Does Islam Teach “Substitutionary Atonement”? – A Response to a Christian Apologist

Faiz S. is a regular commentator on Blogging Theology. His comments are always intelligent and erudite. He has just published this article in reply to the evangelical apologist and fellow commentator Ken Temple. It originally appeared on Faiz’s excellent website The Quran and the Bible: A Muslim Investigation 

Screen Shot 2016-05-05 at 22.21.38

Does Islam Teach “Substitutionary Atonement”? A Response to a Christian Apologist

“Say: ‘O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Turn ye to our Lord (in repentance) and bow to His (Will), before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped.’”

– The Holy Quran, Surah Az-Zumar, 39:53-54 (Yusuf Ali)

With the proliferation of the Internet, it has become common to see a myriad number of websites and blogs dedicated to the propagation of many different ideologies.  Among these millions of websites, there are many dedicated to the propagation of religious ideas (such as this blog), ranging from the well-known religions such as Christianity and Islam, as well as the lesser known ones, such as Shintoism and Voodoo.  Of course, with the discussion of religion comes religious argumentation and debate.  One of the current hot topics in this discussion in various circles, both friendly and hostile, is Islam.[1] One of the favorite targets especially of Christian apologists, Islam is clearly one of the most discussed subjects in the world today.  As a result, many false claims about Islam have surfaced in recent years, and Muslims are increasingly active in responding to these claims.  One such false claim has been made by some Christian apologists and involves the concept of “substitutionary atonement”.[2] An article in the Christian apologetic blog “Apologetics and Agape”,[3] claims that “substitutionary atonement” is a Biblical concept and also that:

“…the Qur’an agrees with the concept of substitutionary atonement…”[4]

But is this claim true?  In this article, we will test this claim and see if it has any merit.  InshaAllah, the reader will see that upon a critical examination of the apologist’s assertions, we find no truth to his claims.[5]

Substitutionary Atonement – A Brief Summary

Before we respond to the theory that the Quran teaches the concept of “substitutionary atonement”, let us briefly summarize its main precepts.  The main precept, from a Christian point of view, is that:

“Jesus Christ died in our place when He was crucified on the cross. We deserved to be the ones placed on that cross to die because we are the ones who live sinful lives. But Christ took the punishment on Himself in our place—He substituted Himself for us and took what we rightly deserved.”[6]

Thus, since humans are sinful, they must pay the price of that sin, which is an eternity in Hell.  However, since Jesus (peace be upon him) allegedly “took the punishment on [h]imself”, his “sacrifice” saves us all, so long as we accept that “sacrifice” and:

“…place our faith in what Christ did on the cross.”[7]

Based on this, we can summarize “substitutionary atonement” as the belief that the forgiveness of sins and salvation can be attained not by one’s personal deeds, but by the redemptive atonement of another individual, who must necessarily be sinless (hence the Christian emphasis that Jesus was “sinless”).[8]  Someone has to pay the price, and it will either be us (by spending eternity in Hell), or it was Jesus (peace be upon him), who paid the price by allowing himself to be crucified.

Islam and “Substitutionary Atonement”

Now that we have discussed what “substitutionary atonement” is, we can proceed in analyzing the Christian claim that Islam actually “agrees” with this concept.  First, the author of the article, Ken Temple, quotes Surah As-Saaffat (37:107),[9] which is part of the story of the prophet Ibrahim’s (peace be upon him) near-sacrifice of his son (whom Muslims hold to be Ishmael, and not Isaac),[10] and then claims that:

“[t]he substitution of the ram in the place of Abraham’s son proves that it (the ransom) means ‘substitutionary atonement’.”[11]

But an examination of the context of the verse shows that this claim is untenable and completely false.  We need to remember that “substitutionary atonement” is the belief that forgiveness of sins is made by a willing sacrifice (whom Christians believe was Jesus) and the evidence from the Quran itself shows that the story of Ibrahim and Ishmael (peace be upon them) does not reflect this belief.

First, when read in context, the story shows no indication that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) ordered Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to sacrifice his son (and later, the ram) as some sort of expiation for his sins.  Let us read the complete story as told in Surah As-Saaffat:

“He said: “I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!

“O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!”

So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.

Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: “O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!” (The son) said: “O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practicing Patience and Constancy!”

So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),

We called out to him “O Abraham!

“Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!” – thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

For this was obviously a trial-

And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:

And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:

“Peace and salutation to Abraham!”

Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

For he was one of our believing Servants.”[12]

We can immediately see no indication that the command to sacrifice Ishmael (peace be upon him) was given as a way for Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to atone for his sins.  In fact, verse 103 states that both Ibrahim and Ishmael (peace be upon them) had “submitted their wills” to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), and verse 105 states that simply by his willing submission to Allah’s command, Ibrahim (peace be upon him) had “already fulfilled the vision”. Commenting on verse 105, the 13th-century exegete Ibn Kathir stated that it means that:

“…the purpose of your dream has been fulfilled by your laying down your son to sacrifice him.’”[13]

In addition, the commentary in “The Study Quran” explains that it also means that (emphasis ours):

“[Ibrahim] carried out what he was commanded and that he achieved its goal by demonstrating complete obedience to God.”[14]

Moreover, verse 106 states clearly that the whole incident was “obviously a trial”.  According to Ibn Kathir, this means that (emphasis ours):

“…it was clearly a test when he was commanded to sacrifice his son, so, he hastened to do it, in submission to the command of Allah and in obedience to Him.”[15]

According to “The Study Quran”, it also means:

“…that it was a blessing…as it is through severe trials that God brings His pious servants the best reward in this life and the next, if they are able to faithfully endure them, as did Abraham…”[16]

Again, we see no indication that there was any relationship between the “trial” and the atonement of sins.  Rather, a trial is meant to test whether a person will obey Allah’s commands, regardless of how difficult they are.[17]

But what about the phrase “…We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice”?  Doesn’t the word “ransomed” indicate that the ram was meant to serve as a sin offering or that, as Temple claims:

“[t]he substitution of the ram in the place of Abraham’s son proves that it (the ransom) means ‘substitutionary atonement’.”

As we have seen, the context indicates that this claim is false.  There is no proof that the ram was presented for “substitutionary atonement”.  The claim made by Temple is simply a non-sequitur.  The “ransom” was simply for Ishmael (peace be upon him), since it saved him from being sacrificed.[18]

Additionally, we can note that (emphasis in the original):

“[t]his substitution of the ram for Abraham’s son serves as the basis for the ritual of slaughtering an animal that is required as the final rite of the hajj.”[19]

This is an important point which Temple has ignored or is unaware of, since if we can understand the point of the Hajj ritual, it will explain the true meaning behind the prophet Ibrahim’s trial.[20]

Islam and Animal Sacrifice

It is certainly true that animal sacrifices are sometimes required of a Muslim after committing a specific sin.  Moreover, an animal sacrifice is an integral part of the Hajj.  However, it is important to note from the get-go that it is not the meat or blood that serves to expiate for a sin.  Rather, it is the act itself, as stated in the Quran:

“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.”[21]

In his commentary on the verse, Ibn Kathir stated that it is the act of piety that“He will accept and reward for…”[22]  Thus, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) does not forgive sins through blood atonement.  Rather, He forgives sins when they are countered with a pious deed (which in this case is an animal sacrifice), as is stated in a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

“…Have Taqwa of Allah wherever you are, and follow an evil deed with a good one to wipe it out, and treat the people with good behavior.”[23]

In this regard, the act of making an animal sacrifice is a good deed since the purpose of it is to first, please Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He),[24] and then to eat the meat and distribute a portion of it to the poor, and among one’s family and friends.[25]

Furthermore, in regards to the Hajj, it is stated in “The Oxford Dictionary of Islam” that (emphasis ours):

“[p]roperly performed, the hajj absolves the pilgrim from all previous sins.  […] A valid pilgrimage requires the sincere intention (niyah) of coming closer to God.  If the intent is spiritually sound, most breaches of ritual formality can be corrected via additional animal sacrifices in Mecca or special acts of charity and fasting after returning home.”[26]

There are some important points to note here:

  1. The Hajj itself absolves a Muslim of all sins.  Also, all of the rituals of the Hajj must be performed in order for it to be accepted.
  2. The Hajj is only acceptable as long as the pilgrim makes a “sincere intention”.  Without it, the Hajj is not accepted even if all of the rituals are performed.
  3. As long as an intention is made, any mistakes or omissions in the Hajj (so long as they are not deliberately made), can be cancelled out by “additional animal sacrifices in Mecca” or “special acts of charity and fasting”.

If Islam placed such importance on “substitutionary atonement”, then surely animal sacrifices would play a much more prominent role in atoning for sins. Indeed, in some cases, a Muslim has the choice on how to atone for violating the rules of the Hajj.  An example is atoning for hunting land animals during the Hajj.  There is complete consensus among the scholars of Islam that hunting animals in a state of Ihram is prohibited.[27]  But what is a Muslim to do when he/she violates this rule?  While there are minor differences between the various schools of thought, they generally agree that the person can choose between giving meat from his own livestock in charity, giving other food that is worth the same amount of money or, in the case of the Hanafi school, fasting a day for every gram (mudd) of food that must be given away.[28]

Thus, we can see that animal sacrifices are not a requirement in Islam, and even when they are required, it is the act itself and not the spilling of blood that atones for one’s sins.  Even the Christian apologist Thabiti Anyabwile acknowledges this fact.  He states:

“…the Quran denies that animal sacrifice can atone for the sins of men.  […] In Islam, piety counts before Allah, not sacrifice.”[29]

“Substitutionary Atonement” in the Ahadith?

Having dealt with Temple’s erroneous claims about “substitutionary atonement” in the Quran, we can now turn our attention to his appeal to some ahadith.  Before quoting some ahadith from Sahih Muslim, Temple credulously asks:

“…why do these Islamic Hadiths clearly say that Allah will forgive the sins of Muslims and save them from hell by punishing Jews and Christians in their place?”[30]

As we will see, this question is based on a biased and incomplete reading of the ahadith and illustrates Temple’s ignorance.

To make his case, Temple quotes the following ahadith from Sahih Muslim:

“Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.”[31]

“Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him).”[32]
“Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him)? I said: Yes.”[33]

After quoting these ahadith, Temple then claims that:

“[t]hese Hadith [sic] are worse, because the sins of Muslims are put on other sinners.  That is injustice indeed.  But it was not unjust for Jesus to die for our sins, because He did it voluntarily, and He is perfect and sinless.”[34]

But are Temple’s assertions accurate?  Do these ahadith teach that Muslims will be able to atone by placing their sins on other unwilling sinners?  As we will now see, the answer is no.

First and foremost, it needs to be stated that since they are unbelievers, Jews and Christians will be doomed to hell anyway.  This is stated emphatically in the Quran and Ahadith.  For example, the Quran states:

“O ye People of the Book! believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was (already) with you, before We change the face and fame of some (of you) beyond all recognition, and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers, for the decision of Allah Must be carried out.”[35]

“They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel!  Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.”[36]

As we can see, the Jews and Christians will already be doomed to hellfire because of their unbelief, something they have been warned of in the Quran. Thus, it is not an “injustice”, since they will be punished for their own sins, and not the sins of Muslims.[37]

Additionally, Temple is ignorant of the hadith which states that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) has created Paradise and Hell as well as the denizens of both (emphasis ours):

“’A’isha, the mother of the believers, reported that a child died and I said: There is happiness for this child who is a bird from amongst the birds of Paradise. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: Don’t you know that Allah created the Paradise and He created the Hell and He created the dwellers for this (Paradise) and the denizens for this (Hell)?”[38]

This hadith is further proof for our assertion above that the Jews and Christians who would serve as the “ransom” for some Muslims will simply be receiving the punishment that they had earned and which would doom them to Hell in the first place.  The additional sins of the Muslims will not change that.

Moreover, the ahadith Temple refers to mention just one of the wayssome Muslims will be saved on the Day of Judgement.[39]  While some Muslims will be saved by being “ransomed”,[40] others will simply be forgiven their sins by the mercy of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He),[41] whereas others still will only be forgiven after receiving some sort of punishment for their sins, which will “purify” them.[42]  In addition, some Muslims will be forgiven their sins due to the trials they endured while in this world.[43]  Finally, as stated in an aforementioned hadith from Jami At-Tirmidhi, Muslims can atone for their sins simply by following up with a good deed.[44]

Therefore, having considered the whole corpus of evidence from the Quran and Sunnah, we find that Temple’s appeal to the aforementioned ahadith and the alleged teaching of “substitutionary atonement” is erroneous.  Taking some ahadith out of context and ignoring others only illustrates the cherry-picking and biased research that the missionary is guilty of.

Conclusion

In this article, we have analyzed the claims of Christian apologist Ken Temple regarding alleged episodes of “substitutionary atonement” in the Islamic sources.  Through more detailed study of these sources, we have found Temple’s claims to be lacking and simply the result of sloppy research.  Thus, the final conclusion is that Islam does not teach the concept of “substitutionary atonement”, as the evidence has shown.  In other words:

Islam [did indeed] get rid of the concept of…substitutionary atonement.[45]

And Allah knows best!

[1] Of course, religious argumentation is not a new phenomenon.  Even before the advent of the Internet, discussions and debates were a common occurrence and have been for thousands of years.

[2] According to one Christian website, “substitutionary atonement”:

“…refers to Jesus Christ dying as a substitute for sinners”(http://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonement.html)

In other words, the concept refers to a voluntary sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

[3] The word “agape” is:

“…one of the Greek NT words for ‘love’”(https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/about/)

The blog “Apologetics and Agape” is maintained by Christian apologist Ken Temple.

[4] https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/substitionary-atonement/

In a separate article, the Christian apologist also quoted some ahadith which he asserts teach the concept of “substitutionary atonement”:

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/islam-could-not-get-rid-of-the-concept-of-sacrifice-ransom-or-substitutionary-atonement/

In our response, we will discuss the claims made in both articles.

[5] This article is specifically concerned with responding to the claims made about the Quran and Ahadith, and not with the assertion that “substitutionary atonement” is a Biblical concept.  InshaAllah, that will be the topic of a future article.

[6] http://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonement.html

[7] Ibid.

[8] InshaAllah, in a future article, we will discuss the Christian claim that the Biblical Jesus was “sinless”.

[9] The verse states:

“And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice.”

[10] For a discussion of the story, see our article “The Biblical Story of Ishmael and Isaac: An Analysis and Comparison with the Islamic Narrative”.

[11] https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/substitionary-atonement/

[12] Surah As-Saaffat, 37:99-111.

[13] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1931&Itemid=93

[14] The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr (New York: HarperOne, 2015), p. 1094.

[15] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1931&Itemid=93

[16] The Study Quran, op. cit., p. 1094.

[17] As we will see below, however, worldly trials can serve to atone for one’s sins, as emphasized in the Ahadith literature.  The Quran also states that:

“…those who show patience and constancy, and work righteousness; for them is forgiveness (of sins) and a great reward” (Surah Hud, 11:11).

[18] Additionally, we may note that although the Quran does not state what actually happened with the meat of the ram once it was sacrificed, it is reasonable to assume that it would have been eaten as a provision from Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), just as the sacrificial meat of the Hajj is eaten. This is in stark contrast to the sacrificial system as described in the Tanakh, where the meat was usually burned:

“Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it” (Genesis 8:20, New International Version).

See also Leviticus 1-2.  In specific cases, however, only the High Priest or his sons could eat the meat (Leviticus 6:24-30).

[19] Ibid.

[20] It should be stated that an animal sacrifice is sometimes required as an act of atonement, but this depends on several factors and only applies in certain situations, as we will discuss later.

[21] Surah Al-Hajj, 22:37.

This is in stark contrast to the Tanakh, which states:

“Then burn the entire ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the Lord, a pleasing aroma, a food offering presented to the Lord” (Exodus 29:18).

To be fair, however, it seems Jews interpret this and other verses differently, as shown in the following translation:

“…and you shall make the entire ram go up in smoke upon the altar; it is a burnt offering made to the Lord; it is a spirit of satisfaction, a fire offering for the Lord”(http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9890#showrashi=true)

The Jewish commentator Rashi stated that the phrase “it is a spirit of satisfaction” means that:

“It is satisfaction to Me that I commanded and My will was performed” (Ibid.).

Thus, it would appear that zealous Christian translators have twisted the meaning of the verse.

[22] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2501&Itemid=77

[23] Jami At-Tirmidhi, 27:93.

[24] http://www.islamhelpline.net/node/8303

“When the believers offer the sacrifice, with their act they too imply that just as they are ready to sacrifice and slaughter an animal at the command of their Lord, if commanded by their Lord Creator, they too are willing, just like the Noble Prophets Ibraheem and Ismail, to sacrifice everything they own and love for the Pleasure of Allah Subhanah.”

It should also be pointed out, as the above source makes clear, that although the sacrifice is obligatory for all Muslims who are performing the Hajj, it is not an obligation for those who celebrate Eid Al-Adha but are not performing the Hajj. Rather, it is a “preferred Sunnah and thus voluntary”.

[25] Ibid.

“A person offering a sacrifice may consume, without any restrictions, any amount of meat he may desire. He may likewise give away, or offer in charity any amount he may wish. Some scholars say that one may eat half, and give away the other half in charity, while others say that the meat be divided into three parts. Of these one may keep a part, distribute a part, and give in charity the third part.”

[26] “Hajj”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, ed. John L. Esposito (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 104.

[27] Muhammad Jawad Maghniyyah, The Hajj: According to Five Schools of Islamic Law, Vol. 4 (Tehran: Department of Culture and Publication, 1997), p. 53.

[28] Ibid., p. 55.

[29] Thabiti Anyabwile, The Gospel for Muslims: An Encouragement to Share Christ with Confidence (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2010), p. 69.

[30] https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/islam-could-not-get-rid-of-the-concept-of-sacrifice-ransom-or-substitutionary-atonement/

[31] Sahih Muslim, 37:6665.

[32] Sahih Muslim, 36:6666.

[33] Sahih Muslim, 37:6668.

[34] https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/islam-could-not-get-rid-of-the-concept-of-sacrifice-ransom-or-substitutionary-atonement/

[35] Surah An-Nisa, 4:47.

[36] Surah Al-Maeda, 5:72.

[37] The website “IslamQA” states:

“So they will enter Hell because of their own actions, not because of the sins of the Muslims” (https://islamqa.info/en/9488).

[38] Sahih Muslim, 46:46.

However, the hadith does not mean that there is no free will and that each person is not responsible for his/her own actions.  As another hadith in the Sunan Abu Dawud states:

“Those who are among the number of those who go to Paradise will be helped to do the deeds of the people who will go to Paradise, and those who are among the number of those who go to Hell will be helped to do the deeds of those who will go to Hell” (Sunan Abu Dawud, 42:101).

Additionally, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari states (emphasis ours):

“Narrated `Ali: We were with the Prophet (peace be upon him) in a funeral procession, and he started scraping the ground with a small stick and said, “There is none amongst you but has been assigned a place (either) in Paradise and (or) in the Hell-Fire.” The people said (to him), “Should we not depend upon it?” He said: carry on doing (good) deeds, for everybody will find easy such deeds as will lead him to his destined place. He then recited: “As for him who gives (in charity) and keeps his duty to Allah…”” (Sahih Bukhari, 78:241).

[39] The hadith from Sahih Muslim 37:6668 states (emphasis ours):

“There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain…”

[40] Again, as mentioned earlier, the “ransom” in the form of unbelieving Jews and Christians does not change the fact that those Jews and Christians will be receiving the punishment they deserved due to their unbelief and not simply to save Muslims.

Moreover, there are other ways for Muslims to “ransom” themselves, as stated in a hadith from Sunan Ibn Majah:

“It was narrated from Ibn Musayyab that ‘Aishah said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: ‘There is no day on which Allah ransoms more slaves from the Fire than the Day of ‘Arafah. He draws closer and closer, then He boasts about them before the angels and says: ‘What do these people want?’’” (Sunan Ibn Majah, 4:25:3014).

[41] For example, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari states (emphasis ours):

“Narrated Safwan bin Muhriz: A man asked Ibn `Umar, “What did you hear Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) saying regarding An-Najwa (secret talk between Allah and His believing worshipper on the Day of Judgment)?” He said, “(The Prophet (peace be upon him) said), ‘One of you will come close to his Lord till He will shelter him in His screen and say: Did you commit such-and-such sin? He will say, ‘Yes.’ Then Allah will say: Did you commit such and such sin? He will say, ‘Yes.’ So Allah will make him confess (all his sins) and He will say, ‘I screened them (your sins) for you in the world, and today I forgive them for you’’” (Sahih Bukhari, 78:100).

[42] For example, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari states (emphasis ours):

“Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “When the believers pass safely over (the bridge across) Hell, they will be stopped at a bridge in between Hell and Paradise where they will retaliate upon each other for the injustices done among them in the world, and when they get purified of all their sins, they will be admitted into Paradise. By Him in Whose Hands the life of Muhammad is everybody will recognize his dwelling in Paradise better than he recognizes his dwelling in this world”” (Sahih Bukhari, 46:1).

[43] For example, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari states:

“Narrated Anas: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “A Muslim whose three children die before the age of puberty will be granted Paradise by Allah due to his mercy for them”” (Sahih Bukhari, 23:12).

Another hadith in Jami At- Tirmidhi states:

“Abu Hurairah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Trials will not cease afflicting the believing man and the believing woman in their self, children, and wealth, until they meet Allah without having any sin”” (Jami At-Tirmidhi, 36:97).

[44] See note #20.

[45] https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/islam-could-not-get-rid-of-the-concept-of-sacrifice-ransom-or-substitutionary-atonement/

Sacrifice and “ransom” are clearly taught in the Islamic sources, but not in the way Temple asserts (linking it with “substitutionary atonement”), as we have seen.



Categories: Bible, Christianity, God, Hadith, Islam, Quran

163 replies

  1. I guess Faiz didn’t read this article, which was linked to at the bottom of “Islam could not get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement”.

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/so-why-did-allah-substitute-innocent.html

    Islam skips the NT meaning and interpretation of the OT of substitutionary sacrifice, and changes the story of Genesis 22, a much older and established revelation.

    Genesis 22 was a prophesy of the Messiah to come.

    yes, we agree that it was a test and trial to Abraham.

    Just by using the basic story from the OT, Islam unknowingly was affirming substitutionary atonement, because that was the original meaning of Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus 1-6, 16-17 (sacrificial system), I Kings (temple sacrifices) and Isaiah 53 (prophesy of Messiah to come) and Daniel 9:24-27 (more prophesy of Messiah, atonement, and then the temple was destroyed). Islam skipped all that and tries to reinterpret it, but just by having that verse of Surah 37:107, they could not get completely get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement. Granted Islam reinterprets it, but that was not the original intention. the original intention was what the NT teaches and what Christians teach today. Islam skipped that.

    I will write more later.

    Like

    • ‘Genesis 22 was a prophesy of the Messiah to come.’

      ‘Isaiah 53 (prophesy of Messiah to come)’

      That’s news to me. These passages doesn’t mention a ‘Messiah’ at all.

      “Islam skipped that.”

      Au contraire. Seems like Christianity invented what is not there.

      Like

    • Ken, you said:

      “Islam skips the NT meaning and interpretation of the OT of substitutionary sacrifice, and changes the story of Genesis 22, a much older and established revelation.””

      Well of course it skips that meaning! Islam came to reverse the corruptions of the people of the book. Islam corrects the mistakes and contradictions in these stories. I have discussed some of these stories (including Genesis 22) in my other articles:

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/ishmael-and-isaac-in-quran-and-bible.html

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none_14.html

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-fall-of-adam-and-eve-in-bible-and.html

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/lot-in-quran-and-bible.html

      You said:

      “Genesis 22 was a prophesy of the Messiah to come.”

      That is just your own anachronistic interpretation. There is no evidence that Genesis 22 is “Messianic”. Using your logic, it could just as easily be referring to the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him)!

      You said:

      “Just by using the basic story from the OT, Islam unknowingly was affirming substitutionary atonement, because that was the original meaning of Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus 1-6, 16-17 (sacrificial system), I Kings (temple sacrifices) and Isaiah 53 (prophesy of Messiah to come) and Daniel 9:24-27 (more prophesy of Messiah, atonement, and then the temple was destroyed). Islam skipped all that and tries to reinterpret it, but just by having that verse of Surah 37:107, they could not get completely get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement. Granted Islam reinterprets it, but that was not the original intention. the original intention was what the NT teaches and what Christians teach today. Islam skipped that.”

      This is one large circular argument, nothing more. What Christians teach today is irrelevant, because their teachings are flat-out wrong, as we can see from the numerous inconsistencies between the Tanakh and the New Testament.

      Now, do you have any actual response to the evidence from the Quran and Ahadith that I have presented?

      Like

  2. There is no corruption of the OT text in Genesis 22.

    After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you. (Genesis 22:1-2)

    1. God tested Abraham.
    2. He was to offer his only unique beloved son, Isaac.

    The meaning is clearly about the Messiah to come, who would be from the seed of Abraham and Isaac.
    It says that Isaac is the “son you love, your only son” – this is a prophesy about God’s only unique Son, His beloved Son.

    Hebrews 11:17-19
    By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

    πίστει προσενήνοχεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαὰκ πειραζόμενος καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος

    τὸν μονογενῆ = the only unique son. This is why modern scholars have realized that monogenes does not mean “only begotten”, but rather “only unique one”, since Abraham had another son, Ishmael.

    Isaac was the unique beloved son of the covenant.
    Parallel with Jesus as the only unique Son of God.

    “God so loved the world that He gave His only unique Son, that whoever believes in Him would not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16

    18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
    Hebrews 11:18-19

    6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. (Genesis 22:6 – parallel with John 19:17

    17 and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha

    And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. 7 And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” 8 Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.
    Genesis 22:6-8

    God will provide the lamb – a prophesy of the Lamb to be provided in the future. John 1:29 – fulfilled Gen. 22 and Exodus 12, the Passover Lamb, and the day of atonement in Leviticus 16, and Isaiah 53, the lamb led to the slaughter

    Genesis 22:12 and 16 – “you have not withheld your only son from Me”

    parallel with Romans 8:32 – “He who did not withhold His only Son from us, how will He not also give us all things?”

    and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”
    Genesis 22:18

    Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
    Galatians 3:16

    The seed of Abraham is Messiah.

    Like

    • Ken, you still haven’t responded to the evidence from the Quran and Sunnah that refute your assertion that Islam teaches “substitutionary atonement”. This concept is alien to Islam as it is a great injustice.

      Liked by 1 person

    • This is just another example of Christians inserting their anachronistic interpretations into the Tanakh. It is patently absurd to refer to Isaac as the “only unique son”, since both Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham’s sons. The Tanakh even says so (Genesis 25:9)! But then, along comes some anonymous Christian who pretended to be Paul, and boom…Isaac becomes the “only unique son” (actually, the text is usually translated as “only begotten son”, but that is still wrong)? Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark!

      In Genesis 22, the son that Abraham is commanded to sacrifice is referred to as his “only son”. This can only mean Ishmael, since he was 13 years older than Isaac. Moreover, in the episode of Hagar and Ishmael’s banishment, the text refers to Ishmael as “hay-ye-led”, which refers to a very young child. See my article: http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/ishmael-and-isaac-in-quran-and-bible.html

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Genesis 22:18 was a further development of

    Genesis 3:15 – that there would be one who would come in the future and crush the serpent’s head (defeat Satan)

    Genesis 12:3 – the seed of Abraham that would be a blessing to all the nations.

    repeated in Genesis 18:18 and 22:18 and 26:4 and 28:14 and 49:10

    The Jews saw that as the “promised one”, who would later be called the anointed one, the Messiah (in Psalm 2 and Daniel 9:24-27)

    Like

    • Genesis 3:15 – that there would be one who would come in the future and crush the serpent’s head (defeat Satan)

      Wow Ken! It’s amazing to what lengths you will go to “prove” your Christian extrapolations! You will even misquote your own Bible! Let’s read Genesis 3:15 in full, shall we?

      “And I will put enmity
      between you and the woman,
      and between your offspring[a] and hers;
      he will crush[b] your head,
      and you will strike his heel.””

      When did Satan “strike” Jesus’ “heel”?

      The Jews interpret this verse completely differently from you. Rashi stated in his commentary that the meaning is:

      “You will not stand upright and you will bite him on the heel, and even from there you will kill him. The expression תְּשׁוּפֶנוּ is like (Isa. 40:24): “He blew (נָשַׁף) on them.” When a snake comes to bite, it blows with a sort of hiss, and since the two expressions coincide [i.e., they sound alike], Scripture used the expression of נְשִׁיפָה in both cases” (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8167#showrashi=true).

      You guys are truly pathetic in your desperate attempts to insert your anachronisms into the text!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Islam gutted and skipped over the true meaning. But just verse 107 of Surah 37 that they could not totally get rid of the meaning, cause there it is, the substitute of an innocent ram (or lamb, sheep, as in the OT sacrificial system and Passover Lamb and day of atonement and Isaiah 53).

    the true meaning became very clear for 600 years, but for some reason, Islam changed the meaning, which corrupted the revelation, by changing it and distorting things.

    Like

  5. The brother in the video explains the aqiqe عقیقه sacrifice, which points to substitutionary atonement, which Islam has in its culture; and he shows that Surah 37:107 means substitutionary atonement, ransom.

    Like

    • If you had read my article, I explained the meaning behind the sacrifice. Your silly argument has been thoroughly refuted. It’s no wonder you won’t actually respond to the main crux of the article! 😉

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Actually, your arguments are anachronistic, because the Qur’an and Islam changed the meaning of the whole issue that was already established for centuries before. It is the Qur’an and Islam that has changed and corrupted the true meaning of the previous revelations. The previous revelations were not corrupted and established for centuries. The OT for millennia. 2000 years since Abraham. 1600 years since Moses. 1000 since David and Solomon.

    I will try to respond to more of your details later, but you didn’t refute anything. All you have done has said, “islam comes last and overpowers your argument” and you even agreed that it skipped the NT meaning of the OT, which is established, was Jewish (the NT writers were Jews, except Luke).

    Genesis 22 was very clearly Messianic.

    Like

    • Ken, you are obviously very confused. In your article, you claimed that Islam teaches “substitutionary atonement” and to prove this ludicrous claim, you quoted Surah 37 and also some ahadith. I explained in detail how your poor research and ignorance led you to make your silly assertion. Maybe if you weren’t so high on yourself, you would realize that you were thoroughly refuted. 🙂

      You are still stuck on which came first and what book said what. That is not even the issue here! My article was concerned primarily with your silly claims about “substitutionary atonement” in the Quran and Ahadith! You haven’t been able to respond to my rebuttal on that issue.

      In any case, you have been refuted on many occasions regarding what the Tanakh actually says. You Christians like to insert your own pathetic anachronisms into the text, as in the example of Genesis 3:15. You were caught red-handed deliberately ignoring the actual context of the verse! Jews, like Rashi, didn’t see it as a “Messianic” verse! Therefore, it is your own anachronism.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Yes, Isaac and Ishmael were both sons, but only Isaac was the unique son, the monogenes, the only unique one, which Hebrews 11:17 demonstrates.

    since both were begotten, the linguists realized that “only begotten” was wrong.

    Lord willing, more later.

    Like

    • LOL, more circular reasoning…

      The only place Isaac is referred to as the “unique son” is Hebrews 11:17 and no where else! Talk about Christians coming along and changing 2000 years of OT tradition! LOL!

      And by the way, even the word “monogenes” is usually translated as “only begotten son” (http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/3439.htm). It seems that once Christians realized that this was obviously wrong, they simply changed their interpretation to spare themselves the embarrassment of yet another mistake in their so-called “inspired” scripture!

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Faiz,
    I think you mis-understand the purpose of my articles. First, the issue of Surah 37:107 and later, Lord willing, secondly, the AHadith that seem to teach that at least some people will be redeemed by substitutionary atonement.

    1. The issue of Surah 37:107 – “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”.

    وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ

    You focused on the context (surrounding verses) of Surah 37:107 in the Qur’an, which only emphasizes that it was a trial / a test (which is true and we agree that it was a test of Abraham – Genesis 22:1). And you talked about that both Abraham and Ishmael submitted and it was their willingness, surrender, and obedience that was the issue. You quoted Thaibiti Anyabwile and Ibn Kathir to show that in Islam, there is a denial of substitutionary atonement and payment for the guilt of sin, by blood, etc. Ok, that is true, in all of Islamic theology – all of the Islamic interpretation and theology seeks to deny substitutionary atonement by blood and forgiveness of guilt of sin – I agree with you. “It is not the blood or meat” etc. but the piety of the act itself. (Surah 22:37)

    Yes, I already agree with that, with what Islam teaches about itself. But that was not my point. My point was that, in doing that, “Islam could not completely get rid of the concept of sacrifice, ransom, or substitutionary atonement in their texts . . . “. See the title and first sentence of one of the articles I wrote that you linked to. I was only saying that in affirming the historical story of Abraham and his son and God’s command to sacrifice his son, which is originally in Genesis 22 and there is no evidence of corruption and no evidence that it was Ishmael at all, and even Muslims say that one can believe it was Isaac within Islam; I was only saying that by using that in the Qur’an at Surah 37:107, the Qur’an and Islam could not completely escape from or get rid of the concept, because the concept is there within the verse, even if Islam denies it by all the other points that you bring out. It is Islam that has changed and tampered with the previous revelations. It is you guys you have done تحریف Tafreef and changed (تغییر ، بیدیل ، مبدل ) the meaning of the original revelations.

    “Islam could not get rid of the concept of sacrifice, ransom, or substitutionary atonement
    Posted on August 23, 2014 by Ken Temple
    The Islamic sources could not completely get rid of the concept of sacrifice, ransom, or substitutionary atonement in their texts of the Qur’an nor Hadith collections, because it was so clearly taught in the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures.”

    Islam skipped the original Jewish interpretation and the Jewish interpretation in the NT (all the interpreters of the OT and writers of the NT were Jews, except for Luke, so the NT is a JEWISH anthology book of 25 Jewish books!!)

    So when I say “agrees with”, etc. I am not saying Islam or the Qur’an actively teaches substitutionary atonement, I am rather saying that the Qur’an unknowingly affirmed it by including the concept of ransom (Fada, Fedieh فدا، فدیه ) and sacrifice/slaughter ذبح (zebh) , which is cognate with the Hebrew זבח (zbkh). (used all over the OT for sacrifices, along with another cognate word, قربان ghorban or qorban, with קרבנ (qorban).

    Furthermore, even Orthodox Rabbis, such as Rabbi Berel Wein, have written that “the death of the righteous and innocent serves as a expiation for the sins of the nation or the world. The stories of Isaac and of Nadav and Avihu, the prophetic description of Israel as the long-suffering servant of the Lord, the sacrificial service in the Temple – all served to reinforce this basic concept of the death of the righteous as an atonement for the sins of other men.” . . . For since the day the Holy Temple was destroyed, the righteous are seized by death for the iniquities of the generation.” (Rabbi Berel Wein, Yeven Metzulah, the end of chapter 15, cited on page 155 of Dr. Michael Brown’s book, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, volume 2, Theological Objections.)

    Notice he includes the story of Isaac! This means Genesis 22.

    It is Islam that skipped over, changed, and corrupted the original meaning of Genesis 22 and how that was developed in the Passover (Exodus 12), the tabernacle sacrifices (Leviticus chapters 1-6 and day of atonement in Lev. 16-17) and that Mount Moriah(Genesis 22:2) was the same place that eventually the temple was built – (see 2 Chronicles 3:1); and that the prophesy of the lamb and that God would provide is developed in all of these passages and Isaiah 53, as the innocent lamb led to the slaughter. The whole development of Genesis 22 onward to Exodus 12, Leviticus 1-6, 16-17, 2 Chronicles 3:1 and I Kings 8 and then Isaiah 53 and also Daniel 9:24-27, where Messiah is said to “make an end of sin”, ‘to atone for iniquity” and “to finish transgression”, all this teaches the Jewish original interpretation of substitutionary atonement for sins. And the NT confirms all of this and brings it out even more explicitly. Islam skipped all that and corrupted the original meaning, but it could not totally get rid of the concept, as the concept is embedded in that one verse, Surah 37:107, “we have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”

    Like

    • Ken said:

      “I think you mis-understand the purpose of my articles. First, the issue of Surah 37:107 and later, Lord willing, secondly, the AHadith that seem to teach that at least some people will be redeemed by substitutionary atonement.”

      No, they don’t teach “substitutionary atonement” as I explained. Some Muslims will be redeemed by the unbelieving Jews and Christians taking their place in Hell, where they would be going anyway. Furthermore, those Muslims will be saved by the mercy of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), not by Allah being satiated by “substitution”, as some parts of your ridiculous Bible seem to claim.

      You said:

      “My point was that, in doing that, “Islam could not completely get rid of the concept of sacrifice, ransom, or substitutionary atonement in their texts . . . “. See the title and first sentence of one of the articles I wrote that you linked to. I was only saying that in affirming the historical story of Abraham and his son and God’s command to sacrifice his son, which is originally in Genesis 22 and there is no evidence of corruption and no evidence that it was Ishmael at all…”

      See, this is why you are such a silly Christian apologist. Your entire premise is riddled with fallacies! Circular arguments, non-sequiturs, etc. As I showed in another article, the Quran does NOT “affirm” the Biblical story of Abraham and his son. In fact, it corrects the many contradictions in the Biblical story. That is point #1. Point #2 is that there is no reference in the Quranic version of the ram being a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, since the whole concept of animal sacrifice is to obey Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). It is the obedience that atones for one’s sins, NOT the actual sacrifice itself. The article discusses this at length.

      You said:

      “So when I say “agrees with”, etc. I am not saying Islam or the Qur’an actively teaches substitutionary atonement, I am rather saying that the Qur’an unknowingly affirmed it by including the concept of ransom (Fada, Fedieh فدا، فدیه ) and sacrifice/slaughter ذبح (zebh) , which is cognate with the Hebrew זבח (zbkh). (used all over the OT for sacrifices, along with another cognate word, قربان ghorban or qorban, with קרבנ (qorban).”

      Again, this is just another non-sequitur. All of this was explained in the article. You are grasping for straws!

      You said:

      “Furthermore, even Orthodox Rabbis, such as Rabbi Berel Wein, have written that “the death of the righteous and innocent serves as a expiation for the sins of the nation or the world. The stories of Isaac and of Nadav and Avihu, the prophetic description of Israel as the long-suffering servant of the Lord, the sacrificial service in the Temple – all served to reinforce this basic concept of the death of the righteous as an atonement for the sins of other men.” . . . For since the day the Holy Temple was destroyed, the righteous are seized by death for the iniquities of the generation.” (Rabbi Berel Wein, Yeven Metzulah, the end of chapter 15, cited on page 155 of Dr. Michael Brown’s book, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, volume 2, Theological Objections.)

      Notice he includes the story of Isaac! This means Genesis 22.”

      LOL, your appeal to an orthodox rabbi is laughable, because orthodox Jews do not believe that the Messiah will atone for the sins of the world, so even if the death of righteous person could atone for sins, it would not include the Messiah!

      Furthermore, as the website Outreach Judaism states:

      “In the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, the prophet was teaching his people a fundamental Biblical principle: A righteous person cannot die vicariously for the sins of the wicked. This alien notion was condemned by Ezekiel. He taught that the belief that the innocent can suffer to atone for the sins of the wicked is pagan, and was to be purged from the mind of the Jewish people. This core tenet of Judaism is conveyed explicitly throughout the eighteenth chapter of the Book of Ezekiel. In verses 18:20-23, the prophet declares that true repentance alone washes the penitent clean of all iniquities; every one of his sins are forgiven in Heaven. This chapter is so clear and unambiguous, there can be no other reading of these passages. Blood-sacrifices or the veneration of a crucified messiah are not mentioned or even hinted throughout Ezekiel’s thorough and inspiring discourse on sin and atonement.

      Ezekiel’s teaching is not novel. The Jewish people were warned throughout the Torah never to offer human sacrifices. When Moses offered to have his name removed from the Torah in exchange for the sin that the Jewish people had committed with the Golden Calf, the Almighty abruptly refused Moses’ offer.3 Moses, who was righteous with regard to the golden calf, could not suffer vicariously for the sin of the nation. Rather, only the soul that sinned would endure judgment” (http://outreachjudaism.org/sin-and-atonement/)

      WOW! Notice that the concept of a righteous person serving as a sacrifice for the sins of others is condemned as a PAGAN concept! Do you know that means? It means that according to your own Bible, you are a PAGAN!

      Like

  9. Sorry for typo of one of the Arabic/ Farsi words: I accidently typed بیدیل , but it should have been تبدیل

    تبدیل = Tabdeel = change
    مبدل = Mobadal = change

    تغییر = taqheer = change

    These are the Farsi forms, but they all come from the Arabic root words for “change”.

    It was Islam that changed the meanings of Genesis 22 and the whole teaching of the OT in substitutionary atonement, by trying to avoid and skip over that issue for the most part, but could not completely or totally, because the concept is embedded within the verse of Surah 37:107, even though Islamic interpretations and overall theology seeks to deny it; and only focus on the trial/ test and obedience of Abraham and his son of the story, which is true also.

    Like

  10. The only place Isaac is referred to as the “unique son” is Hebrews 11:17 and no where else! Talk about Christians coming along and changing 2000 years of OT tradition! LOL!

    And by the way, even the word “monogenes” is usually translated as “only begotten son” (http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/3439.htm). It seems that once Christians realized that this was obviously wrong, they simply changed their interpretation to spare themselves the embarrassment of yet another mistake in their so-called “inspired” scripture!

    nope. the context of Genesis 22 – uses the word “only” – and “beloved” and “son of your love” – which is confirmed by the use of monogenes. It does not mean “begotten”; it means “one of a kind”, “unique one”.

    mono = only, alone, unique

    genes = kind, type

    the mistake of the translators was confusing it with gennao γενναω – to birth.

    see Dr. White’s discussion of this in The Forgotten Trinity, pages 61-64 and extensive footnote pages 201-203, citing several Lexicons and Greek authorities, linguists such as Louw and Eugene Nida and Newman and NT professor Murray Harris.

    Hebrews 11:17 confirms the verse you cited in Genesis 25:9, and it agrees that both Isaac and Ishmael were sons of Abraham, but shows that only Isaac was the unique son of his love, his beloved son. Since Ishmael was the result of taking Hagar, the concubine, as a sexual partner, to produce a son, and it was not what God wanted them to do; Ishmael was not the “unique one, the son of his love”. But Abraham loved and cared for Ishmael also – Genesis 19:18 – “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!”; but he was not the unique chosen one of the covenant, that the Messiah would come from.

    Like

    • Ken said:

      “nope. the context of Genesis 22 – uses the word “only” – and “beloved” and “son of your love” – which is confirmed by the use of monogenes. It does not mean “begotten”; it means “one of a kind”, “unique one”.”

      LOL. Yes, that’s exactly why it could have been Isaac, but Ishmael! Read my article to see more evidence why.

      You said:

      “Hebrews 11:17 confirms the verse you cited in Genesis 25:9, and it agrees that both Isaac and Ishmael were sons of Abraham, but shows that only Isaac was the unique son of his love, his beloved son. Since Ishmael was the result of taking Hagar, the concubine, as a sexual partner, to produce a son, and it was not what God wanted them to do; Ishmael was not the “unique one, the son of his love”. But Abraham loved and cared for Ishmael also – Genesis 19:18 – “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!”; but he was not the unique chosen one of the covenant, that the Messiah would come from.”

      Christian logic strikes again! Only a perverted and ugly theology such as yours would make distinctions between two legitimate sons on the basis of some ridiculous argument (i.e. Ishmael was the result of taking Hagar…as a sexual partner)! That would mean that all of the sons that have been born on the basis of sexual intercourse are not “unique sons of love”. What a ridiculous concept! Leave it to Christianity to believe in such nonsense!

      Like

  11. Ken Temple

    You said;
    Since Ishmael was the result of taking Hagar, the concubine, as a sexual partner, to produce a son, and it was not what God wanted them to do; Ishmael was not the “unique one, the son of his love”. But Abraham loved and cared for Ishmael also – Genesis 19:18 – “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!”; but he was not the unique chosen one of the covenant, that the Messiah would come from.

    I say;
    So Abraham the prophet of God committed Adultery? a major sin? even after being certified by God as A prophet? A prophet of God committing major sin? I do not believe the Bible writers. They committed major sin by an you and all Christians who says one of the greatest prophet of God has committed sin.

    There are so many verses in the Bible that say Hagar is Abrahams wife. I can produce the verses that says Hagar is Abrahams wife from the Bible. How can the writers of the Bible make such a big mistake. Do they not know a wife is not a concubine?

    Thanks.

    Like

  12. Faiz,
    Sorry but you just don’t get it. The Qur’an is the one that changed the original meaning, by denying substitutionary atonement, 600 years later.

    The Qur’an is skipping and avoiding and changing and corrupting the meaning.

    The NT interpretation is by Jews. (Peter, John, Matthew, Paul, Mark, writer of Hebrews, Jude, James – all Jews) The Pharisees and leaders of Israel were wrong and God punished them for it by sending the Romans to conquer Israel and destroy the temple in 70 AD. (War from 66 AD to 73 Ad, 73 – mass suicide at Masada.

    This was established meaning by the believing Messianic Jews of the NT.
    They believed in Jesus as Messiah, and Isaac was already the beloved son of the covenant in Genesis 2000 years before Christ, 2600 years before Islam.

    Islam comes last and seeks to change the original.

    But just by having that one verse, Surah 37:107, they could not completely get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement, even though their theology denies it. (Surah 22:37 and Ibn Kathir’s comments, etc.)

    It does not matter what later Rabbis say, (those that deny Messianic meaning to certain texts), because they are unbelievers. They reject Jesus as Messiah; and yet even Islam accepts Jesus as Al Masih, the Messiah. المسیح

    But the Jews acknowledge that it was Isaac in Genesis 22, and they would disagree with Islam with all the changes that Islam makes to the stories makes to the OT, where Islam accuses of tampering with the text.

    There is no evidence of wholesale corruption.

    it is the Qur’an that corrupts by changing the details and meanings.

    Like

    • Sorry Ken, but you are just a blind apologist who doesn’t want to accept the undeniable evidence of corruption in the Bible. You people will simply close your eyes and ears to the facts because you don’t want to accept them. I showed the corruption in the Genesis story about Abraham and his sons. If you are man enough, read the article and then comment. Don’t just repeat your nonsense ad nauseum. You are not impressing anyone. 😉

      Like

    • No; there is no corruption in the Bible of its message. There just a few textual variants that do no affect doctrine at all. There is no affect upon the great doctrines that divide Muslims and Christians. You did not show ANY corruptions in Genesis 22 – even the Jews agree with us on the text – that it was Isaac, the son of Abraham’s love, his only unique son, ie, the son of the covenant, and that God will provide the lamb. The lamb being provided is developed later in the Passover in Exodus 12, the innocent lambs in Leviticus 1-7 and 16-17 (and goats – both slaughtered and scapegoat ) that were sacrificed for atonement and the lamb led to the slaugther in isaiah 53; and the temple being built on the same place as Moriah in Genesis 22, in 2 Chronicles 3:1.

      Like

  13. Ken said:

    “You did not show ANY corruptions in Genesis 22 – even the Jews agree with us on the text ”

    LOL, you obviously did not read my article on Genesis 22. Rather, you are content with repeating your nonsense like a stubborn mule.

    The rest of your post is just more drivel that no serious researcher will find persuasive or impressive. They are just your own extrapolations, for which no proof exists (except your own fantasies).

    Like

    • yes I read your article and it is weak. Islam could not completely get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement, even though it tried to change it.

      Like

  14. There is no evidence of changing the text of the Bible in any of those areas. ( textual variants like end of Mark 16 are not relevant to this issue).

    it is Islam that comes along 600 later and 2600 years later than Genesis 22 and corrupts the message by changing the details.

    Like

    • Yak, yak, yak. That’s all you can do. Just rant and repeat like a broken record. LOL!

      Like

    • Islam demolished the nonsensical concept of substitutionary atonement. Islam has demolished the false religion of Christianity. Christians are getting desperate in their opposition to the truth.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Ken said:

    “yes I read your article and it is weak. Islam could not completely get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement, even though it tried to change it.”

    Oy vey. You are really confused. I was referring to another article:http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/ishmael-and-isaac-in-quran-and-bible.html

    You can continue to rant like a mule, but the facts are facts. If you want to remain blind, that’s your business.

    Like

  16. Islam demolished the nonsensical concept of substitutionary atonement.

    It tried to by skipping it and tried to avoid it and changed the revelation. Islam is the one that did Tahreef تحریف and Tabdeel تبدیل and Taqeer تغییر . (changes)

    But it could not totally get rid of the concept, the concept is embedded there in Surah 37:107 – “we have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      Old Testament did not sacrifice God, God-Man, Man as God cannot be killed and God-Man is hybrid creature and neither God nor man and sacrificing man is abomination.

      Old Testament sacrifice is animals and not man and Islam continues to sacrifice animals. What is the changes?

      Thanks.

      Like

  17. Messiah would be “cut off” and make an atonement for sin – Daniel 9:24-27
    The Messiah is called the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12.

    Some of that passage – Isaiah 53:5-12:

    5. But He was pierced for our transgressions;
    He was crushed for our iniquities;
    upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
    and with His wounds we are healed.
    6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
    we have turned—every one—to his own way;
    and the Lord has laid on Him
    the iniquity of us all.
    7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
    yet he opened not his mouth;
    like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
    and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
    so he opened not his mouth.
    8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
    and as for his generation, who considered
    that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
    stricken for the transgression of my people?
    9 And they made his grave with the wicked
    and with a rich man in his death,
    although he had done no violence,
    and there was no deceit in his mouth.
    10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
    he has put him to grief;
    when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
    he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
    the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
    11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
    by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
    make many to be accounted righteous,
    and he shall bear their iniquities.
    12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
    and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
    because he poured out his soul to death
    and was numbered with the transgressors;
    yet he bore the sin of many,
    and makes intercession for the transgressors.

    Clearly it is about an individual human who suffers for sins.

    Jesus Al Masih said it was He who fulfilled that – Mark 10:45

    John the Baptist ( Yahya یحیی ) said Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. John 1:29

    Like

    • Um, no. Isaiah 53 is referring to the nation of Israel.

      Daniel 9 was referring to events during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Furthermore, Daniel 12 states that after the death of Antiochus, the end times would begin. None of this happened, of course.

      Christian misquotes (of the Tanakh) strike again!

      Liked by 1 person

    • ////////////////////////
      “Clearly it is about an individual human who suffers for sins.

      Jesus Al Masih said it was He who fulfilled that – Mark 10:45

      John the Baptist ( Yahya یحیی ) said Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. John 1:29”

      //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

      original sin stained christian germ

      i quote ::::

      1) Doesn’t matter who wrote it. I was merely addressing you because you appropriated it for your blog. Nor am I blaming you or calling anyone any names. 2) If the original piece was based “on one Gospel,” Matt., then where in Matt. does it say, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” You and I both know that is only found in the fourth Gospel, so the person is mixing up Gospel tales. 3) The differences between John and the Synoptics are more than minor.

      In Mark, the earliest Gospel, the implication is that Jesus alone saw the heavens open, spirit descend, and heard the voice from heaven, just as Jesus alone was aware of that same spirit leading him immediately after his baptism into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. For GMark states, “he (jesus) saw the heavens open…” And the voice from heaven said, “YOU are my beloved son, with yOU I am well pleased,” as if jesus alone is being addressed and hearing the message. Mark also has no conversations between the Baptist and Jesus. So in Mark the Baptist could simply be an apocalyptic preacher who did not see or hear anything unusual happening at Jesus’s baptism which makes perfect sense later in Mark when the Baptist expresses his doubts. Now compare how the Baptist’s role expands in latter Gospels along with the Baptist’s recognition of who Jesus was.

      In the next Gospel, chronologically speaking, Matthew, we read that a conversation takes place in which the Baptist is depicted as not wanting to baptize Jesus but be baptized by him (as I said, this is not found in Mark). Furthermore, some manuscripts of Matt. drop the “to him” at the end of the phrase, “and the heavens were opened,” thus implying that Jesus was no longer the only one who saw the heavens open. Nor is the voice from heaven addressed to Jesus alone as in Mark’s version that went, “YOU are my beloved son, with YOU I am well pleased,” but instead Matt. has the voice address everyone, not just Jesus alone, so Matt. writes, “THIS is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased.” (I can also multiply instances of GMatt. making GMark’s story grander, but let’s stick with this one instance, the baptismal scene.)

      While GLuke goes even further than Matthew, opening his Gospel with two miraculous birth tales, not just one as in Matthew (of course Mark lacks all miraculous birth tales and begins with Jesus being specially chosen at his baptism, the moment the spirit descends on him).

      Luke adds a tale not just about Jesus being born miraculously but adds a second tale, about the Baptist being born via miraculous preplanned events. And Luke also leaves out that the heavens opened “to him,” and implies the crowd saw and heard everything, again, contra Mark and more like Matt.

      By the time the fourth Gospel is composed, the Baptist himself is depicted testifying in the FIRST person, “I (John the Baptist) saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him (Jesus)… But He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the holy spirit’ and I (John the Baptist) have seen and borne witness that this is the son of God. The next day John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, ‘Behold the lamb of god.'”

      It doesn’t get any grander than a first person testimony from the Baptist himself as to what he says he saw with his own eyes, and quite a distance from the original far less impressive tale in the earliest Gospel, Mark.

      Thus concludes my basic case, namely that the doubts of the Baptist seem fully valid in the context of what the earliest Gospel said about Jesus’s baptism in which only Jesus saw the heavens open and the voice addressing him alone. But GMark’s tale of the Baptist’s doubts makes less sense in the latter two Synoptics since they have everyone see a miracle at Jesus’s baptism, not just Jesus, and GLuke even has the Baptist abe born miraculously and leap in the womb for Jesus! and make the Baptist a relative of Jesus. By the time the fourth Gospel was written the Markan tale of the Baptists’s doubts is dropped completely.

      To back up what I wrote about the fourth gospel not containing only minor differences from the Synoptics, along with examples of why scholars doubt the historical authenticity of its stories and sayings moreso than those in the Synoptics, see link. I am not calling anyone names, I am merely sharing the kinds of questions New Testament scholars ponder when they examine the Gospels in their most probable order of final composition:

      But viewing this question of The Baptist’s doubt in a more scholarly fashion, one can’t help but notice that the Baptist in the fourth Gospel has no doubts at all, even knows that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world right from the start. In fact everyone in the first chapter of the fourth Gospel knows who Jesus is, and Jesus spends the rest of the Gospel telling people who he is, without telling a single parable about the Kingdom of God, but instead talking about taking about himself. And when Jesus is arrested he says I am he, and everyone falls down.

      ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

      https://www.academia.edu/8139785/Why_Is_John_the_Baptist_Used_as_a_Foil_for_Jesus_Leaps_of_Faith_and_Oblique_Anti-Judaism_in_Contemporary_Scholarship_Journal_for_the_Study_of_the_Historical_Jesus_11_2013_170-196

      Why Is John the Baptist Used as a Foil for Jesus? Leaps of Faith and Oblique Anti-Judaism in Contemporary Scholarship, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 11 (2013) 170-196

      Like

  18. ‘The Messiah is called the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12.’

    Ken show me the verse that mentions “the Messiah” as you claim.

    Who is ‘Jesus Al Masih’?

    Like

  19. Jesus is the Messiah, and in Arabic, this is rendered as Isa Al Masih عیسی المسیح , but you already know that, you are just being deliberately obtuse, thick, and malicious, seeing that I have already explained that 1,000 times; and you have Allah الله and Bismillah Al Rahman and Al Rahim بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم at the top of your blog, without translation and without translation.

    The Believing Jews of the first Century, believers in the Messiah (and the Messiah Himself interpreted the OT this way) – His followers saw Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 as the Messiah. Since Islam affirms that Jesus is the Messiah ( Isa Al Masih عیسی المسیح ) and the Unbelieving Jews of the first century (Pharisees, scribes, chief priests, leaders of political Israel) rejected Him as Messiah and Suffering Servant; and since they rejected His virgin birth; and yet Islam accepts His virgin birth; and Jesus the Messiah said He was the suffering servant who came to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28) and all His disciples and writers of the NT quoted from almost every verse of Isaiah 53 to prove He is that one, the suffering servant and Messiah, then this proves He was the Messiah and Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. (Quoted in Acts 8:32-33, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 Peter 2:24; John 12:38, Matthew 8:17; Romans 10:16; Luke 23:34; Mark 15:28) and the overall message of Isaiah 53 is summarized in John 1:29 and Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28; therefore, Isaiah 52:13, “My Servant” – 15; and 53:1-12 is about Jesus the Messiah, the Suffering Servant.

    Islam also says the disciples of Jesus were true believers, helpers of God, and full of integrity (Surah 61:14 and 3:55), then you are obligated to go with their NT first century interpretation; and not the unbelieving Pharisees and corrupt political leaders of Israel, and later Rabbinic Judaism who rejects Jesus as Messiah and rejects His virgin birth.

    Like

    • Ken claims: ‘The Messiah is called the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12.’

      So you were simply wrong and mistaken to claim this. Time to admit your error Ken. Are you honest enough?

      You are also mistaken to claim,

      ‘Bismillah Al Rahman and Al Rahim بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم at the top of your blog, without translation and without translation.’

      FALSE.

      Like

  20. without translation and without transliteration.

    Like

  21. Faiz,
    Sorry I have not had time to type up a response to your response to the Ahadith that seems to teach substitutionary atonement for sins; and I have not had time yet to read your article about Isaac and Ishmael.

    Ensha’allah, ان شاء الله I hope to do that and respond. Please be patient. I have been busy with other things.

    Like

  22. No Paul Williams; you are wrong.

    Jesus Himself called Himself the suffering servant who would give His life as a ransom for many.

    Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28

    Jesus was clearly calling Himself that Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12.

    At the last supper, Jesus said His blood was the new covenant that was shed for the forgiveness of sins.
    Mark 14:22-24; Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; I Corinthians 11:24-26. John alludes to it (along with His incarnation and believing in Him) in John 6:32-65

    Therefore, the right, believing Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 52-53 is the one that Jesus and His disciples taught; that Messiah would be a suffering servant who atoned for sins. See also Daniel 9:24-27

    Also:
    You have Allah and Bismillah Al rahman Al Rahim at the top of your blog without translation and without transliteration, so what’s up with that?

    Why do you keep repeating “who is Jesus Al Masih?” when you know what I mean? Why the deliberate maliciousness and unnecessary aggressiveness?

    Like

  23. I never said Muslims are all Arabs. Most Muslims are in Indonesia, Pakistan and India.

    But all Muslims know a lot of basic Arabic words and phrases and incorporate them in everyday speech. Farsi and Turkish have 40 % Arabic word roots in them, even though sometimes pronounce them differently.

    Yasir Qadhi and Hamza Yusuf quote Arabic verses all the time, yet you don’t complain at them that think all Muslims are Arabs.

    You are being deliberately malicious and aggressive and it is not necessary.

    Like

  24. Um . . . no, I already proved above that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus the Messiah.

    Daniel 9 was referring to events during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

    Um . . . no; as Jesus the Messiah عیسی المسیح said He was referring to Daniel 9:24-27 in Matthew 24:15, which is about the destruction of the temple that would happen about 40 years after His crucifixion (30 AD to 70 AD), which points to the truth of Daniel 9:24-27 being about
    Messiah (verse 25 and 26)
    who would make atonement for sins (verse 24)
    Who would be cut off (verse 26, confirmed by Isaiah 53:8 – “He will be cut off from the land of the living” = die)
    and then later the temple would be destroyed.(verse 26)

    Like

    • So you are not honest enough to acknowledge your error.

      ‘The Messiah is called the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12.’

      This claim – which you have made many times – is false, wrong and mistaken.

      You perpetuate a bald faced lie Ken.

      A real man would admit his mistake and move on. Isaiah does not mention a Messiah. End of.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Um…no. Your anachronisms will not fool anyone. As the USCCB states regarding the Book of Daniel:

      “This work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people in their ordeal” (http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/0).

      It also states:

      “The stories bristle with historical problems and have the character of historical novels rather than factual records. What is more important than the question of historicity, and closer to the intention of the author, is the fact that persecuted Jews of the second century B.C. would quickly see the application of these stories to their own plight.”

      But what is even more important is what it states regarding Daniel 9, which you appealed to. Referring to the “anointed one”, it states:

      “An anointed one: the high priest Onias III, murdered in 171 B.C., from which the author dates the beginning of the persecution. Onias was in exile when he was killed. A leader: Antiochus IV” (http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/9#34009026-1).

      So, there you go. Your pathetic anachronisms fail again!

      Liked by 1 person

  25. Burhanuddin1 – Maybe I am annoying to you because I have the better arguments.
    It bothers you that I am able to refute everything put forth so far.

    Like

  26. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah.
    Islam agrees.
    Jesus claimed He is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, who would give His life a ransom for man. (Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28)
    Therefore Jesus is equating Isaiah 53 as the Messiah.

    Like

  27. I am not claiming the word “Messiah” is there in Hebrew in Isaiah 52-53; I am claiming that Jesus is claiming He is Messiah and the suffering servant; therefore Isaiah 52-53 is about the Messiah.

    Like

  28. Daniel 11 (to verse 35) is about the Greek rulers(verse 4) that come after Alexander the Great (11:2-3) and then focuses on Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who offered a pig in the Jewish temple to Zeus. (167 AD)

    But in 11:40 onward it jumps to “the end time”. Some see verse 36 as jumping to the end times.

    But Daniel 12 says “seal up the book until the time of the end” (verse 4) So it is looking forward to the end times, when the resurrection take place. (Daniel 12:2)

    Rev. 22:10 says “do NOT seal up the words of the prophesy of this book”.

    Daniel 9:24-27 is clearing about Messiah and His mission to atone for sins, and then the temple will be destroyed.

    Like

    • Curious that most of your own scholars no longer think Daniel wrote the book attributed to him:

      ‘Traditionally ascribed to Daniel himself, modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BC).’

      See the article on Daniel and the academic references

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel

      Like

    • Dating

      Daniel’s exclusion from the Hebrew Bible’s canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.[40]

      The prophecies contained in the book are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus’ two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the “abomination of desolation”), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus’ death in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.[41]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Dating

      Like

  29. Paul,
    I meant that Jesus is calling Himself the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12, and since Jesus also claimed He is Messiah, then Isaiah 52-53 is about the Messiah.

    You are being nit-picky, since I already knew the Hebrew word Meshiach משיח is not there in Isaiah 52-53.

    Like

  30. Burhanuddin1:
    It is you (and everyone else) who are delusional who think John 14, 15, 16 is about Muhammad, when it CANNOT be, since he is human and the passage is about a spirit who will come in a few days live inside the disciples of Jesus and be with them forever, etc. and there is no textual evidence of corruption.

    That is delusional.

    Like

  31. I really don’t know what can be added to this discussion other than, this is why Evangelicals fail when attempting to preach to Muslims. Ken Temple really needs to rethink how he approaches these issues because it is clearly not working. Muslims as a general rule will find it far fetched to accept your interpretation taking into consideration one of the most quoted verses in the Muslim community is found in Surat an-Najm:
    Or is he not informed with what is in the Pages (Scripture) of Musa (Moses), And of Ibrahim (Abraham) who fulfilled (or conveyed) all that (Allah ordered him to do or convey): That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (good or bad). (36-39)

    To try to twist the story of Ibrahim and Ismail عليهما السلام to mean “substutationary atonement” (even if we were to accept that this was a possible interpretation) when the opposite is so clearly spelled out in the Qur’an will only make you look desperate when attempting to evangelize to Muslims.

    If your goal is evangelizing to Muslims, I suggest you drop this issue and attempt to show Muslims how Christianity is better for them. The average Muslim already rejects your interpretation of the Bible, what makes you think they would even entertain your interpretation of their scripture?

    Liked by 2 people

  32. The message of Christianity and the cross is the only message that can save a person from hell and give them true peace and assurance of heaven/eternal life. (John 14:27; Romans 5:1; Matthew 11:27-30)

    But, it does not make sense to the human mind. A human being could have come up with this – the Trinity in eternity – one God in three persons; the second person (the Word/the Son) voluntarily becoming human out of His love for us sinful humans, in order to pay for our sins and take our guilt as a substitution and fulfillment of Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (the Passover), Leviticus 1-6 (tabernacle sacrifices for sin); Leviticus 16-17 (day of atonement – Even Rabbi Michael Skobac admitted that Jesus’ death and sacrifice is parallel to the day of atonement) ; the temple sacrifices (2 Chronicles 3:1; 1 Kings 8); and fulfillment of Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/rabbi-admits-that-the-day-of-atonement-is-parallel-to-jesus-christ/

    The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. 1 Corinthians 1:18

    means the message of the substitutionary atonement (Messiah’s work on the cross) is foolishness and unreasonable and seems “stupid” to unbelievers in the Messiah and His atonement on the cross and His resurrection. But if the Spirit of God speaks the truth of this message to your heart, there is hope. God the Holy Spirit has to take the message and open your mind and heart on the inside, as you read and consider the truth of it.

    18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
    20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[d] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

    I Corinthians 1:18-31

    . . . Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

    14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

    1 Corinthians 2:12-16

    God, who said, “let there be light” is the one who has shone into our hearts the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”

    2 Corinthians 4:3-6

    The Spirit has to open your heart so that you can see it. (Acts 16:14)

    Until then, it seems unreasonable.

    Like

  33. Surah an-Najm سوره النجم (53), verses 36-39 comes 600 years later, and contradicts the previous revelation, so it is not true.

    Like

  34. Faiz,
    yes, that is correct. The Incarnation and the Substitutionary Atonement of the Messiah for our sins, does not make sense to the human mind. That God became a man does not make sense to the human mind.

    God has to open your mind.

    Like

    • Alhamdulilah Islam makes sense to the mind and we are not expected to accept something logically impossible.

      Again, you need to rethink your approach to evangelizing to Muslims, because if “God has to open our mind” to accept this, then what is the point of even calling us to Christianity? Maybe one day God will open our mind that he is three and he had to kill himself to forgive our sins

      Like

    • LOL, thank you admitting that you don’t get it. So, in other words, you have to close your mind in order to understand it. Why would God give us a mind if He didn’t want us to use it?

      Liked by 1 person

  35. Several times I just gave the reference, and you said, “type out the verse so we can read it without having to look it up”

    Ok, I did that.

    Then your response is “nice cut and paste job”, etc.

    I guess that is all you have; trying to avoiding reading and thinking.

    The Scriptures are a coherent argument of sometimes long passages with context, etc.; so it makes sense to show the whole context; especially when you previously asked for the typing out of the verse.

    Like

  36. yeah, I know, Farsi keyboard does not have the ta’ marbouta, cause Farsi does not have that. They change it to a ت when the Arabic has that. like Hayat (life) حیات is the way it is written in Farsi, thought the Arabic has it حیاه with the ta’ marbouta (two dots above the ه) . We have lots of words like that.

    Like

    • Then what is the point of typing Arabic in Farsi? You could’ve just easily typed in English and would’ve gotten the same results…

      Liked by 1 person

  37. Khaled,
    Good question. Ultimately it does not make sense; but at minimum one has to first read and think about it. God can only use what you put into your mind. Without reading and thinking about it, one is still left in Jihalat – ignorance – جهالت – جهل – جهال (yeah, the Arabic is probably a little different, but those Farsi words come from the Arabic root.

    Like

    • Thanks for the Farsi Ken. As English is my second language it really helps me understand your comments

      Like

    • So now you have to actually think about it? What would be the point of that if, as you said before, it doesn’t make sense to the human mind? It seems you are a little confused on the matter.

      Why don’t you just admit that it is simply your own delusion? That it is like a self-fulfilling prophecy?

      Like

    • Two problems with your post:
      1) You claim that the Trinity and Sub. Atonement ultimately don’t make sense, yet somehow believing in this concept that doesn’t make sense lifts the person out of جهل.
      2) You claim that at minimum one has to first read and think about it, and yet here we are reading and thinking about it, and we are told it doesn’t make sense. So, what is the point of reading and thinking about it if it doesn’t make sense.

      The concept of God and punishment in Islam make 100% logical sense and don’t require us to become close minded to believe in it. In fact, a large percentage of Sunni and most Shi’i scholars required the average Muslim to find logical proofs for the existence of God and the Islamic concept of Prophethood and the Day of Judgement. It is our sincere belief that the basic tenants of Islam are all logically sound, especially the proof for the existence uniqueness, oneness of God.

      Liked by 1 person

  38. What’s the point of typing the word in Farsi ? – it’s still pretty close. The ta’ marbouta is one of the few differences in the actual script.

    Like

  39. So, in other words, you have to close your mind in order to understand it. Why would God give us a mind if He didn’t want us to use it?

    No; you have to open your mind, not close it. And then God has to open your mind and heart.

    Of course God wants you to use your mind and thought.

    No, you have to read and think about the message, and then Ensha’allah, God the Holy Spirit will open your mind to accept it.

    You have the same concept in Islam, “Ensh’allah, his chest (meaning his heart) was opened to accept such and such”- it is all through the Islamic sources, Qur’an and Hadith. Like Surah 6:125

    Like

    • Yes, open your mind and hear to that which makes sense, not to that which doesn’t make sense.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ‘Ensha’allah’???

      Like

    • It’s not Insha’Allah for Ken, it’s Insha’ar-Rooh al-Quds (The Holy Spirit Willing)

      Like

    • How can you “open your mind and hear” if ultimately it makes no sense? Logically, you would have to close your mind and just accept it blindly. You are going in circles. Just admit it.

      Surah 6:125 is referring to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) choosing to guide someone or let him go astray. The Quran also tells us to use our minds and common sense. See 21:67.

      Like

  40. 1) You claim that the Trinity and Sub. Atonement ultimately don’t make sense, yet somehow believing in this concept that doesn’t make sense lifts the person out of جهل.

    No. because you left out, “when God the Holy Spirit opens the mind and heart” (like the way the Qur’an and Hadith says, “Allah opened his chest/breast to accept such a such a decision”, etc.

    When the Spirit of God works on the inside of us, then it does make sense and is beautiful and true and then it lifts us out of Jihalat جهل (Ignorance).

    Like

    • Again, you are just going in circles. How can knowing something that doesn’t make sense take a person out Jahl (not Jihalat based on the farsi you wrote, and it Jahaala in Arabic, which goes back to why are you typing in Farsi? No one here speaks Farsi…)???

      This is why debates with people of your theology is pointless, you already believe your 100% guided even if your opponent’s arguments make more sense than yours. You will never change your opinion even when you admit that your views ultimately don’t make sense.

      Like

  41. الروح القدس هو الله

    The Holy Spirit is God.

    Like

  42. And the NT comes hundreds of years after the OT and it contradicts the previous revelation, so it’s not true.

    No; because Jesus the Messiah came and interpreted the OT rightly and so did His Jewish believing disciples and writers of the NT, who were helpers of Allah and true and genuine and full of integrity, and they became the victorious, obvious, and uppermost. (Surah 3:55; 61:14)

    Like

    • Another circular argument. How do you know “Jesus” (or the people who put words in Jesus’ mouth?) “interpreted the OT rightly…”? How does quoting the Quran help your Christian viewpoint? (Gives confused look).

      We know for a fact, actually, that the NT writers frequently misunderstood or deliberately misquoted large portions of the Tanakh. The Gospel of Matthew is a perfect example, given its many appeals to alleged “prophecies” about Jesus.

      Like

  43. Ken is just getting hammered by brother Khaled! Keep up the good work, bro!

    Like

  44. What about the أب

    = Father – yes He is God too.

    and the ابن?

    = Son, yes He, Jesus is God also; God the Word/eternal Son, who became flesh/human – John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8.

    Is the أم also God?

    no, the mother is not God. Surah 5:116 thought that was the Trinity, along with 5:72-75. Qur’an got the Trinity doctrine wrong, which proves it is not the word of God.

    Like

    • Well, that’s been discussed a million times, that Christians worship Mary and not the Holy Spirit, nor is the verse referring to the Trinity. But just keep on telling yourself that.

      Like

    • It’s obvious a problem in the Qu’ran. and even today many Muslims still think these things, because of the Roman Catholic / and Eastern Orthodox emphasis on Mary and pictures and statues of her; and their prayers to her and calling her “Mother of the God”.

      Like

    • So some Muslims misunderstood something in the Qur’an. They got corrected and I don’t see anyone using that argument anymore. It doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on his or her afterlife if a Muslim thinks there are Christians who believe Mary is part of the trinity.

      Like

  45. The Qur’an is even more unreasonable, because it denies established history – Surah 4:157 – that Jesus the Messiah was crucified and died on the cross.

    And it could not be from God, since it doesn’t know the Trinity doctrine which was established for centuries.

    And it thought Jesus as the Son of God meant that God had sex with Mary (Surah 6:101 – how can Allah have a son when there is no consort/partner/wife/spouse for Him?” – which no Christian believed in all 6 centuries before Islam.

    The Mormons believe that, but they started in the 1800s !!

    Like

    • First of all, how is is “established history?” There are people that deny that a person name Jesus existed and that they even used crucifixion during the time he lived in. I am not one of those people, but the Qur’an makes the claim that it appeared that he was crucified, which just says the people thought they saw something but something else happened. There are millions of examples of history where we make these claims. That’s like saying Christians deny established history when they deny that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم received revelations from God. Aren’t there 1000s of people who claimed this? Wouldn’t you say that it appeared to them that this happened? Or are you willing to accept this “historical fact?”

      Christians worship Mary, not the Holy Spirit. We don’t need to go in circles about this again.

      As far as the whole “having sex thing” this is called إلزام, which I’m sure I don’t have to translate for you.

      Like

    • LOL, I see Ken keeps clinging to this “established history” nonsense. The Quran does not deny someone was crucified and it emphasizes the fact that people really believed that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified. So, what’s the problem?

      And no, the trinity doctrine was not “established for centuries”. Christians were still holding “councils” to clarify the nonsensical trinitarian doctrine, even after the coming of Islam. An example is the 6th council of Constantinople in 680.

      It’s no wonder there were so many competing beliefs, including the belief that God had a wife or that Mary was part of the trinity. All of these were beliefs held by different sects.

      Of course, none of this changes the fact that Ken is running around in circles, chasing his own tail. 😉

      Like

  46. But I love the father is god “too”, which shows the fundamentally pagan understanding of god that people like Temple have.

    This is why the conversion rate is one-way in Christian/Muslim apologetics. Islam calls for that which makes sense and which the soul can accept, while Ken Temple’s Christianity asks us to believe in that which doesn’t make sense, which we will never understand, unless الروح القدس, who is also God, guides us…

    Like

  47. Making God easier to understand is evidence of a man-made religion.

    God is too awesome and great for you to fully comprehend.

    “Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised;
    Your greatness is unsearchable”
    Psalm 145:3

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/man-made-religion-tries-to-make-god-more-understandable/

    Like

    • Sounds very convenient…

      No, you know what is “evidence of a man-made religion”? It’s the contradictions, inconsistencies and nonsense that we find in so-called “scripture” and in the explanations of so-called “believers”. The facts show that Christianity is a man-made religion, born out of competing belief systems of ignorant people.

      Like

  48. We don’t change the truth to make it more easy to understand or gain converts.

    we trust God to do the converting in the heart and mind.

    Like

    • The “truth” that ultimately doesn’t make sense, right…

      I guess that’s the difference between Islam (all strands of it) and Ken Temple’s Christianity. We believe truth has to be approached with an open mind and must make sense, Ken Temple believes the truth has to ultimately not make sense, and can only be reached with a closed mind.

      Like

    • i.e. we close our minds and chase our own tails. OK, got it. Thanks!

      Oh but you do change the truth! You say “God loves you”, when what you really want to say is “Believe or God will throw you into hell”! HA! “God loves you” indeed…

      Liked by 1 person

  49. “The Qur’an is even more unreasonable, because it denies established history – Surah 4:157 – that Jesus the Messiah was crucified and died on the cross. ”

    How do you know Ken? All you have are four contradictory accounts written by unknown authors who neither met nor knew Jesus personally and in certain cases added their own words into Jesus’ mouth in order to further their own theological agendas.

    Nobody has ever been able to provide a consistent and coherent definition of the Trinity doctrine in any century. Qur’an said ‘do not say three’ and thats good enough for me 😉

    In the Jewish scriptures “Son of God” referred to a righteous person. He was certainly that but thats not what Christians mean by the term. So what does it mean Ken?

    Liked by 1 person

  50. How do you know Ken? All you have are four contradictory accounts written by unknown authors who neither met nor knew Jesus personally and in certain cases added their own words into Jesus’ mouth in order to further their own theological agendas.

    No; the four Gospels are God’s word, inspired, 2 written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John), one by a scribe for an eyewitness (Mark for Peter) and the other interviewed the eyewitnesses – (Luke interviewed Mary and the rest of the disciples and was the apostle Paul’s traveling companion).

    They NEVER put anything into Jesus mouth. You are using liberal scholarship for that, and accusing the disciples of Jesus, who were righteous believers (even the Qur’an claims that – Surah 3:55 and 61:14), who became the uppermost and obvious, manifest and victorious.

    Even the Qur’an admits the disciples of Jesus became the obvious, manifest, uppermost, victorious ones. (فوق – superior, uppermost – Surah 3:55

    ظاهرین = the obvious ones, the clear, manifest ones, the victorious ones. (Surah 61:14)

    This proves that they were the established ones of the centuries before Islam – folks like Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome

    the ones who believed in the NT, the Deity of Christ, the eternal Sonship of Jesus, Jesus as the eternal Word, the humanity of Jesus, the crucifixion, death, atonement and resurrection; the Trinity, etc.

    Like

    • LOL Ken. Patrice is not a Muslim, so why are you quoting the Quran?

      Your circular arguments will only impress the feeble-minded, such as yourself. No one else will be impressed.

      There is undeniable evidence, from both liberal and conservative scholars, that the gospels are contradictory accounts written by anonymous people. You just need to get over it. Grow up, man!

      Your reliance on later traditions proves nothing except that Christians literally made up stories to promote their “gospels”. There were MANY “gospels” in circulation. The poor Christians were left to sort through the mess and ended up inventing stories about who wrote what.

      Like

  51. “No; the four Gospels are God’s word, inspired, 2 written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John), one by a scribe for an eyewitness (Mark for Peter) and the other interviewed the eyewitnesses – (Luke interviewed Mary and the rest of the disciples and was the apostle Paul’s traveling companion).”

    A facinating explanation, however i noticed a complete lack of evidence for this view. Besides if this was true why are so many contradictions between them?

    Ken my point is that the disciples of Jesus did not write the New Testmament at all but were unknown authors who never met Jesus. Can’t insult the disciples as they didn’t leave any written record of their teachings.

    Like

  52. The problem is that the four Gospels are from the disciples of Jesus – 2 of them eyewitness, one a scribe of an eyewitness and the other who interviewed the eyewitnesses. These are all four established from the first century and all other gospels were Gnostic gospels of the 2nd century and beyond.

    all of Christian history accepted them as true and from the apostles.

    Like

    • Yak, yak, yak…nothing more than the same nonsense repeated ad nauseum. Everyone knows that the disciples of Jesus did not write the gospels. It was only later Christian tradition that applied authorship to them or to their associates.

      And why on earth would a supposedly “inspired” person need to “interview” the eyewitnesses?

      Like

    • To show it is both historically accurate (for anti-supernaturalist skeptics, like the liberals and ones you and Paul W. are using) and Divine revelation.

      Like

  53. Patrice sounds like a Muslim here:

    Nobody has ever been able to provide a consistent and coherent definition of the Trinity doctrine in any century. Qur’an said ‘do not say three’ and thats good enough for me😉

    so, what are you Patrice?

    Like

    • Ken I don’t have to be a Muslim to acknowledge when the Qur’an makes a valid point especially as there seems to be so much anxiety in even defining the term. Just ask St Patrick 😉

      By the way you still haven’t provided any evidence about why anyone should believe the four Gospels are written by eyewitnesses, oh well….

      Like

  54. showing Surah 3:55 and 61:14 provides evidence that the Qur’an thought the disciples of Jesus became the most numerous, victorious, obvious, superior ones, and yet, Muslim apologetics says the opposite, that they are small and unheard of until 600 years later, only sort of pre-Islamic monotheists in the Ebionites (who disappeared from history) – they are the opposite of manifest, obvious, victorious. فوق و ظاهرین

    Shows the Qur’an contradicts itself also.

    Like

    • LOL, to be superior can mean many things. The Quran does not say anything about “numbers”.

      Like

    • Ibn Kathir and Yusuf Ali seem to admit that victorious and uppermost and manifest and obvious and superior means the Christians – those that believe in the Deity of Christ, the cross, atonement, resurrection, and the Trinity, the early persecuted church, the church of the Nicean Council, 325, etc. time of Constantine and afterward all the way up until Islam.
      Ibn Kathir candidly admits:
      “So the religion of ‘Isa became the religion of Constantine, who built more than twelve thousand churches, temples and monasteries for the Christians as well as the city that bears his name, Constantinople (Istanbul). THROUGHOUT THIS TIME, the Christians had the upper hand and dominated the Jews. ALLAH AIDED THEM AGAINST THE JEWS BECAUSE THEY USED TO BE CLOSER TO THE TRUTH THAN THE JEWS, even though both groups were and still are disbelievers, may Allah’s curse descend on them.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 2, Parts 3, 4, & 5 (Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: March 2000], p. 171″
      Yusuf Ali, puts his it best in his translation
      The Holy Qur’an – Text and Commentary, p. 1543, footnote 5448, states: “A portion of the Children of Israel – the ones that really cared for Truth – believed in Jesus and followed his guidance. But the greater portion of them were hard-hearted, and remained in their beaten track of formalism and false racial pride. The majority seemed at first to have the upper hand when they thought they had crucified Jesus and killed his Message. But they were soon brought to their senses. Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70 and the Jews have been scattered ever since. “The Wandering Jew” has become a bye-word in many literatures. On the other hand, those who followed Jesus PERMEATED the Roman Empire, brought many new races within their circle, and through the Roman Empire, Christianity became the predominant religion of the world until the advent of Islam …

      Like

  55. Also, my argument about Surah 3:55 and 61:14 and the disciples of Jesus is good for Muslims to read and think about.

    Like

  56. Faiz,
    I finally found some time to think about what your argument is about the Ahadith I quoted and showed that Islam could not completely get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement.

    It is hard to understand your two points about the Ahadith.
    You say that:
    1. Christians and Jews are already going to hell anyway, the extra sins laid on them from Muslims doesn’t change that.
    2. Allah created heaven and hell and the denizens of them. (those that dwell in them)

    But those 3 Hadith are not about the salvation of the Jews and Christians, rather it is about the Muslims –

    the first one says “Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jews or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-fire”.

    the fact that a Muslim gets transfered from Hell-fire to paradise by putting on the Christians and Jews the sins of every Muslim still is teaching a kind of substitutionary atonement, no matter if the Christians and Jews are already going to hell. The issue in that first Hadith is not about saving Christians and jews, but about saving every Muslim. Notice again is says “every Muslim”.

    “Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.”[31]

    “Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him).”[32]

    And in the second one (above) it says “No Muslim would die but . . .

    Sounds like no exceptions . . .

    Also, this one contradicts Faiz’s first point that they are going to hell anyway, because it says “in his stead”. It sure sounds like an exchange to me. At best all that shows is a contradiction in Islamic teachings.

    “Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him)? I said: Yes.”[33]

    The third one indicates a group of certain Muslims with sins as heavy as a mountain, etc. – this is contradictory to the first one, which says “every Muslim” and the second one which says “No Muslim . . . ”

    so, your Hadith is just a contradictory mish-mash.

    But at least, the concept of substitutionary atonement is there; it exists, though in other places it tries to deny it and contradicts it. (like surah 53:36-39 and Surah 22:37)

    Like

    • “the fact that a Muslim gets transfered from Hell-fire to paradise by putting on the Christians and Jews the sins of every Muslim still is teaching a kind of substitutionary atonement, no matter if the Christians and Jews are already going to hell. The issue in that first Hadith is not about saving Christians and jews, but about saving every Muslim. Notice again is says “every Muslim”.”

      Oh brother…getting more and more desperate, are we?

      First of all, it is not about “every” Muslim. The context indicates that it is about Muslims who have numerous sins. In other words, “every” Muslim who comes on the Day of Judgement with many sins.

      Also, you completely ignored the hadith I quoted which states clearly that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) has created people for Paradise and people for Hell. Muslims are the people of Paradise. So, when they go there, someone has to take their place in Hell. Had you read the link I gave you, you would have realized that:

      “The meaning of this hadeeth is the same as the hadeeth narrated by Abu Hurayrah: “For each person there is a place in Paradise and a place in Hell.” When the believer enters Paradise, his place in Hell is taken over by the kaafir because he deserves that because of his kufr.”

      “Also, this one contradicts Faiz’s first point that they are going to hell anyway, because it says “in his stead”. It sure sounds like an exchange to me. At best all that shows is a contradiction in Islamic teachings.”

      Sounds like you are grasping for straws, trying in vain to confirm your own ignorant claims.

      “In his stead” means that the unbelieving Jew or Christian will take the place of the Muslim in Hell, whereas the Muslim will go to Paradise as a reward for his/her belief and faith in Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). Through the mercy of Allah, those Muslims will be saved. Alhamdulillah!

      “so, your Hadith is just a contradictory mish-mash.”

      LOL, the Christian thrown stones while living in a glass house! There is no contradiction for those who consider the context. Reasonable people, who use their minds (instead of waiting for the holy spirit to open it for them 😉 ), will see no contradiction.

      In contrast, your Bible is riddled with contradictions. It is the true “contradictory mish-mash”!

      “But at least, the concept of substitutionary atonement is there; it exists, though in other places it tries to deny it and contradicts it. (like surah 53:36-39 and Surah 22:37)”

      LOL!! Keep trying to convince yourself. Delusional people need to keep reassuring themselves. 🙂

      Like

    • No; the first Hadith in my argument says “every Muslim”. “Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.”[31]

      Like

  57. “To show it is both historically accurate (for anti-supernaturalist skeptics, like the liberals and ones you and Paul W. are using) and Divine revelation.”

    Except that it’s not historically accurate! LOL!

    Liked by 1 person

  58. except the eyewitness accounts are historically accurate.

    No archeology has been discovered that they are wrong; in fact archeology on Pontius Pilate, the pool of Siloam, have confirmed the accuracy of the NT.

    No manuscripts have been discovered that indicate what Surah 61:6 says about Ahmad. none.

    Archaeologist William F. Albright observes:

    The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth-and-nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.[5]

    See here for a list of things in the NT that have been confirmed by history and archeology:
    http://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/archaeology-and-the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament

    Like

  59. One of the more powerful archeaological finds; after skeptics and critics doubted about Pontius Pilate:

    [2] Pontius Pilate

    “In 1961, in Caesarea Maritima, where Pontius Pilate lived, an inscription was found which, among other things, confirms not only the rule of Pilate in Judea but also his preference for the title ‘Prefect’. The inscription isn’t complete anymore, but there’s little question about what it once said.”[49] In Latin the inscription reads:

    TIBERIEUM
    IUS PILATUS
    ECTUS IUDA

    The original wording was thus:

    TIBERIEUM
    [PONT]IUS PILATUS
    [PRAEF]ECTUS IDUA[EA]

    Translated, this reads: “To Tiberius, Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”

    See the photos of the inscription in stone about Pontius Pilate:

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/islam-denies-real-history-the-crucifixion-of-isa-al-masih-jesus-the-messiah/

    Like

    • LOL, so what? How does that verify the overall reliability of the NT? I have heard Christians get excited about a few bells being found in an archaeological dig. They jump up whenever some minute historical detail of the Bible is confirmed. It’s quite pathetic.

      Like

  60. So what? Pontius Pilate existed and some pool in Siloam therefore the Gospels are reliable in every other instance? Even fictional stories sometimes contain historical realities such as Homers Illiad does that mean the Greek Gods exist?

    c’mon Patrick! 😉

    Like

  61. Nothing has been found to contradict them; and furthermore, there is lots more than those 2 issues. (see the whole article and list – read and digest and mediate upon.

    Skeptics used to doubt the existance of the Hittites, then they found the underground city of the Hittites in Turkey near Ankara, and today there is giant museum about the Hittites in Ankara, Turkey. I’ve been there and seen all that confirming archeology.

    Like

  62. What about Luke 2 which describes wherein Quirinius was governer of Syria in around 4 B.C.E. He was not elected governer until 9 C.E (if i recall correctly). Thats a contradiction right there.

    What about the census described there? One which has no evidence to its existence? Thats a contradiction as well!

    What about the discrepancy as to who first saw Jesus resurrected? or how long Jesus was on the cross before he died? Or the conflicting genealogies in Matthew and Luke respectively?

    The Gospels are full of both internal contradictions as well as historical ones and Luke was supposed be a ‘historian’!?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Matthew gives Jesus legal genealogy through Joseph’s line back to David and Solomon (as Joseph was not his real father, but adopted him after Mary gave birth) and Luke gives Mary’s – his literal one from David to Nathan to Mary – as the one “of God”, as Adam was “of God”. The word “son of” is not used in Luke 3, so “of” could mean grandson or son in law. Heli was Mary’s father.

      Mary Magdalene and the other women with her first saw Jesus resurrected; and then they went and told Peter and John, etc. There is no contradiction.

      Time of Jesus’ death:
      John follows the Roman time system while Mark follows the Jewish time system.

      Problems solved.

      Like

  63. N.T. Wright, whom Paul Williams quotes a lot in approval, has a good answer to the apparent problem of Quirinius:

    http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2004/12/luke-census-and-quirinius-matter-of.html

    “Did Luke get this famous event wrong? Probably not. A number of respected New Testament and Greek scholars have challenged the popular translation of Luke 2:2 as the “first” census under Quirinius. Rather, they conclude that it is more properly interpreted to refer to a census “prior to” or “before” Quirnius’ governorship. Thus translated, the passage looks something like this rendering by N.T. Wright in Luke for Everyone, page 20:

    Luke 2:2: This was the first registration, before the one when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

    Under this translation, Luke is not placing Jesus’ birth during the governorship of Quirinius, but before it. Before the uprising that it spawned and during the reign of King Herod. But is this translation merely a contrivance to avoid the problem? No, there are good reasons for translating Luke 2:2 in this manner. ”

    see also here:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=Wd4MtwtFDMAC&q=Quirinius#v=snippet&q=Quirinius&f=false

    Like

    • LOL, here is what Wright states:

      “There are many puzzles the historians may never work out, and this may be one of them.”

      In other words, the “solution” is not really conclusive but just one possible way of explaining the error.

      But let’s suppose Luke was referring to a census “before” Luke. Which census would that be?

      And how do we explain the claim that everyone was required to travel to their native town?

      “Leading Biblical scholars like E. P. Sanders have pointed out that it’s the practice of the census-takers, not those being taxed, to travel to different locations.

      Even James Dunn, a leading conservative Christian scholar admits that “the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit.” As it stands, there is literally nothing in the recorded history that ever mentions a Roman census forcing people to travel to their birthplace. (In addition, Geza Vermes and Emil Shurer in “The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ” have argued that taking into account everything we know about history has never been a global census ordered by Augustus, as dictated by Luke.) The point of a census is taxation, not chaos and a nightmare. Imagine if half the country is traveling for a census, who is taking care of the home, the flocks, or the stable? In addition, there would be no need for a 9 month pregnant Mary to travel anywhere. Joseph could have traveled and registered, even if there was travel required” (http://yuriystasyuk.com/a-skeptical-christmas-25-strange-facts/).

      Like

  64. “No; the first Hadith in my argument says “every Muslim”. “Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.”[31]”

    Um, yes…

    The context is very clear. “Every Muslim” refers to those with many sins.

    Like

  65. “Matthew gives Jesus legal genealogy through Joseph’s line back to David and Solomon (as Joseph was not his real father, but adopted him after Mary gave birth) and Luke gives Mary’s – his literal one from David to Nathan to Mary – as the one “of God”, as Adam was “of God”. The word “son of” is not used in Luke 3, so “of” could mean grandson or son in law. Heli was Mary’s father.

    Mary Magdalene and the other women with her first saw Jesus resurrected; and then they went and told Peter and John, etc. There is no contradiction.

    Time of Jesus’ death:
    John follows the Roman time system while Mark follows the Jewish time system.

    Problems solved.”

    Only in your delusional mind. You just confirmed what I have been saying all along! Christians invent stories to save themselves the embarrassment of having to admit that the gospels are historically unreliable and nothing more than contradictory mish-mash!

    http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-genealogy-of-jesus-in-bible.html

    http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/05/response-to-christian-on-genealogies-of.html

    Like

    • No; you don’t know Greek and none of your sources talk about how the Greek of Luke 3 uses the general genitive “of” – so Heli was the son in law of Joseph, ie, “son of Mary”. “son” huios, is only used when it says “supposedly the son of Joseph”, which is a clue. Then he does not use huios all the way through to the end; is not used all the way back to Adam and God, “Adam, of God”. It is a deliberate usage of the genitive “of” in Greek., playing off of “Jesus being supposedly the son of Joseph (but really of Mary only) . . of Heli, etc.

      3:23 καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ

      When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the one of Heli, the one of . . . of . . . of Adam, of God.

      τοῦ Ἐνὼς τοῦ Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ

      the one of Enos, the one of Seth, the one of Adam, the one of God.

      The Greek is showing a range of possibilities in the genealogy in Luke.

      Whereas in Matthew, it is the specific verb, to be born of. Since Jesus is not a literal offspring of Joseph’s line, through Jeconiah, the prophesy from Jeremiah 22:30 was fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus from Mary.

      Like

  66. “No, the context does not even say that. But it does say “every Muslim”.

    Boom !!”

    LOL, no. When you read the hadith in context, it is referring to sinful Muslims. BOOM, BOOM!!

    You should stick to coming up with elaborate ways to explain the contradictions in your silly gospels! BOOM, BOOM!

    Like

  67. “where does it say that? It says “every Muslim”.

    LOL ROF”

    LOL, ROTFL…it doesn’t have to say it. The other ahadith clarify the issue. Not every Muslim will come on the Day of Judgement with numerous sins. Obviously, they would not need to be “ransomed”. Christian logic strikes again! LOL, ROTFL!

    Like

  68. “No; you don’t know Greek and none of your sources talk about how the Greek of Luke 3 uses the general genitive “of” – so Heli was the son in law of Joseph, ie, “son of Mary”. “son” huios, is only used when it says “supposedly the son of Joseph”, which is a clue. Then he does not use huios all the way through to the end; is not used all the way back to Adam and God, “Adam, of God”. It is a deliberate usage of the genitive “of” in Greek., playing off of “Jesus being supposedly the son of Joseph (but really of Mary only) . . of Heli, etc.

    3:23 καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ

    When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the one of Heli, the one of . . . of . . . of Adam, of God.

    τοῦ Ἐνὼς τοῦ Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ

    the one of Enos, the one of Seth, the one of Adam, the one of God.

    The Greek is showing a range of possibilities in the genealogy in Luke.

    Whereas in Matthew, it is the specific verb, to be born of. Since Jesus is not a literal offspring of Joseph’s line, through Jeconiah, the prophesy from Jeremiah 22:30 was fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus from Mary.”

    Your circular arguments are getting more and more pathetic and desperate. Nothing in the text indicates that Luke was referring to Mary’s genealogy. This is just an assumption that Christians have invented. The simple fact is that the two genealogies do not match and can never be reconciled.

    As John T. Carroll states:

    “Luke and Matthew include the same names between Abraham and David, with the exception of Adim and Arni (Luke 3:33). Otherwise, the lists mostly disagree, even naming different fathers for Joseph…and tracing the ancestry through different sons of David…It is impossible to reconcile the two genealogies…Nearly half the names in the Lukan genealogy are otherwise unknown, but for the rest Luke has drawn Gen. 5:1-32, 11:10-26, 1 Chr. 1:24-27” (“Luke: A Commentary”, p. 99).

    Also, the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of David through his son Solomon. Hence, Matthew’s genealogy makes no sense since it does not prove a “natural” line of descent and Luke’s genealogy makes no sense since it actually disqualifies Jesus as the Messiah by tracing his genealogy through Nathan. And if the genealogy presented by Luke was that of Mary, then why is she not mentioned in her own genealogy?

    Like

    • Yes, Luke does indicate he is giving Jesus’ genealogy through Mary. Luke 3:23 – “being supposedly the son of Joseph (but really of Mary only) – as he already taught the virgin conception and birth in chapters 1 and 2.

      It is a deliberate usage of the genitive “of” in Greek., playing off of “Jesus being supposedly the son of Joseph (but really of Mary only) . . of Heli, etc.

      3:23 καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ

      When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the one of Heli του ‘ηλι , the one of . . . of . . . of Adam, of God.

      Like

  69. του ‘ηλι = the one of Heli, ie, Joseph is son in law of Heli, that is, Heli is Mary’s father.

    Like

  70. “Yes, Luke does indicate he is giving Jesus’ genealogy through Mary. Luke 3:23 – “being supposedly the son of Joseph (but really of Mary only) – as he already taught the virgin conception and birth in chapters 1 and 2.

    It is a deliberate usage of the genitive “of” in Greek., playing off of “Jesus being supposedly the son of Joseph (but really of Mary only) . . of Heli, etc.

    3:23 καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ

    When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the one of Heli του ‘ηλι , the one of . . . of . . . of Adam, of God.”

    LOL, more anachronisms. You have NO proof that Luke was really giving the genealogy through Mary. That is just an ASSUMPTION because you know the two genealogies don’t match. So you are literally INVENTING possible explanations to avoid the embarrassment.

    And you didn’t even address the other points I raised. Even IF Luke’s genealogy was through Mary, it actually backfires because that genealogy is through David’s son Nathan! The Messiah HAD to be a descendant of David through Solomon! As I said in my previous post:

    …the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of David through his son Solomon. Hence, Matthew’s genealogy makes no sense since it does not prove a “natural” line of descent and Luke’s genealogy makes no sense since it actually disqualifies Jesus as the Messiah by tracing his genealogy through Nathan. And if the genealogy presented by Luke was that of Mary, then why is she not mentioned in her own genealogy?

    Like

    • The Bible does not teach that the Messiah has to be from Solomon, but rather from David, and David had many sons. Solomon’s line was cursed because of Jeconiah and the prophesy about him in Jeremiah. Matthew is showing that Jesus is virgin born from Mary, and not the physical son of Joseph.

      “Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah. The “Jeconiah link” is significant in Matthew’s genealogy because of the special curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30.”

      “The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Y’shua could not be king if he were really Joseph’s son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew’s viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph’s son, he could not claim to sit on David’s throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph’s son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25).”

      “As early as Genesis 3:15, it was proposed that the Messiah would be reckoned after the “seed of the woman,” although this went contrary to the biblical norm. The necessity for this exception to the rule became apparent when Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.” Whereas all others receive their humanity from both father and mother, the Messiah would receive his humanity entirely from his mother. Whereas Jewish nationality and tribal identity were normally determined by the father, with the Messiah it would be different. Since he was to have no human father, his nationality and his tribal identity would come entirely from his mother. True, this is contrary to the norm, but so is a virgin birth. With the Messiah, things would be different.

      In addition, these genealogies present a fourfold portrait of the messianic person through four titles. In Matthew 1:1 he is called the Son of David and the Son of Abraham. In Luke 3:38 he is called the Son of Adam and the Son of God. As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king. As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man. As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God. This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King. Could the Messiah be anyone less?”

      Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “The Genealogy of the Messiah”

      In the Jerusalem Talmud, Hagigah 77d, (some other sources say Hagigah 2:4), there is a reference to a certain Miriam the daughter of ‘Eli, whom, on account of the name (cf. Luke iii.23) gives strong extra-Biblical evidence that Luke is giving Mary’s genealogy.

      Also, again, the Greek construction in Luke 3 makes it clear that Luke is giving Mary’s line back through Nathan and David and back to Adam and God, who created Adam, which is showing Jesus’ human nature comes from Mary.

      Liked by 1 person

  71. “indeed the SQ does appear to teach that. Much confusion!”

    Given that the editors are Perennialists, that is not at all surprising.

    Like

    • I should add that it doesn’t mean the SQ is completely useless. No commentary is perfect. Muhammad Asad’s commentary is widely used, but that doesn’t mean that all of his comments are to be blindly accepted. For example, he attempted to interpret the occurrence of miracles in a “metaphorical” way.

      Like

  72. Ken said:

    “The Bible does not teach that the Messiah has to be from Solomon, but rather from David, and David had many sons. Solomon’s line was cursed because of Jeconiah and the prophesy about him in Jeremiah. Matthew is showing that Jesus is virgin born from Mary, and not the physical son of Joseph.”

    You are wrong. It’s amazing how you conveniently overlook the clear teaching that the Messiah would be the descendant of David through Solomon. See the following: https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/birth-of-jesus/must-the-messiah-be-a-descendent-of-solomon/

    Here are some verses proving that it was David’s line through Solomon that would rule Israel:

    “And of all my sons–for the Lord has given me many sons–He has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. And He said to me: “Solomon your son, he shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be for a son, and I will be to him for a father. And I will establish his kingdom forever, if he be constant to do My commandments and My ordinances, as at this day.” (1 Chronicles 28:5-7)”

    You can choose to conveniently overlook these and other verses, but there they are. They prove the New Testament wrong. It’s no wonder that Christians have had to invent all sorts of elaborate theories to explain the contradictory (and ultimately incorrect) genealogies.

    Ken said:

    “In the Jerusalem Talmud, Hagigah 77d, (some other sources say Hagigah 2:4), there is a reference to a certain Miriam the daughter of ‘Eli, whom, on account of the name (cf. Luke iii.23) gives strong extra-Biblical evidence that Luke is giving Mary’s genealogy. ”

    LOL!! Seriously? This is the best argument you can provide? So what if the Talmud mentions “a certain Miriam the daughter of ‘Eli”? Do you really think there could not be other Marys who were daughters of other Helis or Elis? This is one of your most goofiest arguments yet!

    Ken said:

    “Also, again, the Greek construction in Luke 3 makes it clear that Luke is giving Mary’s line back through Nathan and David and back to Adam and God, who created Adam, which is showing Jesus’ human nature comes from Mary.”

    No, it doesn’t prove anything except that Christians have come up with elaborate theories, which are based on assumptions and circular arguments.

    And again, even if it was Mary’s genealogy, why didn’t Luke just say it? It’s a simple question for which apologists have no answer.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: