Does this apparent perpetual and multi-generational �curse� (at least as it has been interpreted at times viciously throughout history) apply to {keyword} �the� disbelieving Jews and their ancestors, �children,� in toto?  Or, as post-modernist exegetes and others would have it, does it only apply to �some� Jews �for instance, to those who were present at the time in Jerusalem?  Does the Bible itself specify?  Must we try to understand it on our own?  Did (and do) �some� or �all� Jews say?   Couldn�t the New Testament writers, speakers of that capable language, Greek, make it clearer? 

(Matt 27:20-24)

�But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor. "Barabbas," they answered. "What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. They all answered, "Crucify him!" "Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children! [bold emphasis added]�

Serv

Hi Servie,

Another good question:

"Does this apparent perpetual and multi-generational �curse� (at least as it has been interpreted at times viciously throughout history) apply to {keyword} �the� disbelieving Jews and their ancestors, �children,� in toto?  Or, as post-modernist exegetes and others would have it, does it only apply to �some� Jews �for instance, to those who were present at the time in Jerusalem?  Does the Bible itself specify?  Must we try to understand it on our own?  Did (and do) �some� or �all� Jews say?   Couldn�t the New Testament writers, speakers of that capable language, Greek, make it clearer?"

Yes, Yahweh (YHVH) had already made that  clear in the Holy Bible that he is a jealous God and punishes children of a father upto the fourth generation. Naturally each father of a generation made mistakes or committed sins, so the punsihment of children became like a perpetual curse that extends to all generations. 

(Matt 27:20-24)

�But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor. "Barabbas," they answered. "What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. They all answered, "Crucify him!" "Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children! [bold emphasis added]�

Like I wrote above, they were prepared in this case for above as per bold emphasis from you.

The above statement from Matthew is good for the topic of crucifiction. Notice the Jews ask for the release of a notorious bandit and a murderer who killed the Jews and robbed their own. Pilate obliged.

Note that Jesus was also good at transfiguration. According to one gospel writer's accounts when people came to arrest Jesus, they fell down when Judas went to point out Jesus to them, as if no one knew Jesus. Must have been some kind of shock!!!  Looks like the Jews and Romans were making each other look real bad. Just a thought for the other topic.

Good Night

BMZ

Servetus wrote: Does this apparent perpetual and multi-generational �curse� (at least as it has been interpreted at times viciously throughout history) apply to {keyword} �the� disbelieving Jews and their ancestors, �children,� in toto?  Or, as post-modernist exegetes and others would have it, does it only apply to �some� Jews �for instance, to those who were present at the time in Jerusalem?  Does the Bible itself specify?  Must we try to understand it on our own?  Did (and do) �some� or �all� Jews say?   Couldn�t the New Testament writers, speakers of that capable language, Greek, make it clearer?  (Matt 27:20-24) �But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor. "Barabbas," they answered. "What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. They all answered, "Crucify him!" "Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children! [bold emphasis added]� Serv

Serv,

You said in another topic that you go with what the Jews say.  The Jews say that Ezra was never called the "son of God."

We have to remember that in the Qur'an Allah is talking, not a man.

My question has always been does the Arabic in that Surah support the translation of "some."

My expert in the Arabic language says, no it does not.

Shalom

George (you are quoted below in blue),

�You [Serv] said in another topic that you go with what the Jews say.�

Please allow me to clarify.  You are referring to this, I think?

�But still, in future, when speaking of the three religions, and especially when comparing and contrasting them, I [Servetus] will continue to quote Jews who represent Judaism � when I want to understand especially Orthodox Judaism�s response to Christianity and to Islam. [bold emphasis added]�

�The Jews say that Ezra was never called the "son of God."�

First, and with all due respect, I would say how do they know?  Maybe, as Andalus, BMZ and (I think) others have suggested, there were groups of diaspora Jews in Arabia who were saying exactly that and with no Josephus nearby to record it.

Have you (and others) considered that (and Muslims please note here that I am not trying to exercise ijtihad), if there were diaspora groups of Jews saying this, perhaps the Quranic �curse� applied only to them?  And that, for that matter, if and when they were to stop �saying� that, the curse, too, might no longer apply?  I certainly do not know.  I am not meaning to be disrespectful here nor am I meaning to put you in ignoble company, but why, I wonder, this marked tendency (not on your part, just in general) to strain at Quranic gnats while swallowing Biblical camels?

By way of analogy, and as it is written, does this above �curse� from the Gospel of Matthew, for example, which has had very real and palpable historical repercussions throughout Christendom and certainly Jewry, apply to some or to all (disbelieving) Jews, local or global, then or now?  (The question is somewhat rhetorical and does not need to be answered.  I raise it primarily for consideration, or as a case in point.)  Likewise, it was suggested in another thread that there may have been groups of �Collyridian� (thanks, Fredi) Christians whose worship, or veneration of Mary was tantamount to deification and to whom such ayats as 5:116 more clearly and absolutely applied.  Plausible rule of thumb: if any Quranic injunction, or cease and desist order, doesn�t sound like something one (or one's friends) are doing or saying, it might not apply to one (or them).

�We have to remember that in the Qur'an Allah is talking, not a man.�

Point noted.  For that matter, perhaps we should try to hear it a little more clearly (not saying or implying that you are not trying).

�My question has always been does the Arabic in that Surah support the translation of "some."�

I understand.  For that matter, I am still wondering about the above �curse,� or what some have called blood-libel from Matthew as well.

�My expert in the Arabic language says, no it does not.�

Are these gnats or camels?

(in the language of Christian Arabs �)

Waylakum, a�Salaam

Serv

George,

The Jews were no single nation at that time. Throughout the history they had lived as tribes. Besides the twelve tribes living in Israel, guarding each other's flanks, there were many who had travelled far out.

There were different views as there were too many Jewish rabbis, who were teaching the scripture according to their own wild interpretations, like Paul and his church did with the teachings of Jesus. Most of the Jews were run by Thalmudic teachers who were insisting on the importance of oral teachings.

Over a period of 1,500 to 2000 years, many Jews living in different parts of the entire ME region were practising their own brand of the religion. Those living towards East in the Arabian Desert had their own beliefs and ways. This is confirmed by the huge amount of scripture that has already been thrown out under the Apocrypha by the modern Jewry just before Jesus was born.

The bold statement from Qur'aan is made on the statement of Jews living amongst the Arabs and they must have said that. If they had not, Qur'aan would not have said that.

Remember there was no single Jewish high command like the Pope or the Vatican for Jews. They were running crazy on their own.

Qur'aan thus refers to the Jews who lived amongst pre-Islam Arabs and "Ezra was the Son of God" must have been their belief. It doesn't matter whether one Arab Jew said that or all the Arab Jews said that or some said that. While thousands of Jewish thinkers, self-proclaimed scholars and philosophers were busy in a concentrated area of Israel, the others were following theirs in far off lands.

If you don't have that in the Bible, it does mean that is not possible. There are many statements and points in Qur'aan which are not in the Bible. Then there are many which are in the Bible and Qur'aan also but you miss them.

For example incest. Incest was forbidden a few thousand years even before Judaism.  It was forbidden in one of the Seven Great Commandments given to Noah. Yet Bible missed that!

And the people were merrily producing people through Incest for multiplication. Bible is an evidence to that and you cannot deny that. Now Noah was in the region of modern day Iraq, possibly the area of Kurdistan. He never lived in Israel or Judea. Abraham started nearby, also from Iraq and yet he is shown as having married Sarah, his own father's daughter from another woman. I am surprised such good Commandments failed to reach Jerusalem in time.

Dear Serventus,

Quran 3:64 Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God's Will).

George, the so-called curse did not start because of Ezra. The curses were there right from the beginning after Moses led the Jews out of Egypt.

The Bible itself confirms that and you can even read the woes sent by Jesus.

*significantly re-edited, posted again*

Thank you, AbRah.

___

George (you are quoted below in blue),

Thank you.  I had already read that article by Todd Baker, or at least portions, and others like it, before I posted.  I would call that, as I did above, not only a �post-Modernist� exegesis, but a �sola scriptura, Judeo-Protestant� and thus by definition heterodox one as well.  Here, then, is what I consider the important bit.  Note that the author claims that the verses are in the main woefully �misunderstood� and �misinterpreted.�  He then seeks, after lo these 2,000 years, to set the record straight and to tell not less than the Church Fathers of his own impression of the verses� meaning.   I, for my part, wish him all the luck, or Godspeed in doing so.  The fact remains, as he (Baker) sees it:

�Matthew 27:25 arguably stands out as one of the most misunderstood [sic] and misinterpreted [sic]  passages in all of Holy Scripture. Of the proposed interpretations for Matthew 27:25, the anti-Jewish interpretation is the oldest and most frequently cited in the history of the Church. This view says the Jewish people are permanently guilty and condemned in the eyes of God for their murder of Jesus Christ. As such, the cry of �His blood be upon us� means that the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem admitted full guilt for killing the Lord Jesus Christ and thereby invoked God�s curse upon themselves and their descendants until the end of time. This interpretation first surfaced in the writings of the early church fathers in the second century AD. It became universally accepted by the Middle Ages. The result, among other things, was the slanderous accusation that all Jews were �Christ killers� and �murderers of God.� Sadly, this is still a widespread belief in the Church today.�

I would call this (above) a Biblical camel.

�As I pointed out the Arabic [in Quran 9:30] does not allow us to read "some."  The verse infers "all" Jews.�

And this, I would call straining at a Quranic gnat.

�Further than that, since Allah would have know how Matthew 27:25 had been used to persecute and/or accuse all Jews of Jesus' murder I would think that he would have made sure that it didn't happen again with a verse in the Qur'an.  In other words, he would have identified the Jews as "x,y,z" Jews and not have left the impression that he condemned all Jews.�

Perhaps, when you have finished reading Zola Levitt (or recommending him), and unless you have done so, you might consider reading Heinrich Graetz�s multi-volume �History of the Jews.�  There, you will hear a learned Jew recount the ages, in detail, and say what a relief (to Jewry) Islam in general was when compared to Christianity.       

�Now could you tell me what your understanding is of the Jews calling Ezra the "son of God."  Why was that expression so horrid to Allah that he put a curse on them?�

Thank you for asking.  Beyond what I have said, I cannot provide a tafsir on the Quran any more than I can write an orthodox exegesis on this portion from Matthew.  At any rate, I generally prefer to read history.  The subject tends to be less contentious than theology.

Best regards,

Serv

Dear All,

I think it is not the First Curse or the Second Curse which matters but I am worried about the Third Curse, which might have inflicted many.

God first cursed Satan and that was followed by the Second Curse to the ground on which Adam stood, because he listened to his wife. But God never cursed his wife although she was assured of increased pains in child bearing. Cain escaped from getting cursed because God had no choice.  

But then before the Third Curse, God said,"My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal, his days will be a hundred and twenty years." That settles the issue that after this statement no one of the chosen ones and the families lived more than a 120 years.

Sorry for not coming to the Third Curse. It was not a Curse from God. I am coming to it, please bear with me. The sons who came out of the ark, were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) Then looks like Noah had some kind of drinking problem and got drunk.

Ham saw his father lying naked and told his brothers Shem and Japheth who covered their naked father with some cloth.

But then Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he shot up the Third Curse, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

Questions: Why did Noah curse Canaan instead of Ham? Why did he not curse Ham direct? Why did Noah choose to curse the youngest child of Ham, whose name was Canaan, Noah's own grandson? Why is the name of Ham mentioned as Ham, the father of Canaan while the others are just mentioned as Shem and Japheth?    I know who wrote all that forgery.

Now this is the best of them all:

"Canaan was the father of Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, Giragsh*tes, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites. Arvadtes, Zemarites and Hamathites.", looks like Ham was the Great Grandfather of all the bad guys!    What a Curse?

"if you dont get rid of that blasted penguin, youll be getting 7 plagues!!"

That's one bad "unIslamic" penguin in full hijaab!