Jesus and Isa not the same

Muslims and Christians seem afraid to examine their Scripture for the truth about the Messiah and they both follow tradition rather than their respective Scripture when having to face their differences in the name of the Messiah and whether he was crucified or not.

Muslims accept the confirmation of the Quran that the Messiah was not crucified but they reject the confirmation of the same Quran that the Messiah’s name was Isa and not Jesus and so they falsely preach a prophet Jesus of Islam.

Christians reject Islam’s view on the crucifixion but they seem to accept that Jesus was a prophet of Islam who is not considered by the Muslims to be the son of God.

The Quran is quite clear about the Messiah and the Bible actually agrees with the Quran that there was a hoax to the crucifixion and also a hoax to the name Jesus as applied to the Biblical Christ, but Muslims and Christians are extremely fearful about opening the Scriptures to see this agreement as it exposes the both side4s of being astray from the Scriptures and from the truth.

The Age Of Reason by M A Raheem and Mervyn C Charles examines the Scriptures and arrives at proof of the truth of the hoaxes of the name of Jesus and the crucifixion but Muslims and Christians turn away from being faced with the reality. 

The Quran puts its confirmation in the words of the translation as, “That they said, we killed the Messiah Isa, the son of Mariam, the Apostle of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for a surety they killed him not”  Quran 4:157

To say that Jesus was crucified would be wholly true according to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John of the New Testament of the Bible, and this would depend on the true identity of Jesus.

To say that the Messiah or Christ was crucified would definitely be false and misleading and contrary to the claim of the Quran, and the evidence of Scripture as contained in the Bible.

The name of Jesus is a New Testament name that is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament, so that the Old Testament of the Bible disagrees with, or, it cannot be said to be in total agreement with this name that is used to identify the Messiah in the New Testament. 

The four Gospels are the claimants of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and they are the Gospels of the crucifixion by four, that is to say, that they are used in repetition of the alleged crucifixion, but they are certainly not the Gospels of the fulfilment of the prophecy of the child as named in the prophecy and command of the Lord God of Israel of the Book of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) of the Old Testament of the Bible.

Two of the four Gospels (Matthew and Luke) make mention of the naming of the infant Messiah with the name of Jesus, which name defies the prophecy and command of the Lord God of Israel. (Isaiah 7:14)

Jesus of the Gospels replaces Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), which is referred to as Emmanuel (Matthew1: 23). This represents an annulment of the command of the Lord, by an angel of the Lord, after the child was conceived in the mother’s womb (Matthew 1:20-21).

Matthew attempts to justify this annulment of the command of the Lord as a fulfilment of the prophecy as “spoken” by the prophet (Matthew 1:22), but the prophecy is again altered, with the authority for naming the child being shifted from the virgin to “they,” whoever they may be. 

The prophecy and command of the Lord, was one of conception without a father, “a virgin shall conceive” (Isaiah 7:14), which is repeated in Matthew’s reference, with what seems to be a slight twist to the original prophecy, becoming The prophecy and command of the Lord, was one of conception without a father, “a virgin shall conceive” (Isaiah 7:14), which is repeated in Matthew’s reference, with what seems to be a slight twist to the original prophecy, becoming, “a virgin shall be with child.” (Matthew 1: 23)

Luke reports that an Angel of God, Gabriel by name, appears to the virgin before conception (Luke 1:26-31), which would be before Matthew’s angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph “in a dream,” after conception. (Matthew1: 20)

Luke appears to be reading his command to the virgin from the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) as he states, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” (Luke 1:31) Here, Luke agrees with the earlier prophecy that the virgin shall name the son, with the exception and/or alteration of Immanuel, (Isaiah 7:14) and/or Emmanuel. (Matthew 1:23) and the insertion of JESUS.

Luke goes one step further and reports the naming of the child eight days after his birth, at his circumcision, at which time, “his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)

Luke comes after the duplicated crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, by which time Matthew has already named the child, who has twice gone through the crucifixion of Jesus King of the Jews.

Luke introduces a different chronological order of events that does not help to remove uncertainty and confusion, so that the breach of the command of the Lord God of Israel comes from what can be said to be:

  • One or two different angels (the angel is not named in Matthew while Gabriel is the angel of Luke),
  • In two different locations, (to Joseph, after he became conscious of her pregnancy, while he slept, in Matthew, and to Mary, before conception in Luke),
  • On two separate occasions, (which is quite obvious, being before and after conception).

We are informed by Luke that the mother was aware that “that which was conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1: 20), before she conceived and after she “was espoused to a man named Joseph” (Luke 1: 27), and yet Joseph was not considered until after he contemplated putting her away for being unfaithful. This confusion and scandal must be viewed as no more than a sacrilegious distortion of Scripture.

We have Joseph being authorized to name the child Jesus in Matthew by the angel (Matthew 1:21) to which he complied (Matthew 1: 25). The mother is authorized to name the child Jesus in Luke (Luke 1:31), to which Luke offers no evidence that she did comply. Both Gospels therefore do agree that the virgin was in no way responsible for the alteration of the name of her child nor for the confusion in the naming of the child with an improper name.

Muslims and Christians conceal their misunderstanding in Yeshua and Joshua as Jesus when Yeshua or Joshua translate Yah or Jah is Salvation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: