sent down upon Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the sons of Jacob, and that which was given unto Moses, Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord...."

Does this mean that Moses, Jesus, Abraham, etc. are not "prophets"? No. This is simply the nature of the language of the Qur'an and one of the methods used to distinguish them above the rest.

Getting back to our current example, we find that in both of the quoted verses angel Gabriel is referred to through popular Arabic constructs of respect and exaltation. In the first it is demonstrated in the use of the plural construct, in the second it is demonstrated in the use of his official title of "Holy Spirit," where we see that the verse says that "We (God) sent unto her (Mary) Our Spirit (Gabriel)..."

Even in English is not too much of a stretch to understand the intent. If a president has a highly esteemed ambassador whom he has entrusted with a significant task, and this president wishes to bestow upon this ambassador and his message an air of importance, then he would not say "I have sent some guy...." or "I have sent one of my people.." since this would reflect badly on that ambassador as someone who is not even worthy to remember his name or his service. It would also reflect badly on the message itself since it would imply that the message was of such little importance that it was entrusted to someone of such little merit. Rather, one way to convey an air of dignity and importance to the messenger as well as the message would be to mention the man's office, such as to say "I sent my ambassador.." Another way would be to directly exalt him such as saying "I sent my most trusted and faithful aid..." And finally, in Arabic one could use the plural form such as to say "I sent THEM (him).."

Actually, I believe that this might even answer another question I seem to remember being presented a little farther down as another "contradiction." In any case, we can deal with that as we reach it, by the will of Allah.

For more on this issue you can read "Safwat Al-Tafaseer," by Al-Sabooni, "Rooh Al-Maani fi tafseer Al-Qur'an al-Adheem wa al-Sab'a al-Mathani," by Abi Al-Fadhil Al-Aloosi, "Aldur Al-Manthoor fi Al-Tafseer bilmathoor" by Abdulrahman Al-Suyooti, or "Tafseer Al-Manar" by Muhammad Rasheed Ridha, among others.


Now, the author also draws attention in his commentary that some Muslims have pointed to the various accounts of "how many angels" were present at the alleged resurrection of Jesus (pbuh) in the various narrations of the four Gospels of the Bible. He attempts to reduce the tens upon tens of discrepancies which Christian scholars have discovered in this story to only one and then to quickly explain it away by giving his example of one who meets the President and Vice President and only says: "I met the President." Rather than getting into the further details of the many additional problems with only this one story, I shall simply leave it up to him to resolve this issue quite thoroughly by claiming the $2000 "Easter Challenge" prize and posting the check on his "Answering Islam" web page. Since the issue of the resurrection in so critical to trinitarian Christianity (I Corinthians 15:14-15) but at the same time directly flies in the face of everything God has said in the noble Qur'an, therefore, his complete harmonization of these narrations, and his claiming of this prize, shall indeed constitute a substantial step forward towards exonerating the Church from all claims that they fabricated this story as part of their continuous campaign of tampering with the text of the Bible

[Light]

The use of the plural form when talking about the angel in 3:42 & 45 does not make any sense unless the Qur'an really means that there were more than one angel speaking with Mary. The Verse 47 in Sura 3 uses the verb "Kala' in the singular form refering to one angel.

So why doesn't the Qur'an say then: "We sent unto her our spirits"? Since elsewhere the singular word malaak (angel) becomes malaa'ika (angels)? The one with the highest honor among the angels is left in the singular?

That big post mostly went off in tangents, the author knows more about skillful propaganda than he knows Arabic.

So, address these questions oneGOD above, and how could the perfect Allah again be so inconsistent in his use of language?

[oneGOD]

He is not inconsistant man. I quoted that for you to know some aspects of the arabic language. However, it is clearly speaking of two separate events.

That quote actually tries to explain some aspects of arabic language. For example when I speak to someone who is to be honored I wouldn't be able to translate this to English since I will be talking to him as if he is more than one person, I hope you understand me here. If I translate it to english then it would sound like I am talking to a single person only.

Anyway to answer you question:

When I read them I understood they were speaking of two different events. I also search the sites for answers to prove my point and amazingly they came up with similar answers :

Anti-Islamic Claim: 2.How many angels were talking to Mary? When the Qur'an speaks about the announciation of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary, Sura 3:42,45 speaks about (several) angels while it is only one in Sura 19:17-21.

My Response: Ayat (verses) 3:42-45 "Behold ! the angels said: O Mary ! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations. Oh Mary ! worship they Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down. This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Prophet !) by inpiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point). Behold ! the angels said: O Mary ! Allah giveth thee Glad tidings of a word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus. The son of Mary, held in honour In this world and the Hereafter And of (the company of) those Nearest to Allah."

Ayat (verses) 19:17-21 "She (Marry) placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We (Allah) sent to her Our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: 'I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.' He said: 'Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.' She said: 'How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?' He said: 'So (if will be): Thy Lord saith, 'That is Easy for Me: and (we wish) to appoint him as a sign unto men and a mercy from us': It is a matter (so) decreed.'"

There is no contradiction in the Noble Verses above.

The above Holy Verses (3:42-45) and (19:17-21) might look like they are contradicting each others from a simple fact that (3:42-45) talk about multiple angels, while (19:17-21) talk about one angel. However, there is no contradiction !. These two sets of Holy Verses took place at two different times.

Let us look at Ayah (verse) 3:47 "She said: 'O my Lord ! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?' He (the angel) said: 'Even so: Allah creath what He willeth: When He hath decreed A Plan, He but saith To it, 'Be,' and it is!'"

Surah (3:47) is very identical to (19:17-21). They both talk about One Angel speaking to Mary. They both also mention that Mary will give birth to Jesus Christ without being touched by another man. They both also contain the short conversation that took place between Mary and the angel (peace be upon them). Both groups of verses combined together reveal to us what the angel told Mary about Allah Almighty and his will.

Another important point is that the angels were speaking to Mary at a different time when the single angel spoke to her. In (3:44) we read "as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point)." This part of the verse proves that Mary had no male guardian at that time when they were looking for her, because one of them was going to be in charge of inspiring her and guarding her, since no guardian would be assigned to a married woman (if she were married to Joseph). So Jesus was not born right after the angels came to Mary, because after they came to her, one of them was assigned to guard her and inpire her. He didn't inspire her after she gave birth to Jesus. This part of the verse shows us that Mary was young when the angels came to her. They told her that Allah Almighty had chosen her and purified her from her sins from among all of the women of all nations. They also told her that she must worship Allah Almighty and bow down to him. They also told her that she will give birth later to a son named Jesus Christ who will be honored in this life and the life after.

Later, the single angel (3:47, 19:17-21) came to her (when she grew up) and informed her that she would get pregnant without being touched by another man and Allah Almighty was going to send a new messenger of God to the people of Isreal to reveal to them the words of God.

Note: (3:45) was a promise to Mary before she was married to Joseph. (3:47, and 19:17-21) were the actual timing of the formation of Jesus Christ himself in her womb after Mary was married to Joseph.

[oneGOD]

At least they have answers and every contradiction you claim is totally due to the fact that Arabic language is much richer than English and therefor it can not be translated. You can not provide any explanation on how those authors of the Gospel never agree on so many things. One example is the case of Peter and him denying Jesus.

If those men were inspired they would actually agree on so many facts but if they were not then they wouldn't.
If four people write about my life, would they agree?

Of course not but if they were being dictated by God then they would.

[Light]

Find for me one single example of someone saying "we sent our ambassadors" when he means one man, in arabic?

Arabs may address a person of honor, i.e a president or anybody by the word "Hadratoukom", "Seyadatoukom", Jalalatoukom" ... but when mentioning those people as a third person, it is never said, "Hadratouhom, "Seyadatouhom", or Jalalatouhom", but in the singular third person form, i.e. "Hadratouhou", "Seyadatouhou" or "Jalalatouhou", regardless of the importance of that third person.

Here's another example of Allah all over the place...

Can Angels Disobey?

About the angels: For NONE are arrogant (before their Lord). They ALL fear their Lord, high above them, and they do ALL they are commanded. -- Sura 16:49-50

And behold, we said to the ANGELS: "Bow down to Adam". And THEY bowed down, EXCEPT Iblis. He refused and was haughty. -- Sura 2:34

Explain....

[oneGOD]

No man, I can still say we sent our ambassadors and mean one person. However, the event above still refers to two different events in Mary's life nif that what you care about understanding. I quoted the above for you to understand some aspect of the Arabic langauge.

Arabs may address a person of honor, i.e a president or anybody by the word "Hadratoukom", "Seyadatoukom", Jalalatoukom" ... but when mentioning those people as a third person, it is never said, "Hadratouhom, "Seyadatouhom", or Jalalatouhom", but in the singular third person form, i.e. "Hadratouhou", "Seyadatouhou" or "Jalalatouhou", regardless of the importance of that third person.

Actually even when mentioning as a third person you could use it as if you were addressing them. Like :

Sayyed Ahmad showed up at the conference. Seyadatouhom addressed the conference. <=== this totally makes since in arabic

[Light]

Ultimately, when applied, the use of the plural form when talking about the angel in 3:42 & 45 does not make any sense unless the Qur'an really means that there were more than one angel speaking with Mary. The Verse 47 in Sura 3 uses the verb "Kala' in the singular form refering to one angel.

The "Mary - Angel" event is one of many examples of how Allah says one thing and then says another.

[oneGOD]

Heh......

IT IS SPEAKING OF TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS.

[Light]

Heh..........


No, you're lying - Sura 3:42 & 45 contradicts Sura 19:17-18.


Check the before and after, it is the same event, from this site, check yourself Sura 3:42 & 45 and
Sura 19:17-18

[oneGOD]

Dude, I am not. It is speaking of two differnt events. What's so hard to understand about that

First event

42 And when the angels said to Mary: 'Allah has chosen you and purified you. He has chosen you above all women of the worlds.
43 Mary, be obedient to your Lord, prostrate and bow with those who bow.'
44 This is from the news of the unseen. We reveal it to you (Prophet Muhammad). You were not present when they cast their quills to see which of them should look after Mary, nor were you present when they were disputing.
45 When the angels said: 'O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word (Be) from Him, whose name is Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary. He shall be honored in this world and in the Everlasting Life - and he shall be among those who are close.
46 He shall speak to people in his cradle and when he is aged, and shall be among the righteous.'47 'Lord,' she said, 'how can I bear a child when no human being has touched me?' He replied: 'Such is the Will of Allah. He creates whom He will. When He decrees a thing, He only says: "Be," and it is.
48 He will teach him the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel,
49 to be a Messenger to the Children of Israel, (saying): "I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. From clay, I will create for you the likeness of a bird. I shall breathe into it and by the permission of Allah, it shall be a bird. I shall heal the blind, and the leper, and raise the dead to life by the permission of Allah. I shall tell you what you ate and what you store in your houses. Surely, that will be a sign for you, if you are believers.

Second event : when he showed up to give her the baby

17 We sent to her Our Spirit (Gabriel) in the resemblance of a perfect human.
18 (And when she saw him) she said: 'I take refuge in the Merciful from you! If you are fearful.'
19 'I am the Messenger of your Lord,' he replied, 'and have come to give you a pure boy.'
20 'How shall I bear a son,' she answered, 'when I am not touched by a human and not unchaste?'
21 “Even so” he replied, “as such your Lord has said: ’Easy it is for Me. And We shall make him a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us. It is a matter decreed.’”
22 Thereupon she carried him, and retired to a far- off place.
23 And when the birth-pangs came upon her by the trunk of a palm-tree, she said: 'Oh, would that I had died before this and become a thing forgotten!'

It's clear man, I find no problem seeing it's speaking of two events. I'm not trying to be rude but since you don't understand Arabicliteratue and how it really works you are not qualified to claim you understand it. Arab Christians never argue about those so called contradictions because they understand it clearly when they read it. You only find people talking about contradictions when they are non arabic speakers. If they want to prove the Quran false this way then they need to learn arabic before they speak.

[Light]

It is the same event, the first details it, the second is looking back and summarizes it, the problem you have is that the second account contradicts the first and that is why it appears to you as two seperate events because you can't accept that Allah messed up. It is clear to me that it is the same event and clear to the majority of scholars.

[oneGOD]

I know I can't argue with someone who don't understand Arabic when they deal with these issues.Not because I believe it's the word of God I believe it's not contradictory but also because when I read it in both english and arabic I see how it's speaking of two different events.

Just like I said your ignorance of the Arabic language made you think they are speaking of the same when they are not.

Read the rest of 19 after the verse 17 and you will see it also.

First she was informed then it happened.

[Light]

I've already said that the first is detailed, the second is looking back and therefore summarizes what has already happened, this is clear, crystal clear.

[oneGOD]

Ok man, however you like it. Just for your information Christian Arabs who try to go against the Quran never mentions this because they know it's speaking of two different events. Only people like you who don't understand the language talk about such things. First the angles showed up, secondly the ANGEL SHOWED UP IN A HUMAN FLESH .

[Alpha]

Ok man, however you like it. Just for your information Christian Arabs who try to go against the Quran never mentions this because they know it's speaking of two different events. Only people like you who don't understand the language talk about such things. First the angles showed up, secondly the ANGEL SHOWED UP IN A HUMAN FLESH .

So it is God's fault we do not know the truth? It was God who scattered man all over the earth and gave us different languages (Genesis 11:6-7) and now God says we must get back to knowing one language again in order to know the truth? Why scatter us in the first place? Besides, if God wanted us to know one language, it will be Hebrew, not Arabic. God made a covenant with the Jews, not the Arabs.

[oneGOD]

So it is God's fault we do not know the truth?

No

and now God says we must get back to knowing one language again in order to know the truth?

If you want to learn the Quran then you oughtta learn it in its original form. Other than that, you will misunderstand things, just like it was shown above that it is referring to two separate events.

Why scatter us in the first place?

God did it, so ask God for the answer not me.