A Christian priest friend of mine in the real world (ie not on-line) emailed me his comments on If God Needed A Blood Sacrifice For Sin, God Is Not Holy. James gave me permission to post his comments here:
Interesting…Easter would mean so much more if we approached it trusting in the humanity of Jesus a man, whose compassion and understanding of what the Divine might be in relationship to us, makes him, Jesus, worthy of the ascription, Christos.
Sadly by turning a man into God, we then embark on turning God into a blood lusting ogre.
I attended a communion service today, Mass, and was unable to say the responses or share in the sacrament…endless talk of blood, body, sacrifice and our abounding sin, not even worthy to gather the crumbs beneath the table…for which read altar, yet more evidence of our theological preoccupation with sacrifice and the ogre above. And we wonder why intelligent people have all but abandoned the church!
The church has turned people into mice…pass the cheese!
James
Categories: Christianity, God
Blogging Theology 
I admire your friend admission, especially the fact he is a priest. But yes this obsession with blood is something which I found the most unattractive (if not sickening) in Christianity. I also personally know a christian who feel the same way. He said to me whenever he think about the cross, he see nothing but misery.
Thankfully, we know that God is Merciful. He will guarantee Heaven for the believers not because their deeds alone, nor awful shedding of blood but by His Grace.
Alhamdulillah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wonder if he could potentially get into trouble for those comments. Wow
LikeLiked by 1 person
These comments seem to assume that the cross of Christ is identical to substitutionary atonement but there is no reason to make this identification. It is unfortunate that certain forms of Protestantism are more or less obsessed with substitutionary atonement theory but we need to remind ourselves that John Calvin invented this particular theory about 400 years ago. For the first one thousand years of Christianity the two main theories were “Christus Victor” and “Ransom”; and I have been unable to find any Church Fathers who embraced substitution.
If we ask the question: why did Jesus die on the cross? we can find an answer in the following. In Plato’s Republic we find this: “They will say that our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes burned out, and at last, after all manner of suffering, will be crucified” (Book 2, 361e-362a). Serious philosophical thinking here surmises that the completely just man in this world must be the crucified just man. Herbert McCabe like to express it like this: Jesus’ mission from the Father was to be love; but in this world to love perfectly is to die (that is to be killed by the powers who are threatened by that love). The cross reveals who man is and who God is. The cross reveals who man is: man crucifies love itself; and it reveals God: God judges by saving through his love.
Jesus did not die in order to placate a bloodythirsty deity; but to reveal to us the world we have created and to reveal the love and compassion of God within that world. Pope Benedict XVI had this to say about substitution: “… is it not an unworthy concept of God to imagine for oneself a God who demands the slaughter of his Son to pacify his wrath? To such a question once can only reply, indeed, God must not be thought of in this way. But in any case such a concept of God has nothing to do with the idea of God to be found in the New Testament”.
Orthodox, Catholics, most Anglicans, Coptics, etc., do not accept substitutionary atonement but recoil from it in horror. It was invented at the time of the Reformation by John Calvin. The Church Fathers taught Christus Victor and Ransom (and others). No one has ever been obliged to accept one theory of the atonement. Christians only have to believe that in some way Christ’s death on the cross was salvific.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mike. thanks for your comment. It is a pleasant change to hear a Catholic voice.
But I am still not clear how Jesus’s death obtains forgiveness of sins. Does not God in the Bible denounce human sacrifice as an abomination? Does not Jesus teach that forgiveness is freely available from God without any sacrifice – cf. the Our Father?
LikeLike
Except the first century AD writings of the NT and the OT clearly taught substitutionary atonement.
John the Baptizer said, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” – John 1:29
1 John 1:5-10 – God is holy; the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, if we confess our sins, etc.
Genesis 8:21 – when the Lord smelled the soothing aroma of the sacrifice = He was pleased.
Exodus chapter 12 – 12:12-13 – the passover lamb – when the Lord saw the blood on the doorposts, the angel of judgment was turned away. (appeasement for God’s holy and just wrath) Exodus 12:21-30
Leviticus 16-17 – day of atonement – both slaughter and release into the desert, bearing/carrying the sins away. Confession of sins onto the animal.
“He carried/bore our iniquities in His body on the wood” – 1 Peter 2:24
“But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.” Isaiah 53:5
Isaiah 53:10 – “the Lord was pleased to crush Him, . . . if He would render Himself a guilt offering.”
Iasiah 53:6 – “All of us like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way, but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon/ encounter/strike Him.”
Isaiah 53:11
“As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied; [satisfaction of the justice and wrath of God]
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.”
Isaiah 53:12
“And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.”
He bore our sins – this is clear substitutionary atonement, and fulfilled in Christ in the NT.
“He who knew no sin made Him to be the sin offering,
in order that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” 2 Cor. 5:21
“the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28)
“for” = “in the place of”, “instead of”, as a substitute for many”
“Christ died for our sins” I Cor. 15:3
in the place as a substitute for our sins
He gave Himself for me, He died for me – Galatians 2:20
He is the propitiation (satisfaction of justice) for our sins – 1 John 2:2
Romans 3:22-26 –
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.
[satisfaction of justice in His blood, and through faith in that work of sacrificial atonement on the cross, one is redeemed and justified]
This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Romans 3:22-26
The cross demonstrated God’s justice against sin; the satisfaction of justice, and that God Himself justifies those who confess their sinfulness and repent and turn to Christ in faith to save them from their sins.
Hebrews 2:14-17
It was necessary for Him to become flesh and blood (become incarnated – “in-fleshed”)
in order to make the propitiation (satisfaction of justice/wrath against sin) for the sins of the people
LikeLike
Even the Qur’an agrees with the concept of substitutionary atonement:
Surah 37:107
“and We ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”
وفديناه بذبح عظيم
The substitution of the ram in the place of Abraham’s son proves that it (the ransom) means “substitutionary atonement”.
Shows the real meaning of Genesis 22 – it was a prophesy and foreshadowing of the Messiah to come in the future.
and “ransom” reminds us of Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28
“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many”
Jesus using the illustration of Himself as a servant, reminds of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.
Very clear.
LikeLike
Ken: I think you have to ask yourself why none of the Church Fathers (the very people who chose the books of the Bible and devised the creeds) noticed substitutionary atonement if it is so obvious. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches do not accept substitutionary atonement because they do not find it in scripture- as the Church Fathers didn’t as well- and because they consider the theory (invented by Calvin) to be immoral. To quote Herbert McCabe: “If God will not forgive us unless he has his own Son tortured to death then God is a lot less forgiving than we are sometimes”. >>>> Ken: I want also to note that just quoting lots of scriptures is insufficient as an argument. Each text has a context- and the words you quoted were in English, not in Greek. Every translation is already an interpretation, so we need the original Greek to determine meaning. And this is where it becomes interesting because the Church Fathers mostly read the NT in its original language; and they did not find substitutionary atonement in it. “Christ died for our sin”. In what sense? Some would say that he died for our sins because it was our sin (a sinful world) that rejected the love of Christ and crucified him. The cross has to represent the love of God; if it does not then we are back to a wrathful deity who needs to kill someone to forgive us (hardly a pleasant idea!).
Paul: I am not a Catholic. I was just giving a different perspective. I think that too many Muslims associate the cross with substitutionary atonement when in fact this theory was invented by John Calvin. When I was a Christian I adopted a kind of subjective interpretation of the atonement: Jesus’ mission from the Father was to be love (the very love of God) in a fallen and sinful world; but to love completely in this world is to be killed. (One thinks here of such examples as Gandhi and Martin Luther King- although they were “nothing” next to Christ). The cross thus reveals man (fallen and sinful) and the merciful love of God (prepared to die in order to demonstrate his love for mankind). This “saves us” because it shows us our fallen condition and how we need to return, like the Prodigal Son, to the merciful Father who is always ready to welcome us. God, I reasoned, cannot change (the Bible says so, as well as philosophy) and so the cross cannot have changed God’s mind; but it could reveal the unchanging mind of God, which is merciful and compassionate love, welcoming back the sinner, the prodigal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
my apologies Mike, but you do argue like a Catholic! But your views are sound and make better sense of the evidence than Ken’s cut and paste ‘argument’. So if you are no longer a Christian are you an atheist now?
LikeLike
Paul Williams: I am a Muslim. I just like to give a different perspective. I tend to hear a caricature of Christianity in the mosque, so whenever possible I like to gently correct some of the mistakes. Recently I heard a Muslim say that Paul came 300 years after Christ and when I corrected him he became indignant!
LikeLiked by 3 people
yes I hear misinformed polemics against Christianity too. But these days the worse offenders tend to be fundamentalist Christians who often have very inaccurate understandings of Islam – eg Ken 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul: I wouldn’t disagree with that. When it comes to polemics I think that it is important to attack the strongest possible version of Christianity, not the weakest versions (such as fundamentalism). The Christian polemicists, such as Spencer, attack an Islam that has never actually existed (except in their own minds). I like to engage with Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth; and I think the Christians should engage with al-Ghazali and Ibn Arabi. Recently I have been doing work on Aquinas’ complex trinitarian theology and trying to see if it is really coherent (which I don’t think it is). Christians should get Imam al-Ghazali’s books and refute Islam on that basis! They might find it a bit more challenging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken: Even if Substitutionary atonement were scriptural, which I don’t think that it is, I still think that it would be immoral to accept it. (1) It turns God into a wrathful deity and (2) it negates the whole idea of forgiveness (the payment of a debt is by definition not forgiveness).
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mike
the problem is the Christians who attack Islam today tend not to be educated people – so we need to focus on their fundamentalist polemic in order to neutralise it. It is these people who dominate the air-ways. And they are a danger to world peace too (their support for Zionism, Islamophobia etc).
The Catholic Church – which champions Aquinas – doesn’t involve itself in anti-Islam apologetics at all.
LikeLike
There is some truth in that. I’m interesting in engaging with Catholics and Orthodox. For me most Evangelicals are just too narrow minded to engage with. I like to see convergences between Islam and Orthodoxy and Catholicism; but also to criticise those aspects of their belief that I find problematic, such as two natures christology and trinitarianism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes that is a laudable pursuit.
As you know Catholic beliefs (that is the actual views of Catholics) tend to be all over the place. Most seem unaware of what Vatican II teaches about Islam.
LikeLike
Ken, the Quran does NOT teach the idea of “substitutionary atonement”, as can be seen from the following verse from Surah Al-Hajj:
“It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right” (22:37).
The verse referring to the “mighty sacrifice” refers to how Ishmael (peace be upon him) was saved from being sacrificed because both he and his father had patiently and obediently done what God had asked them to do. It does not mean that the ram served as an offering to atone for their sins.
LikeLike
The ram was substituted for Abraham’s son, and called a “ransom”. Since the story is based on Genesis 22, it teaches it, since it is part of the TaNakh tradition (which I layed out) that is prophesying of the suffering servant Messiah to come in the future, made clearer progressively by Isaiah 53 and the NT.
LikeLike
Fact: the Jewish Scriptures know nothing of God becoming incarnate as the Messiah and know nothing of a suffering messiah which is absent from Isaiah 53. Only with Christian presuppositions can you arrive at your views Ken.
LikeLike
There are seeds and indications of penal Substitutionary atonement in the early centuries, without it being explicitly spelled out. This writer/professor of theology (Michael Vlach) gives several indications of this, one of the most famous from the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
Epistle to Diognetus (2nd century)
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus is a second-century work that some
believe is one of the earliest examples of Christian apologetics. It also reveals early
thinking in regard to Christ’s atonement. This epistle declared that “when our
wickedness had reached its height. . . . He Himself took on Him the burden of our
iniquities, he gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors,
the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous.”19 It then
goes on to say, “O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation, O benefits surpassing
all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One,
and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.” 20 This epistle
stands as a clear example of early belief that Jesus paid the price for unjust sinners
so that they could be forgiven of their sins.
Click to access tmsj20i.pdf
LikeLike
Fact: Jesus is the Messiah – even Islam agrees – Isa Al Masih عیسی المسیح
(though Islam denies the incarnation and cross and prophesies, thus denying established history).
It is interesting that Islam agrees that Jesus of Nazareth is Messiah, yet the Jewish tradition after the first Century and Rabbinic Judaism rejects His Messiahship. But most all of the first century Christians were Jews and all the apostles and most of the NT writers. (except Luke)
Yet, Islam excepts the virgin conception and birth of Jesus. (Surah 3, 19) but rejects the Deity of Christ and incarnation, and Sonship of Christ.
But the High priest understood the Messiah would also be the Son of God – Mark 14:60-64 and Matthew 26:62-66.
Jesus Himself tells us He is the Messiah and the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, “the Son of Man came . . . TO SERVE . . . ”
and give His life a ransom for many” Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28
LikeLike
Ken thanks for giving the Arabic for Al Masih. Very useful. The Muslim readers of is blog (whose English is a poor second language – like me and Mike) would not get what you are saying without your helpful translations.
You say that Islam denies the incarnation which you claim is “established history”. Would you care to offer any proof that this is the case?
It remains a fact that the Jewish Scriptures know nothing of God becoming incarnate as the Messiah and know nothing of a suffering messiah which is absent from Isaiah 53. Only with Christian presuppositions can you arrive at your views Ken.
LikeLike
the problem is the Christians who attack Islam today tend not to be educated people – so we need to focus on their fundamentalist polemic in order to neutralise it.
If you consider me as one of those:
I have a master’s degree – M. Div. and undergraduate degree in Business Management.
I only try to use good and scholarly, believing arguments against Islam as a doctrine and principle and seek to avoid all ad hominem and insults and sinful anger. I have rebuked other Christians who use ad hominem arguments and sinful anger and name calling, etc.
I don’t believe 1948 modern Israel is a fulfillment of the land promises in the OT. those were fulfilled in Christ – Hebrews chapters 11, 12, 13, Galatians 4:26, Revelation 21-22. (though I do believe Israel has the right to exist and defend itself against Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism; and it was the Arab Muslims who kept attacking first and they are the ones who kept loosing more and more land, and never even accepted the original 1947-1948 two state solution. Hamas has in its charter – “kill the Jews until the day of resurrection” etc. (quotes from Hadith Sahih Al Bukhari and Al Muslim – see below)
“The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, ‘O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’ Only the Gharkad tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Boxthorn tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews. (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).Sahih Muslim, 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177)
I also appreciated the book “Blood Brothers” by Elias Chakour and “Whose Promised Land” by Colin Chapman, who give a much needed perspective on the land that is fair and sympathetic to the Palestinians plight.
“Islamophobia” is a real thing, but it is wrongly applied to all argumentation against any kind of criticism of Islam. And it is used in a bad way, in order to shut down conversation, like the way the polticial homosexual activists use “Homo-phobia”.
LikeLike
That Islam denies established history – I meant the denial that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died on a Roman Cross, under the orders of Pontius Pilate, instigated by the Jewish leaders, Pharisees, scribes, elders, high priest, etc.
Even famous liberals like Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Markus Borg, Robert Funk and John Shelby Spong all agree that Jesus died on the cross in real history.
LikeLike
the Quran says it it appeared to the Jews that Jesus was crucified. How does that deny ‘established history’?
Quran 4:157
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Even famous liberals like Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Markus Borg, Robert Funk and John Shelby Spong all agree that Jesus died on the cross in real history.
I say;
Death needs proof. Some historians do not believe Moses ever existed. Some historians never believed Moses parted the red sea. They never believed in Abraham as existed. But religion and belief makes us believe all these existed and happened but we do not have proof.
Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Markus Bord etc. do not have evidence that Jesus Christ was crucified because it involves coronas office work on pathology, autopsy and postmortem examination before one can conclusively establish authority of Christs death.
I do not have conclusive evidence that prophet Mohammed died but strongly believed prophet Mohammed died. I cannot force prophet Mohammed’s death on your throat Ken if you do not believe that.
So, even your Bible has conflicting reports about Jesus death and no one has evidence. If someone is crucified on the cross, so be it but no evidence Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross.
If we accept Jesus was crucified on the cross, that does not make him God. He said he is not the true God but the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD.
Thanks
LikeLike
600 years later, a guy 769 miles away claims that it really didn’t happen, it just looked like it happened. right.
like some Muslims who say, “9-11-2001 did not happen, Steven Speilberg, that Jew, used hollywood technology to make it look like it happened.” Right.
Yes, I have heard some Muslims make that statement.
anyone can make that claim – it looked like it was that way, but it was not. it was a trick / scheme/ plot / deception by Allah – which is exactly what Surah 3:54-55 says
The disbelievers schemed/ plotted / deceived, and Allah also schemed/ deceived, Allah is the best of schemers/ plotters / deceivers.
Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject Faith to the Day of Resurrection; then shall ye all return unto Me and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
LikeLike
Christians should get Imam al-Ghazali’s books and refute Islam on that basis! They might find it a bit more challenging.
Does anyone know where these two famous quotes of Al-Ghazali are found?
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/still-looking-for-two-references-to-famous-al-ghazzali-quotes-and-the-essence-of-our-differences/
LikeLike
‘600 years later, a guy 769 miles away claims that it really didn’t happen, it just looked like it happened. right.’
This is not Muslim belief. No Muslim believes that the Quran was written by Muhammad. The Quran contains the Words of the Creator who is All-Knowing. It makes little difference if the Quran was given to men 600 years or 6 million years after Jesus – God has perfect knowledge of ALL the facts. You do not.
So I ask you again Ken:
the Quran says it it appeared to the Jews that Jesus was crucified. How does that deny ‘established history’?
LikeLike
Muhammad claimed to have revelations from God; but the contradictions and problems in the Qur’an raise serious questions about that claim.
LikeLike
Correction
coroner’s office…………..
LikeLike
So you are not going to answer my question Ken?
the Quran says it it “appeared” to the Jews that Jesus was crucified. How does that deny ‘established history’?
LikeLike
Those liberal scholars I listed; and the other more conservative ones you have used in the past – James D. G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, and Richard Bauckham, and many others – ask them if the crucifixion and death of Jesus is established history.
it is inconsistent of you to use them, and yet they all agree with me on this issue – it is established historical fact.
LikeLike
Anyone can make a claim and say, “God told me”, so your point is not even a logical point.
LikeLike
According to the canons (rules) of historical research and proof, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died on the cross around 30 AD, under Pontius Pilate and the instigation of the Jewish leadership. Even the Jews (Babylonian Talmud, etc.) admitted this, and the Jewish historian Jospehus, the Roman historian Tacitus, and other non-Christian sources.
LikeLike
Ken historians can only deal in probabilities not absolute certainties. You claim that someone died 2000 years ago on a cross. I say God – infallible, all-knowing – informs us otherwise. That’s good enough for me.
You lack faith in the one true God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Evidence in the Talmud for the execution of Jesus.
LikeLike
Yes, they answered that – did you watch it all the way through?
LikeLike
Paul I don’t mean to interupt what is a very serious and lively conversation about historical study and divine revelation, however I must ask. Did you just like your own post? 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes Ken – the Talmud teaches that Jesus was not crucified – right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Patrice – yes 🙂
LikeLike
Your very generous with the like button. Is this a form of Zakat?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I often ‘like’ stuff I post – that why I post it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you listen carefully, the two historical British experts answered that. It seems you are ignoring their argumentation and evidence.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Muhammad claimed to have revelations from God; but the contradictions and problems in the Qur’an raise serious questions about that claim.
I say;
Not Prophet Mohammed alone but all prophets claimed to have revelations from God and their messages are 1 and that is God is 1 only and alone and that is the yardstick.
Paul of Tarsus never met Jesus Christ but brought a message that contradicts the yardstick and that, Jesus death abolishes the law. And that Jesus is God the Son.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More historical evidence for Jesus’ trial and conversation with Pilate.
LikeLike
The apostle Paul agreed that God is One – there is only One God. The 11 disciples confirmed that Paul was genuine – Galatians chapters 1-2, Acts 15, I Corinthians 15.
LikeLike
I invite the readers to watch and listen to the short 2 videos and decide for themselves.
LikeLike
Ken I’m asking you:
did the Talmud say Jesus was crucified or not?
A Yes or no will do…
LikeLike
yes, according to the 2 British historians; and I agree with the historical experts.
LikeLike
and when was the Talmud written? Is it a first century document? No.
You put great trust in the fallible opinions of men, but disregard the revelation of God on the crucifixion story.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The apostle Paul agreed that God is One – there is only One God. The 11 disciples confirmed that Paul was genuine – Galatians chapters 1-2, Acts 15, I Corinthians 15.
I say;
The difference between Paul of Tarsus and his followers against all God’s prophets is that God says He 1, only and alone but the followers of Paul of Tarsus said God is
3 persons 1 God and it is no where in the Bible.
Prophet Mohammed message is in consistent with all the prophets that God is 1, only and alone and rejects the Trinity and the Deity of Christ because Moses and all prophets never worshiped Jesus, Trinity, 3 persons 1 God, dead God, man, God-Man, Man-God, Trinitas Unitas, etc.
Prophet Mohammed never brought new message when it comes to worshiping 1, only and alone God and find below
“there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
“Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
“Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
“You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
“For who is God, besides Yahweh? And who is a rock, besides our God?” 2 Samuel 22:32
“Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
“You are the God, You alone [bad], of all the kingdoms of the earth.” 2 Kings 19:15
“O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You” 1 Chronicles 17:20
“You alone [bad] are Yahweh.” Nehemiah 9:6
Paul of Tarsus and Trinitarians contradicts the Bible above, so you cannot use Paul of Tarsus vision as a yardstick to measure what God message is.
No single “God is 3 persons is 1” in the Bible so you cannot use Trinitarian yardstick to measure what is truth.
Thanks.
LikeLike
More historical Evidence. 19 non-Christian writers (pagan Romans and Greeks) – Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Lucian, Celcus- many others.
Josephus the Jewish historian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us_4viC991s&ebc=ANyPxKqQwzP2eO35zeNFEswFrcDqKidRu-e5aIv5faI3utwKlXbL95JjCidd79OtgoXBW6WR2oVNCXlGwswhZOmxUV3-DyK8bg
LikeLike
Paul,
the Revelation of God already testified to the Crucifixion of Jesus in 27 books of the NT.
That Revelation of God proves that your claim to revelation 600 years later is false.
LikeLike
Simon Greenleaf, a Jewish legal scholar at Harvard, wrote important books on the rules for examining historical and legal evidences, was an unbeliever until a student challenged him with, “have you examined the evidence?”
He was embarrassed as he had not looked at the evidence; later investigated, was convinced and became a Jewish believer in Jesus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us_4viC991s&ebc=ANyPxKqQwzP2eO35zeNFEswFrcDqKidRu-e5aIv5faI3utwKlXbL95JjCidd79OtgoXBW6WR2oVNCXlGwswhZOmxUV3-DyK8bg
LikeLike
sorry, the above video was a duplication of the one on Tacitus and Josephus, etc. (Part 2)
I meant to put up part 1, about the NT evidence and Simon Greenleaf.
Simon Greenleaf, a Jewish legal scholar at Harvard, wrote important books on the rules for examining historical and legal evidences, was an unbeliever until a student challenged him with, “have you examined the evidence?”
He was embarrassed as he had not looked at the evidence; later investigated, was convinced and became a Jewish believer in Jesus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EO9Ubd8v2g
LikeLike
The 2 British historians say that the Talmud is based on the actual legal accusation against Jesus that goes back to the first century.
LikeLike
Ken, the word “ransom” does not mean it was a sin offering. You need to stop doing the standard “copy and paste” method that Christians do. Serious research would be better for you. The fact is that there is no concept of “substitutionary atonement” in Islam. Maybe you should actually read the Quran instead of blindly copying from the internet.
LikeLike
Ken – please don’t spam my blog with videos! Any more like that will be deleted. Overkill does not improve your point
LikeLike
Ken historians can only deal in probabilities not absolute certainties. You claim that someone died 2000 years ago on a cross. I say God – infallible, all-knowing – informs us otherwise. That’s good enough for me.
God’s last revelation to mankind trumps your “evidence”.
It is actually impossible logically, for you, or anyone else, to refute the Quran’s statement that it “appeared” to the Jews that Jesus was crucified.
Think about it.
LikeLike
Ok Paul. no more videos on this post.
Faiz,
I have done serious research and here are hadith passages that show an understanding of substitutionary atonement, along with the Qur’an.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/islam-could-not-get-rid-of-the-concept-of-sacrifice-ransom-or-substitutionary-atonement/
LikeLike
Ken, with respect, your research is rubbish. This argument has been refuted by people who actually know Arabic (you do not as you admit) such as Bassam Zawadi and others.
See a thorough refutation here by a person who knows the sources in Arabic:
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/04/no-substitutionary-atonement-islam.html
LikeLike
I also say that God – infallible, perfect, all-knowing, all wise, sovereign, and pure love – informs us otherwise. That’s good enough for me.
God’s Earlier revelation to mankind trumps your later claim of revelation, since the earlier NT is established and has multiple testimony, whereas yours is just one man’s claim, and full of contradictions and problems.
LikeLike
Ken simply keeps repeating the same ridiculous argument about the crucifixion as “established history” that I have heard many times from Christian apologists. The argument is so silly that I cannot believe it is still used.
The Quran does not deny that a crucifixion took place. It just denies that Jesus was the crucified person. In other words, there was a miracle. I wouldn’t expect historians to acknowledge miraculous stories in the first place. Would you, Ken?
Also, the Biblical story of the crucifixion is full of contradictions and plot holes. So, even if the Quran was somehow “wrong” on the issue, the Bible is not a suitable alternative. See here for more:
http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-crucifixion-of-jesus-in-bible-and.html
As far as the so-called “testimonies” of sources like Tacitus or Josephus, this is just another argument that is blindly repeated by apologists. Let’s consider Josephus. There are only 2 references to Jesus in Josephus’ ENTIRE corpus of works. That’s rather strange, don’t you think? And as it turns out, one of those references (the so-called “Testimonium Flavianum”) is most definitely a Christian FORGERY. As every historian knows, Christians very frequently resorted to forgeries and lies to promote their religion. Josephus was one unwilling participant in Christian propaganda.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-josephus-so-called-testimonium.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken your NT is textually corrupt; does not claim to be inspired from God – in parts it actually denies this!; and is not the gospel given to Jesus.
For evidence of the massive textual corruption of the NT read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Corruption-Scripture-Christological-Controversies/dp/0199739781
Reviews
“In sum, this book is a fine work of scholarship –innovative, judicious, alert, attentive both to its overarching argument and to the supportive details. . . Ehrman’s work is provocative and should give rise to further reflection. I believe it will make a significant contribution to scholarship in both New Testament and early Christian history for a long time to come.”
–Church History
“This is a book well worth reading. The New Testament scholar will find in it an excellent study of textual criticism, systematically organized under the rubric of scribal Tendenzen. The systematic theologian as well as the student of early Christian thought will find in it an excellent expose of the fashion in which conviction colors the way in which one reads the tradition.”
–Journal of Early Christian Studies
LikeLike
There is no external testimony that the manuscript of Josephus on that passage “Testimonium Flavianum” is a forgery. (no variant manuscripts)
Scholars agree that there is a core of it that is not an interpolation. Scholars agree, based on the language, that it seems someone came later and added some interpolation, but the core that Jesus existed,was wise, claimed to be the Messiah, and was crucified under Pilate, and that Jews and Gentiles have folllowed Him, that basic core is true and historical.
Those scholars who accept the “partial authenticity” view conclude that – at a minimum – something similar to the following reconstruction of the TF was likely original to Book 18:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.
LikeLike
in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.
“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
LikeLike
It is actually impossible logically, for you, or anyone else, to refute the Quran’s statement that it “appeared” to the Jews that Jesus was crucified.
Think about it.
LikeLike
Anyway back to the subject of this thread: the real meaning of Easter.
“Punishing the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is monstrous logic, atrocious theology, and a gross distortion of the idea of justice… Ritual sacrifice may appease the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl, but it has nothing to do with the Father of Jesus.”
Brian Zahnd is the lead pastor of Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri. His latest book is Water To Wine.
https://www.facebook.com/BrianZahnd/
LikeLike
Ken, the ahadith you refer to do not prove your point. The main reason is that the ransoming of Muslims on the Day of Judgment for Jews and Christians is as much about punishing the Jews and Christians for being unbelievers as it is about saving Muslims. That is not the same as “substitutionary atonement”. Moreover, there is nothing in the Quran or Ahadith that tells Muslims that they don’t have to do anything to earn their salvation and instead just accept that they will simply be “ransomed”, like Christians believe about Jesus’ crucifixion. Rather, Muslims are told that salvation comes from believing in Allah and His Prophet (pbuh). That is not “substitutionary atonement”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have never understood the folks like Zahnd and Chalke – when they should understand it with the truth that the Son, in love, voluntarily agreed and came and gave His life under the Father’s plan – John 10:18; John 3:16, etc.
LikeLike
because punishing the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is monstrous logic and atrocious theology
LikeLike
Even if the Testimonium Flavianum was “interpolated” by Christians, and existed in some other form that can be “recreated”, it tells us nothing that we don’t already know. Therefore, it is actually rather unremarkable “testimony”. Christians should be embarrassed that this is the best “evidence” they can provide for their religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very good evidence for the crucifixion and death of Jesus.
Tacitus also testifies to the crucifixion and death of Jesus.
Lots of scholarly arguments, including other manuscripts of Syriac and Arabic that have the core un-interpolated parts that confirm the crucifixion and death.
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
LikeLike
Not if He voluntarily did it out of love for us and for His Father. I don’t get the problem, given the voluntary nature of it; and the power of God to raise the dead and confirm the power of the atonement against sin, and also given the OT teaching on the sacrificial system.
LikeLike
Ken voluntary or not does not address the moral problem: punishing the innocent in order to forgive the guilty.
LikeLike
Ken about the crucifixion: you just don’t get it. All your evidence just confirms the Quran.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“because punishing the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is monstrous logic and atrocious theology”
Exactly. Which is why the ahadith that Ken referred to are not the same thing. In that case, the guilty Jews and Christians will be punished (as they would be either way), and the believers (Muslims) would be saved (as they would be either way).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Finally, an Arabic version of the Testimonium recounted in the Tenth Century work, “Book of the Title.” The author was Agapius, a Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. His recitation of the TF did not come to light until 1971. It is translated thus:
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”
This version lacks some of the obvious Christian interpolations, such as “he was the Messiah” and “if he can be called a man,” though apparently adds glosses such as “and his conduct was good,” and “he was known to be virtuous.” James Charlesworth, a leading New Testament scholar at Princeton, states that this Arabic version “provides textual justification for excising the Christian passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in Antiquities 18.” (James Charlesworth, “Research on the Historical Jesus Today: Jesus and the Pseudigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Codices, Josephus, and Archeology,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin, vol. Vi, page 110).
This version provides additional evidence that “he was the Messiah” was not a part of earlier Antiquities manuscripts, but also indicates that “if he can be called a man” was not in some manuscripts. Furthermore, this is the only citation of the TF that I have found which is equivocal about the resurrection, noting only that “they reported” that Jesus appeared alive. I am sceptical that any Christian would intentionally soften the attestation to Christianity’s most important miracle. The better explanation is that the author was relying on a manuscript that claimed only that Jesus’ followers claimed he was resurrected. Though I am sceptical of claims that this Arabic version is the authentic TF, it provides reason to believe that the most prominent Christian glosses were not a part of earlier manuscripts.
LikeLike
Apologists will never get it, because they don’t want to. It is just more convenient for them. Admitting to the logical facts is very inconvenient.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken save your cutting and pasting.
All your ‘evidence’ just confirms what the Quran says.
LikeLike
Read the Debunking Christianity article. It discusses Agapius:
“Pines (An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications (Jeruslame 1971))has created a considerable stir by bringing to the scholarly world’s attention two hitherto almost completely neglected works containing the Testimonium, one a tenth-century history of the world in Arabic by a Christian named Agapius and the other a twelfth-century chronicle in Syriac by Michael the Syrian. There are a number of differences between Agapuius and our Testimonium, notably in the omission of the statement ‘if one ought to call him a man’ and of Jesus’ miracles and of the role of the Jewish leaders in accusing Jesus, and, above all, in the assertion that Jesus was perhaps the Messiah (‘was thought to be’ in Michael). Since Agapius declares that ‘This is what is said by Josephus and his companions’ and indeed includes a number of other details not found in Josephus, we may conjecture that he used other sources as well. Inasmuch as there are changes in the order of the statements of the Testimonium in Agapius and Michael, we are apparently dealing not with a translation but with a paraphrase.””
In any case, the non-interpolated Testimonium, if it is historical, does not tell us anything we don’t already know. Therefore, it is very unremarkable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken voluntary or not does not address the moral problem: punishing the innocent in order to forgive the guilty.
Voluntarily agreeing out of love – willingly taking the punishment for us sinful humans, since Jesus the eternal Son is God by nature Himself also, makes total logical sense, revelational sense (revealed in the NT 600 years before your guy who only claims revelation with no proof; who started wars and was unjust; and his Caliphs started wars and they were unjust aggression attacks, and approved of sex-slaves, etc. – he is the immoral one) , Jesus the Son and God the Father prove the high morality of God’s love for sinners and justice against sin.
This is in contrast to the moral problem of Muhammad and the sex-slaves. (What your right hand possesses)
Al-Muminun 23:6 and Al-Maarij 70:30 both, in identical wording, draw a distinction between spouses and “those whom one’s right hands possess”, saying ” أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ” (literally, “their spouses or what their right hands possess”), while clarifying that sexual intercourse with either is permissible. Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi explains that “two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession”. This practice is referred to in the Quran as ma malakat aymanukum (“what your right hands possess”).
FROM SAHIH BUKHARI – VOLUME 3, #432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah’s messenger we said, “Oh Allah’s messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”
(also refer to Bukhari Vol. 3, #718)
FROM SAHIH BUKHARI – VOLUME 9, #506:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. The prophet said, “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection”.
Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Said saying that the prophet said, “No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.””
(also ref. Bukhari 5:459).
LikeLike
In any case, the non-interpolated Testimonium, if it is historical, does not tell us anything we don’t already know. Therefore, it is very unremarkable.
Wrong, because it confirms the crucifixion and death of Jesus. case closed; Surah 4:157 is refuted.
LikeLike
sex slaves??? Ken talk about changing the subject! The New Testament instructs slaves to obey their masters – even when they are cruel! Good advice for IS sex slaves?
You own bible condemns your deference of punishing the innocent in order to forgive the guilty:
Ezekiel 18
The One Who Sins Will Die
18 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
“‘The parents eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.
5 “Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.
6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife
or have sexual relations with a woman during her period.
7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
8 He does not lend to them at interest
or take a profit from them.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between two parties.
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.
10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):
“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.
He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life. 28 Because they consider all the offenses they have committed and turn away from them, that person will surely live; they will not die. 29 Yet the Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
LikeLike
As I have written elsewhere:
The Christian idea that guilt can be removed from a wrongdoer by someone else being punished instead is morally grotesque. Or if we say that God in the person of God the Son punished himself in order to be able to justly forgive sinners, we still have the absurdity of a moral law which God must satisfy by punishing the innocent in place of the guilty. It is a strange thing if God so delights in, or requires, the blood of the innocent, that he neither chooses, nor is able, to spare the guilty without the sacrifice of the innocent.
I believe the basic fault of the Christian understanding of salvation is that it has no room for divine forgiveness. For a forgiveness that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment, or the offering of a sacrifice, is not forgiveness, but merely an acknowledgement that a debt has been paid in full. The Cross is not a symbol of forgiveness at all: on the orthodox Christian view, it denotes the repayment of a debt, as the infinity of Original Sin is atoned for by the infinite sacrifice of God’s own temporary death. But what humanity really needs, as we look back over our long record of disobedience, is a model of true forgiveness by a God who does not calculate, who imposes no mean-spirited ‘economy of salvation’ worthy only of accountants and bookkeepers. As the Bible teaches: The letter killeth – the spirit giveth life.
But in the authentic teaching of Jesus to be found in the synoptic gospels (that is the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) there is, in contrast, genuine divine forgiveness for those who truly repent. In the Lord’s Prayer we are taught to address God directly and to ask for forgiveness for our sins, expecting to receive this, the only condition being that we in turn forgive one another. There is no suggestion of the need for a mediator between ourselves and God or for an atoning death to enable God to forgive.
LikeLike
LOL, “case closed”, right…
Besides your feeble attempts at changing the subject (who the hell is talking about sex slaves???), your responses to the issue of the alleged historicity of the crucifixion are pathetic. As Paul and I have already explained, just because it was widely believed that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified does nothing to refute the Quran because the Quran does not deny that a crucifixion took place! What don’t you get about that?
That is why the so-called “Testimonium” is unremarkable. It tells Muslims nothing that the Quran doesn’t already tell us. We already know that it was widely BELIEVED that Jesus was crucified, but the Quran assures us that in fact, he was miraculously saved by his Lord. Alhamdulillah!
Besides, the New Testament accounts of the crucifixions are hopelessly contradictory and full of obvious forgeries, such as the dead rising from their graves (The Walking Dead, anyone?). Why didn’t your “historians” record this event? Why was Josephus silent about it if it actually happened?
LikeLike
At the cross both the justice of God (wrath against sin) and the love and forgiveness of God for sinners from all nations was accomplished. (Revelation 5:9)
Beautiful
LikeLike
Faiz
You said;
Besides, the New Testament accounts of the crucifixions are hopelessly contradictory and full of obvious forgeries, such as the dead rising from their graves (The Walking Dead, anyone?). Why didn’t your “historians” record this event? Why was Josephus silent about it if it actually happened?
I say;
Mike Licona, a staunch Trinitarian Christian lost his job for not believing Ghosts rose from their graves and wandered the street of Jerusalem and they were seen.
How on earth will Ken Temple force this book(NT) down our throat to swallow and believed Jesus was crucified? Without coroner’s office pathological, post mortem, autopsy etc. report. Or dna report. This is what will conclusively settle the matter and put everything to rest. The Quran said no one has these proofs but live in conjecture about the story.
Bart Ehrman said it happened, Josephus wrote about it etc. with all due respect is rubbish. Were they there? No. Their believe is not my believe.
Ken you do not believe prophet Mohammed was a prophet but we do based on the same message he brought that is the same as Moses, Abraham and all the prophets of God and to correct Christianity and reject Trinity and the Deity of Christ.
Ken, you do not believe what we believe and how are you forcing Ghost story from the Bible down our throat by force and want us to believe Jesus was crucified without proof, evidence and may be a yardstick(something acceptable to all like God is 1, only and alone).
Prophet Mohammed has brought a yardstick that is acceptable to all including you and that is God is 1, only and alone and agreed with the Bible and Jews. The Jews and some Christians from 1st century till today totally and unconditionally rejects Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Ken Temple, you cannot use Paul of Tarsus, his writings and any book with Ghost stories as a yardstick for us to believe that Jesus was crucified. No.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
At the cross both the justice of God (wrath against sin) and the love and forgiveness of God for sinners from all nations was accomplished. (Revelation 5:9)
Beautiful
I say;
With all due respect the above is not true and is unintelligible.
Why?
Before the cross, God did not love Moses and those who accepted Moses as prophet of God? God did not love Abraham and his people before cross?
“sinners from all nations”? including gay and their marriage and having sex? You must be joking Ken, with these Christian rhetoric.
“At the cross both the justice of God (wrath against sin) and the love and forgiveness”
Ken, do you believe in hell fire to burn sinners for the wrath of God? Where is the love here(Hell)?
Thanks.
LikeLike
With the name of Allah
KT: //This is in contrast to the moral problem of Muhammad and the sex-slaves. (What your right hand possesses)//
More silliness from Temple, revealing his Islamophobic nature.
Where do you get this “sex-slaves” of prophet Muhammad imagination from? Show me the evidences, or you I must call you a liar who are just spreading false allegation against a Prophet of God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“At the cross both the justice of God (wrath against sin) and the love and forgiveness of God for sinners from all nations was accomplished. (Revelation 5:9)
Beautiful”
Nonsense
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken: The Qur’an does not deny that Jesus was killed by crucifixion. I suspect that my fellow Muslims will attack me for saying so but in my defence I want to point out that it was Timothy J Winter (Abdal Hakim Murad) who alerted me to the fact that we do not have an explicit denial of the crucifixion in the Qur’an. What the Qur’an does explicitly deny is that the Jews killed Jesus by crucifixion but that still leaves open the possibility that the Romans killed (which of course they did!). The Roman Catholic scholar of Islam has written a paper defending the thesis that the Qur’an does not deny the crucifixion: “Jesus: Dead or Alive”, Gabriel Said Reynolds. He teaches at Notre Dame and spent many years studying Islam in Lebanon. We have to distinguish between the Qur’an and later interpretative traditions that had a vested interest in denying the crucifixion.
For all those Muslims who are likely to get defensive I would ask you to (1) contact Abdal Hakim Murad and (2) read the paper by Gabriel Said Reynolds. We- as Muslims- are not obliged to deny that Jesus was crucified.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With the name of Allah
Salam Mike,
Regarding Jesus (p) in the crucifixion there are several opinion among muslims scholars based on this highly ambiguous verse
1) That Jesus did not die on a cross but that God made someone else look like Jesus. Then God miracolously took Jesus body and soul into the heavens.
2) That Jesus actually survived the cross and lived like the other men (Gistas & Dismas) crucifed alongside with him (some historian record this man survived the cross)
3) a few even goes further thas Jesus (p) ‘died’ but as the Qur’an says do not think that those who are killed in the way of God they are dead, they are alive but they perceive it not like in 1 Corinthians 15:31. “I die every day”.
I know majority of (sunni) muslims believe on the first category but yes some contemporary muslims scholar support the third category that nabi Isa actually died in the cross ,
Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub and Dr, Suleyman Mourad are some of them.
My own stance is whichever the opinions we Muslims should not put too much on the detail surrounding how Jesus died or will die but unanimous that he will just needs to die in “some way” as he is just human being like the rest if us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Salam Eric bin Kisam. I agree with what you wrote. I would probably favour option (3). I think that for (1) there is very little support for so elaborate an hypothesis in the Qur’an and none whatsoever in the Hadith; and I think that (2) is very unlikely given the fact that the apostles clearly thought that he had been killed and it was unimaginably rare for someone to survive crucifixion. It just seems to me that if the Qur’an does not explicitly deny the crucifixion (which it does not) and if history affirms that Jesus was crucified then I think we have to say that Jesus was crucified and go with option (3).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric Bin Kisam
You said;
With the name of Allah
KT: //This is in contrast to the moral problem of Muhammad and the sex-slaves. (What your right hand possesses)//
More silliness from Temple, revealing his Islamophobic nature.
Where do you get this “sex-slaves” of prophet Muhammad imagination from? Show me the evidences, or you I must call you a liar who are just spreading false allegation against a Prophet of God.
I say;
Where did Ken Temple get this “sex-slaves” from?
From Sam Shamoun and probably David Wood. These people do not know Arabic and classical Arabic necessary to intemperate the Quran or hadith. Ken Temple do not have it either but will use “sex-slave” to lie about Islam.
Ken will say he is clean and he rebukes Sam but will copy and paste his material. It is just like Dr. James White says he rebukes Sam Shamoun but in the same rebuke says Sam Shamoun knows Islam which is lie by Dr. James White.
Sam Shamoun has no qualification in Islam and he does not know Arabic, classical Arabic, fiqh, aqeedah, nahw etc. and many Islamic academic modules.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the name of Allah
to Mike your position sounds plausible. I personally think Jesus was on the cross but was miraculously kept alive by God. Jesus was taken into heaven his soul and body rafaʿahu رَفَعَهُ. His disciples might have experienced Jesus in a vision by God will.
Wallahu’Alim
LikeLike
Br. Intellect, yeah it is highly probable that Temple copy paste that sex slave rubbish from the like of shameoun and his psycho supporters , still Temple do not bring any evidence for such a thing like a “sex slave” of Prophet Muhammad (May peace and blessing of Allah be upon him).
LikeLike
Hi Mike,
Yes, I know that there are other opinions/ interpretations of Surah 4:157 – and even some Muslims in history have said that Jesus did die on the cross; and they say that the only thing Surah 4:157 says is that the Jews did not kill Him, etc. Joseph Cumming has written a scholarly paper on the different views. (he is part of the Yale Reconciliation / Common Word group.)
Click to access did_jesus_die_on_the_cross-english.pdf
They use Surah 3:55; 19:33; and 5:117 – the Arabic is “I am causing you to die” (mutawaffiqa) to prove that the Qur’an actually affirms that Jesus died.
Then they say that since Jesus is really alive in heaven with God, don’t consider Him dead, He is like the martyrs who are alive with God. They didn’t really kill Him, since you cannot kill His soul/spirit. They seem to take a kind of Christian interpretation of John 11:25 and apply it to this. “I am the resurrection and the life, whoever believes in Me lives on forever, even if he dies.”
they use this verse also, to interpret 4:157 in light of this:
“Do not think of those who have been killed in God’s cause as dead. They are alive, and well provided for by their Lord; (Surah 3.169)
It seems like a stretch to me. Since the NT holds the Jewish leadership responsible for basically “forcing” Pilate to command that Jesus be crucified. “He claims to be the King, and the only King is Caesar, and therefore if you don’t deal with Him, you are going against Caesar.” “We have no king but Caesar”, etc.
But the majority of Muslims take Surah 4:157 as a denial of the historical established fact that Jesus died on the cross. “they did not kill him” (said twice) with “for sure” یقیناً at the end.
That metaphorical interpretation seems like a real stretch. But Surah 4:157 does seem like a contradiction to 3:55, 19:33, and 5:117 ( I am causing you to die – mutawaffika – َمُتوفیک )
LikeLike
‘historical established fact that Jesus died on the cross’
I would like to see the evidence. Do you have a photograph perhaps, or a piece of the True Cross with Jesus’s DNA? Please don’t tell me the 4 gospels were written by eyewitnesses. That idea is not longer entertained by mainstream biblical scholars.
Btw any historian will tell you that in dealing with ancient historical event ms we are dealing with probabilities not certainties as you wrongly assume.
LikeLike
The “sex-slave” texts of “whom your right hand possesses” are in the Hadith and the Qur’an. How do you explain them?
Even Yasir Qadhi said that it was there in early Islam, but it was temporary. (he has a lecture on it on You Tube, “sex maids”) Even if temporary, it is morally wrong and disgusting.
LikeLike
Ken because of your lack of knowledge if Islam you confuse temporary marriage with slavery. How embarrassing.
I take it you will be consistent and condemn the bible and God for its teaching on slavery?
LikeLike
Ken Temple “Yes, I know that there are other opinions/ interpretations of Surah 4:157 …”
But in your preaching you neglect this knowledge, try to paint a black and white image according to your futile obsession of converting Muslims. That is morally wrong and disgusting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sura 4:24 –
“And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . ” ( or “whom your right hand possesses”)
Surah 33:50 –
“O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] . . . ”
and the two Hadith references I gave above are from Sahih al Bukhari.
How do you deal with the reality / existence of those verses?
They are there. What do you do with them?
LikeLike
Those texts do not seem to call that “temporary marriage”.
LikeLike
Ken, get educated before you start to lecture Muslims about Islam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The four gospels were written by two eyewitnesses – Matthew and John, and Mark was the scribe for a major eyewitness Peter, and Luke interviewed many eyewitnesses, including Mary, the mother of Jesus.
And they were also inspired by God; the text being “breathed out by God”. 2 Timothy 3:16
LikeLike
To repeat: your own scholars no longer think that eyewitnesses wrote the gospels – get yourself up to date and read an introduction to NT studies.
2 Timothy is a forgery. In Islam we reject forgeries. You could do worse than follow Muslim’s example. Paul thought the world was going to end very soon. He had no idea that later Christians would create a book to add to the Jewish scriptures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken,
Why are you ignoring my question? Why isn’t the rising of the dead after the crucifixion “established history”?
To Mike and others, the alternative interpretation that Jesus did indeed die is a theory that has largely been revived by some modern people. It never held much sway among the scholars of Islam. The evidence for this interpretation is weak and to promote it, proponents have to deny the sahih ahadith as well. Also, it doesn’t make sense for the Quran to go out of its way to say that Jesus was not crucified or killed just to deny the boastful claims of the Jews. Why would it do that when Jesus was indeed crucified and killed, except at the hands of the Romans? What difference would it make?
LikeLike
Guys, don’t let Ken change the subject. This is what apologists do when they cannot answer difficult challenges to their beliefs. The sex slave issue can be discussed elsewhere. Let’s bring Ken back to the actual discussion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If the Gospels are “eyewitness” accounts, why are they so contradictory?
LikeLiked by 2 people
In the name of Allah
Temple”//Sura 4:24 –
“And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . ” ( or “whom your right hand possesses”)
Surah 33:50 –
“O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] . . . ”
and the two Hadith references I gave above are from Sahih al Bukhari.//
Temple, I read the Qur’an in Arabic (not translation) everyday and I also know modern standard Arabic and some colloquial Saudi arabic (speaking and writing), now show me where in the Qur’an and the book of hadiths mention about “sex slave of Prophet Muhammad?!?” otherwise you simply a liar.
LikeLike
Why are you ignoring my question? Why isn’t the rising of the dead after the crucifixion “established history”?
Sorry, I did not see that question.
Only because western scholars don’t believe in miracles; and they say that miracles are outside the realm of historical evidence.
But even historians don’t deny:
1. The empty tomb
2. the disciples actually sincerely believed they saw Jesus alive after His death.
3. They agree that Jesus actually died.
4. They existence of the early church – writings, house churches, persecutions, practice of the Lord’s supper, baptisms
5. that the disciples were willing to die for what they believed was true – that Christ rose from the dead.
but many – like Simon Greenleaf, a scholar and lawyer, were convinced of the resurrection of Jesus as historical. He wrote books about historical evidence, and was convinced by the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and the reliability of the Gospels.
See also Frank Morrison – “Who Moved the Stone?”
and
Lee Strobel – “the case for Christ”
and
C.S. Lewis
and
Josh McDowell’s books.
they were all skeptics and unbelievers, until they actually researched and studied the evidence.
LikeLike
Eric – read Surah 33:50- the text is there.
O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives]
“those whom your right hand possesses” are the female captives of war.
It says, “O prophet”
LikeLike
One of the videos I linked to above is about Simon Greenleaf – google him and research him – Interesting man! He was a Jewish lawyer and expert in historical and legal evidences and professor of Harvard in the 1800s. He was challenged by a student after he made a rule: “don’t judge anything until you have investigated the evidence”. He had to admit he did not examine the evidence for the resurrection. after he did, he became a believer.
A Messianic Jewish believer in Jesus.
LikeLike
Ken, thanks for answering and proving my point. You just showed the double standards that I have come to expect from Christian apologists.
First, you say that the only reason the event of the rising of the dead is not established history because western scholars do not accept miracles. Yet this is exactly the reason I gave for the Quran’s denial that Jesus was the crucified one, and you didn’t buy it! Why the double standards?
Second, the problem with your argument is that the incident of the dead rising from their graves is not found anywhere else except the Gospel of Matthew. It is not found even in the other books of the NT (not even a hint of it), let alone in other non-scriptural sources, whether Christian or non-Christian. Why is there so little evidence for this rather remarkable event. Why are your favorite historians Tacitus and Josephus silent about it? Why are your “eyewitness” accounts silent about it?
Third, I am sure you are aware that many Christians have become apostates after looking at the evidence. Bart Ehrman is an example. Thus, your appeal to the likes of Strobel and others is irrelevant.
LikeLike
If an event is established history by evidence, and then someone 600 years later denies it and claims an unseen miracle, the historians will not view that later claim as valid or credible.
So, it is not a double standard, because you are comparing apples with oranges – denying the crucifixion and death of Christ, by a miracle, after it is already established, is different than a claim of a miracle in the resurrection in the first place.
But no one can argue with –
1. The empty tomb
2. the disciples actually sincerely believed they saw Jesus alive after His death.
3. They agree that Jesus actually died.
4. They existence of the early church – writings, house churches, persecutions, practice of the Lord’s supper, baptisms
5. that the disciples were willing to die for what they believed was true – that Christ rose from the dead.
LikeLike
Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead – John 11
Jesus rose Himself from the dead – John 10:18; 2:19-22
The evidence from all four Gospels is clear:
Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20-21
Luke 24:39
See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
LikeLike
The only eye witness account we have in the NT to the resurrected Jesus describes it as a spiritual body (not flesh and blood), and a “vision” that others present could not see. Probably Luke dramatised the visions and made them into physical bodies like ours.
LikeLike
Except that either way, you are claiming that the reason the dead rising from their graves is not established is because historians don’t believe in miracles, which is the same for the Quran. The only difference is the timing. Also, unlike the Quranic claim, which has some historical precedents and support (such as with some Gnostic sects), there is NO support for the dead rising from their graves, even from the other Gospels. So yes, YOU are comparing apples to oranges!
The fact is that it was a made-up claim by the author of “Matthew”. In other words, it was a forgery. Also, not all early Christians believed in the resurrection. See for example the Q community.
LikeLike
This Temple guy is a waste of time
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I know about Ehrman. I remember reading his story – he said it started when one of his teachers wrote on a paper, “or maybe Mark got his information wrong.” (Ehrman was trying to explain an apparent contradiction in the gospel of Mark) Ehrman did not start with examining the resurrection, but started doubting the text of Scripture first – apparent contradictions, textual variants, etc.
Just that little comment shows how weak (non-existent) his faith was at the time, for that little comment to jar him so.
Yes, everyone is free to take the evidence and do what you want to with it. (believe it or reject it)
But there are always 3 responses to Christ and His resurrection from the dead.
1. some reject
2. some say, “we want to hear more of this later” or “I want to continue to investigate”
and
3. some believe
Acts 17:32-34
32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.”
33 So Paul went out of their midst.
34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
LikeLike
Bart Ehrman decided to put intellectual integrity above religious dogma. An example to follow Ken…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Faiz,
Also, unlike the Quranic claim, which has some historical precedents and support (such as with some Gnostic sects) . . .
The Gnostics did not believe in the physical resurrection because they did not even believe Jesus had a body in the first place!
Islam clearly teaches Jesus had a body and was human.
So, not a very credible use of the Gnostics. They are not the friends of Muslims, their whole worldview if the opposite of Islamic worldview.
LikeLike
Luke interviewed the eyewitnesses.
John was an eyewitness at the cross, with Mary and other women.
John 20:25-27
But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then He *said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.
Matthew and Peter were probably watching from a distance. Mark records Peter’s testimony.
the massive details in several whole chapters of 60 verses of the trials, crucifixion and resurrection is incredible evidence.
Mark 14-16
Matthew 26-28
Luke 22-24
John 18-21
LikeLike
If you think Ehrman was putting intellectual integrity about religious dogma, he certainly would not think Islam has credible evidence for being true. He doubts all supernatural claims.
It is inconsistent to use him, since his same presuppositions and worldview would be applied to Islam and shown to be false. “An example to follow . . . ” means you should deny Islam also.
LikeLike
Not so Ken. You have failed to grasp my point.
I am referring to the simple intellectual honesty to admit that a text in front of your eyes is contradictory. No world views or anti-supernaturalist prejudice involved.
Just integrity. Truly an example for you to ponder Ken..
LikeLike
In the name of Allah
KT: //Eric – read Surah 33:50- the text is there.
O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives]
“those whom your right hand possesses” are the female captives of war.
It says, “O prophet”//
No, there is no such a thing as SEX SLAVE of Prophet Muhammad in the text of Surah 33:50 as you stupidly claim here
Why don’t you admit that you have lied?
LikeLike
I never claimed the exact words “sex slave” is there – I meant that those verses (both Quran and Hadith) show that there was a belief that female captives of war – ‘those whom your right hand posseses” – “are lawful for you” – “O prophet” – lawful to have sex with – Surah 33:50. And that is what it means, when the fighters come to Muhammad for advice and he tells them, “go ahead” and “don’t worrry about them getting pregnant”, etc. – if they do, Allah has ordained it.
These are quotes from the Hadith ! Sahih Al Bukhari !!
FROM SAHIH BUKHARI – VOLUME 3, #432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah’s messenger we said, “Oh Allah’s messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”
(also refer to Bukhari Vol. 3, #718)
FROM SAHIH BUKHARI – VOLUME 9, #506:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. The prophet said, “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection”.
Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Said saying that the prophet said, “No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.””
(also ref. Bukhari 5:459).
LikeLike
Ken, you have a laughable habit of questioning people’s religiosity when they don’t agree with your views, which is needless to say, rather arrogant of you.
Regardless of your special pleading, the point is that many people have left Christianity after examining the evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken, regarding the Gnostics, once again you missed the point. I am not saying that Islam agrees with the Gnostic view. I am only saying that there was a belief that Jesus was not actually crucified. The origin of this belief is the issue, not how it evolved in the many sects of Christianity.
Also, I referred to the Q community, which you ignored. This community placed absolutely no emphasis on Jesus’ death or resurrection. For more, see my article on Raymond Brown’s views regarding this issue:
http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/12/raymond-brown-and-resurrection-of-jesus.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken, your comments regarding Ehrman truly show a lack of integrity, as brother Paul has pointed out. You fail to grasp the simple point that Ehrman (and others) have examined the evidence and come to the conclusion that the New Testament is just a bunch of contradictory books written by different individuals with different viewpoints.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just got a massive book, “The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures”, D.A. Carson, editor, (over 1,200 pages) chapters by many different scholars. Lots of interaction with Ehrman, etc.
Looks great.
Yes, I know Ehrman came to that conclusion; but others have come to opposite conclusions.
LikeLike
I think you missed the point. The Gnostics started with the idea that physical things are evil and dirty; therefore, to them, Jesus did not have a physical body; therefore He did not die; therefore no resurrection from the dead.
The origin of this belief is the issue, . . .
Your statement there even proves my point. thanks!
LikeLike
In the name of Allah
KT: //I never claimed the exact words “sex slave” is there – I meant that those verses (both Quran and Hadith) show that there was a belief that female captives of war – ‘those whom your right hand posseses” – “are lawful for you” – “O prophet” – lawful to have sex with – Surah 33:50.//
Surah 33:50 t talk about two of the Prophet’s wives, Ṣafiyyah bint Ḥuyayy, and Juwayriyah bint Ḥārithah, they are honorables whom his right hand possesses, why it is called right hand?? because it is legitimate and lawful possession of a woman to a husband with the permission through wedlock. Even it is God Himself who give him the blessing. To say that the Prophet has sex slaves is lying. You just made things up.
LikeLike
The Qumran Community or, as many scholars believe are the same as the Essenes was a Jewish ascetic group that retreated from society and believed Israel was under divine judgment – they rejected the Pharisees and other Jewish groups.
Some scholars believe the Q Community are linked with the Sadducees – who only held to the first 5 books of Moses and denied physical resurrection from the dead, the afterlife, and angels.
Why should they mention or even talk about Jesus at all?
LikeLike
Eric,
No, Surah 33:50 says about “wives AND those whom your right hand possesses”. the other Hadiths and many other texts that I don’t have time to show, show that whom the right hand possesses are those females captives captured in war and were slaves – the Muslims discussing their price (selling them as slaves) shows the obvious meaning, along with Muhammad’s interaction with the fighter’s questions to him.
LikeLike
Usually, when someone writes “the Q community”, they are referring to the Qumran community.
I read though your article and see that you mean the hypothetical writers of the hypothetical document “Q” (Quelle = “source” in German). It is a non-existent thing; a liberal theory.
I have Raymond Brown’s Introduction to the NT and his arguments are terrible. the only real reason for liberalism is they don’t believe in supernatural prophesy and miracles – his reasons for dating the gospels late is that he cannot believe that Jesus actually prophesied the destruction of the temple in 30 AD, and that Matthew and Mark wrote it around between 45-60 AD, about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, so he places Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and Mark right at 70 AD, like he is watching it happen and then faking like he is writing prophesy.
Brown wants his cake and eat it too, by then saying he believes in the bodily resurrection. On what basis? (given his destruction of the text)
LikeLike
It is understandable, then, why Geza Vermes criticized Brown as:
“…the primary example of the position of ‘having your cake and eating it” (The Nativity: History and Legend (New York: Doubleday, 2006), p. 21).
Agreed
I pointed this out to Paul Williams a long time ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
it is a very good quote and I agree with Vermes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken I am very impressed you have obtained such BIG book with over 1,200 pages! Wow! there must be so much learning in such a very large book.
But then again, even such a self-evidently wonderful book has been written by fellow conservative evangelicals, so you are not exactly challenging your grey matter – perhaps more an exercise in confirmation bias.
LikeLike
“Yes, I know Ehrman came to that conclusion; but others have come to opposite conclusions.”
That’s what I am saying, which is why your appeal to people like Strobel is irrelevant and proves nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken do you believe that Christian girls who have been enslaved by ISIS should meekly submit to their slave masters however cruel they might be? Would you as a good Christian encourage them to obey?
Just asking…
LikeLike
“Usually, when someone writes “the Q community”, they are referring to the Qumran community.
I read though your article and see that you mean the hypothetical writers of the hypothetical document “Q” (Quelle = “source” in German). It is a non-existent thing; a liberal theory. ”
LOL. Of course, this is what we would expect a Christian to say! This is why you lack any objectivity. Anytime an scholarly idea is presented that contradicts your views, you simply dismiss it as “a liberal theory”. The reality is that even though we do not have an actual document resembling the “Q” gospel, there is undeniable evidence that it once existed. The scholarly analysis of the canonical Gospels shows indisputably that such a source existed. It may even just have been an oral tradition. And what we see in this oral tradition is a complete indifference to the concepts of the crucifixion or resurrection. Even later documents which we do have, such as the Didache, lack any reference to the resurrection. Isn’t that strange? The reality is that the belief in the resurrection was just one of the many competing beliefs that were evolving in the first century.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Groups like the Gnostics, the Q gospel community (there, that’s better), and the trinitarian Christians were competing with each other. Their beliefs all centered on Jesus, but later groups like the Gnostics and trinitarian Christians got most of their beliefs from the earliest community, the Q Gospel community. Over time, these beliefs would have evolved. Therefore, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Gnostic beliefs regarding the crucifixion (or lack thereof) were just one of many evolving beliefs, which originated in the oral traditions of the Q Gospel community.
LikeLike
Ken do you believe that Christian girls who have been enslaved by ISIS should meekly submit to their slave masters however cruel they might be?
Of course NOT – ISIS is evil; but they are using those texts from Qur’an and Hadith to justify their actions.
LikeLike
Eric Bin Kisam
You said;
In the name of Allah
KT: //I never claimed the exact words “sex slave” is there – I meant that those verses (both Quran and Hadith) show that there was a belief that female captives of war – ‘those whom your right hand posseses” – “are lawful for you” – “O prophet” – lawful to have sex with – Surah 33:50.//
Surah 33:50 t talk about two of the Prophet’s wives, Ṣafiyyah bint Ḥuyayy, and Juwayriyah bint Ḥārithah, they are honorables whom his right hand possesses, why it is called right hand?? because it is legitimate and lawful possession of a woman to a husband with the permission through wedlock. Even it is God Himself who give him the blessing. To say that the Prophet has sex slaves is lying. You just made things up.
I say;
I hope and pray Ken Temple will never ever repeat this lies from Sam Shamoun and David Wood about “sex-slave” again. They just copy English translation of Islam literature and lie about it.
Ken Temple
You said;
KT: //Eric – read Surah 33:50- the text is there.
O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives]
“those whom your right hand possesses” are the female captives of war.
It says, “O prophet”//
I say;
Your highly educated person with Masters of Divinity and Graduate of Business Management and if you follow an uneducated Sam Shamoun without critical analysis of a subject before drawing conclusion, you will reduce yourself to an uneducated Sam Shamoun.
Now, Ken, no where did the passage said “sex-slave”, “sex”, “slave” but the verse said;
Wives, lawful, right hand, possess.
Yasir Qadhi said, you have to marry a woman even if she is a slave and she becomes your wife if she so wish before anything else.
After war, and a woman with no one at her disposal, then the one taking care of her can marry her if she so wish without paying her dowry like the other women because he is already taking care of her.
Our prophet married older women who are widows and he did not pick young slave girls and have sex as David Wood and Sam Shamoun are lying about.
The above verse is talking about WIVES, WIVES, WIVES, WIVES and the first kind of wives are those the prophet gave their due compensation and the second kind of wives are those who are also WIVES but their due compensation was not paid because he is taking care of them.
Dowry is usually given to parents and guardian and if you are a guardian of someone you are the guardian of that fellow.
Our prophet usually marries a woman no one would like to marry to sometimes bridge tribal and religious feuds and to bring marital love to some women.
Ken Temple
I saw your response before posting and here is it
You said;
Ken Temple
March 21, 2016 • 5:32 pm
Eric,
No, Surah 33:50 says about “wives AND those whom your right hand possesses”. the other Hadiths and many other texts that I don’t have time to show, show that whom the right hand possesses are those females captives captured in war and were slaves – the Muslims discussing their price (selling them as slaves) shows the obvious meaning, along with Muhammad’s interaction with the fighter’s questions to him.
Ken Temple you said above;
//
Eric,
No, Surah 33:50 says about “wives AND those whom your right hand possesses”.
//
YOU LIED TO BE HONEST. THE QURAN NEVER SAID WHAT YOU SAID ABOVE. The Quran said this
————————–
O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives]
—————————
Ken, you removed LAWFUL TO YOU YOUR WIVES TO WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN THEIR DUE COMPENSATION AND THOSE YOUR RIGHT HAND POSSES.
Ken, they are all wives but the ones that the prophet have paid their due compensation and those his right hand possess but not paid their due compesation because he is their guardian. The are all his wives.
Prophet Abraham has his wife as the one his right hand possess and she is his wife according to the Bible. Prophets do not have unlawful sex, that is why the Quran clearly said lawful, wives. NO WHERE “SEX-SLAVES”.
Thanks.
LikeLike
The are all his wives.
then why does it say “wives . . . AND those whom your right hand possesses” ??
I am leaving out the middle because it relates to the wives, but it does not seem to relate to the female captives of war, because of the “and those whom your right hand possesses”.
LikeLike
The Didache is a manual of church order and practice – about the “Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles . . . ” verse 1. It is not meant to include the deeds or historical events.
It quotes Matthew 28:19 – baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:3), so that presupposes and includes the events before it, like the resurrection before it in Matthew 28 – Christians would have understood that.
Also, not every other document has to include what you want it to include. that is a goofy standard.
LikeLike
Ken, you need to stop using a machine gun approach, you’re literally throwing everything and the kitchen sink, it is never reasonable to assume people will respond to your every whim. If you have one issue, let that be dealt with first, then move on. Also you need to form an opinion for yourself. You seem to be letting scholars and random texts think FOR you. The opinions you hold must be sincere and genuine.
With that said, I have a couple of things to say about the crucifixion:
We don’t care very much about it (but it is good fun trying to make something of this mystery). We don’t dogmatically hold to any one possibility.
The difference between the non-muslim and we, the muslims, is that we’re willing to submit to God’s omniscience, whereas the Christian holds that the historical sources dictate what the actual past was – thus making the history writers their gods. They quite simply lack faith in God.
Islam has the freedom that atheists don’t necessarily have, as they would rush to naturalistic explanations, whereas we are ok with divine intervention, in fact the Qur’anic account does emphasise God’s divine intervention. Thus, if we were to give full credit to the Corinthians creed (the earliest account that speaks of the crucifixion event), as Muslims we can explain the post-crucifixion appearances as the disciples ‘dreaming’ of Jesus. Perhaps we can even say Jesus appeared to the disciples in visions. Or perhaps God strengthened the disciples and perhaps some early followers of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit, who gifted them with the strong sense that Jesus is alive with God. After all, Paul’s account in the Corinthians creed which states that Jesus ‘appeared’ to certain people actually means they experienced the presence of Jesus (this doesn’t actually mean a physical appearance), as Paul included himself in the list of people who experienced Jesus, thus it doesn’t actually mean Jesus made a full appearance in his resurrected body and conversed with them.
We believe for a multitude of reasons that Paul was a false apostle, and thus his inclusion of a creed into his letter may be questionable, and he likely then could have had something to do with its formation.
Let’s see how things could have happened:
1. Substitution Theory
2. Illusion Theory
3. Sleep Theory
4. Actual Crucifixion but God was the one who terminated Jesus’s life.
Substitution Theory – The resemblance of Jesus was cast to another man, who was crucified. The reason why I don’t personally subscribe to this is because it paints Jesus as one who passed the buck onto another, and in the classical Islamic view, the ‘another’ has almost always been an innocent person. This doesn’t seem befitting of a prophet.
This interpretation has led to a distortion in the translation of some Qur’anic accounts of the crucifixion event. Classical Arabic is not as simple as English, there is potential for different translations of words.
It could be that a man worthy of death by crucifixion in the eyes of God was crucified in the place of Jesus, so Jesus’s likeness was cast onto that man.
Illusion Theory – This does away with the problem of the Substitution Theory. An illusionary body of Jesus was crucified, whilst Jesus had been raised into heaven.
Sleep Theory – This is the theory I subscribe to. Jesus’s soul was taken up into heaven, his body remained alive but in sleep. Jesus thus did not have to feel anything during the crucifixion event.
Tawaffa in most places of the Qur’an has mostly meant death (taking of the soul and it not being returned to the body), and it has also been refereed to as ‘sleep’ (taking of the soul out of the body but the body remains alive).
Thereafter, Jesus’s body was raised into heaven. Perhaps then people saw Jesus’s body rising into heaven and claimed he had risen from the dead and/or Jesus still appeared to them in the form of dreams for example.
4. Actual Crucifixion – https://www3.nd.edu/~reynolds/index_files/jesus%20dead%20or%20alive.pdf
LikeLiked by 3 people
listen to Yasir Qadhi’s lecture on You Tube, “Slavery, sex-maid, and sex-slave in Islam”.
It is only 13 minutes.
It is all right there; and he admits it.
LikeLike
Ken
I asked you
‘do you believe that Christian girls who have been enslaved by ISIS should meekly submit to their slave masters however cruel they might be?’
You replied:
‘Of course NOT – ISIS is evil; but they are using those texts from Qur’an and Hadith to justify their actions.’
An odd reply. As a good fundamentalist Christian you certainly should advise a poor slave girl under ISIS to obey her masters – no matter how cruel they may be.
The NT teaches slaves:
‘You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you—not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel. For God is pleased with you when you do what you know is right and patiently endure unfair treatment.’
1 Peter 2
LikeLike
Hey Ken, the Lord’s Resistance Army has kidnapped over 200 people in the past few months. They use the Bible to justify their actions. Based on your logic, what does that tell us?
http://www.loonwatch.com/2016/03/lords-resistance-army-abducted-217-people-in-central-africa-did-you-hear-about-it/
LikeLike
Regardless of what purpose the Didache had, it is shocking that it would de-emphasize the resurrection, which is the single most important concept in Christianity. The only reasonable explanation is that its author(s) either were unaware of the resurrection belief or did not believe in it.
LikeLike
thanks Brian!
That’s all very interesting and detailed; but –
I am just responding to multiple questions, issues, etc.
My believe is my sincere belief, based on Scripture, which is “God-breathed” ( 2 Tim. 3:16) Since God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), there is always an explanation for any kind of apparent contradiction. It all comes from one mind – God’s mind.
Truth corresponds to reality and history – God does not lie; indeed, God cannot lie.
I understand your point about:
“The difference between the non-muslim and we, the muslims, is that we’re willing to submit to God’s omniscience, whereas the Christian holds that the historical sources dictate what the actual past was – thus making the history writers their gods. They quite simply lack faith in God.”
But we Christian believers don’t have that problem – we also believe in God’s omniscience, power, and He can incarnate and become a man, etc. and rise himself from the dead.
We don’t say the historical sources “dictate” what happened; rather historical reality and God’s truth are ONE. Truth is whatever conforms to reality, and God does miracles in history (Red Sea crossing, Jonah in the big fish, the incarnation, the virgin birth of Christ, the resurrection.)
But the atheist and skeptic needs to see the evidence for the truth of the miracle in history – that is why Jesus provided “many convincing proofs of His resurrection” – Acts 1:1-5
He told the disciples to touch Him and fell Him – Luke 24:39 – He was not a ghost or phantom or symbol.
He told Thomas to touch Him and see – John 20:27-28
He ate food with them. Luke 24; John 21
The NT is the combination of historical reality and accuracy AND divine inspiration.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The are all his wives.
then why does it say “wives . . . AND those whom your right hand possesses” ??
I am leaving out the middle because it relates to the wives, but it does not seem to relate to the female captives of war, because of the “and those whom your right hand possesses”.
I say;
You do not have authority to leave out anything in our scripture and interprets it the way you want for your whims and caprice.
You do not tell us what relates to what in our scripture especially in English language, not Arabic and tafsir.
Once again, you lied in front of our eyes. Our scripture even in English translation never ever said what you said here;
//
“wives . . . AND those whom your right hand possesses” ??
//
This is the full verse;
———————————-
O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives]
———————————-
Ken, it said ” WE MADE LAWFUL TO YOU YOUR WIVES TO WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN THEIR DUE COMPENSATION AND THOSE YOUR RIGHT HAND POSSESS.
If you have adopted children and blood children and I say;
WE MADE LAWFUL TO YOU YOUR CHILDREN TO WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN BIRTH AND THOSE YOU ADOPTED.
Does that mean your adopted children are not lawfully your children? according to the save sentence per the Quran verse?
Sam Shamoun and David Wood like to bring this, but David Wood and Nabeel Quraish are educated liars but Sam Shamoun is uneducated unfortunately. He must start learning Greek and Hebrew classes. Probably Aramaic and Arabic too. May be English.
Thanks.
LikeLike
The Didache does not talk about any events; only teachings. It does not de-emphasize the resurrection – if it does not mention it and that was not it’s purpose of writing, it is not shocking at all, since the writer’s purpose was not about that. Many other church fathers mention Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
That is a really strange argument from silence you are making.
LikeLike
Here is what Dr. Shabbir Ally says regarding the Q community’s beliefs regarding Jesus’ “assumption”:
“But whereas [Daniel] Smith insists that Jesus was taken up dead in the manner of Moses and Isaiah, his study also highlights the fact that the Q Gospel which served as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not speak of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The German scholar Deiter Zeller argues on the basis of the Q Gospel, that the early belief entailed the assumption of Jesus alive, as was the case with Enoch and Elijah.”
http://shabirally.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/did-jesus-physically-rise-from-the-dead/
LikeLike
Since there are other principles in Scripture of self-defense (Lewis shows this in his article I mention below); I don’t think you can legitimately apply 1 Peter 2:18-21 to the evil of what ISIS does.
The 1 Peter passage is meant to speak against political rebellion and upheaval and sinful anger, and violence.
The “turn the other cheek” principle in Matthew 5 did not mean, “never defend yourself” or “never defend others who are being attacked” – rather, it meant “don’t harbor a spirit of vengeance and retaliation”.
C. S. Lewis’ essay, “Why I am not a pacifist” in “The Weight of Glory and other Addresses” is good on this issue.
LikeLike
Nothing “strange” about it! We have a prominent Christian document that fails to even hint at the resurrection! It mentions the resurrection of the dead on the Day of Judgment, so there is no reason why it would have failed to mention the resurrection and their “lord and savior”.
LikeLike
I know some Christians, including one who is considering leaving Christianity for Islam, who were strict pacifists and believe that there is no excuse for violence in any case. They use the same sources you use. in other cases, some Christians use the Bible to do really horrible things (such as the LRA). What does this tell you?
LikeLike
I find no credibility in the hypothetical liberal Q source theory. All four gospels (and Acts and most all of the letters, if not all – I don’t remember if Philemon and Jude and 3 John speak about those things, off the top of my head) testify to the reality of the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
LikeLike
‘Liberal Q source theory’ LOL
LikeLike
What does this tell you?
That people can twist things for their own agenda’s. Yes, I see that.
I know some Christians, including one who is considering leaving Christianity for Islam, who were strict pacifists and believe that there is no excuse for violence in any case.
It would be interesting to hear or read about the guy who changed his views from strict pacifism to considering Islam. They guy didn’t believe in just police work (properly or justly carried out) or the Allies coming against the Nazis in WW 2 ?
LikeLike
“Liberal Q source theory”… these 4 words tell me everything I need to know about your objectivity (or lack thereof).
LikeLike
“That people can twist things for their own agenda’s. Yes, I see that.
I know some Christians, including one who is considering leaving Christianity for Islam, who were strict pacifists and believe that there is no excuse for violence in any case.
It would be interesting to hear or read about the guy who changed his views from strict pacifism to considering Islam. They guy didn’t believe in just police work (properly or justly carried out) or the Allies coming against the Nazis in WW 2 ?”
So, if you see that, then why do you keep bringing ISIS into the discussion? Christianity has its bad apples too.
The guy I am talking about maintains strict pacifism, even though he is considering Islam (and also Deism as well). I have known him for over 10 years (through email correspondence). He is an activist with groups like Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) and has visited places like the West Bank and El Salvador to document the oppression of the poor by powerful and corrupt governments. I would imagine that if he does end up converting to Islam, he would give up his pacifist views, or at least be less strict. Islam allows people to use violence in self-defense, and indeed, in some cases, it even commands it, though it also encourages patience.
LikeLike
The Didache quotes 1 Thess. 3:13 and Matthew 24:30 – “the Lord will come, with all His saints with Him” and “the world will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven” = means the writer of the Didache already assumed and believed in Jesus’ resurrection and ascension into heaven.
You are still demanding things the way you want them. It is illogical to demand someone in the past had to write the details that you demand.
Around the same time as the Didache ( 70-120 AD), 1 Clement (96 AD), Ignatius (107-117 AD), and later Polycarp (155 AD) and Justin Martyr (165 AD) all mention the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, so your argument is really goofy, given the specific purpose of the Didache.
LikeLike
So, if you see that, then why do you keep bringing ISIS into the discussion?
I guess because they are big and numerous and spreading havoc and chaos and terror and murder all over the world – Iraq, Syria, in Libya, Sinai, Boko Haram in Nigeria has pledged their allegiance to them, and, I think Al Shabbab in Somolia, and there are other followers of ISIS in pockets of Pakistan and Afghanistan and other Muslim countries too. and they do evil things in Paris, San Bernadino, etc.
Christianity has its bad apples too.
Agreed; but nothing like what ISIS is doing all over the world at this time.
LikeLike
So, if you see that, then why do you keep bringing ISIS into the discussion?
I guess because they are big and numerous and spreading havoc and chaos and terror and murder all over the world – Iraq, Syria, in Libya, Sinai, Boko Haram in Nigeria has pledged their allegiance to them, and, I think Al Shabbab in Somolia, and there are other followers of ISIS in pockets of Pakistan and Afghanistan and other Muslim countries too. and they do evil things in Paris, San Bernadino, etc.
Christianity has its bad apples too.
Agreed; but nothing like what ISIS is doing all over the world at this time.
Do you realize that groups like ISIS actually kill more Muslims than non-Muslims?
Also, what difference does it make if its “all over the world at this time”? There was a time when Christian countries were colonizing and oppressing native populations (and still do to some extent). Also, the people being terrorized by groups like the LRA wouldn’t really care if the LRA was not active globally. To them, the LRA thugs are still monsters that need to be stopped.
LikeLike
Do you realize that groups like ISIS actually kill more Muslims than non-Muslims?
Yes. It is very, very bad, agreed. I feel for the other Muslims who are being slaughtered by them. (secularists, Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis who won’t submit, etc. – the archeologist professor and curator of the Palmyra museum in Syria – an old man. That was really really sad to read about.)
LikeLike
The Didache quotes 1 Thess. 3:13 and Matthew 24:30 – “the Lord will come, with all His saints with Him” and “the world will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven” = means the writer of the Didache already assumed and believed in Jesus’ resurrection and ascension into heaven.
You are still demanding things the way you want them. It is illogical to demand someone in the past had to write the details that you demand.
Around the same time as the Didache ( 70-120 AD), 1 Clement (96 AD), Ignatius (107-117 AD), and later Polycarp (155 AD) and Justin Martyr (165 AD) all mention the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, so your argument is really goofy, given the specific purpose of the Didache.
You still don’t get it. The point is that the resurrection belief was evolving! Not all groups believed in it or placed any importance on it.
Speaking of “demanding thing the way you want them”, it does not go unnoticed how you now try to forcefully place the resurrection into the Didache by assuming that the “writer already assumed…”. Biased much, Ken?
No, the Didache shows no evidence that the writer “assumed” Jesus’ resurrection. He may have known about his “assumption”, since that was an early belief, but there is nothing to show that he believed in the resurrection. You just want it to be that way. That only shows your desperation. But I guess it can’t be helped that you are being “goofy”. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
So, if you see that, then why do you keep bringing ISIS into the discussion?
I guess because they are big and numerous and spreading havoc and chaos and terror and murder all over the world – Iraq, Syria, in Libya, Sinai, Boko Haram in Nigeria has pledged their allegiance to them, and, I think Al Shabbab in Somolia, and there are other followers of ISIS in pockets of Pakistan and Afghanistan and other Muslim countries too. and they do evil things in Paris, San Bernadino, etc.
Christianity has its bad apples too.
Agreed; but nothing like what ISIS is doing all over the world at this time.
I say;
Christian Lords Resistance Army, a terrible terrorist group than isis started in Uganda, and now in Central African Republic, Cameroun and Kenya.
isis was caused by Christian Evangelicals of the USA by voting for Bush, a conservative Christian to deal with the Muslim world. Saddam was peaceful at that time with Tariq Aziz, a Christian vice president. Saddam helped Christians of Iraqi descent to build their Churches including one in the USA.
He used to be violent but was peaceful but these wicked evangelical Christians yearning for the blood of ALL MUSLIMS as they support Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Newt Gingritch and anyone who said ALL MUSLIM HATE US so that he can continue to kill Muslims.
According to FBI, TIME magazine and so many independent studies, White supremacist Christians inflicted terror in the USA than Muslims.
Ken Temple will always blame a Palestinians and support Israel to massacre the Palestinians and pave way for Armageddon and to convert Jews.
The Christian evangelicals are the problem of this world but are crafty is diverted the blame to others who are just feeding on their left over-isis and link it to all Muslims.
Muslims did not go to war in Iraq and create a vacuum for isis but evangelical Christians voted for an evangelical Christian to carry to war of destruction and now voting for Donald Trump to finish with the Muslims.
Ken Temple said it here, that the evangelicals votes for a president to carry war on dictators. You know the evangelical heinous intentions, they will not carry war on General Sisi of Egypt and his predecessor Hosni Mubarak because they are their allies in helping them kill Muslims.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Looking over the comments (and I will admit, I only skimmed through), I am reminded why I would rather treat religious beliefs as personal and private.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Do you realize that groups like ISIS actually kill more Muslims than non-Muslims?
Yes. It is very, very bad, agreed. I feel for the other Muslims who are being slaughtered by them. (secularists, Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis who won’t submit, etc. – the archeologist professor and curator of the Palmyra museum in Syria – an old man. That was really really sad to read about.)
I say;
You the wicked evangelical Christians created this by supporting and voting for war in Iraq, like you admitted here Ken, you the evangelicals Christians are now eyeing and voting for war in Iran because of the same lies about nuclear. Israel has nuclear but you are supporting it to kill Palestinians and occupy their lands for Armageddon preached by Rev. John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, his wife and all Christian evangelicals.
If the Palestinians defend themselves, you call them terrorist and support Israel and now all the republican candidates have to pledge their unflinching support to Israel and stay biased and not neutral and Ted Cruz says he is not going to be neutral and that is the mentality of all evangelical Christians.
Ask the Yadzidis, they were there since Jesus time and stayed with Muslims for centuries and all middle east is OK for Christians and Jews until the creation of Israel and USA and evangelicals taking war to the Muslims and kill them to create isis.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Many Evangelicals do not support that stuff and either go for Ron Paul or Rand Paul or sit out the elections.
I totally repudiate John Hagee and Jack Van Impe and Donald Trump.
LikeLike
No; belief in the Resurrection was not “evolving” – it is clear in the first century (all 27 books of NT – except I don’t think the little less than one page paragraph letters of Jude, Philemon, and 3rd John mention it.)
And all of the main orthodox letters of the 2nd century mention it-
1 Clement
Ignatius
Polycarp
Justin Martyr
Tertullian
Irenaeus
there is no evolution.
Gnostics were not Christian.
LikeLike
there are clearly different understandings of the nature of Jesus’s resurrection body even within the NT. For Paul it is not flesh and blood, for Luke it is.
Many scholars think that the original experience of Jesus’s resurrection consisted of a single vision which over time came to be interpreted in increasingly physical terms, leading to Luke and John’s quite different bodily conceptions.
LikeLike
LOL – Apostle Paul believed in the bodily resurrection.
“spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44) = imperishable body (v. 42), glorified body, (v. 43; Philippians 3:21)means a spirit controlled body, glorified, after the resurrection – no more decay and able to go through walls by God’s power.
Norman Geisler’s book, “The Battle for the Resurrection” is excellent on those issues.
LikeLike
Ken Temple will always blame a Palestinians and support Israel to massacre the Palestinians and pave way for Armageddon and to convert Jews.
That is not true, and very unfair and unjust for you to accuse me of that.
I agree more with Blood Brothers by Elias Chakour and Whose Promised Land? by Colin Chapman – you should read those for a refreshing different view from the way you paint with a broad brush all Evangelicals.
LikeLike
Ken Temple, Sam Shamoun, Nabeel Quraish, David Wood etc.
Quran:
O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives]
Ken Temple changed the Quran(Pathetic)
“wives . . . AND those whom your right hand possesses” ??
LAWFUL, WIVES, GIVE THEIR DUE COMPENSATION, RIGHT HAND, POSSESS.
ALAH HAS MADE LAWFUL TO THE PROPHET HIS WIVES TO WHOM HE HAS GIVEN THEIR COMPENSATION AND THOSE HIS RIGHT HAND POSSESS.
ABRAHAM HAD A WIFE WHOM HIS RIGHT HAND POSSESED AND TOGETHER WITH THE ONE HE GAVE DUE COMPESATION, ABRAHAM HAS 2 WIVES THEN INCLUDING THE ONE HIS RIGHT HAND POSSESS.
Ken, if your brother controls his business and you are his secretary and asks you to buy a car for your duties and another car parked in your garage and says
Indeed I have made it lawful to you your cars to whom you have bought for your duties and the one parked in your garage.
Will you say the car parked in your garage is not your lawful car? According to what your brother said all the 2 cars are all lawfully yours.
Then you will omit some words and say your brother said this;
“wives . . . AND those whom your right hand possesses” ??
“cars…AND the one parked in your garage”??
To change the meaning for your whims and caprice and claim your brother is wicked and is talking about the only car you bought for your duties but not the one in your garage.
Now, another example of adopted sons and blood sons. I just put them in place of the Quran statement about wives.
O Ken Temple, indeed We have made lawful to you your Sons to whom you have given birth and those you have adopted.
Does the adopted Sons not your lawful Sons? It is disingenuous to think so and it is disingenuous to think ALL the wives of all prophets including prophets Abraham and prophet Mohammed are not lawful.
Ken, do not omit some words from our scriptures. We do not want that distortions.
No sex-slaves please.
Thanks.
LikeLike
No; belief in the Resurrection was not “evolving” – it is clear in the first century (all 27 books of NT – except I don’t think the little less than one page paragraph letters of Jude, Philemon, and 3rd John mention it.)
And all of the main orthodox letters of the 2nd century mention it-
1 Clement
Ignatius
Polycarp
Justin Martyr
Tertullian
Irenaeus
there is no evolution.
Gnostics were not Christian.
Of course there was evolution. We can see it in the Gospels themselves. Each subsequent Gospel built on and embellished the tradition, creating many contradictions between each Gospel. That is a sign of evolution, the change over time of the concept.
We also see this change from other Christian documents and communities. Who was and was not a “Christian” is irrelevant.
LikeLike
In the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
Temple, so much of your waffle and so far you failed to give evidence for such a thing as a “sex slave” of prophet Muhammad. There is not even a word “slave”رِقّ nor “sex”جِنْس , it is just from your evil imagination , and I must say you are a despicable liar, for spreading lies about a prophet of God.
LikeLike
In the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
KT://If you think Ehrman was putting intellectual integrity about religious dogma, he certainly would not think Islam has credible evidence for being true. He doubts all supernatural claims.
It is inconsistent to use him, since his same presuppositions and worldview would be applied to Islam and shown to be false. “An example to follow . . . ” means you should deny Islam also.//
Ehrman is not an Islamic scholar he is not even a muslim, It should be more of your concern that he is a world renown and accomplished biblical scholar . He end up this journey not because he hates christianity, he loves it dearly but he found so many contradictions and false belief in it then decided to pursue the truth no matter where it may lead him. His scholarship is recognised by the respectable and larger academic community. His view is not accepted only by a fringe of conservative apologists, D.A. Carson, Daniel Wallace, Darrell Bock, are some of them, if you read their works it is limited by a doctrinal statement of their institution.
Now since I have my own worldview that also require supernatural claim that Jesus did not die (although it was made to appear so) and was miraculously saved by his God in the cross. Whereas Ehrman may not allow such supernatural explanation, will you then back my supernatural position that God saved Jesus from the cross agonising ordeal and raised him up?
LikeLike
Whereas Ehrman may not allow such supernatural explanation, will you then back my supernatural position that God saved Jesus from the cross agonising ordeal and raised him up?
No because the earlier supernatural God-breathed Scriptures (the New Testament) say He died on the cross, was buried, and rose again from the dead on the 3rd day.
LikeLike
In the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
Whereas Ehrman may not allow such supernatural explanation, will you then back my supernatural position that God saved Jesus from the cross agonising ordeal and raised him up?
KT://No because the earlier supernatural God-breathed Scriptures (the New Testament) say He died on the cross, was buried, and rose again from the dead on the 3rd day.//
That’s too bad because the much earlier Tanach never say “God” would become a man and then later “God” died.
LikeLike
Ken, talking about the earliest, the earliest scripture, the old testament said God never dies, God is not a man, God is 1, only and alone, NO ONE can see God, Yahweh alone is I and Yahweh said I alone is God and no one else, none else and nothing else.
The earlier scripture(Old Testament) clearly states that God is 1 and not 3 persons 1 God, Trinitas Unitas, Trinity, Jesus etc.
Do you then believe in the earlier scripture?
LikeLike
The Tanakh prophesied of the Messiah to come being:
1. born of a virgin – Isaiah 7:14
2. The Son of God – Psalm 2:1-12; Proverbs 30:4 (the chief priest asks Jesus, are you the Messiah, the Son of God? – mark 14:60-64; Matthew 26:63-66 – very clear that the Jews understood Messiah to be the eternal Son of God.
3. the one who would suffer and die and be an atonement for sins – Isaiah 53; Psalm 22; Daniel 9:24-27
4. Bless all the nations/cultures/peoples – Genesis 22:18; Isaiah 49:6 – Revelation 5:9
5. Born in Bethlemhem and his days are from of old / ancient, from eternity – claim of Deity – Micah 5:2
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”
Micah 5:2
The scribes and Pharisees understood that – matthew 2:1-12
6. Called the LORD – Psalm 110:1
LikeLike
Mike gets it – at the post about “the Crucified God” – thanks Mike !
Mike
March 21, 2016 • 11:05 pm
I do not see the problem here. Christians are not saying that God qua God can die (that would be more than absurd- it would be a contradiction in terms) but that God can experience death through the incarnation of His Word (Logos). I do not see how that is a logical problem. If God’s Word (Logos) became incarnate in Jesus Christ then it follows that the Word can experience death.
Think about it. There is a sense in which even human beings do not die because we continue to exist after death. What dies is the body.
LikeLike
4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name or His son’s name?
Surely you know!
5 Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
6 Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
Proverbs 30:4-6
LikeLike
https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/03/21/the-chritian-boast-credo-quia-absurdum/#comment-10457
LikeLike
Ken Temple
This are my evidence for everyone to see;
“there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
“Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
“Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
“You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
“For who is God, besides Yahweh? And who is a rock, besides our God?” 2 Samuel 22:32
“Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
Where is your evidence that the Old Testament said
God will die or God is 3 persons 1 God or Trinitas unitas; or God will become man, or Jesus is God?
I want a clear statements like what I provided as evidence.
Quoting gibberish is from you is frustrating. I do not want that gibberish, I want evidence like I provided.
Thanks.
LikeLike
In the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
KT://The Tanakh prophesied of the Messiah to come being//
No it did not.
וְאַתָּ֞ה בֵּֽית־לֶ֣חֶם אֶפְרָ֗תָה
And you, [of] Bethlehem [of] Efrat
צָעִיר֙ לִֽהְיוֹת֙ בְּאַלְפֵ֣ייְהוּדָ֔ה
who were to be insignificant among the thousands of Judah,
מִמְּךָ֙ לִ֣י יֵצֵ֔א לִֽהְי֥וֹת מוֹשֵׁ֖ל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל
from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;
וּמוֹצָאֹתָ֥יו מִקֶּ֖דֶם
and his (origin) is from old,
מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם
from ancient days.
This is rather different from what us written in Matthew and does not say anything about the prophet who is God rather he come from God, here the word used is מוֹצָא which mean emerge so this figure had his origin , notice also the prepositional מִ in front of קֶּ֖דֶם, for God do not have beginning.
LikeLike
With the name of Allah
KT://Mike gets it – at the post about “the Crucified God” – thanks Mike !//
I think Mike point is, using trinitarian logic, there is no such a thing as “death” as philosophically human beings do not die because we continue to exist after death. What dies is the body.
So this really a devastating refutation of trinitarian who think that Jesus is God because he overcame death, and that God did not die but only cease his “physical/humanly” body (whatever that means). That makes we human are all gods….
LikeLike
Ken, you don’t get it and I don’t think you ever will. The fact that you use the same trinitarian nonsense (e.g. Jesus was prophesied in the Tanakh etc.) that every other apologist uses shows a lack of scholarly integrity. Anyone who has studied the Bible sees right through the trinitarian farce.
LikeLiked by 1 person