From: denisgiron1978@gmail.com   
      
   Nima wrote:    
   > > > Like the early Ebionites they revere    
   > > > James, the Teacher of Righteousness    
   > > > (as), who with us was the true    
   > > > Manifestation of God    
      
   I commented:   
   > > The transition from appealing to the   
   > > Ebionites to calling James the    
   > > manifestation of God seems rather    
   > > awkward.    
      
   Nima replied:   
   > To you. Not to us.    
      
   I’d say to anyone familiar with the Ebionites, both in terms of the   
   (admittedly limited) ancient references to them, and the (perhaps at times   
   speculative) larger body of modern scholarship on the subject. There is no   
   reason to think they considered    
   James a “manifestation of God,â€� and a number of modern writers seem to   
   think they held a conception of God which might be considered potentially at   
   odds with that (admittedly the latter might be more open to question).   
      
   I wrote:   
   > > So then, is your position that when    
   > > the Qur’an refers to ᶜĪsÄ�, it is    
   > > referring to James?    
      
   Nima replied:   
   > The more relevant question is, what    
   > did the original, integral Qur'an have    
   > to say about the matter and not what    
   > the interpolated and heavily redacted    
   > Qur'an of Uthman says.    
      
   So, to be clear, your position hinges on rejecting the extant Qur’Ä�n, as   
   full of interpolations and having been heavily redacted, and appealing to some   
   pre-ᶜUthmÄ�nic text. That’s awesome (I honestly really like the idea), but   
   if you are going to    
   propose an alternative reading for what the “real Qur’Ä�nâ€� actually   
   stated, some might wonder about evidence in favor of what you posit. Via what   
   methodology is the true reading arrived at? Or should people just take your   
   word for it?   
      
   I asked:   
   > > And does the Qur’an really say the    
   > > Messiah was not crucified?    
      
   Nima quoted:   
   > وَقَوْلÙ�Ù‡Ù�مْ Ø¥Ù�نَّا قَتَلْنَا ال٠  
   Ù…َسÙ�يحَ عÙ�يسَى   
   > ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسÙ�ولَ اللَّهÙ� وَمَا   
   Ù‚َتَلÙ�وهÙ� وَمَا صَلَبÙ�وهÙ�    
   >    
   > And they say, verily we killed the    
   > Messiah [Jesus son of Mary -    
   > possible interpolation], the    
   > Messenger of God, but they did   
   > not kill him nor crucify Him...(my trans.)    
      
   Well, Nima, that text does not state that the Messiah was not crucified.   
   Rather it states that the persons being quoted did not crucify him. Consider   
   this analogy: the proposition “the Chinese did not shoot President   
   Kennedyâ€� does not logically    
   entail the conclusion “therefore President Kennedy was not shot.â€�   
      
   Beyond that, however, there is now a methodological issue: you have proposed   
   that the Qur’Ä�n has significant interpolations and was heavily redacted.   
   I’m not disputing that view, but once that premise is on the table, it begs   
   the question: how do we    
   know surat an-NisÄ�’ 4:157 is not one of the interpolations? Note that you   
   yourself treat the verse as potentially corrupted by virtue of it calling the   
   Messiah ᶜĪsÄ� ibn Maryam. So if, on your own view, the verse is potentially   
   corrupted, should we    
   second guess whether it can be cited as accurately reporting what happened to   
   the Messiah?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)