If Christendom had heeded the Gospels, it would now not exist.

This is a deep truth and the reason I am no longer a Christian but a Muslim.



Categories: Abdal-Hakim Murad, Bible, Christianity, History, Islam

131 replies

  1. I thank and praise God for this beautiful assessment by Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad (T J Winter) and the beautiful proof of that statement with Paul’s conversion to Islam.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. What was the command or principle that Christendom did not heed?

    What did Tim Winter say? (with more context please)

    How did that relate to why you converted to Islam?

    Like

  3. 1) Jesus’s monotheism and a very Jewish (and therefore Islamic) way of salvation. The Pauline/Catholic gospel is quite different to the gospel of Jesus.

    2) There is no further context. It is one of Winter’s ‘contentions’ – very brief and epigrammatic.

    3) Because the Jewish/Islamic soteriology and concept of God is virtually the same. When I heard of Islam – a faith for the whole world – I noticed the continuity. Jesus the Jewish prophet leads to Muhammad the universal and final prophet of God.

    Like

    • Hi Paul.

      Could you point out where the sacrificial system fits within Islamic soteriology as would have been practiced by Jesus (and Paul).

      I believe you are comparing rabbinical judaism, something that comes well after Jesus and the destruction of the temple with Islam. Such is a false equivalence to compare to Christ.

      So please indicate how your sins are expiated through the sacrificial system. Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I asked you this question before, and I noticed you failed you respond:

      in the Torah how are sins forgiven?

      Like

    • I tend to like the answer given by a first century Jewish contemporary of Jesus,

      “without the shedding of blood, there is no remissison of sins”.

      We both know that Islamic soteriology bears no resemblance to first century judaism. You only have later rabbinical traditions to rely upon, but such was not the case with Jesus (or Paul).

      Liked by 1 person

    • “without the shedding of blood, there is no remissison of sins”.

      This is factually incorrect. The author does not know the Torah it seems.

      Read Leviticus chapters 4 and 5 on sin offerings.

      Like

    • ha! You talk about a very “Jewish ways of salvation” then dismiss a first century Jewish contemporary of Jesus. Kinda strange don’t you think?

      Like

    • Paulus what about Jesus’ teaching with the parable of pharisee and tax collector? No sacrifice needed. This was also said in the first century by a Jewish man does Jesus not represent the Judaism of the 1st century?

      Like

    • Patrice historical context is everything. You can’t take Jesus’ words from that context. Since he was a Torah abiding Jew, he was subject to and took part in the sacrificial system. So it would be completely inaccurate to take a parable and interpret it contrary to the normal Jewish context (interpretation of parables is an issue in itself anyway). And even then Jesus’ own teaching on the New Covenant wouldn’t allow such.

      Paul is clearly misusing Jesus and trying to make him look more Islamic for the deen.

      Like

    • Paulus you are a waste of space on this blog. A true troll

      Like

    • Is not the issue that you presuppose your interpretation of Torah is accurate despite all evidence to the contrary? Jesus clearly taught that sins can be forgiven without the need for any kind of sacrifice. Consdier also the example of the prodigal son who was forgiven instantly without any sacrifice.

      Truth is that Jesus does not believe what you do and neither does Islam coincidentally. God forgives who he wants to. No explanation needed and certainly no need for any overly complicated atonement theories.

      Like

    • Patrice, you are absolutely right, but it will fall on deaf ears…

      Like

    • Patrice

      “Truth is that Jesus does not believe what you do and neither does Islam coincidentally. ”

      Jesus states clearly that he came to serve and give his life as a ransom for many – it doesn’t get clearer than that.

      “God forgives who he wants to. No explanation needed and certainly no need for any overly complicated atonement theories.”

      Then he is not a just god – and an unjust god is not god who must be perfectly just. Your god makes no sense – he goes to all this trouble to bring laws to mankind and then says that these are irrelevant since he forgives whoever just because.

      I know you guys think that makes your god sound really, really impressive, and big, but to the rest of us it makes him sound irrational and capricious. If he commands you to do something (like not murder people) and you disobey and he just goes ahead and forgives you – just because – then his word and his command are worthless.

      Like

    • Luke deleted 10:45 when he wrote his gospel. Seems he did not agree with Mark

      Like

    • Paul

      “Luke deleted 10:45 when he wrote his gospel. Seems he did not agree with Mark”

      Did he delete 10-45 or did the goats eat it? No, wait, that’s the quran that is missing huge swathes of chapters thanks to the mighty goats who were too strong for your god and were able to destroy his eternal word. LOL!!!

      Like

    • Patrice did you read what I wrote? If Jesus taught that, it would be completely contrary to first century Judaism which was Torah abiding and thus participated in the sacrificial system.

      I don’t think there is a clearer case of biased misrepresentation of a text. You simply cannot remove Jesus’ words from Jesus’ historical and religious context. Thus, his teaching must be understood within that framework.

      Like

    • D

      There’s nothing wrong with Jesus saying he came to serve and give his life as ransom especially since ‘it appeared so..’. Nothing wrong with the author of Mark for saying so.

      Secondly where did I say God forgives arbitrarily? I only said he forgives who he wants to not that he forgives for no reason.

      Paulus

      You keep saying that one must understand Jesus within his historical context, I agree completely however the problem is that you have thus far failed to establish your understanding of Judaism as true. With that in mind Jesus’ statements are rather straight forward and require very little debate over their meaning. Jesus is very clear in his teaching about salvation which Muslims completely agree with. Faith and obedience to God alone and love of neighbour as oneself. No need for sacrifice.

      Like

    • Patrice

      “There’s nothing wrong with Jesus saying he came to serve and give his life as ransom especially since ‘it appeared so..’. Nothing wrong with the author of Mark for saying so.”

      Where in the bible does it say that god deceived the followers of his word and only made them think that jesus had given his life as a ransom for many? You are more confused than even I thought.

      Jesus clearly believed in the christian doctrine of atonement and salvation, the NT clearly states this – not some islamic mumbo-jumbo in which your god is so great that he does not allow justice to prevail. Where did jesus teach that god allows injustice to prevail? That is the god of islam, not the god of the bible.

      “Secondly where did I say God forgives arbitrarily? I only said he forgives who he wants to not that he forgives for no reason.”

      Well now that you’ve moved the goalposts, your point is clearer – but barely. If he forgives who he wants to that sounds arbitrary.

      But you bare still left with the problem of god allowing injustice to prevail – muslims keep shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to grasp this. Your god permits injustice to exist in creation – he, therefore, cannot be a just god, and an unjust god is not god.

      Like

    • Why do you believe Jesus meant giving his life as a ransom to mean he was going to die for sin? Consider that nowhere in Marks Gospel does Jesus state he would die for anyone but rather his mission was proclaim the arrival of Gods kingdom on earth and to warn his people to obey Torah before that time. Its only the later Gospels which are redactions of Mark that make the claim that Jesus died for sin.

      Besides Muslims are free to accept that Jesus died by crucifixion for example Sheikh Abdal Hakim Murad one of the most prolific Muslim scholars in the world holds to this view.

      Next you say that Jesus believed in the Christian view of atonement. What one would that be? penal substitution? Christ victory? or even perhaps Recapitulation? etc etc… However we know full well what Jesus taught about salvation as he explained it to us in Mark 10 and also with the Parable of the prodigal son. God out of his love for humanity forgives us our sins if we repent and through obedience to his teachings we find not only peace and ultimate joy in this life but also eternal happiness and peace in the next. Just like Islam. Jesus and Muhammad were in agreement it seems.

      Finally you argue that it is your opinion that Gods freedom to forgive whomever he wills is arbitrary and he allows injustice to take place. However God does not allow injustice as for all will be judged on the Day of Judgement and will be given their due. Although in this life injustice may be allowed to permeate for a time not so for God. Christianity teaches the exact same thing although not quite as God requires his son to die (an innocent man) for the guilty in order to forgive the guilty without punishment!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice

      “Consider that nowhere in Marks Gospel does Jesus state he would die for anyone but rather his mission was proclaim the arrival of Gods kingdom on earth and to warn his people to obey Torah before that time”

      The part where he says he came to “give his life as a ransom for many” is a pretty straight forward statement that he will die for others – or “many” as he says. Didn’t you read that part? Or do your biases prevent you from comprehending the obvious?

      “Next you say that Jesus believed in the Christian view of atonement. What one would that be?”

      The one where jesus takes the sins of man on himself and dies for “as a ransom many” and is resurrected.

      “However we know full well what Jesus taught about salvation as he explained it to us in Mark 10 and also with the Parable of the prodigal son.”

      The parable of the prodigal son has a number of meanings, not least of which is the implication of incarnation when the father goes out to his son/creation and brings him back to the fold. But there is a payment to be made – the prodigal son has spent up his inheritance and receives no other since the father tells the elder son that all that he owns is his. There are other meanings to that also, but I’m not your sunday school teacher.

      On another level, the prodigal son shows that jesus emphatically rejects islamic legalism – the parable is told in response to the self-righteousness of the legalistic pharisees whose law – like islamic law – took precedence over god’s word. Jesus would have rejected islam faster than you could say the shahada.

      “Finally you argue that it is your opinion that Gods freedom to forgive whomever he wills is arbitrary and he allows injustice to take place. However God does not allow injustice as for all will be judged on the Day of Judgement and will be given their due. ”

      So now, in your confusion, you have contradicted yourself! I’m actually embarrassed for you. LOL!!

      So, your god does require payment so that justice prevails? Make up your mind.

      Like

    • So penal substitution then? a doctrine that has been in existence for about 500 years give or take? Most Christians prior to this and today reject this doctrine as horrific. You think its justice for God to sacrifice an innocent in order to forgiven guilty people? Yet you criticise God for forgiving out of his mercy and grace? Oy vey!

      Next you say that the prodigal son teaches the incarnation. Thats certainly a stretch in truth the meaning is rather clear. First that God forgives his wayward children who return to him in repentance failing to live without him and secondly that God loves the gentiles and seeks their conversion as well the other son is meant to be the Israel who have grown jealous of the love of God toward his wayward (Gentile) son. This fits in perfectly with that Luke is trying to convey to his Roman audience namely that Christs mission is to the whole world not just the Jews.

      You then end up saying something very strange that Jesus somewhow rejects ‘Islamic legalism’ and that somehow self-righteousness meant taking Sharia as precedence over the word of God. You do realize that the Sharia is Gods law just like the Torah is Gods law? So therefore it is Gods word! Are you saying Jesus would reject Gods word! Certainly not! Sharia is much more than the judiciary but covers all aspects of life such as prayer, charity, fasting etc…

      Finally you seem to be confused by my saying that God administers justice on those who have broken his law on the day of judgement as some kind of ‘payment’? Could you please clarify your statement?

      Like

    • Thanks for answering Paul. So Tim Winter / Abdal Hakim Murad meant if the Christians had obeyed the commands/principles of Monotheism (as in Mark 12:29), it would not exist. Right?

      The problem is that “the Gospels” includes principles of the suffering servant as sacrifice/substitutionary atonement for sin (Mark 10:45; 14:24; Luke 22:19-20; Matthew 20:28; 26:28; John 1:29; chapter 6; etc.) and principles of the Sonship of Christ (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John), the Deity of Christ (Mark 14:60-64; and all the gospels, but especially the Gospel of John), the Deity of the Holy Spirit (John 14, 15:26; chapter 16), etc.

      So, he can only be accurate if he had said, “If Christendom had heeded some cherry-picked verses by Muslims and reinterpreted those cherry picked verses, then it would not exist.”

      You guys keep mentioning the parable of the sinner and tax-collector, but the context is “2 men went to the temple to pray” (Luke 18:10) – the whole context presupposes the temple sacrifices (along with other passages you cite, Prodigal Son in Luke 15 and Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6 – all are in the context of 1st century Jewish understanding of the temple sacrifices) – and the the whole OT and time up to the NT and even until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, included the Jewish understanding that sacrifice was needed to make atonement first, then, and only then, a sinner could enter into the presence of God and pray.

      The Levitical sacrifices included intentional sins also – Leviticus 6:1-6 – continuation of chapter 5 and the guilt offering, and Leviticus chapter 16 and 17:11 – blood sacrifice was required for atonement/forgiveness.

      David, when he repented, mentioned the hyssop branch, which was used to apply the sacrificial blood. Psalm 51:7 – background on the hyssop branch, used as brush to apply the blood after the sacrifice – Exodus 12:22 (of the Passover sacrifice) and also Hebrews 9:19-22, points back to Exodus 24:5-8.

      19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
      20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.”
      21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.
      22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

      Hebrews 9:19-22

      Like

    • Patrice

      “So penal substitution then?”

      LOL!! Given your performance up to this point, I strongly suspect that you have no clue what that means.

      More importantly, are you ever going to make a point in your comments, or are you just going to keep dancing around in circles avoiding the incoherence of your biases?

      “Next you say that the prodigal son teaches the incarnation. Thats certainly a stretch in truth the meaning is rather clear. First that God forgives his wayward children who return to him in repentance failing to live without him and secondly that God loves the gentiles and seeks their conversion as well the other son is meant to be the Israel who have grown jealous of the love of God toward his wayward (Gentile) son. ”

      Oh dear.

      In the real world, in the parable, the father goes out to meet the sinner – a clear and unavoidable (if you have an ounce of objectivity in your brain) metaphor of god entering creation.

      And really, the jews are jealous of the gentiles? You anti-semitic dog. Just go away and wallow in the hatred in your heart.

      “You do realize that the Sharia is Gods law just like the Torah is Gods law? So therefore it is Gods word! Are you saying Jesus would reject Gods word!”

      Now you’re just being stupid. So the sharia is fully detailed in the quran? LOL!!!!! The legalistic traditions of islam divert people from true salvation – and therefore cannot be from god.

      “Finally you seem to be confused by my saying that God administers justice on those who have broken his law on the day of judgement as some kind of ‘payment’? Could you please clarify your statement?”

      Actually patrice, you said nothing even remotely like that. You said that “all will be judged on the day of judgement and given their due” – see, not a word about “those who broke his law will be judged”. If you didn’t move the goalposts so much, you wouldn’t get so confused.

      You don’t understand my point because yours is confused – first you claim that your god forgives arbitrarily without administering justice and thus allows injustice to prevail, and now you are saying that your god does in fact require “dues” to satisfy justice. Make up your mind.

      Like

    • Your response to my comments regarding the interpretation of the prodigal son is frankly laughable as you don’t seem to make a point beyond empty rhetoric. I don’t believe that ‘the Jews’ were jealous in the real world or angry with anyone I am just trying to point out what the text indicates. Not my personal belief the texts if you think i’m wrong then make your case as to why no needs for insults. However since you didn’t respond in any way to my point other than through reiterating your own i will simply say we will have to agree to disagree.

      Secondly no the Sharia is not fully detailed in the Qur’an however as I am sure you are aware they are not Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura but rather also recognise the teachings of the Prophet as authoritative as well including the outlining of the Sharia which is established in the Qur’an. As far as your comment on ‘Islam diverting people from true salvation’ is concerned is just simply more empty rhetoric. However to match it i do believe that Evangelical fundamentalists are not faithful representatives of Gods revelation through Jesus due to their need to insert their own theology into his mouth rather than follow his teachings faithfully.

      Finally you say i am changing my statements, I think its more you are failing to understand them so i will repeat. God forgives whom he wills (not arbitrarily) but also condemns those who are guilty of sin and do not repent on the Day of judgement. Christianity teaches the very same concept. If you want to call it a payment of debt thats up to you but i wouldn’t use that terminology. Point is that both religions teach the same idea so condemning one means doing so to the other. The difference between the two faiths however is that as you acknowledged Christ is given as a ‘ransom’ for the sins of a guilty humanity who can only be truly forgiven through some bloody tribute.

      Like

    • Further response

      “In the real world, in the parable, the father goes out to meet the sinner – a clear and unavoidable (if you have an ounce of objectivity in your brain) metaphor of god entering creation.”

      Huh?! Father goes out i thought you said this was talking about the incarnation! Do i really have to explain to you about your own doctrines? It was the son not the father who was incarnate. Besides where in my response to you do i say anything against the father going out?

      “And really, the jews are jealous of the gentiles? You anti-semitic dog. Just go away and wallow in the hatred in your heart.

      Where did i say the Jews? I said Israel however for the sake of clarity I will say it in a language you understand: Pharisees, Saduccees, Scribes basically all the baddies that the gospel writers don’t like also consider that John in his gospel labels all of Jesus’ enemies as the ‘Jews’ so take it up with them not me i don’t believe that nonesense! Secondly put your sword away nobody is buying your sudden growth of a moral backbone.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice

      “Your response to my comments regarding the interpretation of the prodigal son is frankly laughable as you don’t seem to make a point beyond empty rhetoric. ”

      I pointed out clear and unavoidable lessons from the parable – you don’t accept them because of your biases against christianity. And yes, saying that israel was jealous of the gentiles is as inflammatory as it gets – and another figment of your hateful imagination.

      The parable is clearly referring to the pharisees who push tradition and the false application of the law – in a way similar to sharia which is man-made musings on vague and often incomprehensible quranic verses. The parable adds a dimension to the practice of the law that the man-made musings of god’s word missed. I’m not sure how else to make that clear.

      “Secondly no the Sharia is not fully detailed in the Qur’an however as I am sure you are aware they are not Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura but rather also recognise the teachings of the Prophet as authoritative as well including the outlining of the Sharia which is established in the Qur’an.”

      Yes, sharia is not fully detailed in the quran and therefore – if you stupidly believe that quran is the word of god – cannot actually be god’s law. Don’t hide behind protestant beliefs – that doesn’t change the fact that the quran, unlike the OT, has little or no detailed information on what your god’s law is supposed to be.

      “As far as your comment on ‘Islam diverting people from true salvation’ is concerned is just simply more empty rhetoric. ”

      Not at all. The parable of the prodigal son is a clear lesson of how traditions and man-made interpolations on god’s word marginalizes and ignores those people – the sinners – who need salvation the most. Sharia does the same. For example, killing apostates in islam takes away any chance for repentance – there is no clearer example of how sharia diverts people from true salvation.

      “Finally you say i am changing my statements, I think its more you are failing to understand them so i will repeat. God forgives whom he wills (not arbitrarily) but also condemns those who are guilty of sin and do not repent on the Day of judgement. ”

      You have argued that your god does not permit injustice to prevail by saying that he forgives who he wants, and by issuing condemnation on others (who he wants, presumably). What you don’t seem to comprehend is that this still doesn’t do away with injustice since those who have been arbitrarily forgiven have not been judged for any sins – thus, injustice prevails. It isn’t hard, patrice, it really isn’t.

      And quite humorously, you have actually implied that your god – by administering justice to some and not others as an example of how he is just – has effectively passed the payment for sins onto others who didn’t commit them. LOL!!!

      “Huh?! Father goes out i thought you said this was talking about the incarnation! Do i really have to explain to you about your own doctrines? It was the son not the father who was incarnate.”

      Geez louise! It’s a parable for goodness sake! God with us Immanuel!

      Secondly, it’s god’s eternal and uncreated word that is incarnate – who’s making up doctrines now? Is it your understanding that the god of the bible has a son who is then made incarnate? It is, isn’t it? LOL!!!

      Like

  4. Your quote is from Hebrews 9:22, the author being an unknown writer sometime from the later part of first century. He may not have ever visited Palestine and probably never met Jesus. As it is anonymous we cannot be certain he was Jewish. The author is evidently not infallible as he does not know the actual teaching of the Torah on forgiveness of sins. This is why I asked you to read Leviticus chapters 4 and 5 on sin offerings. Your only reply is to mock.

    Once more: what kind of sins are forgiven by sin offerings in the Temple?

    Like

    • No Paul, you can claim that Jesus’ soteriology was Islamic and then refuse to answer questions on the fundamental sacrificial system Jesus partook in. Your dismissal of a first century Jewish context demonstates the irrationality of your argument. I have no doubt that the Jewishness you reference is the later rabbinical teaching once the temple and this sacrificial system was destroyed.

      But that isn’t and never was Jesus’ context.

      Like

    • The author of Hebrews was clearly a first century Jew, like Barnabas (see Acts 4:36 – Levite, etc.) fully knowledgeable in the OT sacrificial system. Leviticus 4-5 – keep reading to chapter 6:1-6 and also chapters 16-17 – included intentional sins, if there is also heart repentance and faith. Read all of Hebrews chapters 8, 9, 10; then the whole book slowly and carefully. Hebrews 9:22 sums up the whole OT sacrificial systeme – see context Hebrews 9:19 – points back to Exodus 12 and 24 and Leviticus 16 and 17:11. Even Rabbi Skobac admitted that Jesus was like the day of atonement.

      Like

    • Paulus obviously you refuse to answer my simple question about sin offerings in Lev 4 & 5 because you know it undermines your case. The sins are described as ‘unintentional’ sins, ie inadvertent sins, not deliberate ones.

      On the day of Atonement the scapegoat that had all of Israel’s sins symbolically placed on its head was not sacrificed but sent out alive into the wilderness. The unknown author of the NT book of Hebrews, obviously a Christian, just got it wrong about sin offerings.

      Like

    • That’s a tired argument and already shown incorrect ( or half of the evidence) by Ken so no need to repeat again

      And even then let’s assume you are correct. It still demonstrates by your own standard that Jesus’ soteriology was not the same as Islam. So either way you cut the pie your argument is visibly incoherent.

      Like

  5. Paulus you are clearly a troll and time waster. I’m not bothering with you any more

    Like

  6. D
    “The part where he says he came to “give his life as a ransom for many” is a pretty straight forward statement that he will die for others – or “many” as he says.”

    No it isn’t.

    Like

  7. The 2 goats in Leviticus 16 represent two aspects of one work of prophetic fulfillment of the atonement in Isaiah 53, and both are combined into one person in Isaiah 53 –
    1. the bearing / carrying away of sin, (notice how many times the text speaks of bearing and carrying and encountering, and many verses in the NT show the fulfillment of this.
    and
    2. the slaughter of the animal carrying the sin.

    Here are the most relevant verses of Leviticus 16 concerning the Day of Atonement and the scapegoat:

    20 “When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:20-22)

    34 Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.” And just as the Lord had commanded Moses, so he did. (Leviticus 16:34)

    A very important point I want to make is about the word “bear” or “carry” in verse 22. This is the Hebrew word Nasa’ = נשא and it also used several times in Isaiah 53.

    Surely our griefs He Himself bore [Hebrew: נשא]
    And our sorrows He carried;

    Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
    Smitten of God, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4)

    Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
    And He will divide the booty with the strong;
    Because He poured out Himself to death,
    And was numbered with the transgressors;
    Yet He Himself bore [ נשא ] the sin of many,
    And interceded for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:12)

    There is also another Hebrew word for “carry” and “bear” or “take away” [ סבל – “sabal” ] used in Isaiah 53:4 and 53:11, that would emphasize the taking away aspect of the scape-goat (literally: “the goat of sending away”, or “the goat of escaping” = עז- אזל = “Az” = goat; “azel” [ אזל ] = sending away or escaping)

    Isaiah 53 really starts in 52:13, according to context, as the chapter divisions were a later invention. “Behold, My servant, will act wisely and succeed, and He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.” Note, the Hebrew word Nasa’ [ נשא ] is also used in this verse, but in this context, it means, “lifted up”. This may be pointing to the “lifting up” of the Son of Man on the cross (John 3:14, 12:32) or the lifting up of the Son of Man in the resurrection and ascension to heaven. Almost every verse in Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 is either quoted in the NT or alluded to the NT (see examples at end); and many aspects are alluded to back to earlier parts of the TaNakh. (the Hebrew Bible – T = Torah; N = Nabi’im = prophets; “Kh” = Ketuvim = writings (the Psalms, poetry, wisdom, and historical books. These are the three sections of the Hebrew Bible that Jesus also affirmed in Luke 24:44.)

    The whole section, beginning in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 has several indicators that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is about atonement aspects of both goats in the Day of Atonement of Leviticus 16. Because the suffering servant (52:13 – “My servant”; and 53:11 – “My servant, the righteous one, will justify the many”) both bears our sins and is slaughtered, He is fulfilling both aspects of the Day of Atonement. By both aspects, I mean both goats – one was slaughtered and one was “sent away”, representing 2 aspects of atonement. Because He is also called “a lamb”, He is fulfilling the aspect of the Passover lamb of Exodus 12, which turned God’s wrath away from those that had the blood on the doorposts, and He is the lamb that Abraham said “God will provide for the lamb for the sacrifice” in Genesis 22.

    Isaiah 53:6 also points to the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement.

    “All of us like sheep have gone astray,
    Each of us has turned to his own way;
    But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
    To fall on Him.” ( Isaiah 53:6)

    The concept of the iniquity “falling upon” or “encountering” Him seems to allude back to the lot falling upon the scapegoat. And that the priest placed his hands on the head of the scapegoat and confessed all the sins of the sons of Israel over the goat was a symbol of transference of sin from us humans onto the goat.

    Isaiah 53:6 is alluded to in 1 Peter 2:25 – “For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and guardian of our souls.”

    Also, the shepherd imagery points to Psalm 23:1, Isaiah 40; and Micah 5:2-5, and Jesus makes that claim that He is the Messiah who is the good shepherd who will shepherd My people, etc. (John chapter 10)

    Getting back to the idea of “bearing sin” – from Isaiah 53:4 and 11-12 – this is picked up a lot in the New Testament.

    1 Peter 2:24

    ” and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. ”

    The last phrase, “for by His wounds you were healed” is a direct reference to Isaiah 53:5; and the first part that He “bore our sins” is a reference to Isaiah 53:4, 11, and 12. In fact, the LXX translation of “bore” in Isaiah 53:4 and 12 is the same Greek word in I Peter 2:24. (ανηνεγκεν, from ανα-φερω – to carry, to carry away, to bear, to offer up (a sacrifice). This word is also used in Hebrews 7:27 (twice, offering up sacrifices, and Jesus offered Himself up); Hebrews 9:28, and James 2:21 about Abraham offering up Isaac.

    Another argument that the Rabbi makes is about Isaiah 53:10 – that phrase, “He would render Himself as a guilt offering . . . ” is harkening back to Leviticus 5:15-19 and the guilt offering there, but it states that it is only for unintentional sins, not intentional ones. But if one keeps reading into Leviticus chapter 6:1-7, one can see that the “guilt offering” [ אשם ] also includes intentional sins. (Thanks to Michael Brown for that insight! Answers to Jewish Objections to Jesus. 5 Volumes. In volume 2, “Theological Objections, on page 128 and following. ) Furthermore, the day of atonement emphasizes several times “for all the iniquities of the sons of Israel”. (see Leviticus 16:20-22 and verse 34) All would include both intentional and unintentional sins.

    But the Lord was pleased
    To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
    If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, [ אשם ]
    He will see His offspring,
    He will prolong His days,
    And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. (Isaiah 53:10)

    Like

    • ‘The 2 goats in Leviticus 16 represent two aspects of one work of prophetic fulfillment of the atonement in Isaiah 53, and both are combined into one person in Isaiah 53 –’

      Your methodology is unscholarly and uncritical. It assumes a certain fundamentalist reading of the Protestant Bible. I don’t share your presuppositions.

      Most scholars who think historically and critically about Isaiah for instance identify the personification of Isaiah 53 as Israel itself. This makes beast exegetical sense. Just consult any mainstream commentary.

      The fact remains that the usual way to obtain forgiveness for deliberate sins in the Torah was through repentance. Jesus & Muhammad taught this too.

      Even for unintentional sins when a sin offering in the Temple was required it did not have to be of an animal, no blood need be shed. You could just offer some flour instead – read Leviticus 5: 11. This one verse refutes the Letter to the Hebrews and proves it is not inspired by God.

      Paul of Tarsus, your real Lord and Master, disagreed with Jesus and Muhammad.

      You have gone astray Ken. Return to the straight path!

      Like

    • So Paul of Tarsus as well as the author of Hebrews, both first century Jews, didn’t understand Torah and the sacrificial system as good as you do? A system they partook in? A system Paul was thoroughly trained in?

      Rather rediculous claims really…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul was a notorious apostate from Judaism. I suspect he was led astray by shaitan who masqueraded as an angel of light on the road to Damascus.

      His gospel is very different to that of Jesus. That is how we know he is a false teacher.

      I have proved that the author of the Letter to the Hebrews mislead others too.

      He said “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”. Yet even for unintentional sins no blood need be shed. You could just offer some flour instead – read Leviticus 5: 11. This one verse refutes the Letter to the Hebrews and proves it is not inspired by God.

      Hebrews 9

      “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”

      See how the Torah contracts this falsehood:

      Leviticus 5:11

      “‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.”

      Its not rocket science dude.

      Like

    • Paul W

      “See how the Torah contracts this falsehood:

      Leviticus 5:11

      “‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.””

      So flour alone can atone for sin? Is that what you are saying? That there was no need to sacrifice bulls, goats and birds since a flour offering was enough?

      Like

    • Yes, for poor Israelites. That is what the passage says, thus disproving the Letter to the Hebrews. Agreed?

      Like

    • “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matt. 9:13

      Missionaries tell us “no one is righteous”. The biblical Jesus, their “God”, tells us otherwise there are righteous ones.

      Missionaries tell us “God is so holy, he cannot stand sinners in his presence”. The biblical Jesus, their “God” tells us and acts otherwise.

      Like

    • Paul W

      “Yes, for poor Israelites. That is what the passage says, thus disproving the Letter to the Hebrews. Agreed?”

      So your point is that blood sacrifice is necessary except for the poor? But blood sacrifice is still necessary?

      Like

    • Dude just read Leviticus I’m not your teacher. But you refused to answer my questions before on this passage so you are a bit of a troll.
      Do your own homework.
      You silence indicates that you agree with me that The Letter to the Hebrews was just plain wrong.

      Agreed? Don’t run away from the facts dear boy.

      What else is wrong in the NT I wonder?

      Like

    • Paul W

      What on earth are you talking about? What question didn’t I answer? And I’m not asking you to teach me about the bible – I wouldn’t because you couldn’t – I’m asking you to make your point clear.

      You are claiming that the fact that poor people can make a flour offering in some way abrogates the verses where god repeatedly calls for blood sacrifice. That doesn’t make any sense and is far from a logical line of reasoning.

      Hebrews 9 is clearly not wrong in any way shape or form – god does require blood sacrifice.

      Like

    • It’s so obvious you must be brain washed by your religion.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hebrews 9 “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”

      is false. Because there is forgiveness without shedding of blood as a fact.

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “Hebrews 9 “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”

      is false. Because there is forgiveness without shedding of blood as a fact.”

      I can’t believe what I just read – are you guys serious? On the day of atonement blood is shed – remember that the verses in LEV 4-5 talk about blood sacrifice. So blood is always shed for atonement.

      Where does the OT say that this flour offering does away with the need for a blood offering?

      Like

    • Brainwashed indeed. Where does the OT say an execution by crucifixion for political reasons is a legitimate form of sin offering?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Burhanuddin1

      “Brainwashed indeed. Where does the OT say an execution by crucifixion for political reasons is a legitimate form of sin offering?”

      Actually jesus was crucified for claiming to be god.

      But I’ll take your answer as an acknowledgement that the OT does not say anywhere that he flour offering does away with the blood offering.

      Your points are, thus, refuted.

      Like

    • According to the Bible Jesus was executed for claiming being “King of the Jews” explicitly. You can’t even get that right.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Burhanuddin1

      “According to the Bible Jesus was executed for claiming being “King of the Jews” explicitly. You can’t even get that right.”

      How is it blasphemy to claim to be king of the jews? And where does the OT say that blood sacrifice is abrogated by the flour offering?

      Like

    • False dilemma. Letter to Hebrews says sin only forgiven by blood sacrifice. Torah clear that poor people can have sins forgiven by a small offering of flour.

      So blood not necessary in certain circumstances apparently unknown to the letter writer.

      So you are Refuted.

      Liked by 1 person

    • D
      The Romans couldn’t care less if Jesus was blaspheming. He was crucified for treason. What does it say above the cross according to Bible? “King of the Jews” or “Son of God”?

      Keep running from the facts. I’m used to it.

      Where does the OT say execution by crucifixion is a legitimate form of sin offering?

      Like

    • 6 So when the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out saying, “Crucify, crucify!” Pilate *said to them, “Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him.” 7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.” John 19:6-7

      Like

    • Paul, you sometimes leave me baffled as to why you don’t see how your own claims and arguments backfire against you. Take, for instance, what you said about Isaiah 53:

      “Most scholars who think historically and critically about Isaiah for instance identify the personification of Isaiah 53 as Israel itself. This makes beast exegetical sense. Just consult any mainstream commentary.”

      Do you not see how this backfires against you? Since this is speaking of Israel, and since Jesus is an Israelite, do you not see how this does in fact refer to Jesus? Let’s break this down logically in order to help you see this pointe more clearly:

      A. Isaiah 53 is about Israel.

      B. Jesus is an Israelite and a part of israel.

      C. Therefore, Isaiah 53 is about Jesus as well, seeing that he is from Israel and is in fact ideal and perfect Israel.

      Even your own prophet agreed that Jesus was sinless, and therefore morally perfect. As such, how much more does Isaiah 53 apply to Jesus!

      Now let’s see what Leviticus 5:11 says IN CONTEXT:

      “”But if he cannot afford two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he shall bring, as his offering for the sin which he has committed, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, and shall put no frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take a handful of it as its memorial portion and burn this on the altar, UPON THE OFFERINGS BY FIRE TO THE LORD; it is a sin offering.” Leviticus 5:11-12 RSV

      The reason why the flour was accepted IS BECAUSE IT WAS ADDED TO/UPON THE SACRIFICES WHICH WERE BEING BURNT ON THE ALTAR TO THE LORD!

      In other words, it was the animal sacrifices that made the flour efficacious, NOT THE FLOUR ITSELF!

      In fact, I challenge you to quote a single verse where the flour makes atonement in and of itself, apart from its being added to the animal sacrifices.

      Therefore, Hebrews is spot on since it is the blood that makes even the flour efficacious and acceptable to God. It is your gross misreading of the Holy Bible that is dead wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The reason why the flour was accepted IS BECAUSE IT WAS ADDED TO/UPON THE SACRIFICES WHICH WERE BEING BURNT ON THE ALTAR TO THE LORD!

      excellent!
      Boom!

      Like

    • Lol what a desperate spin on Leviticus, distorting the commandments.
      ‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.’
      Note the flour ITSELF is the sin offering. It does not piggyback on other sacrifices.
      Epic fail!

      Liked by 1 person

    • You didn’t read verse 12, Paul. shame on you for not being intellectual and scholarly enough to finish the context and idea.

      Like

    • Now Paul, let me give you some further examples of how your appeal to the OT further backfires against you.

      Seeing that even per your reading of Leviticus 5 God still requires atonement for the forgiveness of sins, whether animal sacrifices or flour, can you please show me where Muhammad in the Quran complied with this requirement by God?

      More importantly, your reading of Isaiah 53 STILL ENDS UP PROVING that human beings can offer up their lives to make atonement for sins, thereby bringing about the salvation of others. According to your reading, Israel suffers as a guilt offering to bear the sins of others.

      Therefore, even taking your interpretation for granted you still haven’t been able to avoid the clear teaching of the Hebrew Bible that God requires atonement for forgiveness of sins (along with the person’s sincere repentance and faith), and that human beings can make atonement for the sins of others by offering up their lives as a ransom for them. In light of this, did your prophet agree with the OT on these matters or did he contradict what the OT says concerning these issues?

      You and I both know the answer which means that, even according to your interpretation, Muhammad stands condemned as a false prophet since he contradicted the Torah that you just made appeal to.

      Now what was that about Hebrews contradicting the OT? 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul W

      “Lol what a desperate spin on Leviticus, distorting the commandments.
      ‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.’
      Note the flour ITSELF is the sin offering. It does not piggyback on other sacrifices.
      Epic fail!”

      But where does it say in Lev 4 or 5 that there is no need for any blood offering at all? Where does it say that the flour offering abrogates all blood offerings? It doesn’t and your objections are refuted.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah  the Gracious the Merciful

      Shame-on wrote

      /Now let’s see what Leviticus 5:11 says IN CONTEXT:

      ”But if he cannot afford two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he shall bring, as his offering for the sin which he has committed, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, and shall put no frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take a handful of it as its memorial portion and burn this on the altar, UPON THE OFFERINGS BY FIRE TO THE LORD; it is a sin offering.” Leviticus 5:11-12 RSV

      The reason why the flour was accepted IS BECAUSE IT WAS ADDED TO/UPON THE SACRIFICES WHICH WERE BEING BURNT ON THE ALTAR TO THE LORD!

      In other words, it was the animal sacrifices that made the flour efficacious, NOT THE FLOUR ITSELF!//

      Wrong, the text says:

      וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן וְקָמַץ הַכֹּהֵן | מִמֶּנָּה מְלוֹא קֻמְצוֹ אֶת אַזְכָּרָתָהּ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה עַל אִשֵּׁי יְהֹוָה חַטָּאת הִוא:

      He shall bring it to the kohen, and the kohen shall scoop out a fistful as its reminder, and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, upon the fires of the Lord. It is a sin offering (Lev 5:12)  – The Judaica Press Complete Tanach by A. J. Rosenberg

      The hebrew word eshyei אִשֵּׁ֣י comes from heb. esh  אֵשׁ which simply means fires. The text does not say sacrifice offering or bunt offerings which is the korban olah קָרְבַּן עוֹלָה or simply olah עוֹלָה in Hebrew, a form of sacrifice which require blood

      Although the Tanach says that blood atones , it doesn’t say that ONLY blood atones. This concept was influenced by Hellenistic thought. Judasim does not propose that blood-sacrifice for sin was the only kind of any atonement in the Scriptures. Not only flour can atone, even money can also be used  to atone  (which occurs in Exodus 30:15) :

      הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא יַרְבֶּה וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט מִמַּחֲצִית הַשָּׁקֶל לָתֵת אֶת תְּרוּמַת יְהֹוָה לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם:

      The rich shall give no more, and the poor shall give no less than half a shekel, with which to give the offering to the Lord, to atone for your souls.

      Like

    • It is people like Eric bin mishap that make people despise Islam. Time to expose this neophyte who pretends to know Hebrew.

      First here is how some Jewish translations render the verse:

      “He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall scoop up three fingers full as a memorial portion. He shall burn [this portion] as a sin offering on the altar along with God’s [other] FIRE OFFERINGS.” Aryah Kaplan

      “And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon THE OFFERINGS OF HASHEM MADE BY FIRE; it is a sin-offering.” JPS 1917

      Let’s see how the word eshshe is used throughout Leviticus and the rest of the Tanakh:

      “He shall remove all its choice parts, just as he removed all the choice parts of the sheep brought as a peace offering, and burn them on the altar along with THE FIRE OFFERINGS dedicated to God. The priest will thus make atonement for the sin the person committed and he will be forgiven.” Leviticus 4:35 Kaplan

      “And all the fat thereof shall he take away, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of peace-offerings; and the priest shall make them smoke on the altar, upon THE OFFERINGS OF HASHEM MADE BY FIRE; and the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiven.” JPS

      “With his own hands, he must bring the choice parts presented as A FIRE OFFERING to God on top of the [animal’s] chest . He shall wave the chest in the prescribed motions as a wave offering before God.” Leviticus 7:30 Kaplan

      “His own hands shall bring THE OFFERINGS OF HASHEM MADE BY FIRE: the fat with the breast shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave-offering before HaShem.” JPS

      “The hind leg for the elevated gift, and the chest for the wave offering, shall be brought on top of the choice parts designated as THE FIRE OFFERING. [It is all] to be waved in the prescribed motions of the wave offering. [The leg and chest] are meant to be a portion for you and your descendants for all time, as God commanded.'” Leviticus 10:15 Kaplan

      “The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving shall they bring with THE OFFERINGS of the fat MADE BY FIRE, to wave it for a wave-offering before HaShem; and it shall be thine, and thy sons’ with thee, as a due for ever; as HaShem hath commanded.” JPS

      “They must be holy to their God, and not profane their God’s name. Since they present God’s FIRE OFFERINGS, the food offering for their God, they must remain holy… Any descendant of Aaron the priest who has a blemish may not approach to present God’s FIRE OFFERINGS. As long as he has a blemish, he may not approach to present his God’s food offering.” Leviticus 21:6, 21 Kaplan

      “They shall be holy unto their G-d, and not profane the name of their G-d; for THE OFFERINGS OF HASHEM MADE BY FIRE, the bread of their G-d, they do offer; therefore they shall be holy… no man of the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nigh to offer THE OFFERINGS OF HASHEM MADE BY FIRE; he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his G-d.” JPS

      “The Levitical priests [and] the entire tribe of Levi shall not have a territorial portion with [the rest of] Israel, and they shall [therefore] eat God’s FIRE OFFERINGS and [their] hereditary gifts.” Deuteronomy 18:1 Kaplan

      “The priests the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat THE OFFERINGS OF HASHEM MADE BY FIRE, and His inheritance.” JPS

      “Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave no inheritance; THE OFFERINGS OF HASHEM, THE G-D OF ISRAEL, MADE BY FIRE are his inheritance, as He spoke unto him. ” Joshua 13:14 JPS

      “nd did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be My priest, to go up unto Mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before Me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all THE OFFERINGS of the children of Israel MADE BY FIRE?” 1 Samuel 2:28 JPS

      Now let’s see why even these Jewish versions rendered eshshe as fire offerings/offerings made by fire:

      NAS Exhaustive Concordance
      Word Origin
      from esh
      Definition
      AN OFFERING MADE BY FIRE
      NASB Translation
      fire (5), OFFERING BY FIRE (45), OFFERINGS (3), OFFERINGS BY FIRE (15).

      Brown-Driver-Briggs
      אִשֶּׁה noun masculineJoshua 13:14 AN OFFERING MADE BY FIRE (> Wetzst in DePsalmen, ed. 4, 889 derive from √ II. אנשׁ, means to friendly relations between God & man; compare LagBN 190) Exodus 29:18 32t.; construct אִשֵּׁה Leviticus 1:9 14t.; plural construct אִשֵּׁי Leviticus 4:35 15t.; suffix אִשַּׁי Numbers 28:2, אִשָּׁ֑י Leviticus 6:10; USED CHIEFLY OF OFFERINGS OF ANIMALS, but also of the מִנְחָה Leviticus 2:11, and of the sacred bread and frankincense Leviticus 24:7,9 which was placed on the table as a memorial, and finally went to the priests. The word is used in Deuteronomy 18:1; Joshua 13:14 (D) 1 Samuel 2:28; elsewhere in P Leviticus 6:10; Leviticus 10:15; Leviticus 22:22; Numbers 28:2,3, especially in phrases אִשֵּׁי יהוה Leviticus 2:3 11t., אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ ליהוה Leviticus 1:9 14t., ריח ניחח אשׁה ליהוה Exodus 29:18 6t., אשׁה ליהוה ריח ניחח Leviticus 23:13, אשׁה לריח ניחח Leviticus 3:16; Numbers 18:17, אשׁה (הוא) ליהוה Exodus 29:25; Leviticus 2:16; אִשֶּׁה ליהוה accusative after verbs of offering Exodus 30:20 14t., אִשֶּׁה עֹלָה ליהוה Numbers 28:19, קָרְבָּן אִשֶּׁהליהוה Leviticus 22:27; Numbers 15:25.

      Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
      offering, sacrifice, made by fire

      The same as ‘eshshah, but used in a liturgical sense; PROPERLY, A BURNT-OFFERING, BUT OCCASIONALLY OF ANY SACRIFICE — (OFFERING, SACRIFICE), (made) by fire.

      see HEBREW ‘eshshah

      This should now expose this charlatan who pretends to know biblical languages. He truly is a disgrace for thinking he could get away with butchering the Holy Bible.

      Like I have said in the past, such dishonest, deceitful taqiyyists like ibn mishap have no business doing apologetics.

      Like

    • Now let’s see what ibn mishap deceitfully omitted from Exodus 30:15. Here is the context which helps us get a better appreciation of the verse:

      “God spoke to Moses saying: When you take a census of the Israelites to determine their numbers, each one shall be counted by giving an atonement offering for his life. In this manner, they will not be stricken by the plague when they are counted. Everyone included in the census must give a half shekel. This shall be by the sanctuary standard, where a shekel is 20 gerahs. It is half of such a shekel that must be given as an offering to God. Every man over 20 years old shall be included in this census and give this offering to God. The rich may not give more, and the poor may not give less than this half shekel. It is an offering to God to atone for your lives. You will take this atonement money from the Israelites AND USE IT FOR THE COMMUNION TENT. It will thus be A REMEMBRANCE FOR THE ISRAELITES BEFORE GOD to atone for your lives.” Exodus 30:11-16 Aryeh Kaplan

      “And HaShem spoke unto Moses, saying: ‘When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto HaShem, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary–the shekel is twenty gerahs–half a shekel for an offering to HaShem. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the offering of HaShem. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when they give the offering of HaShem, to make atonement for your souls. And thou shalt take the atonement money from the children of Israel, AND SHALT APPOINT IT FOR THE SERVICE appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be A MEMORIAL FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL BEFORE HASHEM, to make atonement for your souls.'” JPS

      The context highlights the reason why God accepted half a shekel for atonement, NAMELY BECAUSE THE MONYE WOULD BE USED TO CONSTRUCT THE TENT OF MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE THE PLACE WHERE THE PRIESTS WOULD OFFER ANIMAL SACRIFICES FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS!

      This once again shows that, much like the flour, the only reason why God accepted money as atonement is because of its connection to the animal sacrifices that would be offered in the tent of money which the money would be used to construct!

      In other words, it is the sacrifices which again made the money efficacious and acceptable to God, since God would remember Israel’s monetary sacrifice that went to make the tent of meeting so that animal sacrifices could be made.

      This again perfectly illustrates why Eric has no business engaging in theology or apologetics.

      Like

    • Oops, I messed up this quote:

      “And HaShem spoke unto Moses, saying: ‘When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto HaShem, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary–the shekel is twenty gerahs–half a shekel for an offering to HaShem. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the offering of HaShem. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when they give the offering of HaShem, to make atonement for your souls. And thou shalt take the atonement money from the children of Israel, AND SHALT APPOINT IT FOR THE SERVICE appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be A MEMORIAL FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL BEFORE HASHEM, to make atonement for your souls.’” JPS

      Here is the corrected version:

      “And HaShem spoke unto Moses, saying: ‘When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto HaShem, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary–the shekel is twenty gerahs–half a shekel for an offering to HaShem. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the offering of HaShem. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when they give the offering of HaShem, to make atonement for your souls. And thou shalt take the atonement money from the children of Israel, AND SHALT APPOINT IT FOR THE SERVICE OF THE TENT OF MEETING, that it may be A MEMORIAL FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL BEFORE HASHEM, to make atonement for your souls.’” JPS

      Like

    • With the name of Allah the most Gracious the Merciful

      Shame-on al bahlool ibn Jahl continues:

      //“And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon THE OFFERINGS OF HASHEM MADE BY FIRE; it is a sin-offering.” JPS 1917//

      The 1917 JPS is a Christian translation – it is a reworked of KJV, the The Judaica Press the 1985 JPS is  authentic Jewish translations .

      Silly.  The hebrew word eshyei אִשֵּׁ֣י is derived from heb. esh  אֵשׁ  (Strong 784) which simply means fires. Its principal meaning convey fires not offering it self, along with the flour it then constitute an offering. Christians employs creative editorial expansion of the actual phrase eshey YHWH אִשֵּׁי יְהֹוָה which simply means  fire(s) of God. So the meaning is that the flour is placed on the top of the altar and will be consumed by the fire that is lit on the top of the altar. The phrase does not indicate that the flour is placed on animal sacrifices that were already burning on the altar. Nothing suggest whatsoever in the Hebrew original.

      Liked by 2 people

    • It is shocking how some Christians will manipulate the Jewish scriptures to make them fit Christian doctrine.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

       

      Shame-on abu Jahl al bahlool : //In other words, it is the sacrifices which again made the money efficacious and acceptable to God, since God would remember Israel’s monetary sacrifice that went to make the tent of meeting so that animal sacrifices could be made//

       

      Your obsession with animal and blood sacrifice is disgusting.

      It is too obvious that the words in Exodus 30:15 says,  l’Kapper al Nafshotechem  לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם “to make atonement for yourself” while  Nefesh-( נפש) here can be understood as “person” or “soul.”

      This in fact, in sync with what prophet Solomon forcefully says, u-tsedaqah tasyil memawt  וּ֝צְדָקָ֗ה תַּצִּ֥יל מִמָּֽוֶת “Charity saves from death.” in Proverbs 10:2. This is because like in Islam charity represents: pillars of faith in God  a mean to bring one salvation.

      How wonderful God mpst Gracious is.

      No need for the shedding of blood , let alone the shedding of human blood in ritual of human sacrifice  (God forbids) nor the need of theology whom god committed suicide to shed his blood.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Islam is a morally and spiritually superior religion. Christianity (not of course a religion that Jesus believed in or knew anything about) has many similarities to 1st century pagan cults which required blood sacrifices to appease the divinities. That is the cultural context in which Christianity grew and developed. Islam is a call to return to the pure faith of Abraham: one God without associates and partners, rejecting bloody human sacrifices for sin. God is forgiving and merciful just as Jesus taught.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Indeed, I thank God for believing in this religion of Jesus, not the religion about Jesus.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Articulating this distinction is of the essence of my dawah to Christians

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Paulus

    You said;
    So Paul of Tarsus as well as the author of Hebrews, both first century Jews, didn’t understand Torah and the sacrificial system as good as you do? A system they partook in? A system Paul was thoroughly trained in?

    Rather rediculous claims really…

    I say;
    Some first century Jews never believed Jesus was the messiah. So your first century Jew stance is neither here or there. Some thing early does not mean it is the truth. Some thing later does not mean it is untruth. That is why we must use our God given intellect.

    Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. “In the real world, in the parable, the father goes out to meet the sinner – a clear and unavoidable (if you have an ounce of objectivity in your brain) metaphor of god entering creation”

    This was your statement about the parable being a metaphor of the incarnation. This is false according to the doctrine since it is the son who enters creation not the father. Stop running away from that. Own it and move on. Secondly please don’t claim to know what goes on in my heart as you don’t know me. Besides which you have failed to provide any actual reasons to accept your interpretation. I’m still waiting for that proof.

    Again you still misunderstand one of the most basic facts about Islam which is the Qur’an is not the only authority but rather the highest. The teachings of the Prophet are also authoritative and is where the Sharia is fully implemented and explained. Just like in Judaism with the Oral Torah. I was simply illustrating with the example of Protestant beliefs where the difference lies. No hiding.

    You also seem to whitewash the Torah as it also commands the death of apostates. So if Islam teaches it then so what? Once again another example of desperate missionaries ignoring their own texts in order to present a false and simplistic picture of their religion.

    Finally how many times do i have to say that Gods freedom to forgive freely does not stem from an arbitrary standard? Besides you say that it doesn’t do away with injustice because people have been forgiven without being judged, you mean like the parable of the prodigal son where God embraces his wayward child? You mean where Jesus died in the place of guilty sinners so that they could be forgiven without being judged? It isn’t hard D it really isn’t…

    In truth the parable is very easy to understand you just refuse to see it in order to insert your absurd theology. But hey if thats what you choose to believe…

    Like

    • Patrice

      “This was your statement about the parable being a metaphor of the incarnation. This is false according to the doctrine since it is the son who enters creation not the father.”

      Not again. We are talking about parables – also known as allegories or metaphors – that teach lessons with deeper meanings via more simplified story-telling. Please try to keep up.

      It is god’s word that becomes incarnate. Again, it is entirely your uncomprehending attempt to define the doctrine that keeps tripping you up. Do you believe that god had a son who then became incarnate? It seems as though you do.

      “Besides which you have failed to provide any actual reasons to accept your interpretation.”

      LOL!!! How about several verses in the New Testament?

      “Again you still misunderstand one of the most basic facts about Islam which is the Qur’an is not the only authority but rather the highest. The teachings of the Prophet are also authoritative and is where the Sharia is fully implemented and explained.”

      Are the teachings of the “prophet” your god’s word? If you think “yes”, then you have committed shirk and equated mohammed with your god, if you think “no”, then you have no basis upon which to claim that sharia is anything other than man-made drivel. The kind of man-made drivel than jesus would have thought excluded sinners and diverted people from their salvation.

      Also, “mohammed’s teachings” have little historical credibility.

      “You also seem to whitewash the Torah as it also commands the death of apostates. So if Islam teaches it then so what?”

      How tu quoque of you! That’s why you accept god’s gift of salvation in which he reaches out to sinners and forgives through the cross. Or maybe the OT was merely calling for an “inner jihad of purging apostasy”. LOL!!

      “Besides you say that it doesn’t do away with injustice because people have been forgiven without being judged, you mean like the parable of the prodigal son where God embraces his wayward child? ”

      You’re not making any sense – the parable of the prodigal son isn’t the entire doctrine of salvation in a few verses. There’s more to it – surely someone of your immense knowledge should realize that?

      But once again, you have danced around in circles trying to avoid the incoherence of your biases. If your god forgives randomly and arbitrarily – as you stated he does since he forgives who he wants, not even necessarily those who might deserve it – then he permits the sins of those people to go without redress and allows injustice to prevail.

      You can’t get around it patrice, your god is not fully just and cannot, therefore be the true god because the true god cannot allow injustice to prevail.

      Like

    • “Not again. We are talking about parables – also known as allegories or metaphors – that teach lessons with deeper meanings via more simplified story-telling. Please try to keep up.”

      I know what a parable is believe it or not i have read the NT. Do you see how Christian theology takes us away from what is such a simple message abouts Gods boundless love for his creatures that he will forgive them if they only returned to him in repentance that it ends turning into this nonsensical drivel about an incarnate man-God?

      “LOL!!! How about several verses in the New Testament?”

      What verses?

      “How tu quoque of you! That’s why you accept god’s gift of salvation in which he reaches out to sinners and forgives through the cross. Or maybe the OT was merely calling for an “inner jihad of purging apostasy”. LOL!!”

      So you admit your being inconsistent and that by your own standard the Bible is just as bad as you claim Islam to be? How hypocritical of you! Besides ‘the cross’ didn’t exist until 2,000 years ago what about before then? Not that it exists at all since people still sin despite being ‘saved’.

      “You’re not making any sense – the parable of the prodigal son isn’t the entire doctrine of salvation in a few verses. There’s more to it – surely someone of your immense knowledge should realize that?”

      Not the Christian corruption of it perhaps but as far as Jesus’ message is concurned, it is. Forgiveness of sins through the grace of God alone without the need for a sacrifice. End of story.

      Like

    • Patrice

      So you admit that you elevate an illiterate merchant to the level of god by claiming that his “teachings” that make up sharia are god’s law? I hope you never spout that nonsense in a sharia country – we both know you’ll be killed. That’s how loving. merciful and forgiving your god is.

      Even worse, you still think that the parable of the prodigal son contains the sum total of christian doctrine about salvation. Despite being an expert on the NT you can’t comprehend this simple fact that the parable is not the whole story. LOL!!!

      And if you want to go there, no, the bible is nowhere near as bad as the quran is well established to be. The quran – and the teachings of your “prophet” – have open-ended commands to commit violence, the bible does not. But the main difference is that Christians acknowledge the moral problems in the OT and look to jesus’ teachings that the pharisees ignored the spirit of the law and made it a legalistic tradition that obstructed salvation. Jesus would have condemned sharia and its obstruction of people seeking salvation and forgiveness.

      But, yeah, jesus taught islam. LOL !!!

      And when are you going to start making sense about your bizarro doctrine of your god’s sense of justice. According to you, this entity whose “angels” are mistaken for demons, forgives whoever, whenever, even perhaps if they don’t deserve it, and places the burdens of their sin on others. Yet, you unbelievably seem to think that this god of yours is a just god. LOL!!!

      In a world ruled by your god, injustice prevails, your god just ignores it whenever he wants to. Your god sounds like any man who forgives those he likes no matter what they have done, and condemns those he doesn’t even if they might have committed the same sin. Which is why I think him and his book are work of men.

      Like

    • Moral problems in the OT? You mean where your God commands the deaths of various tribes, apostates, and homosexuals? Where did Jesus condemn any of that? and what is this elusive spirit of the law missionaries keep babbling on about? Salvation is clearly labelled in the Torah as:

      “when you obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” – Deuteronomy 30:10 ESV

      Jesus agreed
      “As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’” – Mark 10:17-19 NRSV

      Its only when you get to St Paul that you get talk of abolishment:

      “In the same way, my friends,you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.” – Romans 1:4-6 NRSV

      Paul and Jesus were in disagreement on this issue. For Christ the Torah was the means to salvation to Paul it was that “which held us captive…”

      “In a world ruled by your god, injustice prevails, your god just ignores it whenever he wants to. Your god sounds like any man who forgives those he likes no matter what they have done, and condemns those he doesn’t even if they might have committed the same sin. Which is why I think him and his book are work of men.”

      Do you watch the news or read the newspaper? The world is still filled with injustice your God failed miserably to put an end to it. Face the facts even the institution he supposedly founded couldn’t stop itself from causing untold misery for the rest of the world even persecuting each other over the most petty of disputes! Your God constantly turns a blind eye to them and grants them heaven if they just say some magic words on their death bed. It would seem that Christianity is nothing more than a religion of talk and no action. With the Torah God actually punishes sin at least!

      Liked by 1 person

    • besides I thought God was unchanging why does he institute one set of rules in the OT then completely changes his mind in the NT. are you a Marcionite? do you believe in two Gods?

      Like

    • Patrice, I cannot believe you would have the audacity to AGAIN misquote Mark 10 after having corrected your misinterpretation. I thought you were really different from the rest but I guess I was wrong.

      It seems I am going to have repost what I had written in response to your distortion of Mark 10. Here goes:

      You again chose to cherry pick verses from Mark 10 without bothering to read THE REST OF IT. Let’s see what you conveniently omitted:

      “As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, “DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.”’ And he said to Him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.’ Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.” Mark 10:17-22

      Let me repeat the part you obviously missed:

      “Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; AND COME, FOLLOW ME.” Mark 10:21 – cf. Matthew 19:21; Luke 18:22

      Did you bother to pay attention to Jesus explicitly telling the young man that performing the commandments isn’t enough for salvation, but that he had to give up all his riches in order to follow Christ to be perfect?

      In fact, Jesus himself expressly told his followers that they must love him more than anything and anyone, and be willing to give up everything for him, even their very own lives, if they wish to be saved:

      “And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for MY SAKE and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of HIS Father with the holy angels.’” Mark 8:34-38 – cf. Matthew 16:24-27; Luke 9:23-26

      “He who loves father or mother more than ME is not worthy of ME; and he who loves son or daughter more than ME is not worthy of ME. And he who does not take his cross and follow after ME is not worthy of ME. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for MY SAKE will find it.” Matthew 10:37-39

      “Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, ‘If anyone comes TO ME, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come AFTER ME cannot be My disciple… So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.’” Luke 14:25-27, 33

      In light of this, do you not see that Jesus’ own words conclusively prove that salvation comes from trusting in and following him, not by observing the commands of the Torah? Or were you too busy trying to force the Gospels to fit in with your Islamic presuppositions to even bother noticing Christ’s explicit statements to this fact?

      This brought out more clearly by what Jesus went on to say in this very same chapter:

      “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom FOR MANY.” Mark 10:45 – cf. Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:6; Revelation 5:9-10; 7:9-14

      Notice that Jesus says that he purposely came to offer his life as a ransom for many lives! How could you have missed this passage from the very same chapter where you pulled verses from?

      There’s more:

      “While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take it; this is My body.’ And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, ‘This is MY BLOOD of the covenant, which is poured out FOR MANY.’” Mark 14:22-24 – cf. Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20

      Jesus expressly says that he pours out his blood, meaning his life, on the cross for many.

      We also have an angel of God telling Joseph that one of the reasons why Jesus came into the world was to save his people from their sins:

      “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, FOR HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS.” Matthew 1:21

      However, in order for Jesus to be able to redeem anyone from his/her transgressions he must be God since the OT is clear that no man is capable of offering Yahweh a ransom to save a single human life, let alone countless number of individuals. This is why the prophetic writings emphatically testify that it is God alone who redeems people from their sins and death:

      “NO MAN can by any means redeem his brother Or give to God a ransom for him—For the redemption of his soul is costly, And he should cease trying forever—That he should live on eternally, That he should not undergo decay… As sheep they are appointed for Sheol; Death shall be their shepherd; And the upright shall rule over them in the morning, And their form shall be for Sheol to consume So that they have no habitation. But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, For He will receive me. Selah.” Psalm 49:7-9, 14-15

      And:

      “O Israel, hope in the LORD; For with the LORD there is lovingkindness, And with Him is abundant redemption. And He will redeem Israel From all his iniquities.” Psalm 130:7-8

      Jesus himself went on to tell his followers right after the rich man had walked away from him that it is impossible for men to save themselves. In perfect agreement with the inspired OT writings, Christ affirms that God alone is capable of saving anyone:

      “And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!’ The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’ They were even more astonished and said to Him, ‘Then who can be saved?’ Looking at them, Jesus said, ‘With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.’” Mark 10:23-27 – cf. Matthew 19:23-26; Luke 18:24-27

      My question to you is, how in the world did you miss all of this?

      Moreover, you need to stop attacking straw man here since no informed Christian claims Jesus ABOLISHED the Torah. Rather, we believe he perfectly fulfilled it since the Torah was designed to be perfected and completed by the Messiah Jesus.

      Finally, whether you like it or not YOU MUST BELIEVE that the Gospels are 100% authentic since both your Quran and your prophet’s sunna AFFIRM the textual incorruptibility and divine authority of the Scriptures in the hands of the Jews and Christians. I have over a dozen articles, rebuttals and lectures proving all of this, some of which you can find here: http://answeringislam.net/Quran/Bible/index.html

      I have more to say to you in my next post.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sam you claimed

      ‘Moreover, you need to stop attacking straw man here since no informed Christian claims Jesus ABOLISHED the Torah.’

      Paul says in Ephesians 2:15

      “He [Jesus] has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances”

      Like

    • Now let’s see what Luke-Acts really teach about salvation. The reason I include Acts is because the same author wrote it as well as Luke. Here goes:

      “On one of those days, as he was teaching, there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was with him to heal. And behold, men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they sought to bring him in and lay him before Jesus;[b] 19 but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. AND WHEN HE SAW THEIR FAITH, ‘Man, your sins are forgiven you.’ And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, ‘Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?’ When Jesus perceived their questionings, he answered them, ‘Why do you question in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, “Your sins are forgiven you,” or to say, “Rise and walk”? But that you may know THAT THE SON OF MAN HAS AUTHORITY ON EARTH TO FORGIVE SINS’—he said to the man who was paralyzed—’I say to you, rise, take up your bed and go home.’ And immediately he rose before them, and took up that on which he lay, and went home, glorifying God. And amazement seized them all, and they glorified God and were filled with awe, saying, ‘We have seen strange things today.'” Luke 5:17-26

      “And he said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, ‘WHO IS THIS, WHO EVEN FORGIVES SINS?’ And he said to the woman, ‘YOUR FAITH HAS SAVED YOU; GO IN PEACE.’” Luke 7:48-50

      “‘The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away THE WORD FROM THEIR HEARTS, that they may not BELIEVE AND BE SAVED.’… And a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years and could not be healed by any one, came up behind him, and touched the fringe of his garment; and immediately her flow of blood ceased. And Jesus said, ‘Who was it that touched me?’ When all denied it, Peter said, ‘Master, the multitudes surround you and press upon you!’ But Jesus said, ‘Some one touched me; for I perceive that power has gone forth from me.’ And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. And he said to her, ‘Daughter, YOUR FAITH HAS SAVED YOU; GO IN PEACE.'” Luke 8:12, 43-48

      “On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samar′ia and Galilee. And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance and lifted up their voices and said, ‘Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.’ When he saw them he said to them, ‘Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went they were cleansed. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; and he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. Then said Jesus, ‘Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?’ And he said to him, ‘Rise and go your way; YOUR FAITH HAS SAVED YOU.'” Luke 17:19

      “He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and looked down on everyone else: ‘Two men went up to the temple complex to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee took his stand and was praying like this: “God, I thank You that I’m not like other people —greedy, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of everything I get.” But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even raise his eyes to heaven but kept striking his chest and saying, “God, turn Your wrath from me—a sinner!” I tell you, this one went down to his house justified rather than the other; because everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”” Luke 18:9-14

      “As he drew near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging; and hearing a multitude going by, he inquired what this meant. They told him, ‘Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.’ And he cried, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ And those who were in front rebuked him, telling him to be silent; but he cried out all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ And Jesus stopped, and commanded him to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ He said, ‘Lord, let me receive my sight.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Receive your sight; YOUR FAITH HAS SAVED YOU.’ And immediately he received his sight and followed him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.” Luke 18:35-43

      “And Jesus said to him, ‘Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. FOR THE SON OF MAN CAME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THE LOST.'” Luke 19:9-10

      “Then he said to them, ‘These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins SHOULD BE PREACHED IN HIS NAME TO ALL NATIONS, beginning from Jerusalem. ” Luke 24:44-47

      “And HIS NAME, BY FAITH IN HIS NAME, has made this man strong whom you see and know; and the faith which is THROUGH JESUS has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all… God, having raised up his servant,[a] sent him to you first, to bless you IN TURNING EVERY ONE OF YOU from your wickedness.” Acts 3:16, 26

      “On the morrow their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest and Ca′iaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family. And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, ‘BY WHAT POWER OR BY WHAT NAME DID YOU DO THIS? ‘ Then Peter, FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, said to them, ‘Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a cripple, by what means this man has been healed, be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that BY THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, BY HIM this man is standing before you well. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation IN NO ONE ELSE, for there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.'” Acts 4:5-14

      “God exalted him at his right hand as Leader AND SAVIOR, TO GIVE REPENTANCE to Israel AND FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” Acts 5:31

      “To him all the prophets bear witness that every one WHO BELIEVES IN HIM receives forgiveness of sins THROUGH HIS NAME.” Acts 10:43

      “and he made no distinction between us and them, BUT CLEANSED THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved THROUGH THE GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS, just as they will.” Acts 15:9-11

      “‘… Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that THROUGH THIS MAN forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and BY HIM EVERY ONE THAT BELIEVES is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.’… And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life BELIEVED.” Acts 13:23, 38-39, 48

      ” and brought them out and said, ‘Men, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS, and you will be saved, you and your household.'” Acts 16:30-31

      “Thus I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining round me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.’ And I said, ‘WHO ARE YOU, LORD ?’ AND THE LORD SAID, ‘I AM JESUS whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles—to whom I send you to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified BY FAITH IN ME.” Acts 26:12-18

      These verses conclusively prove that salvation according to the Lord Jesus and his followers comes from his grace and mercy which one receives through faith in Jesus’ glorious name.

      Therefore, the blessed Apostle Paul was in perfect agreement with his glorious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It was your prophet Muhammad who contradicted the Lord Jesus, which proves that he was not a messenger sent by the true God.

      Hopefully, you will now stop twisting my Bible since you don’t like it when people twist your Quran.

      Like

    • Williams, can you please stop misquoting the blessed Apostle that way? Let’s see what his point was when we read him IN CONTEXT:

      “Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, AND HAS BROKEN DOWN THE DIVIDING WALL OF HOSTILITY, BY ABOLISHING IN HIS FLESH THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, SO MAKING PEACE, AND MIGHT RECONCILE US BOTH TO GOD IN ONE BODY THROUGH THE CROSS, THEREBY BRINGING THE HOSTILITY TO AN END. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:11-22

      Paul’s point clear. Jesus’ death has abolished the judgment that our sins against God by breaking his commandments has brought upon us. The same Paul praises the Law and says that it is good, holy and spiritual. The problem, however, is that we are sinful, carnal, not spiritual and cannot help but break the Law, thereby bringing the judgment of the Law upon us:

      “Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, OUR SINFUL PASSIONS, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? BY NO MEANS! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me. SO THE LAW IS HOLY, AND THE COMMANDMENT IS HOLY AND JUST AND GOOD. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? BY NO MEANS! IT WAS SIN, WORKING DEATH IN ME through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL; BUT I AM CARNAL, SOLD UNDER SIN. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I AGREE THAT THE LAW IS GOOD. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. FOR I DELIGHT IN THE LAW OF GOD, IN MY INMOST SELF, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” Romans 7:4-25

      Paul then goes on to say that because we are alive in the Spirit we now have the power to fulfill the Law of God as fulfilled and perfected in/by Christ:

      “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. FOR THE LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN CHRIST JESUS HAS SET ME FREE FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.” Romans 8:1-11

      “To those outside the law I became as one outside the law—not being without law toward God BUT UNDER THE LAW OF CHRIST—that I might win those outside the law. ” 1 Corinthians 9:21

      “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, AND SO FULFILL THE LAW OF CHRIST.” Galatians 6:1-2

      The fact is that it is your prophet who abolished the Law which I can easily prove if you want me to.

      In the meantime, please make sure to never misquote Paul again.

      Like

    • so do Christians have to follow the Torah or not? Yes or no

      Like

    • Patrice, I am totally mind blown that you of all people would dare raise such an objection:

      “besides I thought God was unchanging why does he institute one set of rules in the OT then completely changes his mind in the NT. are you a Marcionite? do you believe in two Gods?”

      WOW! You sure you want to go there seeing your prophet did away WITH MANY OT LAWS, and even instituted ones that directly oppose the Law of Moses. Do you want me to post some examples for you?

      Therefore, it is the teachings of your prophet that results in believing in a God who changes his mind, so he was the Marcionite whose view ends up positing two opposing gods. Abrogation anyone?

      Like

    • Your appeal to Mark 10 in order to try and avoid the obvious about Jesus’ belief in Torah obedience for salvation ignores the whole point of the story which is the young man is proud due to his many possessions which Jesus challenges him directly on wherein he fails the test. Besides why do you believe that the young man was telling the truth? Theres nothing to say he did.

      “In fact, Jesus himself expressly told his followers that they must love him more than anything and anyone, and be willing to give up everything for him, even their very own lives, if they wish to be saved”

      And as I have said before there is nothing wrong with a Prophet saying that as Muhammad has said the same of himself:

      “None of you will be a true believer until I am more beloved to you than yourself.” – Bukhari

      you might disagree about Muhammad being a Prophet but that doesn’t mean that Jesus saying what he did somehow makes him unique. Which coincidentally fit in perfectly with my ‘Islamic presuppositions’ 😉

      “Notice that Jesus says that he purposely came to offer his life as a ransom for many lives! How could you have missed this passage from the very same chapter where you pulled verses from?”

      Why does it mean Jesus is going to die for sin? Why not as others have said simply mean that Christ has come to serve humanity as many Prophets before him?

      “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, FOR HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS.” Matthew 1:21″

      Once again doesn’t mean Jesus is going to be some sacrifice for sin. It could imply he is a Prophet whose mission is to bring people closer to God through the revelation he has been given.

      The Bible also teaches that people are responsible for their own sins:

      “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. – Ezekiel 18:20 ESV”

      “My question to you is, how in the world did you miss all of this?”

      One of lifes many mysteries 😉

      “Finally, whether you like it or not YOU MUST BELIEVE that the Gospels are 100% authentic since both your Quran and your prophet’s sunna AFFIRM the textual incorruptibility and divine authority of the Scriptures in the hands of the Jews and Christians.”

      Lol why? and where does the Qur’an affirm the scriptures of the Christians? It does seem to affirm the scriptures of the Jewish people but the NT. Thats a struggle…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice, your arguments are so bad that I am feeling embarrassed for you.

      You say:

      And as I have said before there is nothing wrong with a Prophet saying that as Muhammad has said the same of himself:

      “None of you will be a true believer until I am more beloved to you than yourself.” – Bukhari

      you might disagree about Muhammad being a Prophet but that doesn’t mean that Jesus saying what he did somehow makes him unique. Which coincidentally fit in perfectly with my ‘Islamic presuppositions’”

      it is truly ironic that you don’t see how this proves that Muhammad made himself a god alongside your god, SINCE NO TRUE PROPHET EVER COMMANDED PEOPLE TO LOVE HIM MORE THAN ANYTHING AND ANYONE, AND TO LOVE HIM JUST AS MUCH AS THEY LOVE GOD. Such a request would be idolatry and blasphemy, which means your prophet is a blasphemer and idolater since this what he demanded for himself in S. 9:24 and 58:22. So thank you for helping me prove that Muslim are idolaters who do worship a dead man as a god alongside Allah.

      The reason why Jesus could demand such love is precisely because he is not a mere creature, but the eternal Son who became flesh.

      You then say:

      “Why does it mean Jesus is going to die for sin? Why not as others have said simply mean that Christ has come to serve humanity as many Prophets before him?”

      “Once again doesn’t mean Jesus is going to be some sacrifice for sin. It could imply he is a Prophet whose mission is to bring people closer to God through the revelation he has been given.”

      You gotta be kidding me? Did you not read what I posted WHERE JESUS SAYS HE SAVES PEOPLE BY HIS DEATH ON THE CROSS? Here it is:

      “While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take it; this is My body.’ And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, ‘This is MY BLOOD of the covenant, which is poured out FOR MANY.’” Mark 14:22-24 – cf. Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20

      And here is another example just in case you miss this point again:

      “”I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE. Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I AM THE LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. The bread which I shall give for the life of the world IS MY FLESH.’ The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?’Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life. And I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on Me also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not as your fathers ate manna and died. He who eats this bread will live forever.’” John 6:48-58

      And which part of my response where I showed from the OT that ONLY GOD CAN REDEEM AND RANSOM ANYONE, THEREBY PROVING THAT JESUS IS GOD, didn’t you get?

      You then said:

      “Lol why? and where does the Qur’an affirm the scriptures of the Christians? It does seem to affirm the scriptures of the Jewish people but the NT. Thats a struggle…”

      This is why I invited you to debate me in my paltalk room since I will conclusively prove from your Quran and Sunna that Muhammad did indeed confirm the inspiration of the NT. Since you declined then there is nothing for me to say or add here.

      Anyway Patrice, unless you have something productive to say this will be it for me since I don’t have time addressing straw man, red herrings and other blatant distortions of the Scriptures and my arguments. I have writings projects and teaching sessions to get to.

      Like

    • Patrice

      “Moral problems in the OT? You mean where your God commands the deaths of various tribes, apostates, and homosexuals? Where did Jesus condemn any of that? and what is this elusive spirit of the law missionaries keep babbling on about?”

      Poor patrice!

      And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

      Hope that clears it up for you. LOL!! Your dishonest selective readings – and your apparent inability to comprehend straight-forward texts – are making you look silly. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

      “Do you watch the news or read the newspaper? The world is still filled with injustice your God failed miserably to put an end to it.”

      Poor patrice!

      So in a blatant attempt to avoid addressing the problems with your theology, you are now deflecting by resorting to the problem of evil.

      Your claims are that your god is just even though you cannot explain how he administers justice when he forgives randomly and allows the sins of those people whom he has forgiven to go without redress and only administers justice to whomever he wants. This means that he effectively places the burden for the redress of injustice on others and allows injustice to prevail and you think this is awesome! LOL!!!

      And don’t think I haven’t noticed you backing off from your silly claim that sharia is the “god’s law” when you’ve admitted that it is based on the teachings of a mere man.

      Finally, you still haven’t been able to wriggle out of your embarrassing claim that christians think god had a son who then entered creation – that’s been noted as proof that you are full of it and have no idea what you are talking about.

      Like

    • “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

      These are two of the commandments there are 611 more dude. Besides you haven’t answered my question as to where Jesus abolished the Torah commandments to murder apostates and homosexuals. Fail. In fact Jesus said the Torah was not to be abolished.

      Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…” – Matthew 5:17-18

      Why do you keep saying God forgives randomly? You haven’t established this yet but merely assumed it and i’ve already said multiple times that God forgives freely but not arbitrarily for those who care they can look up the other posts and see for themselves. You’ve also conveniently ignored my pointing out that your God not only doesn’t inflict justice on anyone but rather punishes innocent people instead!

      And where did i say anything about redress of injustice onto others? The injustice is on that person alone if God forgives that persons transgressions if they repent the buck ends there its only in your theology where sins get passed on generation to generation despite the fact i quoted the Bible saying the opposite. Keep up dear boy…

      “And don’t think I haven’t noticed you backing off from your silly claim that sharia is the “god’s law” when you’ve admitted that it is based on the teachings of a mere man.”

      No hiding at all since i didn’t say that it is based on the teachings of a ‘mere man’ but rather that God had established the law in the Qur’an and the Prophet expounded them and implemented them in society. Muslims throughout the world continue to do this in a variety of ways. Sharia is far more flexible than you assume.

      On to your final point actually i think God the son entered the creation and took on a human nature alongside his divine nature. While veiling his divine power. Good enough 🙂 Still isn’t true and you’ve still failed to answer my point that considering the state of the world and the history of the church his mandate clearly failed miserably. But oh well!!!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice

      “These are two of the commandments there are 611 more dude. Besides you haven’t answered my question as to where Jesus abolished the Torah commandments to murder apostates and homosexuals. Fail.”

      Really?

      And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

      What about the words ” there is no other commandment greater than these” don’t you understand? Fail. And yes, Jesus did fulfill the law by fulfilling the requirement of atonement.

      God forgives freely, your god forgives who he wants – according to you, which makes it arbitrary and random. His reasons are pretty irrelevant since the problem that you continue to dance around is that by randomly forgiving, without atonement, he allows injustice to prevail.

      Your claim has been that your god redresses injustice since he administers justice on some but not on others as if this solves the issue of the sins of the forgiven being blown off. Surely even you can see how this places the burden of payment for sins of those-forgiven-by-your-god-because-he-wants-to onto those whom simply doesn’t want to forgive. The issue isn’t that I have misread you, the issue is that you don;t know what you are talking about and tying yourself up in knots!

      “No hiding at all since i didn’t say that it is based on the teachings of a ‘mere man’ but rather that God had established the law in the Qur’an and the Prophet expounded them and implemented them in society. Muslims throughout the world continue to do this in a variety of ways. Sharia is far more flexible than you assume.”

      LOL!!

      So, yes, your “god’s law” is actually a man-made law that is not fully expounded on in the quran at all. And by flexible, you mean that this god’s law – which should be perfect since it comes from your god – is not actually perfect since mere men continue to”expound” on it’ i.e. make stuff and claim it comes from god, which must be true since they might have mohammed beards and fancy smocks.

      And still no answers from you on how your god-who-forgives-who-he-wants deals with the injustice of sins of those he has forgiven, randomly, without regard for whether they obeyed your man-made rules and regulations.

      “On to your final point actually i think God the son entered the creation and took on a human nature alongside his divine nature”

      Better, see what a simple google search can do?!

      Like

    • Your a riot dude what are you even saying here? The Torah consists of 613 commandments all of which are Gods law. I have clearly demonstrated Jesus taught that ALL the Torah is to be obeyed that not one stroke shall be done away and is necessary for salvation. Care to respond to those posts?

      Secondly no i mean that it (Shariah) can implemented in a multitude of ways which is what in fact happens. Same for Torah you should read the Talmud sometime it may be an enlightening experience for you. Frankly i’m not interested in your self invented standards of perfection as they fail at representing a coherent world view.

      Thirdly where did I say anything about forgiveness not requiring anything? I said clearly that repentance is necessary. Repetance means to acknowledge wrong has been done and to turn away from those actions including what caused the person to do them in the first place. Just look at my previous posts on that in them i clearly mention repentance. Do keep up dear boy…

      “Better, see what a simple google search can do?!”

      Perhaps you can use Google as your phone a friend to help answer my questions:

      1. Where did Jesus abrogate the Torah as a whole?
      2. How is salvation defined according to Jesus?
      3. Does Patrice (thats me) define Gods forgiveness with or without repentance?
      4. Does Patrice (thats me) believe in redress of sins onto others?
      5. Is Patrice a Muslim?

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Ken Temple, D

    You claim “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” is true. It is not. God forgives in the OT even without any sacrifice, e.g. the sinners of Niniveh (Jonah)

    But your concept of the necessary “blood sacrifice” of Jesus is so flawed in many ways. Just one of them:

    How on earth is execution by crucifixion is a legitimate form of sin offering? That’s creative theology at it’s best!

    Like

    • Actually it’s what first century Jews believed after having seen what Jesus taught and did.

      Notice that no one came to an Islamic type soteriology based on what Jesus said and did? Why is that?

      Like

    • Actually the Jerusalem Church lead by James the just did not believe that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Paulus” “Notice that no one came to an Islamic type soteriology based on what Jesus said and did? Why is that?”

      The Jerusalem Church believed Jesus alayhi salam was raised by God to Himself. That’s what Muslims believe.

      Their “soteriology” was based on what the relevant prophet of their time said and did. They followed the Divine Law revealed to them by their relevant prophet at that time.

      That’s what Muslims do, the Jerusalem Church followed an “Islamic type” soteriology as you put it.

      Like

  11. BTW Paul, would you be interested to be a speaker on Jonathan McLatchie’s webinar series? I am doing one this Saturday, Lord willing. And besides me, he has people are all walks of life doing talks for his group, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Christians etc. I think you would be great for doing a talk on NT Christology in light of critical biblical scholarship.

    Like

  12. “WOW! You sure you want to go there seeing your prophet did away WITH MANY OT LAWS, and even instituted ones that directly oppose the Law of Moses.

    Sam your Apostle did away with ALL the OT laws. Do you really want to go there 😉
    Would you like me to show YOU all the examples?

    Like

    • Let me obliterate your lie here:

      “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for he who loves another HAS FULFILLED THE LAW. For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not give false testimony, You shall not covet,’ and if there are any other commandments, are summed up in this saying, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love works no evil to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” Romans 13:8-10

      Paul quotes the OT and shows how by loving God and one another, a commandment he took from the OT, WE ACTUALLY END UP FULFILLING THE LAW! Here is another example:

      “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother,’ WHICH IS THE FIRST COMMANDMENT WITH A PROMISE, ‘so that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.'” Ephesians 6:1-3

      Here again Paul quotes the OT command and binds Christians to fulfill it. Here is a final example:

      “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. FOR THE SCRIPTURE SAYS, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX THAT TREADS OUT THE GRAIN,’ and, ‘The laborer is worthy of his reward.'” 1 Timothy 5:17-18

      The first citation is a quote from Deuteronomy 25:4, a command that Paul uses to highlight the importance of providing for those who serve you.

      Now that I imploded your boldfaced lie about Paul, let me turn the tables on your prophet. Enjoy!

      The Word of God

      The sign of the Abrahamic covenant was/is male circumcision, specifically done on the eighth day:

      “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. For the generations to come every male among you WHO IS EIGHT DAYS OLD MUST BE CIRCUMCISED, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner – those who are not your offspring. A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant. … On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him.” Genesis 17:10-14, 23

      “On THE EIGHTH DAY the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” Leviticus 12:3

      Muhammad

      There is no explicit reference in the entire Quran which ever commands Muslims to perform circumcision, especially on the eighth day. The Islamic traditions are divided on when a child should be circumcised. Interestingly, these same Islamic sources also encourage female circumcision, a very grotesque and inhumane act. Since Muslims claim that Islam is the very religion of Abraham they must account for the Quran’s failure of exhorting Muslims to honor the everlasting command given to Abraham that all his male descendents must be circumcised on the eighth day. This becomes all the more necessary to explain in light of Muslims’ claim that Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael, the son of Abraham.

      The Word of God

      God commands the Israelites to observe the Sabbath day:

      “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Exodus 20:8-11

      “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Say to the Israelites, “You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.”’” Exodus 31:12-17

      In the above citation, God says that Sabbath is the sign of the Mosaic covenant, as physical circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Cf. Genesis 17:9-14).

      “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.” Deuteronomy 5:12-15- cf. Isaiah 56:1-8, 58:13-14

      The seriousness of Sabbath observance can be seen from the fact that all who were caught willfully violating the Sabbath were put to death:

      “‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the LORD, and that person must be cut off from his people. Because he has despised the LORD’s word and broken his commands, that person must surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him.’ While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.’ So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.” Numbers 15:30-36

      The Quran itself acknowledges the severity of violating the Sabbath:

      And well you know there were those among you that transgressed the Sabbath, and We said to them, ‘Be you apes, miserably slinking!’ S. 2:65 – cf. 4:47; 7:163-164

      And We raised above them the Mount, taking compact with them; and We said to them, ‘Enter in at the gate, prostrating’; and We said to them, ‘Transgress not the Sabbath’; and We took from them a solemn compact. S. 4:154

      Muhammad

      Muslims often criticize Christians for failing to uphold specific Mosaic injunctions such as not eating pork etc., which presupposes that Islamic law is in conformity with the Mosaic Law. In light of this assertion, the following question naturally comes to mind: Does Islam make it obligatory to keep Yahweh’s Sabbaths? Are Muslims punished for failing to observe the Sabbath day? The answer is a resounding NO!

      In fact, Muhammad deliberately chose Friday over the Sabbath as a way of degrading the Jews:

      Narrated Abu Huraira:
      I heard Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) saying, “We (Muslims) are the last (to come) but (will be) the foremost on the Day of Resurrection though the former nations were given the Holy Scriptures before us. And this was their day (Friday) the celebration of which was made compulsory for them but they differed about it. So Allah gave us the guidance for it (Friday) and all the other people are behind us in this respect: the Jews’ (holy day is) tomorrow (i.e. Saturday) and the Christians’ (is) the day after tomorrow (i.e. Sunday).” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 13, Number 1, see also Number 21)

      Narrated Abu Huraira:
      The Prophet said, “We are the last (to come) but we will be the foremost on the Day of Resurrection, nations were given the Book (i.e. Scripture) before us, and we were given the Holy Book after them. This (i.e. Friday) is the day about which they differed. So the next day (i.e. Saturday) was prescribed for the Jews and the day after it (i.e. Sunday) for the Christians. It is incumbent on every Muslim to wash his head and body on a Day (i.e. Friday) (at least) in every seven days.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 693)

      Thus, Muhammad not only violated Sabbath observance, but deliberately chose a day by which he could assert his superiority over the Jews who were keeping to God’s express command to honor the Sabbath. Muhammad deliberately set himself against God’s commandment to Moses regarding the Sabbath, thereby coming under God’s judgment.

      Muhammad also falsely claimed that the Sabbath was appointed only for people who differed about it:

      The Sabbath was ordained only for those who differed about it, and most surely your Lord will judge between them on the resurrection day concerning that about which they differed. S. 16:124 Shakir

      Ibn Kathir writes:

      The Prescription of the Sabbath for the Jews

      There is no doubt that for every nation, Allah prescribed one day of the week for people to gather to worship Him. For this Ummah He prescribed Friday, because it is the sixth day, on which Allah completed and perfected His creation. On this day He gathered and completed His blessings for His servants. It was said that Allah prescribed this day for the Children of Israel through His Prophet Musa, but they changed it and chose Saturday because it was the day on which the Creator did not create anything, as He had completed His creation on Friday. Allah made observance of the Sabbath obligatory for them in the laws of the Tawrah (Torah), telling them to keep the Sabbath. At the same time, He told them to follow Muhammad when he was sent, and took their promises and covenant to that effect. Hence Allah says: …

      Mujahid said: “They observed the Sabbath (Saturday) and ignored Friday.” Then they continued to observe Saturday until Allah sent `Isa bin Maryam. It was said that he told them to change it to Sunday, and it was also said that he did not forsake the laws of the Tawrah except for a few rulings which were abrogated, and he continued to observe the Sabbath until he was taken up (into heaven). Afterwards, the Christians at the time of Constantine were the ones who changed it to Sunday in order to be different from the Jews, and they started to pray towards the east instead of facing the Dome (i.e., Jerusalem). And Allah knows best. It was reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Hurayrah heard the Messenger of Allah say: …

      This version was recorded by Al-Bukhari. It was reported that Abu Hurayrah and Hudhayfah said that the Messenger of Allah said: …

      It was reported by Muslim. (Source)

      Recall that in the above OT texts the Sabbath was established as the sign of the covenant God had made through Moses, being instituted on the basis that since God himself had rested on the Sabbath his people were to follow suit and do likewise.

      The Word of God

      God forbids persons from remarrying their divorcees after having married someone else:

      “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.” Deuteronomy 24:1-4

      “God says, ‘If a husband divorces his wife And she goes from him And belongs to another man, Will he still return to her? Will not that land be completely polluted? But you are a harlot with many lovers; Yet you turn to Me,’ declares the LORD. Lift up your eyes to the bare heights and see; Where have you not been violated? By the roads you have sat for them Like an Arab in the desert, And you have polluted a land With your harlotry and with your wickedness.” Jeremiah 3:1-2

      Muhammad

      Muhammad goes against Moses by allowing divorcees to remarry one another only after they have been married to someone else!

      “A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah. So do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (themselves as well as others). So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, re- marry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. Such are the limits ordained by Allah, which He makes plain to those who understand.” S. 2:229-230

      Muhammad’s Allah calls permissible what Yahweh calls shameful and detestable!
      I have a lot more examples, but these should serve as a warning that anytime you shamelessly pervert my Bible you will end up regretting it since, not only will I expose you, but I will then use your own objection against Muhammad to prove he was a false prophet by your own standards.

      Like

  13. Where does Muhammad say to love him just as much as they love God? The quotes states that one should love the Prophet more than oneself! Silly billy if Prophets are not only messengers but also guides to understanding Gods message then shouldn’t people love the person who God sent to them for salvation?

    “The reason why Jesus could demand such love is precisely because he is not a mere creature, but the eternal Son who became flesh.”

    Lol if you say so 😉

    Unto your point about Jesus dying on the cross while i don’t deny he died by crucifixion. However I must object to your claim of his dying for sins neither text says this even your use of Johns Gospel a text widely regaded to not have a shred of historical detail about Jesus’ life.

    Sam in conclusion i think it rather clear that in the face of actual arguments you have merely dumped quotes from the Bible emphasising certain parts you think prove your case wherein in fact they don’t at all or are not as conclusive as you think they are. This also demonstrates a lack of critical thinking and instead simply trying desperately to keep your fundamentalist Islam bashing evangelicalism house in order. What a sorry state of affairs.

    Liked by 3 people

    • ‘This also demonstrates a lack of critical thinking and instead simply trying desperately to keep your fundamentalist Islam bashing evangelicalism house in order. What a sorry state of affairs.’

      Well said!

      Liked by 1 person

  14. 1. Ephesians 2:14-15 –
    larger context – Ephesians 2:13-19 – I have corrected you Paul W., on this before; but you are so obtuse you keep repeating the same mis-information.

    the apostle Paul did not teach that Christ abolished the law, as anyone with a brain can see the other Scriptures in his writings where he affirms the law.

    What was abolished was the hostility and enmity of certain aspects of the law that create barriers between cultures. If you read the passage and study the context you can see that.

    13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
    14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
    15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, of the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
    16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross,
    by it having put to death the enmity.
    17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near;

    18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

    19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,

    2. The word in Leviticus 5:11-12 does come from the root of fire אש, but in context, it can also mean “offering by fire”. The standard Hebrew dictionary says this.

    עַל אִשֵּׁי – “upon the offerings by fire”

    The word “upon” points to addition, adding the grain offering on top of the animal sacrifices.

    The LXX (Septagint – translation from Hebrew to Greek done by Jews around 285-245 BC, the Torah was done first.
    ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τῶν ὁλοκαυτωμάτων κυρίῳ ἁμαρτία ἐστίν

    “upon the altar of sacrifice of the whole burnt offerings to the Lord, it is a sin offering.”

    The word Eric is claiming only means “fires” is translated here “holocautomatwn” – “whole burnt offerings” – where we get the English word for “holocaust” from.

    3. The Hebrew word Tsadaka צְדָקָה does not mean “charity”, rather it means “righteousness”. (Proverbs 10:2)

    If you are declared righteous by faith in Christ alone, by grace alone, that changes you into a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17), which produces righteousness (right actions), then you will be saved.

    Like

    • Paul was an apostate from Judaism. He taught this about the Torah:

      Romans 10:4

      ‘For Christ is the end of the Torah, so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.’

      Galatians 3:23-25

      ‘Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the Torah, until faith would be revealed. So the Torah was our custodian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian.’

      Contrast this with the teaching of Jesus which was followed faithfully by the Jerusalem church under the Torah-observant James, the brother of Jesus:

      Matthew 5

      Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.’

      Two quite different teachings. This proves that Paul was not an authentic God sent apostle.

      Like

    • How do you explain all the other references that the apostle Paul made that are positive toward the law of God?

      The apostle Paul never taught the moral law of God was abolished. “the end” in Romans 10:4 means “end goal” or “end purpose” – the goal of the law is to lead you to trust in Christ – which is what Galatians 3:24 teaches also. The purpose of the law is to convict you that you are a rebellious sinner and can never obey it perfectly and it drives you to give up and turn toward Christ, who gives you the power to obey. The apostle Paul said, “the law is holy, good, and righteous” – Romans 7:12 and “the law is good IF one uses it PROPERLY/correctly . . . ” 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

      You must be perfect. Matthew 5:48
      You cannot, therefore repent and trust in Christ to save you and change you and give you the power to obey the law.

      Like

  15. Paul Williams wrote:
    Islam is a morally and spiritually superior religion.

    No way. the effects of the violence and injustice of Islam started from the beginning of the Medinan period:
    Caravan raiding – unjust
    Unjust killing/slaughter of 600-900 Jews.
    Mohammad taking Zaid’s wife, Zaynab Bint Jahash.
    Mohammad abolishing the compassion of adoption.
    Unjust forced conversions and aggressive wars for centuries against Persia, Byzantine Empire, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, etc.
    Omar and Uthman and Ali and their enemies killing each other.
    Sunnis and Shiites killing each other for centuries.
    Harsh treatment of women all over the Muslim world, and even honor killings, beatings, even in the west.
    the Jihadists who kill the men and take women for sex slaves, etc.
    executions, cutting off hands, etc.
    no freedom to think and no freedom to leave Islam – death penalty for apostasy.

    I agree that most Muslims are peaceful and are not using terror . . .

    But there a lot of the terrorists in this world causing lots of problems –

    Even if most Muslims disagree with Al Qaedah, Hamas, Boko Haram, Isis, Hezbollah, Al Ansar, Taliban, etc. – the fruit (product, result, effects) of all this together demonstrates a problem within Islam itself.

    I am thankful that most Muslims are not like that, but the fruit raises a lot of questions as to how moral or superior Islam is.

    The lack of freedom to question and leave Islam without violence should bother all Muslims.

    No way.

    Like

    • Ken you have the typical right wing American prejudice against Muslims and Islam. It is very similar to how Christians used to lie about and bad-mouth the Jews (and we all know where that led).

      The Jesuits have a term for the condition you suffer from: ‘invincible ignorance’.

      Like

    • No; I have more interaction in the culture and people than you have. You are not scholarly in your analysis of the history of the violence and aggressive wars of Islam. The fact that the first 300-400 years of Christianity was no wars and they were under persecution and loved people, even their enemies proves the moral superiority of true Biblical Christianity.

      Jesuits? Rule 13 of Ignatius Loyola’s Rules for thinking with the Church: “Whatever we say is white, even though to your eyes is black, you have to believe is is white, because we say it.” What a ridiculously goofy and superstitious and authoritarian-dictator like and anti-intellectual religion of those Papists (Roman Catholicism) and the evils of the atrocities of some of the aspects of the Crusades and all of the Inquisitions should indicate the folly of using them as something great to go by.

      Like

  16. you are just a typical right wing fundamentalist Muslim convert, who seems to have hatred against Christianity and against western culture.

    Most Muslims are great people; and I love getting together over meals with Muslims and their hospitality and food is all wonderful;

    it is the doctrines of Jihad and executions and harsh legalisms, and practices that go with it that are a great problem in history and today.

    Thankfully, most Muslims are questioning Islam as never before; because the actions of the Jihadists are making Muslims look into the Hadith and history more and seeing the bad things.

    Like

  17. Maybe you are the one who is wants to stay in your ignorance and stubbornly clings to it invincibly.

    Like

  18. Jesus said, “I never knew you” Matthew 7:21-23

    Like

    • He might have said that of you. Indeed he might have said all this to you:

      Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?” Then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.”

      Like

  19. As I have told you before, you were never really born again by the Holy Spirit, even from an Islamic perspective, if you truly believe in Islam, since there is no such thing as the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of the Trinity.

    “you must be born again by the Spirit.” John 3:3-8

    You had some kind of religious and emotional experience, but you were not born again by the Holy Spirit.

    Like

    • yes Ken every few months, for years now, you trot out this line. It is very important to your world view that I was never a Christian. I can confidently say, in reply, that you are in no way a follower of Christ.

      God warns you:

      They do blaspheme who say: “God is Christ the son of Mary.”

      But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord.”

      Whoever joins other gods with God – God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

      God’s Word in the Holy Qur’an.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Truth never changes.

      The author of the Qur’an was so ignorant – Christians never said, “God is Christ”.

      The said “Christ is God by nature” (same nature/essence, homo-ousias) and this truth proves the Qur’an is not inspired and just one man’s claim to prophethood.

      Like

  20. Clearly Ken you failed to read the recent academic scholarship on the Quran which I discussed in a series of articles on this blog.

    Professor Sidney H. Griffith comments in his recent book The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the ‘People of the Book’ in the Language of Islam,

    They have disbelieved who say that God is the Messiah, Mary’s son. The Messiah said, ‘O sons of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. God has certainly forbidden the Garden to one who gives God an associate; his abode is the fire and wrongdoers have no helpers (ansar). They have surely disbelieved who say God is one of three (thalithu thalathatin). There is no God save one God. If they do not stop what they are saying, a sore punishment will certainly touch those of them who have disbelieved. (surah 5: 72-73)

    ‘Rhetorically speaking, the two identical phrases at the beginning of the two successive verses, “They have disbelieved who say,” are clearly critical of the following quotations attributed to those who say, “God is the Messiah, Mary’s son,” (vs. 72) and those who say, “God is one of three” (vs.73). But the quotations, while clearly meaning to censure Christian belief, do not in fact quote actual Christian usage of the era. Rather, the Christians in the Qur’an’s milieu would have said, ‘the Messiah is God, the Son of God’, and they would also have said, ‘the Treble One, the One of Three, is God’. But for reasons of orthodoxy they would never have said that God is Jesus; rather, they would have said Jesus is God. It seems clear, therefore, that here the Qur’an, aware of actual Christian usage, has for its own rhetorical polemical reasons, reversed the customary Christian order of words in these formulaic phrases in order the more effectively to highlight what it considers wrong about Christian faith in Jesus, and to criticise what it regards as the objectionable Christian doctrine that God has a Son and that He is the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. The Quran consistently and persistently teaches in varying phrases that God has no offspring; e.g. “How would He have offspring, not having a female consort” (6:101). “It is not for God to take a child; Glory be to Him, when He determines a matter He but says to it, ‘Be’, and it comes to be” (surah 19:35). “God is one….He has not begotten, nor is He begotten” (surah al-Ikhlas, 1-3)’

    https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/05/13/understanding-the-qur%CA%BEans-creative-use-of-rhetorical-strategies-against-orthodox-christianity-and-a-refutation-of-do-christians-believe-allah-is-really-jesus-by-sam-shamoun/

    Liked by 1 person

    • Actually it was clear that I did read Griffiths and responded a lot in the com boxes there and I actually refuted Griffiths. Many of my comments are plain right there in those 152 comments.

      Griffiths just jumps to a bunch of assertions, admits that the Qur’an is inaccurate on Christian doctrine, and calls it “creative strategies” and “rhetorical device” and “prophetology” – those are themselves creative ways of trying to save the Qur’an from embarrassment.

      Like

    • Yes, NT authors are “clearly wrong” according to Paul when they quote the OT, but when it comes to the Quran Paul is open to all manner of creative “rhetorical devices”.

      This is what happens when you apply critical principles inconsistently to suit one’s bias.

      Like

    • Yet you have failed to admit the error in Letter to the Hebrews which claims:

      ‘without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness’

      but the Torah says:

      ‘But if you cannot afford two turtle-doves or two pigeons, you shall bring as your offering for the sin that you have committed one-tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a sin-offering; you shall not put oil on it or lay frankincense on it, for it is a sin-offering.’

      Leviticus 5

      Also, see Paul’s fabricated claims for his gospel:

      https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/06/09/14631/

      Like

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: